Jumpin said:
A strategy game would be Civilization or Starcraft. A videogame roleplaying game is not the same as "Roleplaying" in the traditional sense, the thing that psychologists do; in otherwords, faking a situation; although they can be understood the same way. Videogame RPGs are essentially adventure games where everything is simulated by statistics and menu selected decisions, rather than active participation - as would be the case in an action game like Zelda or Vice City. Key points: Labeling games that lack these points is more just a marketing thing to get people to think "Hey this game is the same sort of game as Final Fantasy 7! Awesome!". Essentially, RPGs were very well respected and popular in the SNES and PSX era, so it would benefit a game to be called an RPG, even though it wasn't really one. |
You are wrong.
"Role playing" does not preclude real-time input. That's not what role-playing means. You are, again, referring to mechanics that are left over from the turn-based strategy roots of early tabletop RPGs. Role-playing is specifically about taking on the role of a character and defining how they interact with the world. Menu battle systems, random encounters, and turn-based combat has nothing to do with any of that.
The RPGs to which you are referring are RPGs in only the loosest sense, and mechanically have more in common with strategy games.
RPGs are about playing a role, not about the mechanics by which one interacts with the world. That's what separates RPGs from the genres that give birth to their mechanics.







