"Roleplaying" bla bla bla

[MF]

And I have to agree with S8. Diablo is a hack&slash game. Mildly reminiscent of a dungeon crawl which is again just a sub-genre of RPGs. Claiming that levels, stats and elves are more defining features of RPGs than character interaction and story development sounds as simplistic as claiming tb was forced by technical issues.

I enjoy those games more, but I'm not sure they're what most people perceive as typical RPG's. They should be RPG's, but I think the center of gravity of the RPG spectrum lies closer to Diablo. It's a misnomen, really.

 

[JarlFrank]

Gotta agree with Jasede here. As much as I like my RPGs to have awesome story, depth and C&C, and System Shock does have more of all of that than Diablo, Diablo still is closer to the original concept of an RPG than SS2 is. You walk around dungeons, kill monsters, collect loot, level up your character. Just like in the first edition of D&D.

So a really drunk guy who can't walk, can't speak coherently and has no control over his bowels or bladder is a better exemplar of a human being than a nobel prize winning humanitarian by the virtue that the drunk's behavior is closer to that of an infant?

RPGs and gaming in general have had a pretty long childhood, and when they start to mature we should be saying "your doing it wrong" to the progressives and championing throwbacks for their commonality to RPG infancy? Fuck that.

I'm not saying "you're doing it wrong" to any of the innovators. I actually like it when fresh changes are brought into the genre. But Diablo just fits better to the general definition of RPG than System Shock 2, for me at least. I'm not saying SS2 is bad for not being RPGish enough. And actually I don't fucking care about definitions as long as the game owns. But if I go by my definition, I'd rate Diablo more RPG than SS2.

 

[Hory]

Gotta agree with Jasede here. As much as I like my RPGs to have awesome story, depth and C&C, and System Shock does have more of all of that than Diablo, Diablo still is closer to the original concept of an RPG than SS2 is. You walk around dungeons, kill monsters, collect loot, level up your character. Just like in the first edition of D&D.

The first edition of D&D was called, and I quote what's on the box, "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns". When did "role-playing" start to be used? I don't know, but proably as people started using these rules for adventures which had more than combat. The role-playing part is not something they give in the box, it's the unwritten experience that the players create. Even so, roleplaying games existed before D&D.

 

[Warden]

You decide to share your thoughts anyway, and you get called names. Warden, you probably think you put the smack down on all idiots, but the reality is that you're a stubborn prick who will insult everyone with a different opinion. I would call someone who doesn't know the difference between empathy and compassion an idiot, but hey, who am I to judge the almighty smiter?

I'm getting called names by a few idiots.. and that's not a problem. Stupid people can't have a proper argument with me so they resort to this kind of "communication". And I'm happy to respond properly.
On the other hand, with people like Jasede, who want to have a normal conversation, even though we don't necessarily share the same ideas, I can have a normal interaction of thoughts without insults.

And you, idiot, should learn your native language better.. compassion is pretty much a synonym for empathy. *english lessons from a non-native eniglish speaker*
But of course, since you gave that word 75 more meanings in your role-playing sessions everybody should accept it.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ (see for pity, empathy, compassion)

 

[MF]

snip

Compassion and Empathy are two completely different concepts. Freedictionary is edited by high school kids. Try Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy
versus
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compassion

If you don't understand the difference, it doesn't mean there isn't one. Also, I'm flattered you would think that I am a native speaker, as I was born and raised near Amsterdam, The Netherlands, where I still live.

The totally, and I do mean totally unwarranted arrogance with which you just spat out that condescending bullshit of yours makes me feel bad for you.

 

[SkeleTony]

I would also add that, While Diablo has it's problems(too simple and real time) it is certainly closer to a RPG than SS2 and DOOM and the like.

Wait, how is Diablo more RPG than System Shock 2? I'd put System Shock 2 ahead for a few reasons:

• Since both games offer sweet fuck all in terms of player character exposition, then "defining a character" is limited solely to functional elements. Character customisation in Diablo amounts to "how I kill stuff". Character choices in Diablo don't affect the way you approach the single minded challenge the game offers. In System Shock 2, distinct characters will behave and interact with the world in different ways, with different gameplay avenues open to them.
  
• Diablo's plot is about on par with Doom. There's no focus on any sort of narrative. System Shock 2 tells a well realised story through defined characters, and has an antagonist who is far more than a sprite on level 12 (?) of the dungeon.
  
• Both games require about the same degree of player skill, and use similar mechanics to give character skill relevance, so Diablo doesn't get an automatic pass because System Shock 2 is a first-person shooter.

I'd like to hear your reasons as to why Diablo is more like an RPG. Oh wait:

RPGs are, were and always have been, at their core tactical, stat-based simulation games.

That's certainly what they started from, but I fail to see how that description makes any distinction from the tabletop wargames that RPGs made a conscious move away from. It's like saying that "Popular music is, was and always has been, at its core the songs of african slave workers" - just because that's the predominant root. Times change, things move on, and like it or not, the definition of RPG now represents something a bit different.

What I don't get, is that you have people like yourself who want RPGs to be tactical games with miniatures, and people who want RPGs to be first person shooters. Now that's all well and good but I have to ask the question - We already have tactical wargames, and we already have first person shooters. Why relegate RPGs to a sub-class of either instead of championing the elements within the nebulous definition of "RPG" that make it something entirely different?

RPGs ARE basically squad-level tactical games. They are differentiated from 'wargames'(from which they derived) in that 'Wargames' involve players strategically commanding armies of various units against comparable opposition(other players commanding different armies with different units or the same units but a different faction). Roleplaying games involve players tactically and strategically controlling individual characters or a small squad of characters and these characters are composites of various attributes.
The "roleplaying" part comes in because the vary nature of the game mechanics lends itself well to various degrees of "playing a role" that range from what you guys call "gamist', 'powergamer', 'munchkin etc. all the way up to outright LARPing.

That does not mean that story, acting, 'roleplaying'(in the sense that most kids use the term in these debates), creativity, plot, etc. are essential to a game being an RPG. It is the MECHANICS themselves that are the defining feature, regardless of how YOU personally want to make use of those mechanics.

Words shift meaning with context, usage, speaker and audience. Console-kiddies define "roleplaying game" as bad anime graphics infused game where pre-generated characters are forced onto the player rather than him being allowed to create characters and emo-driven linearity. LARPers/freeform kiddies have an entirely different definition.

I prefer what I call essential definitions. An essential definition is one that trims away the extraneous, subjective stuff and retains only that which is essential to differentiate the term from other, tangentially related terms.

hence "roleplaying game" = "Squad-based(at least ONE character and often more) tactical simulation with characters defined by quantified statistics.". If you or anyone else wants to re-define the term with your own extraneous, subjective preferences and use that re-definition then so be it. That is how language evolves after all. But I will not give my assent to such.

 

[Warden]

Compassion and Empathy are two completely different concepts. Freedictionary is edited by high school kids. Try Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy
versus
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compassion

If you don't understand the difference, it doesn't mean there isn't one. Also, I'm flattered you would think that I am a native speaker, as I was born and raised near Amsterdam, The Netherlands, where I still live.

The totally, and I do mean totally unwarranted arrogance with which you just spat out that condescending bullshit of yours makes me feel bad for you.

Eh.. so, when a source of information doesn't support our opinions then it's something "edited by high-school kids". So codex-like..
Ok, lets use your dictionary, and lest trash a bit more of my time discussing worthless things with worthless people whose lives revolve around arguing over the internet about the difference between the "concepts of empathy and compassion".

*Compassion:
sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it
synonyms: see pity

*Pity:
1 a: sympathetic sorrow for one suffering, distressed, or unhappy b: capacity to feel pity
2: something to be regretted <it>
synonyms: pity, compassion, commiseration, condolence, sympathy

*Empathy:
1: the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it
2: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this

Lets analyze; it's about being able to understand somebody else's feelings. You can't feel sorrow for one suffering if you don't have empathy - so empathy and compassion go hand in hand. I can say.. "I have empathy for him" or "I feel compassion for him", is there any substantial difference? I don't think so. Yes, empathy is broader since compassion seems to be linked more with understanding somebody else's sorrow and distress. Empathy means understanding feelings of others is general.

Why would you be flattered if somebody who "doesn't know the difference between empathy and compassion (which makes him an idiot)" , , says your english is good? It might as well be that your english sucks very much. :/

And regarding your last paragraph.. you don't have to feel bad for me - you don't have to even feel any empathy or compassion for me. Just please, try to not use so many big words, they sound silly when used by little people.

 

[Section8]

I prefer what I call essential definitions. An essential definition is one that trims away the extraneous, subjective stuff and retains only that which is essential to differentiate the term from other, tangentially related terms.

You've lost me. I get the intention here but what you're deeming to be "extraneous" and "subjective" are the very elements that differentiate the term.

"roleplaying game" = "Squad-based(at least ONE character and often more) tactical simulation with characters defined by quantified statistics."

X-Com, Sabre Team, Rainbow Six, Tribes, Warcraft 3, Operation Flashpoint, Worms, JRPGs, Pretty Soldier Wars, Hostile Waters, Archon, Achtung Spitfire, Wing Commander, FIFA, Tiger Woods Golf, NHL Live, NBA Jam, Harry Potter's Quidditch World Cup, Championship Manager, Melbourne Cup Challenge, SWAT 4, Super Mario Bros 2, Doom, etc. all fit that definition without much of a stretch.

Of course, the sane thing to do is treat the elements that are common within most, if not all genre boundaries as extraneous and subjective to the definition and strip "RPG" back to the characteristics that make it unique, not what is most common in historical examples.

 

[Section8]

*Compassion:
sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it
synonyms: see pity

*Empathy:
1: the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it
2: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this

Try again. You're missing some crucial differences.

 

[SkeleTony]

I prefer what I call essential definitions. An essential definition is one that trims away the extraneous, subjective stuff and retains only that which is essential to differentiate the term from other, tangentially related terms.

You've lost me. I get the intention here but what you're deeming to be "extraneous" and "subjective" are the very elements that differentiate the term.

Not so. I am not bashing those elements you enjoy(I assume you are referring to things like plot, interesting personalities/characters, scripting/dialog etc.?) but they are not necessary to a game being a RPG. Nethack is a RPG and it largely lacks these elements. it is certainly not any other genre and the fact that it belongs to a sub-genre known as "roguelikes" is irrelevant. Diablo has NPCs and plot that someone may find interesting or compelling and whether they do or do not is a subjective matter. A lot of people say Ultima IV had brilliant 'story' elements/non "gamist" stuff but whether you or I agree with that subjective assessment or not th4e fact remains that the ONLY thing ALL of these RPGs have in common, essentially is the squad-based tactical simulation stuff.

"roleplaying game" = "Squad-based(at least ONE character and often more) tactical simulation with characters defined by quantified statistics."

X-Com, Sabre Team, Rainbow Six, Tribes, Warcraft 3, Operation Flashpoint, Worms, JRPGs, Pretty Soldier Wars, Hostile Waters, Archon, Achtung Spitfire, Wing Commander, FIFA, Tiger Woods Golf, NHL Live, NBA Jam, Harry Potter's Quidditch World Cup, Championship Manager, Melbourne Cup Challenge, SWAT 4, Super Mario Bros 2, Doom, etc. all fit that definition without much of a stretch.

Strongly disagree. That is why I am always very careful and meticulous about such descriptions(but that does not mean I won't be called on to further clarify ). Tiger woods does not have squads of one or more characters defined by quantified attruibutes and such. I know what you are getting at here but Tiger woods(or Madden NFL players) feature something more akin to the "health/life" and "mana" bars of a Zelda game or something. Not attributes like "Strength", "Intelligence" etc. My use of the term "attribute" is meant to differentiate from things like that in that "attributes" tend to cover ALL aspects of a character, broadly and not just those that relate to the non-RPG genre such as 'Golf ability'. In Tiger Woods you will not find any "intelligence" or even "Dexterity" attributes that apply broadly to the world in general. All of the Tiger Woods(and similar sports games) quantifications relate specifically to a single skill set or sporting ability(i.e. "Throwing accuracy" in a football game or "Putting" in a golf game).

Not every RPG system does a GOOD j of this broad representation but that is the intent behind all of them. AD&D(as bad a game as that is) is not a game concentrating on competitive dart-throwing where attributes are limited to "Dart accuracy" and "Concentration while aiming darts", but broadly it allows for PCs to throw darts with varying degrees of ability based on their attributes.

Of course, the sane thing to do is treat the elements that are common within most, if not all genre boundaries as extraneous and subjective to the definition and strip "RPG" back to the characteristics that make it unique, not what is most common in historical examples.

Agreed...hence my definition above.

 

[galsiah]

Agreed...hence my definition above.

Yet your "definition" indicates pretty much none of what you seem to be advocating in your extended explanation.

At the very least you could lose the utterly vacuous "squad-based (at least ONE character and often more)", and replace it with some explicit mention of your attributes-covering-a-broad-range-of-character-abilities bit. Since the ideal case being to cover all aspects of a character is the part which marks RPGs out from all those other games, it seems rather silly not to mention it in your initial definition.

Coming in later with "What I meant by 'characters defined by' was..." just seems a bit weak when there was nothing stopping you from being explicit about it in the first place - particularly when you've wasted space to make clear that there are a non-zero amount of characters in any squad.

 

[Squeek]

The first edition of D&D was called, and I quote what's on the box, "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns". When did "role-playing" start to be used? I don't know, but proably as people started using these rules for adventures which had more than combat. The role-playing part is not something they give in the box, it's the unwritten experience that the players create. Even so, roleplaying games existed before D&D.

Hory, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Hory]

The first edition of D&D was called, and I quote what's on the box, "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns". When did "role-playing" start to be used? I don't know, but proably as people started using these rules for adventures which had more than combat. The role-playing part is not something they give in the box, it's the unwritten experience that the players create. Even so, roleplaying games existed before D&D.

Hory, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Then you tell me when was "roleplaying" used for the first time (and for the first time in conjunction with D&D), by whom, and with regards to which adventure?

 

[Squeek]

So you expect everyone to accept your assumption unless it can be proven wrong? Why not try proving you're right instead? Don't bother. You're not. Sorry. It just isn't what happened.

I remember reading those books for the first time. A friend of mine handed one to me and watched as I read it. It wasn't easy, because it was riddled with typos, ommissions, duplications, even missing pages. There seemed to be two different points to the one I was reading. But what it implied was clear enough and was like nothing either of us had ever heard of or imagined before.

That was in late 1974, and we were among the very first to play D&D in Los Angeles. We used to play over at a hobby shop called La Maison de Guerre. The owner hosted tabletop wargame campaigns and also DM'd dungeon crawls. Some of us used to play over at Caltech too (their computer club hosted their own version of the game).

Though Gygax' books had about the same quality as an 8th-grade english class project, it was clear to all of us what they implied. D&D was a game where you assumed the role of a character like the ones in the fantasy-adventure novels we all enjoyed. It was the beginning of RPG.

There were no official adventure campaigns for D&D back then. You explored the world the DM created and spent most of your time in combat.

That was it. That was how it happened.

 

[Hory]

So you expect everyone to accept your assumption unless it can be proven wrong?

No, I don't, and that's why I quite clearly said it's an assumption.

Why not try proving you're right instead? Don't bother. You're not. Sorry. It just isn't what happened.

I have no interest in becoming a researcher of RPG history, when there are so many that have a personal experience of those times and can share it here. That's why I asked you these questions, and also because you quickly jump to contradict me, as if you do know the ultimate truth on this.

Though Gygax' books had about the same quality as an 8th-grade english class project, it was clear to all of us what they implied. D&D was a game where you assumed the role of a character like the ones in the fantasy-adventure novels we all enjoyed.

Not good enough. In almost any game you assume a role, but if actual role-playing is minimal, it isn't a role-playing game, it's what it said on the D&D box.

It was the beginning of RPG.

Perhaps, in the same way that photography are the beginning of films (moving pictures), but the former doesn't define movies better than the latter.

There were no official adventure campaigns for D&D back then. You explored the world the DM created and spent most of your time in combat.

And that's why I said that the actual role-playing was something that was optionally implemented by the players, NOT something defined by D&D.

That was it. That was how it happened.

Thanks for recalling this.

 

[Section8]

Not so. I am not bashing those elements you enjoy(I assume you are referring to things like plot, interesting personalities/characters, scripting/dialog etc.?) but they are not necessary to a game being a RPG.

No, I'm not talking about those elements, because they're elements common within many genre boundaries too. I think the crucial element is a primary focus on a character you define and/or develop in both a functional and narrative sense. Now I know that disqualifies a lot of RPGs throughout history, simply because they emphasize the functional side and lack any really narrative development of the character.

But hey, "dungeon crawler" is a better description for that sort of game anyway, and revoking its RPG badge doesn't diminish the actual product. While funnily enough, "role-playing game" is a fantastically appropriate label for a game like Fallout, Arcanum or Bloodlines.

Nethack is a RPG and it largely lacks these elements. it is certainly not any other genre and the fact that it belongs to a sub-genre known as "roguelikes" is irrelevant.

Nethack (and roguelikes in general) are pretty lacking in narrative character development, but there are some interesting things to consider:

• There are events dramatic enough to register as "narrative significance". Death for instance. Or being horribly scarred. Or having your equipment decimated by rust/acid attacks. Casting recall and struggling to survive just long enough to be yanked upward and away from certain death.
• There are other agents within the world that contribute significantly to your own story. Gods that reward and punish you, mutations that permanently change you, etc.
• The random nature of the world means you're never following a story, you're given almost exclusive authorship.

I think that's enough to consider them RPGs. Diablo is sorely lacking in any kind of dramatic events. A quick glance at a character sheet is basically all you need to know.

Diablo has NPCs and plot that someone may find interesting or compelling and whether they do or do not is a subjective matter.

Most games have NPCs and plot in one form of another, and whether they're compelling or not doesn't really contribute toward defining them as an RPG (or not).

A lot of people say Ultima IV had brilliant 'story' elements/non "gamist" stuff but whether you or I agree with that subjective assessment or not th4e fact remains that the ONLY thing ALL of these RPGs have in common, essentially is the squad-based tactical simulation stuff.

Here's the problem with that - even though that may be the only common element in historical evidence - it's just not exclusive. It's not even a rarity within other genres. It's like saying the only common element in the music people choose to label as punk is intruments and vocals, therefore punk music can be defined as music with instruments and vocals.

Strongly disagree. That is why I am always very careful and meticulous about such descriptions(but that does not mean I won't be called on to further clarify Wink). Tiger woods does not have squads of one or more characters defined by quantified attruibutes and such. I know what you are getting at here but Tiger woods(or Madden NFL players) feature something more akin to the "health/life" and "mana" bars of a Zelda game or something. Not attributes like "Strength", "Intelligence" etc. My use of the term "attribute" is meant to differentiate from things like that in that "attributes" tend to cover ALL aspects of a character, broadly and not just those that relate to the non-RPG genre such as 'Golf ability'. In Tiger Woods you will not find any "intelligence" or even "Dexterity" attributes that apply broadly to the world in general. All of the Tiger Woods(and similar sports games) quantifications relate specifically to a single skill set or sporting ability(i.e. "Throwing accuracy" in a football game or "Putting" in a golf game).

Okay, I get that point of view, but I'm still defining characters. The long-hitter who can't putt to save himself. The guy who can't hit straight, but can make remarkable saves from bunkers. The guy with the ball on a string who can land it exactly where he wants every time.

I fail to see how that is any different to a multitude of RPGs where a system that appears to have much broader definitions really only defines how you approach the same gameplay avenue - combat. Most RPGs don't really let you apply yourself to the world in general beyond a couple of token functions. I actually agree with what you're saying, and it's a large part of the all important "character definition", but it doesn't sit well with the argument of "here's the only thing all RPGs have", nor does it necessarily jibe with the "tactical simulation" if you're talking about interacting with the world. Being strong/dexterous enough to climb a tree and rescue a cat would be hard to justify as "tactical", even within the very vague definition of tactics.

 

[eth]

Diablo is an RPG cause if i post a comment like "diablo was the worst rpg of the year" someone from Blizzard won't laugh at me and continue reading my reasons.
SS2 is not an RPG cause if i post a comment like "ss2 was the worst rpg of the year" someone from Looking Glass will just laugh at me ignoring the rest of the post.
You see companies market their games to specific target groups. When they developed the game it was these groups that they were interested to satisfy. Many games fail on that, other succeed. But either way that doesn't make them less or more part of the genre. It makes them "bad examples of the genre" or "good examples of the genre". I am a SS2 fanboy too, never liked Diablo and generally play cRPG games. Thats no reason though to confuse myself about SS2 being RPG - of course its not cause simply it never tried to be one at all. Diablo tried to be an RPG and for many of us failed. But still its an RPG cause it tried to be so.

I really don't get why some people think that we have the right to decline the official genre of a game when it doesn't fulfil our personal vision/opinion of the genre itself.

ps: Someone wrote SS2 had C&C... there wasn't a single choice in the whole game at all apart from choosing where to put your stat points. Well except if you consider the part where you hear last delacroix's log a choice, but that's it - nothing more.

 

[Section8]

I really don't get why some people think that we have the right to decline the official genre of a game when it doesn't fulfil our personal vision/opinion of the genre itself.

Well, because "official genre" is just marketing babble and begs to be ignored. It's no different to how we discard "immersion" when used as a buzzword and try to give the word an actual meaning. Or how we disregard countless "official" reviews giving a game 100% ratings in favour of peer opinion.

ps: Someone wrote SS2 had C&C... there wasn't a single choice in the whole game at all apart from choosing where to put your stat points. Well except if you consider the part where you hear last delacroix's log a choice, but that's it - nothing more.

That's a very limited view of choice and consequence that reduces it to branching narrative and such. If you dig deeper, you see it permeates the whole character system and the way characters are able to interact. There's also a reasonable degree of tactical choice. Do you spend nanites hacking security panels? Shoot cameras? Use Psi powers to remain undetected? Do you keep your items in good repair, or carry around lots of backups? Which implant(s) do you use? Which OS upgrades do you take? There are buttloads of ways the system trades choices off against one another in ways that are a lot more interesting than how efficient you are as a killer.

It's a long way from a game like Fallout or Arcanum, but in comparison to Diablo, where the original comment was made, it's light years ahead. About the only interesting choices Diablo has on any level involve the tactical use of magic, and even that's pretty simple.

 

[Hory]

Diablo is accepted as a RPG simply because it is more of a RPG than most games and it is as much a RPG as most computer RPGs. If you would regard it on an objective scale, it would be quite far from "perfect RPGness" (to which Pen & Paper would be close).

I mean, Jesus Christ, in Diablo you have no opportunity to express yourself (the character) or to make choices. In P&P, even if it's a dungeon crawler, you can think of an original situational tactical solution, taunt your dying enemy, or at least have a say in the way you want to swing your sword.

You know, 50 years ago they had entirely different perceptions for what is "a fast car" than they have today. When a game appears, such as Morrowind, that feels more of a RPG than the average dungeon crawler, it is praised as being top-of-the-line, and most people don't really know better.

 

[Warden]

Try again. You're missing some crucial differences.

I tried hard explaining it to you.. but it doesn't help it seems.
Desire or not to alleviate it doesn't make it different than potato-patato, by much.
And I would question the part about the desire to alleviate it - you don't have to want to help while feeling compassion. Do you want to help all people for whom you feel compassion?
Pity is indicated as the synonym for compassion everywhere, and pity is: Sympathy and sorrow aroused by the misfortune or suffering of another. (There's no mention of wanting to alleviate anything whatsoever.)

 

[Section8]

tried hard explaining it to you.. but it doesn't help it seems.
Desire or not to alleviate it doesn't make it different than potato-patato, by much.

I can empathise with a happy person. If I desired to alleviate their happiness that would be a long way away from compassion. Likewise, I could empathise with someone's suffering and wish more suffering upon them. The "desire to alleviate" bit makes a huge difference, as does the very specific focus on distress.

And I would question the part about the desire to alleviate it - you don't have to want to help while feeling compassion. Do you want to help all people for whom you feel compassion?

Well yeah, because that's what compassion means. It's like saying "Do you want to be truthful toward people you're being honest with?" Incidentally, you're the one who pulled those dictionary definitions to try and prove a point - and now you're selectively ignoring crucial parts of the definition? Well played, sir.

Pity is indicated as the synonym for compassion everywhere, and pity is: Sympathy and sorrow aroused by the misfortune or suffering of another. (There's no mention of wanting to alleviate anything whatsoever.)

You do realise that synonyms aren't necessarily words with the same exact meaning, right? That would probably be why "compassion" has a dictionary entry of its own and doesn't just say "see pity".

 

[eth]

Well, because "official genre" is just marketing babble and begs to be ignored. It's no different to how we discard "immersion" when used as a buzzword and try to give the word an actual meaning. Or how we disregard countless "official" reviews giving a game 100% ratings in favour of peer opinion.

I think its a different thing Section8. They can throw as many buzzwords as they like, like "immersion", "rpg elements", "non linear story" etc etc but a game is either RPG, action, adventure,strategy and that's it. Diablo is RPG, SS2 is action game. They can't be two things at once. Even on the most hybrid games, at the end their gameplay focuses on something and that defines the genre (and if the company isn't retarded they will announce the game as such).

edit: Don't forget that when you throw the label "RPG" on a game you automatically decline any other gaming target group, and if you consider that the specific target group is maybe the smaller one, no company on their right mind would label it as such without a reason. It's their view/implementantion of what an RPG is and of course you can love it or hate it.

 

[Section8]

[/quote]I think its a different thing Section8. They can throw as many buzzwords as they like, like "immersion", "rpg elements", "non linear story" etc etc but a game is either RPG, action, adventure,strategy and that's it. Diablo is RPG, SS2 is action game.[/quote]

There's no point in using such broad categorisations, because people think smaller. Dance Dance Revolution and Sega Rally are both action games, but you can't really compare rhythm games to racing games, nor assume a fan of one is a fan of the other. Warcraft and Championship Manager are both strategy games, but again you can't compare a real-time strategy with a sports management game.

They can't be two things at once. Even on the most hybrid games, at the end their gameplay focuses on something and that defines the genre (and if the company isn't retarded they will announce the game as such).

And that's just silly. Sure you can usually pick a "dominant" genre with hybrids, but that doesn't mean you ignore the other hybrid elements, especially if the different gameplay modes are delineated, such as the Natural Selection mod where you can play a first person shooter as a grunt, or a real-time strategy as a commander.

edit: Don't forget that when you throw the label "RPG" on a game you automatically decline any other gaming target group

Now you're just talking crazy. Do you really think that games like Morrowind and Oblivion were targetted at niche RPGers? Do you think the millions of copies sold were only to RPGers? Do you think every gamer outside of the RPG niche looked at Oblivion screenshots and thought "Wow! That looks awesome! Shame it's an RPG and I'm forbidden by law to play it"?

Genre boundaries don't mean a whole lot.

 

[VasikkA]

It seems all of you guys have missed the concept of "role-playing"

 

[MetalCraze]

It seems all of you guys have missed the concept of "role-playing"

yes... Microsoft knows best

also I can't believe that we are having another roleplaying topic