| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
niteshade
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 100
|
Heh I think your actually the one in the minority here Roqua excluding so many things from being RPGs. A better question might be why you get so upset when everyone else disagrees with your opinions that a game you don't like isn't a RPG  .
Silent Storm is one of those tricky ones, but if you replaced the WWII soldiers with elves and dwarves and the guns with magic swords and spells, nobody would argue that it wasn't a RPG. Many reviews have discussed the strong RPG elements, and the sequel is actually planned to build on them. |
Wed Aug 17, 2005 2:21 am |
|
|
yeesh
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 113
Location: Unofficially representing Queens |
It's true, I fall into that dangerous trap of thinking that most games widely classified as RPGs are in fact RPGs. This is because of my simple definition of CRPG gameplay as centered around the development of a character's ability through stats, equipment, level, whatever. I wish I could have a definition like Roqua's, so narrow that there may not actually have been a true CRPG yet made anywhere in the universe. In that case, by the way, this site is way ahead of it's time, except that they waste so much virtual space covering all these non-RPGs...
And in regard to this article, by the way, if you define CRPGs by the "roleplaying" in them, then can there even be such a thing as RPG elements spreading out to other genres? Is it all or nothing? Obviously one plays a role in every single game, but if I understand the narrow definition camp correctly, that doesn't count. Is there a magical threshold you pass where you're playing just enough of a role to push any game out of whatever genre it was in before and transform it into a CRPG? Or is it like the Supreme Court and pornography; you just know it when you see it? |
|
Wed Aug 17, 2005 5:20 am |
|
|
Enderandrew
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 111
Location: Omaha, NE |
As the article mentioned, I think an RPG is defined by stats driving gameplay. Many strategy games have stats drive gameplay and I consider them RPGs, though you could classify them as a sub-genre of tactical RPGs. |
|
Wed Aug 17, 2005 5:53 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by niteshade
Heh I think your actually the one in the minority here Roqua excluding so many things from being RPGs. A better question might be why you get so upset when everyone else disagrees with your opinions that a game you don't like isn't a RPG .
Silent Storm is one of those tricky ones, but if you replaced the WWII soldiers with elves and dwarves and the guns with magic swords and spells, nobody would argue that it wasn't a RPG. Many reviews have discussed the strong RPG elements, and the sequel is actually planned to build on them.
I wouldn't. Elves and dwarves don't make a game an rpg. Its not like being a tbs is degrading. I love tbs's.
And I don't get mad when people disagree with my opinion. I get made when people just ignore fact like it isn't fact. People can disagree with my opinions all day. Its when people disagree with fact that gets to me. You can't just say 2+2=7. Thats not an opinion statement. It is wrong. You cannot be a role and play arole at the same time, it is impossible. It breaks the law of noncontradiction. The law of noncontradiction is a law. Atoms are still theory. How can my level 18 warrior who is a masterswordsman be restricted by my physical skill? As soon as he is restricted by my physical capapilities, I stop playing the role of him and either partially or fully become him, therefor the role I asume is me or partly me. therefor I am not playing a role and cannot be playing a roleplaying game.
Or if my character is a master swordsman and my timing desides if I hit the enemy instead of my character's skill, how is he a master swordsman? Aren't i the masterswordsman and not him. That just turns him into an empty vessel, and his stats are my stats and my stats are his stats.
2+2 doesn't equal seven. And action games with rpg elements aren't rpgs. Gravity isn't subject to man's will either. Some things just are.
Now I happen to like TB games, be they rpgs or strategy games. That happens to be my opinion of what kind of combat a good rpg or strat game has. But it doesn't define what genre a game is (besides tbs rts, since they include the type of combat in the title). But I also like some rt games. Like Darklands and Imperial Glory (which i am playing now on yahoo games on demand). And action games with rpg elements like bloodlines and arx fatalis and gothic and dues ex.
But what I like doesn't have anything to do with what something is or change fact. I like the number seven, that doesn't mean 2+2=7.
quote:
Others offer up stepping into the role of another as the primary means of being classified as an RPG. Well playing Splinter Cell not only offers a deep story, but allows me to step in the shoes of Sam Fisher.
No. No no no. Playing mario bros allows you top step into the shoes of Mario. Playing Megaman or Metroids allows you to step into the shoes of Magaman and whatever her name is.
Playing a game allows you to step into the shoes of any tom dick or harry the devs created for whatever game. But in a roleplaying game you step into the shoes of a character that you created, you fill with life and personality, and that interacts with the word idependant of your own physical abilities. That is a roleplaying game, the rest are games of different genre's.
edit: I said sam fisher instead of mario
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Thu Aug 18, 2005 12:30 am |
|
|
Enderandrew
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 111
Location: Omaha, NE |
I think you misunderstood me.
We're arguing the same point. Stat-based gameplay defines an RPG.
The arguement that "playing a role makes an RPG" is flawed since you play a role in Splinter Cell, which is clearly not an RPG. |
|
Thu Aug 18, 2005 3:44 am |
|
|
Guest
|
It would include all strategy games and sims. If we try harder and make the definition narrower a bit by adding increase of characters' abilities according to the result of the play, then, it would be more persuasive.
However, form the first place, whey do we need to define the genre? It comes to me the core of the matter may have a different origin. This may make old CRPG gamers unhappy but RPG had been much wider than the games they are accustomed to play. In fact, some PnP RPG gamers who are interested in crating their own worlds and enjoying their own characters and stories, never admitted that CRPG as RPG. Also, some social PnP gamers who have paid no attention to Wizardry or Rogue found MMORG more at home.
RPG has so many aspects since it is one of the oldest games in human history. Probably, like MCA, we'd better stop being narrow-minded and just see how things will go. I don't mind if I called a geek only because my taste belongs to minority but I don't like to be called a geek because I'm narrow-minded.
quote:
I think games will grow to deliver the experience that we're craving – the interactive movie experience, the interactive sports experience, the interactive racing experience, etc. – basically a power fantasy. I think games are just a natural progression toward delivering the entertainment experiences that people are seeking that they cannot (adventuring in a post-holocaust world) or may not (football star) be able to achieve in real life. I hate to use the Holodeck from Star Trek as an example (or even those interactive entertainment booths in Minority Report), but I think that's what people are looking for when they play a game – an immersive power fantasy.
In my opinion, this would be interesting if taken as a social phenomena.
OT
quote:
Originally posted by Enderandrew
I'm a big fan of MCA, so I read all his interviews. I think he gave Odin a hard time because the two of them have a certain rapport. It sure seems like Odin emails him a bit and harrasses him.
and the interview was fun in its own way. |
|
Thu Aug 18, 2005 4:40 am |
|
|
Enderandrew
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 111
Location: Omaha, NE |
MCA says he wants to explore new settings like a High School RPG. I've never once seen him say that he thinks RPGs should get away from stat-based gameplay however. |
|
Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:39 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by Enderandrew
I think you misunderstood me.
We're arguing the same point. Stat-based gameplay defines an RPG.
The arguement that "playing a role makes an RPG" is flawed since you play a role in Splinter Cell, which is clearly not an RPG.
I'm saying you don't play a role in splinter cell. The character of Sam Fisher, Mario, whoever is predifined and his abilities are also. How well he operates is up to the users physical abilities, so he is not operating, the game player is. You can't play a role and be a role, as the law of noncontradiction dictates. In no time in those games are any opportunities given to support the role you created, as you don't create or play a role. Role playing and its criteria is the only logical or possible driver behind a roleplaying game.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Fri Aug 19, 2005 1:34 am |
|
|
yeesh
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 113
Location: Unofficially representing Queens |
quote:
I'm saying you don't play a role in splinter cell.
Roqua, while I don't think this detracts from the spirit of your argument as I understand it, you should take a second to redefine your terms. To everyone in the world, the essence of playing a role is EXACTLY that you are playing a specific, predefined character. That's what roleplaying (in the non-gaming sense) is, the "playing" of a specific, predefined "role". You turn it around and say that role playing means having absolute freedom, and if you're playing a predefined charcter, you're not playing a role. Obviously any actor would disagree. Obviously any group therapist or kinky couple doing master and French maid would disagree. Playing a role is having a predefined part with certain narrowly-defined parameters. The absolute freedom to evolve a character however you want, which you and many of us look for in a CRPG, is actually sort of the opposite of playing a role. There's a big difference between playing a role and creating one from scratch.
Now I understand what you mean and the distinction you're trying to make, but you can't expect anyone to agree with you if you're going to say that a gamer playing Splinter Cell does not play the role of Sam Fisher. No one's calling Splinter Cell an RPG, but this whole play a role versus be a role concept is totally contrived linguistics. Once again, I understand what you're saying, but the language you are using is invalid. Look up roleplaying on dictionary.com, and see if there's a single reference to the freedom to do whatever you want. That's just not what the term means. |
|
Fri Aug 19, 2005 2:29 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by yeesh
quote:
I'm saying you don't play a role in splinter cell.
Roqua, while I don't think this detracts from the spirit of your argument as I understand it, you should take a second to redefine your terms. To everyone in the world, the essence of playing a role is EXACTLY that you are playing a specific, predefined character. That's what roleplaying (in the non-gaming sense) is, the "playing" of a specific, predefined "role". You turn it around and say that role playing means having absolute freedom, and if you're playing a predefined charcter, you're not playing a role. Obviously any actor would disagree. Obviously any group therapist or kinky couple doing master and French maid would disagree. Playing a role is having a predefined part with certain narrowly-defined parameters. The absolute freedom to evolve a character however you want, which you and many of us look for in a CRPG, is actually sort of the opposite of playing a role. There's a big difference between playing a role and creating one from scratch.
Now I understand what you mean and the distinction you're trying to make, but you can't expect anyone to agree with you if you're going to say that a gamer playing Splinter Cell does not play the role of Sam Fisher. No one's calling Splinter Cell an RPG, but this whole play a role versus be a role concept is totally contrived linguistics. Once again, I understand what you're saying, but the language you are using is invalid. Look up roleplaying on dictionary.com, and see if there's a single reference to the freedom to do whatever you want. That's just not what the term means.
I love you yeesh. I'll make a better reply tonight when i get back from work.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:59 am |
|
|
Enderandrew
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 111
Location: Omaha, NE |
I agree 100% with yeesh.
Semantics are dividing us even though we all seem to agree what makes a CRPG. |
|
Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:53 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Roqua, while I don't think this detracts from the spirit of your argument as I understand it, you should take a second to redefine your terms.
You’re 100% right. My problem is my failure to communicate properly. I am changing terms to fit my perspective instead of using terms to help my argument. I will try and be more consistent. I got talked to at work for my communication skills yesterday, and what I was saying made so much sense. I forecasted sales for a product at my new work. And marketing (the department sales is in) said it was too high. They decided to go with marketing’s forecast. Well, marketing has a huge incentive to have a low forecast since the commissions of the sales guys will be much higher the lower the forecast is. But that leads to low production and stock-outs. My forecast is right; I forecasted correctly. Well, my forecast probably won’t be right, but the way I forecast is. But I was told I was hostile explaining it and had no tact. And I’m new there so I look like a big moron and the whole marketing dep hates me.
But back to the subject at hand:
quote:
To everyone in the world, the essence of playing a role is EXACTLY that you are playing a specific, predefined character. That's what roleplaying (in the non-gaming sense) is, the "playing" of a specific, predefined "role". You turn it around and say that role playing means having absolute freedom, and if you're playing a predefined charcter, you're not playing a role. Obviously any actor would disagree. Obviously any group therapist or kinky couple doing master and French maid would disagree. Playing a role is having a predefined part with certain narrowly-defined parameters. The absolute freedom to evolve a character however you want, which you and many of us look for in a CRPG, is actually sort of the opposite of playing a role. There's a big difference between playing a role and creating one from scratch.
Again, you are right. It was failure to communicate properly on my part. I will do my best to explain appropriately.
Sam Fisher is a character that was created by an author I believe. That character then had a game made about him. His ability to jump, use walls to jump higher, shoot a gun, sneak, etc, is developed with a hard cap limit on what he can do. When I play Sam Fisher he sucks ass, because my twitch abilities suck ass. When someone with good twitch abilities plays Sam Fisher, Sam is a blazing ball of death and picture perfect agility. That is because Sam isn’t always Sam. Sam can only perform as well as the person playing him does.
Now the character of the bride would always win the battle in the club no matter if Uma Thurman plays her or Margaret Thatcher plays her. But any actress would win that battle playing the role of the bride, but the role of the bride can only go to actresses that can meat the requirements of the role—such as having 4 limbs. If I played the role of Sherlock Holmes my personal sleuthing skills would not impact those of the character.
So playing the role of Sam Fisher in a game and a movie would be totally different since the ability of the user is only important in one medium.
So now we get to playing a role in an rpg. RPGs have different standard since they were created to fulfill a different mission. A wheelchair bound lady with no legs and only one arm could play the role of the bride in Kill Bill. And in a book or movie the story is the same no matter how many times you watch or read it. If Kill Bill was an rpg the setting and the events leading up to the start of the campaign would be the same, but the story could go any way the player decided. Maybe the bride makes friends with the nurse guy that took money selling her out when she was in a coma, and he is her sidekick. Or maybe she doesn’t kill the black lady with the child (that was one of her partners under Bill) but teams up with her to take down Bill. The actions of the bride would be dictated by what the person playing her role feels her character would do. This makes the rpg genre different from any other form of roleplaying besides real life actors free styling and ad libing it I guess.
But that’s a different argument. The important thing is that when you play a role in an rpg, the physical abilities you posses are unimportant. You don’t have to have good timeing. You don’t have to be fast or have good reflexes. Because when you assume the role of the character you are playing that doesn’t matter at all. The character you play is the master swordsman and he knows how to time the attack. His strength, agility, and reflexes are what matters, not yours.
Relying on the person playing the character’s physical abilities is possible in pen and paper rpgs also. You could shoot an elastic (rubber-band) at a can to see if your character hits a target with his bow. You could move the can closer as he progresses in skill, and you could upgrade to elastic to a slingshot then a wrist-rocket and then a bb-gun to account for weapon upgrades. For melee you could bust out rock’em sock’em robots to decide who wins. Or have someone try and hot a cat with a empty towel roll to see if he hits his enemy. Any number of fun an action packed exciting activities that rely on the players physical abilities.
But this isn’t done, even though it is 100% possible, because it wouldn’t be roleplaying. In every single pen and paper rpg the physical abilities of the player are not used. Because the ability of the character you play are independent of your own. When you assume the role of a character you become him. You try and think like him, and you make decisions as he you believe he would. You provide direction, and the rules of the game, the characters skill and attributes, and those of other characters in the game do the rest.
Roleplaying in an rpg will always rely on mental input. It cannot be separated or removed. Physical reliance and mental reliance are two different things. Roleplying in an rpg was always meant to be a mental activity, not a physical one. Because the character’s physical abilities are 100% independent of yours.
Everyone is saying that a fps is an fps, or an action game is an action game, if there is no reliance on the character’s abilities, and it becomes an rpg when the character’s abilities influences combat or other activities. I am saying that if there is any reliance on player ability (through twitch skills such as timing, reflexes, etc) the game cannot be an rpg. An rpg, crpg or pen and paper, does not rely on the players physical abilities at all. An action game with rpg elements can, but it is not an action-rpg—it is an action game with rpg elements.
In a splinter cell game Sam Fisher has the ability to be a master assassin (or whatever he is) but unless he and I work together as a dynamic team relying on each others abilities and knowing our limits, he is not a master assassin. He is as good physically as I am. My physical input dictates how well he performs and his master assassin status.
In a crpg this is not true. For instance, in the game Buck Rogers, Buck Rogers joins your party for a little while, and he is badass no matter what your physical abilities are. He truly is a master independent of your input. The same with your party, when they become masters of their class, they are masters. My physical skill does not impact this in any way, shape, or form. When I assume the role of a character I truly become them. In an action game with rpg elements when you assume the role of a character you become each other. So in an action game with rpg elements you are the role as you play the role, discounting the game from being an rpg. I wish I could find the right way to explain this but logically it cannot be an rpg because it breaks the law of non-contradiction. It’s like saying I was running around flying. If you are running you aren’t flying and if you are flying you aren’t running. My character isn’t a master swordsman if his master swordsman skills are reliant on my physical abilities.
I still probably haven’t explained it well enough to be understood all the way, but that’s the best I can do for now.
quote:
Now I understand what you mean and the distinction you're trying to make, but you can't expect anyone to agree with you if you're going to say that a gamer playing Splinter Cell does not play the role of Sam Fisher. No one's calling Splinter Cell an RPG, but this whole play a role versus be a role concept is totally contrived linguistics. Once again, I understand what you're saying, but the language you are using is invalid. Look up roleplaying on dictionary.com, and see if there's a single reference to the freedom to do whatever you want. That's just not what the term means.
I hope distinguishing between the mediums has helped clarify this.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sat Aug 20, 2005 1:47 pm |
|
|
niteshade
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 100
|
Roqua,
So you wouldn't consider Silent Storm and RPG if it was a fantasy game with elves and dwarves? You are correct that these things do not make a RPG. But they do effect people's perceptions of what a RPGS is.
Silent storm is a game with turn based combat, where you create a party, go on missions, level up your characters and learn new skills, and slowly aquire better and better equipment. Everything you do is based purely on the skill of your characters. If that isn't the definition of a classic old school RPG, I don't know what is. However we are trained to never think of a WWII game as a RPG. That's why I was saying that everyone would consider it a RPG if it was a fantasy game, not a WWII game. Certainly you can't say that the game has any fewer RPG elements then say wizardry.
Saying you get mad when people ignore the facts is wrong, because there clearly are no facts in this, just opinion and standard definitions. Pretty much everyone else on these boards and in the industry disagrees with you, and your opinions are impossible to prove as being "correct" so clearly there is no way to argue that your opinions are absolute fact. When discussing things on the internet, you really need to keep more of open mind to the fact that people have different opinions, and that you may not always be right about everything.
Regarding skill being required in playing a role, that is always the case in every roleplaying game. When I play a wizard with 18 inteligence in wizardry, it's still my inteligence that gets used to determine my puzzle solving and battle tactics. He's supposed to be a great genius, but he will act like a moron if a bad player is using him, while that 6 inteligence fighter will act like a genius if a good player is using him. Unless you have the game completely play itself once character creation is done, there will always be chances for your own skill to influence that of your character in a RPG. Some games require more inteligence and tactics, others require small amounts of reflex and coordination. But they all require something.
Ultimately I get the feeling that your just really trying hard to use every trick in your book to come up with a definition of RPGs that excludes the games you don't like. Your basing your definitions more around what you feel would exclude these games, and less around what you would really feel the definition was if these games were not around. |
|
Sat Aug 20, 2005 4:20 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Roqua,
So you wouldn't consider Silent Storm and RPG if it was a fantasy game with elves and dwarves? You are correct that these things do not make a RPG. But they do effect people's perceptions of what a RPGS is.
Why does the color of a minivan or suv impact people's perception of its a minivan or suv? Does elves or ww2 troops impact the perception of a rts or not? Was the middle earth rts considered an rpg? Why not?
quote:
Silent storm is a game with turn based combat, where you create a party, go on missions, level up your characters and learn new skills, and slowly aquire better and better equipment. Everything you do is based purely on the skill of your characters. If that isn't the definition of a classic old school RPG, I don't know what is. However we are trained to never think of a WWII game as a RPG. That's why I was saying that everyone would consider it a RPG if it was a fantasy game, not a WWII game. Certainly you can't say that the game has any fewer RPG elements then say wizardry.
No, it would still be a squad tbs if it had elves, same as the JA's and ufo's/x-coms. I am not following you.
Is Imperial Glory an rpg? It has troop advancment, skill, skill trees and quests? Why isn't it? Why isn't GtA: San An an rpg? Why isnt the wwe wrestling game that has character creation, skills, exp, and ability advancment not an rpg? Why is republic the revolution?
quote:
Saying you get mad when people ignore the facts is wrong, because there clearly are no facts in this, just opinion and standard definitions. Pretty much everyone else on these boards and in the industry disagrees with you, and your opinions are impossible to prove as being "correct" so clearly there is no way to argue that your opinions are absolute fact. When discussing things on the internet, you really need to keep more of open mind to the fact that people have different opinions, and that you may not always be right about everything.
Fact: the law of noncontradiction is a fact
Fact: rpgs have never had user physical abilities impact combat or other gameplay aspects
Fact: a character in an rpg is independant physically from the person playing him. Always has been, always will be.
Lots more fact if you read the post.
quote:
Regarding skill being required in playing a role, that is always the case in every roleplaying game. When I play a wizard with 18 inteligence in wizardry, it's still my inteligence that gets used to determine my puzzle solving and battle tactics. He's supposed to be a great genius, but he will act like a moron if a bad player is using him, while that 6 inteligence fighter will act like a genius if a good player is using him. Unless you have the game completely play itself once character creation is done, there will always be chances for your own skill to influence that of your character in a RPG. Some games require more inteligence and tactics, others require small amounts of reflex and coordination. But they all require something.
Roleplaying has always been a mental activity. i covered this. In fallout if you didn't have the int ypou couldn't do a lot of things. Dialogue was restricted, etc. Same in arcanum and plenty other games. You cannot remove the mental aspect of roleplaying, you cannot fill an entity will life and personality without thinking and using other mental abilities/ Mental abilities and roleplaying go hand and hand. Always have always will. I made surte to stress and always state the word physical. If you missed that you didn't read my post. See how I reply to all the points you make?
quote:
Ultimately I get the feeling that your just really trying hard to use every trick in your book to come up with a definition of RPGs that excludes the games you don't like. Your basing your definitions more around what you feel would exclude these games, and less around what you would really feel the definition was if these games were not around.
Huh? I love silent storm, JA's, and other non rpgs. I had a ba;ll playing arx, uu, gothics, and other non rpgs. I dislike most rpgs, such as the kotors and nwn's. I just want rpgs to be called rpgs and non rpgs to not be called rpgs. This is simple stuff. Listen, when psycologists started giving out psycotropics they became phyciatrists, people who give out medicine and talk about nonsense. Counsilors talk like either, but don't meet the requirments to be either. Things are seperated logically and given names. New things get new names to seperate them from things they are like but aren't. Why is this so hard to grasp?
You are the one trying to force the rpg title on games you like, and would like to be rpgs, but aren't.
I am basing my definition on logic and historical presidence and the law of noncontradiction. Things that are differnt have different names. Only rpgs are rpgs. Action games with rpg elements are not rpgs. I really covered all this in the last post if you actually took the time to read it. Sorry about coming off gruff but I'm in a rush and needed to be quick.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sat Aug 20, 2005 4:58 pm |
|
|
niteshade
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 100
|
Hmm....ok so first off regarding Silent Storm, what is it that makes this game a squad game and not a RPG? You use the same 6 characters, constantly improving their ability over time and collecting equipment. You still have not explained how this is any different then wizardry. I haven't played Imperial Glory, sounds like it could be a RPG. Would you recomend it? You will notice that all of the games you mention though are in a non fantasy genre. Most people would at least partialy classify them as RPGs if they were fantasy, even if you would not. Attaching the title of RPG to a non fantasy game though will often threaten to hurt it's sales.
Anyway we don't need to dwell on that too much as it's going off topic. That's actually one rare area where your opinions would generally agree with those of the gaming industry. I really am curious about Imperial Glory though and if you'd recomend it.
Regarding your facts....
Fact: the law of noncontradiction is a fact
Ok guess I can't argue with that
Fact: rpgs have never had user physical abilities impact combat or other gameplay aspects
This is not actually true. Even the very first CRPGs on the apple often had little reflex aspects built into them. And that only increased from there. A number of more traditional non computer RPGs will have physical skill elements as well. What you seem to be saying is that you will never consider a game with aspects based on physical abilies to be a RPG. And that's opinion (and one that pretty much everyone here seems to disagree with).
Fact: a character in an rpg is independant physically from the person playing him. Always has been, always will be.
Given that fact 2 is merely an opinion, that makes this an opinion as well.
"Roleplaying has always been a mental activity. i covered this. In fallout if you didn't have the int ypou couldn't do a lot of things. Dialogue was restricted, etc. Same in arcanum and plenty other games."
That was one of my favorite things about those 2 games. But no other game really used it to that extent. Plus there were plenty of other inteligent things your stupid character could still do. The point is still that there will always be an element of skill in games that is seperate from your character.
Regarding your opinions of the games you disagree about the RPG title on....ie Diablo, Arx Fatalis, Gothic, I've seen you state before that you consider these to be crappy games. Perhaps I misunderstood. But I still see you trying to really come up with a definiton with the sole intention of excluding games like that.
"You are the one trying to force the rpg title on games you like, and would like to be rpgs, but aren't. "
Ah see now here you are trying to make this into a you vs. me thing. You seem to forget that pretty much everyone on these boards, as well as the entire gaming industry disagrees with you. Certainly that alone would seem to imply your facts are not quite as set in stone as you'd like to believe. |
|
Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:06 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:34 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
