Final Fantasy XVI

It has stats and progression system no? Then it is (a)rpg. Please stop trying to change the genre definition lol.

If FF16 isn't arpg then tons of arpg like YS also aren't arpg. Which certainly is how we view it in the gaming community.

I am not sure why people try to redefine what (a)rpg is after 30+ years of using the term since YS only because they feel like bashing FF16.

DMC is "classified as" action / adventure / hacknslash no rpg.
DMC 2, same thing
DMC 3 same thing
4 same thing
5 same thing

What exactly is different from DMC to 16. (difficulty is not a difference)

DMC might even be more rpg than 16. You don't just slap arpg on everything as an excuse.

It's like 500th time that I am repeating the same thing. Dmc has no stats. You obtain moves with currency that's about it. Character damage dealt isn't determined by stats like strength or attack value, it doesn't have defense value to reduce damage taken.

In DMC if you get hit then you get hit, if you hit the enemy then you hit them. Character performance is 100% determined by player's playing skill not stats.

(I've only played earlier dmc, not sure if dmc 5 has stats now.)

Anything with stats and progression system=rpg. Action combat with stats and value=arpg. Action games without stats and values=action or action adventure depending on the main focus.

So YS, God of war Ragnarok, witcher 3 and FF16 are all arpg but dmc is action.

It has been this way for 30+ years.

The combat is literally designed by the dude who made it for devil may cry for *** sake.

So does it have attack and defense value? Apparently yes.

https://samurai-gamers.com/final-fantasy-xvi-ff16/how-to-check-and-increase-your-stats/

The combat system being devil may cry doesn't matter. They can make it into FPS and it's still going to be arpg as long as stats exist.

Whether a game is arpg or not is not decided by the name of the creator nor title, but if stats exist or not.

So a sports game where a player can get speed+ kick+ and throw+ is an arpg

League of legends is an arpg

What isn't an arpg in 2023

If a sports game also has stories for the main character as they grow in a team then yeah, I would recognize it as rpg personally.

Otherwise it's simulation. (Which is another genre with stats but typically no story)


If you search league of legends it does say MOBA/Action RPG lol.

100% of moba are arpg then

If it has anything an rpg has ever done, even naming characters, slap that ARPG sticker on that bad boy.

Starcraft 2 has upgrades! ARPG!
Leon increases his health in re4, ARPG!
Last of us 2 has a skill tree, ARPG

So what lol. As a fan of rpg I'd like to see more rpg titles being made so I have more choices, I'd rather not see rpg purists looking for every opportunity to kick games out of this genre lol.

If somebody ever make a soccer game with a main character and story, who enters "battles"(soccer game) as a soccer player and gain experience after every game, and the outcome of a game being determined by stats, I'd gladly recognize it as rpg and happily play it. Who cares if it's sports/rpg hybrid as long as the ideas are fun!


Do they all have attack/defense values to determine damage dealt/taken?

If there are no stats that determines the outcome of an encounter then it is not arpg. Simply unlocking skills or increase health isn't enough if other values don't exist.

What's truly funny is the mention of CRPGs, as if enthusiasts aren't purists that don't try to kick JRPGs out of being defined as RPGs in the first place, since you don't control the Role-Play usually in JRPGs.

If FFXVI you take on the role of Clive, and you play only as him for nearly the entire game ( a few phoenix plays notwithstanding).

The gameplay system for delivering on playing that role doesn't and shouldn't matter.

It's not your preference for role-play, cool. Doesn't make you right, though.

All I hear is you shifting the goal posts, and ignoring that in the older FFs if one character in the party dies, you get to keep playing without interruption. Whereas in all the examples I listed, if your character dies, then your play stops/is interrupted.

Health is the same thing as defense. Both take more hits to kill you.


That's a style choice, not a genre shift. No goalposts moved either. you can literally never "control a whole party at once". You needed clarification apparently.

Ok, goalpost shifter. :^)

Ah, so we finally reached the stage where people are arguing over definitions. Do they have an internet law (like Godwin's) for this?

Getting hung up on definitions is a waste of time. Strict definitions don't matter much if you know what your interlocutor means. And, if you don't, better try to, otherwise you're talking past each other.

But then most posters here won't have anything to discuss.. Because actually talking about the damn game doesn't seem that interesting to them

Jessikah, what have you done? You can't jump ship this soon!

I am not sure why people are arguing the definition of rpg now. It comes from trpg which is a group of players rolling dices and determining the outcome of an encounter (persuade included) with stats+dice roll.

Under the same logic any game with playable character and stats that determines outcome of an encounter is rpg.

In a sports game if the chance of character getting a score is based on character stats but not player's skill then this system is definitely a rpg mechanic. If it also features a main character and their story then I would definitely see it as rpg.

In early zelda games the character's performance isn't determined by stats. Link can pickup new weapons and increase health, but damage is based on weapons if I remember correctly. Hence Zelda is an adventure game. Idk if newer game has changed though.

Using the same logic as Zelda, games with health upgrade or learnable skills may not be rpg if player's performance isn't also determined by character's stats.

On the other hand, in games like Deus Ex the accuracy is determined by character's stats not player's skill entirely, hence it is rpg.

It's really as simple as that.

30+ years of playing video game this has always been how rpg is defined by the media. Rpg is defined by game mechanics, but not complexity nor builds. Idk why people try to change it because of FF16 now.



No they are not lol. If your defense is so high then you can get hit forever and not die. Health doesn't do that.

Defense changes a character's performance while ignoring player skills basically. Health is not the same.

But to actually expound on why you have indeed moved the goal posts, you're being entirely fake, disingenuous if you will.

You know damn well that the whole party being controlled by one player is vastly different. Sure, sure you can hang yourself up on the semantics of, "Hurrrrrr, you make inputs for the characters one by one!" But the point of the difference is that your inputs continue in the party controlled games, until the whole party is killed, because you are controlling the entire party. And it is all at once in any of the entries that don't use ATB, because all of the inputs are done at the start of a round, i.e. the first three Final Fantasies. I guess by your own definitions and claims, every FF from FFIV onwards isn't a real Final Fantasy, because you're controlling the characters one at a time :^)

See what I mean? It was an asinine distinction in the first place.

You DO make the inputs one by one, that's not semantics at all lol. The turn resolving and all performing the chosen commands at once is irrelevant.

That is literally what it is. That is every numbered ff 1-15. Like I said even if you hexabox 11/14 you have to send commands one by one. (If you are super talented you can do two at once with one kb per hand.)

Now health vs defense is semantics. 10 damage to 100 health is the same 10% as 9 damage to 90 health. Increasing either decreases hp percentage lost.
Stat is a stat is a stat. hp def att str weaponattack
(until infinity of course)
((And don't conflate proportion, they're equal in theory, not literally 1:1))

Go play Bravely Default for “traditional turn based rpg with multiple party members”

Oh i guess traditional turn based JRPG with multiple characters just isnt as popular and desired as you think it is.

It is not semantics, it is different mechanics. I wouldn't want to view it the same way when I analyze each stats in a game.

Defense is generally a value that reduces damage taken. If math formula is something like damage taken = enemy attack - character defense (it's generally more complicated than that in most games, I am just simplifying it). In a situation that enemy attack is 10 and your defense is 11, you will never die because every attack hits 0. But you will still die in a game without defense stat even with 1000 HP if you get hit 100 times.

In a none rpg game becoming invincible is generally impossible without defense stats or buffs. In an arpg is possible if the dev allows the player to increase defense past a certain point.

Like in YS1 the player must reach certain level before they can continue or else their attack will hit 0 against the enemies. Forcing the players grind their level before they can continue. When do you experience gameplay altering situations like this in a resident evil game?

Idk why you said defense is semantics when this mechanic absolutely affects gameplay for real. Just having a stat that determines damage taken sometimes can change how gameflow is designed and possible playing experience in a noticeable way.

Because raising a stat is raising a stat. You don't say well hp doesn't count.

Hp is a stat. A stat is raised. It's an arpg now.

Genetically modify your cow in a farming sim to have a 5th teat, that's a stat increase. ARPG.
Better tires on your racecar, ARPG.
Sharpen the blades on your lawnmower, ARPG.

I guess you didn't bother reading any of my previous posts explaining the mechanical difference. But you are free to call every game arpg if you wish, or change the genre definition however you like. I'll continue to use the same definition as everyone else in the past 30 years thx.



Do those even a character for you to role-play? Lol no just no.

Edit: if anyone ever released a racing car character in Pixar style that can talk and has a story then I guess "better tires" can be a stat in this rpg.

Otherwise it's a simulation game without a character lol.

Racecar driver is a role.
Landscaper is a role.
Farmer is a role.

Every game in existence you take on the role of someone or something. And you perform actions. And most increase their endurance or strength or health or speed.

Every game in existence "has rpg elements" and "actions", that's the line for what an arpg is.

See the post above. "Better tires" is a stat for car, not a character.

Strength, defense etc are stats for a character.

In order to make racing game into a rpg you need to have a driver character as protagonist with stats like "reaction speed" "emotional control" then have those values determining the outcome of every race(encounter).

That's NOT how racing simulation game works. Your example is racing simulation game, not rpg.

And better defense is on the armor, not the guy wearing it.

You aren't making his skin into diamonds.

Now THAT is semantics lol. (Of course one can have better defense with a stronger body or something.)

This is close. Failing to recognize the difference between new and different.

Pretended not to know the difference, but did it anyway for money.

Add-to/Add-more. don't change. Expand, not alter. Be specific in your requests/wishes. And do complain when they do it despite clarity.

Make your new story, new planet, new characters, but don't slap an rpg label on a damn buttonmashing action game.

FF has slowly turned towards more action-oriented gameplay since XII (when you started being able to move around, avoid enemies,...) and XVI is a next logical step in that direction. (not saying it was the only possible direction, just saying it's not surprising)

Honestly all these reviewers acting like they're so surprised about it and how this game is an "anti-FF" or whatever are either dishonest or have no idea what they're talking about.

But the sad thing is that people seems so obsessed with the need to classify the game in one specific genre (which is kinda pointless nowadays imo because action and rpg games have been kinda mixed together for the past 10 years at least, with one genre taking stuff from the other and so on), that they seems unable to enjoy the game for what it is, and what the devs wanted to offer.

I for one mostly dislike action games and yet I'm enjoying the hell out of XVI. Multiple reasons to that be the first that comes to mind to me is that... I really feel i'm playing a FF game, just like I was doing when I was a kid on the snes/ps1 era.

12 13 14 and 15 are actually ARPGs

That, is a shift in gameplay. Moving from rpg to arpg.

16 is a completely and total change. To only action. I don't give a *** if you can raise str in a menu.

That, is not "moving toward" or whatever other thing you want it to be. It is a hard pivot. And that's 100% fine. For spinoffs.

You have level ups in XVI. Every level you gain some STR, VIT, HP, and a buncha other stats.

The levels really only come into play with Hunts, as far as I know, though maybe the main story is a bit more challenging if you aren't gaining levels from Sidequest EXP(gained directly from quests as well as the enemies you face in the sidequests).