This is entirely an issue with the format of the RPG.
There is no conflict between having an open-world sandbox adventure and having player choices affect the outcome of the story when you're talking about live action or table top RPGs.
Video games are inherently limited in this fashion, but my point still remains. That choice to affect overall outcome always feels hallow to me. I'm still on a railroad track, I can just pick what junctions I want to take towards one of N possible destinations.
My options are starting from DC and ending up in Phoenix, San Francisco, or Seattle. I choose if I want to detour to the north or south before I cross the Mississippi, then I can choose again before I cross the Rockies.
It's an interesting perspective Tom and demonstrates why the tabletop RPG reigns supreme. Hopefully in time and more shows like Game of Thrones, more films like The Hobbit and LotR being mainstream and more actors like Vin Diesel admitting to playing D&D maybe tabletop games will be more accepted in society. I came to terms with it long ago but still sometimes get sick of being laughed at for admitting I like Dungeons and Dragons.
Back to computer games though, the paradox isn't lost on you I take it? The more a game falls into what you describe as the "railroad" category the more options a player has?
It comes down to variables. If we take Skyrim as an example we cannot ignore the flaws in the sand-box system: The game simply cannot keep up with all the possible permutations of character and so ignores it all entirely. This is why those who would wish to see their Khajiit character get treated the same as every other Khajiit in the game often feel a disconnect between themselves and the game world. Yet to do otherwise would mean the game would have to track the character's sex, age and race. The upshot is that the interaction between PC and NPC is always going to be shallow.
Yet with a railroaded game like the Witcher or Mass Effect where the character is already defined to a greater degree of detail, the more influence and impact the player has over the world. The upshot is that the level of immersion increases while the bar setting for suspension of disbelief is much lower. For instance my Commander Shepard's galaxy could very well be completely different to yours. Indeed, according to statistics, most players pf ME3 never met Wrex whereas I cannot imagine a galaxy without him.
What about GTA San Andreas, Vlad? How would you define that game? I mean, it is open world yet the character is predefined. It has a linear storyline yet plenty of character customisation options such as hair, facial hair, clothing and weight.
Most people would say that is an action game with RPG elements, which in itself offers us an insight into what is normally classified as an RPG - which somewhat gels with your definition of what an RPG is.
So, if a game has stat, appearance and weapon customisation, is that the only criteria a game needs to be considers an RPG? If so, isn't San Andreas actually a roleplaying game?
Sorry OH2.0 I should have been more specific. the stat don't specifically state how they arrive at that conclusion but it's fair to assume a fair number of ME3 players never played the first game. If they started with ME2 and didn't use the Genesis Comic, they will likely never have seen Wrex as the default state of ME2 has Wrex die on Virmire.
I have entirely different criteria, although I can see where you're coming from with yours, Legion.
For me, the defining component of an RPG is narrative and choice. You play as a character in a story where you get the freedom to co-author the tale. Ideally, challenges presented by the game have more than one possible solution.
The more playing the game feels like one of those old Choose-Your-Own-Adventure novels, the more apt I am to think of it as an RPG. There's no question in my mind that all of the Mass Effect series are RPG games, although I do see them as less purely RPG as something like Baldur's Gate was.
What I've never been able to wrap my own head around is why people call the Diablo series RPGs... despite different classes providing different tactical play styles, that story is on rails right the way through. No choices, no consequences, no influence on the narrative (at least in I and II, I've not played III). They're just sword and magic hack and slashers with an isometric camera.
If you read my criteria, you'll see why.
To be honest, I disagree with you on the "choose-your-own-adventure" thing. Let's say that you're playing a fighter and you have no other option that this; on the other hand you have plenty of options on how to act in conversations, you can resolve various conflict in a different way which gives you a different game world each time, etc. You are co-authoring the tale at every step.....yet your in-game role is always that of a fighter, you cannot be a mage, or a thief, or a bard....then how can this game be RPG if there is only one in-game role to play?
Let's say, again, that there is a given situation in 2 hypothetical games. The situation is this - a tribe has lost a sacred relic to an evil warlord. Game one forces you to play as a warrior, but gives you options to help the tribe, ignore them, join the warlord and kill them, offer to help them, then betray them, etc. Game two gives you only the option to help them, however you can be playing different classes and then the warrior will go into the evil warlord's fortress head on, kill all his guards, kill him and return the relic, the wizard will use a clever combination of spells to incapacitate the guards, stun the warlord and fetch the item from a distance, the thief will sneak undetected, steal the relic and escape, unheard, the bard will enchant the guards with this song and turn them against their lord, the paladin will speak to the warlord, appeal to his lost honour and cause him to repent, etc.
So which one is more "role playing"? I'd say the second.....but then again it's everyone's choice.
I think the stats say quite a bit about the setting. It gets slagged off a fair bit and criticism about how the choices don't matter but by Mass Effect 3 there are a huge quantity of variables which can alter the galaxy.
If I'm reading Tom's post correctly he would classify these choices as parts of an interactive movie. Yet to me those many moments of choice and consequence are what make this an RPG beyond a shadow of a doubt. If my character can be very different from somebody else's, surely the Roleplay part of RPG is self evident?
As for the Witcher 3, I hear OH's argument about classes but even if you could only play as one type of character, surely the ability to change the setting to the degree you can in the game would naturally make one person's Geralt different to another's? Not to mention the role of a Witcher. The game actually encourages you to approach any confrontation as a Witcher would by researching the monster, applying the appropriate potions and oils and equip the correct bombs. So you may not be able to play multiple roles, you can go quite deep into what it's like to be a witcher.
That is true, however most of the time the character role is implied in the character class along with the combat role. For example, the Paladin class is associated both with a specific combat style and a specific behaviour and morality; the same goes more or less for the Thief class. Of course, some classes allow variations.
GTA games are weird in terms of how that player freedom is dealt with in the story and we see the same sort of thing happening with Red Dead too: You can be Niko and John Marston and make them go on the most horrendous sprees of murder and violence and the game will encourage it at times. Yet in terms of story, these events are totally ignored which in turn forces a total disconnect. By the end game the characters of these games can still be utterly convinced they have only ever killed a handful of people and are completely justified in their actions. They believe they are the good guys beyond the narcissistic tendencies already displayed.
The only character who has ever been honest and a true avatar of the player in a GTA game in my opinion is Trevor. This is why it is so liberating when you meet him in GTA V and why he is the go-to character of most players - he removes that disconnect because he shares the exact same ideals of the player in terms of how they view the game world.
Having never played San Andreas and barely playing GTAV, I had to turn to Wikipedia. Wikipedia calls it an "open world action-adventure video game". From what I remember of GTAV, there was no real inventory. There was that menu where you could change your weapon, but you couldn't swap out outfits on the fly or anything of the sort.
It does have RPG elements, but it lacks a manageable inventory.
I don't think that "blank-state" characters are super important to RPGs personally. MK7s "Kreate a Fighter" didn't make MK7 feel like any more of an RPG.