Sarvis
Erudite
Vault Dweller said:Success should never be guaranteed, but good skills make it as close to that as possible. That's the whole point that you've failed to grasp. The better you are the harder it is for you to fail. Random = unpredictability. Skills = pattern. Like I said, when I hit 7/10 at a certain skill level, it's not random. That's what skills do.
Yes, success should never be gauranteed. I'm not failing to grasp anything here. The point is that even if your skill is completely maxed out there is a random factor which determines success. If there wasn't, you would not be rolling dice. You would just compare the number on the paper to the number on the other guys' paper.
Compare that to an action game where success is determined entirely by when you press the button and nothing else. That is NOT random.
The odds of that are very small (assuming that you are talking about rolling 1 3 times in a row). However, even if you are that unlucky, you have to look at the whole game. If it was as random as you describe, games would be constant reload fests. They are not, and that proves you wrong.
Look, you admit there is always a chance of failure. That means it is random. If it were not random you would _always_ fail or _always_ succeed. That's what non-random is.
First, if you had to start throwing "what if" points - i.e. what if he's wounded, what if he's lost all his good stuff, what if he's poisoned and dying anyway, etc - is there a point to be made?
You said a level 1 char could never kill a level 20 char. You were wrong, there are situations where it is possible due to <i>randomness</i>.
Nope. Sorry. Doesn't fly. If you add a story and dialogues, it stops being a sport game right there, and becomes something else ranging from adventure to RPG, depending on what you add, set in a sport setting.
You are an idiot.
You are saying the The Legend of Zelda is an RPG.
You are saying Metal Gear Solid is an RPG.
You are wrong.
You are erasing anything that could be called genre in an attempt to define a genre.
The game described above could not be an RPG because there is no character development or stats, and it could not be an Adventure game because there is no puzzle solving.
You are trying to falsely lable a game based on criteria which do not apply.
Just because there were some dungeon crawlers some time ago, doesn't mean that we have to ignore games that had story, dialogues, and choices, and focus on the former just because they fit your cute little theory.
We are not ignoring them. We just are not defining the term CRPG based upon them. Those games you are talking about happende AFTER the term RPG was coined.
To change the definition now would be to <i>exclude those earlier games</i>.
Not to mention it is completely unnecessary, and the elements you are talking about can be inserted into any genre of game.
Uh, because we can role-play in them? Because we can play different characters the way we want?
You keep believing that.
It's funny though that any character you choose will speak exactly the same and have exactly the same thoughts...
But I went ahead and agreed to kris' definition of roleplaying, which essentially states you RP in every game and that it can not be used as a useful criterion for defining a genre. after all, if it were than the old Top Gun arcade game would be an RPG!
*Alert!* Priceless signature material is detected! *Alert!*Remember I am demonstrated that roleplaying is not required in a CRPG!
Try to keep up, this is at least the second time I've said that specifically, and it has been the point of my argument the entire time.
Well, you see, we aren't talking about some pseudo RPGs where there is no role-playing. We are talking about games that are RPGs, and what defines them.So when I say that you can not roleplay in a game I am not saying the game is not an RPG.
[/quote]
Yes...
Only your definition is wrong. Either it discludes early RPGs or it includes too much depending on what definition of roleplaying you go with.
Nice job.
You can't define away games as not RPGs using a definition that is still under discussion by the way.
Saying that you can't role-play just because you can't shrug a certain way is exactly like complaining about pants.
Not because I can't shrug a certain way, but because words are being placed in my characters mouth by someone other than me.
That is a LOT different than red pants.
Proves that it's not impossible (see your original statement)Of course, I agree, but if you paid attention, I also said "a character system, situations that could be handled differently...". If a game can do all that plus good dialogues, then I would call it an RPG.
But very few RPGs through time have had those things.
[/quote]
I never said it was impossible (in this thread.) I sad that games are RPGs even without those things.
In fact, you made fun of that point about 5 quote blocks ago! It's in bright red if yo don't remember...
If shooting things with a bazooka is just one out of many ways to play the game, and if the mouse merely indicates direction of attack, and then my weapon skills take over, then I would consider it an RPG.
No one said anything about weapon skills. I'm discluding dialog options which affect the story, what you call roleplaying, from being part of the definition of an RPG. Skills and stats are what I said WERE parts of an RPG.
Also, I never said there were any skills in this hypothetical game. I said it was Quake, the actual game Quake, with dialog options and roleplaying as you see it.
In other words, you just agreed with me by saying if skills determined what happened with your shot it was an RPG.
Because I am claiming that that is what makes an RPG, combined with stats and character development.
Well, although there are many definitions provided by all kinda morons, but here, at RPG Codex, we talk about RPGs where RP actually stands for something.
You talk about a lot of RPGs. You guys, in fact, frequently discuss RPGs which do not measure up to your standards. RP is one of your standards, which is very rarely met. Yet you find all kinds of RPGs which do not meet that standard, and you talk shit about them constantly.
Remember, despite the storyline being on a rail and the player not having any dialog options at all Final Fantasy X is an RPG.
Maybe not a _good_ RPG by your standards, since it does not provide what you are looking for, but it is an RPG nonetheless.
It seems to me that RP for you is mostly conversations. For me, it's about choices when handling different situations.
Ok.
Then you must consider GTA: San Andreas an RPG.
The same could be said about anything else. Take your favourite conversation thing. By now, I'm aware of your position, and of the arguments you are using. You may think that you are instantly role-playing here, thinking up responses as you go, but technically, it's just picking from the list of choices available to you and sorted down by your own character development. I'm not sure how long you've been hanging around here, but take a look at this forum, everyone, including myself, is predictable. If I were to post a news post right now, I know what most people would say: Saint, Volourn, Exitium, Role-Player, etc. So, while we may think that we are about to make the most original point evar, to the others it's merely picking an option they expect you to.
An interesting theory.
However the difference is that the option is coming from within, rather than being dictated to the poster by an outside force such as a game designer.
More to the point, I could roleplay a different character if I wanted and throw you off completely.
In fact, that is what roleplaying is about. Putting yourself into a different persona and acting based upon that, rather than just acting like yourself.
when you say you are roleplaying because you see different solutions to a problem, are you really roleplaying? Is it _you_ thinking of a solution to the problem, or <i>your character</i>, as acted by you, thinking of the solution...
<b>Astromarine</b>
Sarvis, you are being moronic. You are arguing from the flawed premise of binary definitions. Either something allows unlimited choice and possibility, and it is a roleplaying game, or it limits you in some way and is therefore NOT roleplaying.
Well, yes. If something else is determining your actions how can you be considered to be roleplaying?
Also, there is a second fallacy of your argument: the fact that the definition of RPG has to be immutable, and was frozen in time when Akallabeth was released.
It _should_ be though. Changing the definition leads to confusion, and adds nothing that can't be done with combinations of genre or new terms.
The genre tells people what type of <i>gameplay</i> to expect. If I see RPG on a game box, then load up a game and am playing a Quake clone I'm going to be awfully confused no matter how much story and dialog there is.
Not to mention that those things are becoming increasingly large elements of almost all genre of game. Even in GTA games, which always had a fairly intricate storyline, there is now an option where you can pick positive or negative responses when people yell at you on the street.
How long until a GTA game has intricate dialog and you can actually affect the plot? (Maybe you can do this in GTA:SA, just got it so don't know yet...) But the basic gameplay will still be different than an RPG.
Though I should admit here I have absolutely no idea what genre GTA is... heh.
A cRPG is nothing less than the attempt to code a P&PRPG using computers. The tool used to attempt that translation, the computer, has evolved since the Apple 2 and Akallabeth, and therefore so has the "completeness" of the translation. While at the beginning only the mathematical rule model and a linear path was possible, the advances since then in hardware performance, and game theory, have allowed for a greater portion of the P&P experience to be translated. Now it is possible for developers to give us storylines and gameplay which branches in several points, so that two people who choose differently since the baginning of the game telling each other how it went will relate two completely different experiences. Of course, most developers choose to still limit their game to the older formula, but that doesn't change the fact that the possibility is there.
I understand what you, and the others, are saying.
However you guys seem to keep ignoring what I am saying:
All of those things can be inserted into any genre of game you want.
Therefore it is pointless to label games as CRPGs based on those aspects, unless you want to just call ALL games CRPGs.
Not to mention that defining the term CRPG based on these new elements would automatically disclude many past games and many modern games that you admit do not make use of this potential.
Make up a new term for the type of game you guys want or somethihng, don't change an existing term to something which discludes the past games.
Let's face it: in 90% of the P&P RPGs, there will not be more possible branches planned than in a cRPG. A GM will prepare a storyline, and leave the details fuzzy so that the players, whose gameplay possibilities are chosen from a finite set, can tailor those details to their style and choices. Granted, there are completely freeform stories made up on-the-fly by the whole group, but let's face it: unless they are VERY good and know each other VERY well, these will mostly suck. When I was a GM, and I decided that some event would happen, it simply would, even though I gave the players some choice of where and when based on their movements prior to the event, and complete choice on how they react to it.
Yes, but a computer can't leave the details fuzzy. It has to lock people into a specific set of action the entire way, and each extra specific set of actions takes more time to design. You cannot cover everything everyone would do.
A DM can react and play along, and if he is good continue the good story.
A computer cannot, in can only offer you a specific list of actions which yo ucan choose from.
Therefore, your point where a game is not an RPG unless it gives you COMPLETE freedom is both naive, because in P&P you also don't have complete freedom, and invalid, because cRPGs are the best possible approach to P&P, where developers prune the universe of choices to a meaningful set that can be a) accurately portrayed and b) fun to play. You are saying that a game where a dev gives you the choice between some possible reactions to an event is not an RPG (or at least not "roleplaying") unless you ALSO have the option "do nothing, go home, masturbate into an old sock, then kill myself".That's just retarded
What is it with you people.
I am not saying a game cannot be an RPG unless it has the freedom of a GM. I am saying you cannot roleplay in that game. I am saying that an RPG does not require roleplaying.
Again, designers could offer you all those same choices in a freaking flight sim if they wanted. That does not make the flight sim an RPG, even if you could roleplay in it. Even if you could go home and masturbate into a sock in that game, it is still a flight sim.
<b>kris</b>
Many RPGs have been without those choices, and those choices could be inserted into any other genre without making it an RPG.