What's an RPG?! Yes, again.

[Nedrah]

I think he was rather reffering to having the freedom to fill the roles that are presented to you in any way you like.
Of course, that's still a bit much to ask and there'd still be no RPG's yet - but it sure beats regarding the ability to be playing as Grace Jones as a defining moment of rpgs.

 

[sqeecoo]

No point in defining RPG-s, really. No two have exactly the same features, but instead share some (as someone - who? put it) family resemblances. What you could do is try to define what is NOT an RPG: i.e. enumerate a bunch of features, and, if many of them were neglected or ommited, you could then argue that something, like Oblivion, is not an RPG.

For instance:

- Character development, both stat and choice/alignement-wise, character stats affecting your char's performance to at least a slight degree
- Choices and consequences for your decisions
- Developed main storyline/underdeveloped storyline + quite developed side-quests/story
- Presenting the player with obstacles that are overcome with some or all of the following: dialogue, combat, subterfuge, other available skills

 

[vazquez595654]

I have ever played has allowed my character to be Grace Jones, no matter how badly I want it.

Why do you know her name?

 

[John Yossarian]

I don't know why you guys are still debating this, I defined CRPGs for you guys a long, long time ago.

I know. Twice even. First it was that to be an RPG a computer game had to offer as much freedom in defining your character as PNP RPGs, then it was a game where stats determined success. Do you want to share your third groundbreaking idea?

 

[Sarvis]

First it was that to be an RPG a computer game had to offer as much freedom in defining your character as PNP RPGs,

Actually no, I never said that. The only thing I can think of is my argument that you can't roleplay in a video game if you don't have as much freedom in defining your character as in a PNP game. Considering I don't state roleplaying as a requirement for a game to be a CRPG, there is no conflict there.

 

[John Yossarian]

I see. Forgive me for thinking roleplaying was a requirement for RPGs. So it's the second one then. Just to check, does that mean that while playing Arcanum I can go from playing a RPG to a non-RPG by pressing the space bar in combat? Also, if I simulate (which makes winning dependent on my team's stats) all my matches in say, FIFA 2006, but still manage the team, am I playing an RPG?

 

[Sarvis]

I see. Forgive me for thinking roleplaying was a requirement for RPGs.

It's a good thing it isn't, since it's impossible to do in computer games!

So it's the second one then. Just to check, does that mean that while playing Arcanum I can go from playing a RPG to a non-RPG by pressing the space bar in combat?

What does the space bar do?

Also, if I simulate (which makes winning dependent on my team's stats) all my matches in say, FIFA 2006, but still manage the team, am I playing an RPG?

Why wouldn't it be? One of those Soccer games came up in an earlier discussion with someone else, and we basically decided those games oculd easily be considered SportsRPGs, though my reservation was on how much the character stats actually affected the success of your actions.

 

[John Yossarian]

The space bar changes between RT and TB combat in Arcanum.
About the sports games, simulating the games takes out any player involvement in the actual matches, so besides some randomization, the outcome is decided by the team's stats. That said, don't you think you'd be a little alone calling FIFA 2006 a RPG?

 

[Stalagmite]

Let's not get too complex people, if a game is labeled an RPG, check it out, if you don't think it's a GOOD RPG, then post constructive feedback to the developers. Let's not compare other genres to RPG's, you'll go mad.

 

[HardCode]

If there ain't elf b00bies, it ain't a RPG.

 

[Elhoim]

By the above, nothing is RPG, by the sheer fact that nothing I have ever played has allowed my character to be Grace Jones, no matter how badly I want it.

What I said it´s a pure model. Anything that aproaches it and strives for it is to be considered an RPG.

 

[Voss]

I have ever played has allowed my character to be Grace Jones, no matter how badly I want it.

Why do you know her name?

Why wouldn't I know her name? Its Grace Jones! Singer, model, actress, goddess.

What I said it´s a pure model. Anything that aproaches it and strives for it is to be considered an RPG.

Wow. You managed to be even more trite and meaningless.
Good job!

I see. Forgive me for thinking roleplaying was a requirement for RPGs

Don't talk to the Sarvis. It... never goes well.

 

[sheek]

I thought you were OK but now you're being a Dumbfuck again

Oh darn! What do I do? When was the first time, anyway? I got a good, tacticulal fun feel out of BG 1 & 2 if not so much as roleplaying. Sorry about the confusion.

The first time was your retarded conversations with ViolentOpposition about what to do with a grenade.

You could have just posted "What sheek said"...

I post my own shit, thank you.

No you don't... And don't make me get angry.

 

[Stalagmite]

No you don't... And don't make me get angry.

Don't be just like all the other masculine extremists (fags) on this site, sucking on ViolentOppositions dick.

I actually did have some good points there, even if I was just being a prick for flamings sake.

Anger is a sign of weakness.

 

[Elhoim]

Wow. You managed to be even more trite and meaningless.
Good job!

Wow, your responses are really deep!

What I´m striving for is to define RPG by a pure model (in the same way Durkheim defines the 3 pure models of power), rather than a series of systems used to reach that pure model ( the uses of dialogue tree, stats, etc.).

In a pure model RPG, you should be able to play Grace Jones with all her characteristics.

Now, if you want to do something constructive, help me in the definition of a pure model RPG, instead of throwing witty comments.

 

[Voss]

I'd rather make witty comments, thanks.

Your unattainable 'pure model RPG' is probably one of the most useless concepts I've ever come across in gaming. Its not even really viable with a PnP system, let alone with the additional limits imposed by the computer media.

The old saw of 'what is an RPG?' is ridiculous enough as it is, there isn't any need to add an extra layer of impractical bullshit.

Entertainment doesn't need to meet some unrealistic philosophic Ideal. It just needs to be fun and well done.

 

[kingcomrade]

I'd rather make witty comments, thanks.

Let us know when you start.

 

[Elhoim]

I'd rather make witty comments, thanks.

Let us know when you start.

Entertainment doesn't need to meet some unrealistic philosophic Ideal. It just needs to be fun and well done.

Agreed.

 

[Gambler]

Entertainment doesn't need to meet some unrealistic philosophic Ideal. It just needs to be fun and well done.

What an original an thoughtful observation. Thanks for sharing your wisdom with us. Entertainment should be fun. Games should be good. No need to argue.

Yeah, right. Being entertaining and being an RPG is not the same thing. And explaining everything in terms of "fun" is a lame self-contradictory pseudo-philosophy that is frequently used to show off and excuse oneself from doing any real thinking. It's not an answer, it's an excuse for not having one. What's the point of "explaining" something in a way that provides zero insight and no meaningful conclusions?

 

[Stalagmite]

Chill out Gambler.

Fun games that require little thinking and are well done are good from time to time.

They can make you less stuck-up/You should try 'em sometime.

 

[Gambler]

Fun games that require little thinking and are well done are good from time to time.

I'm not waging a crusade on "fun" games per se. It's mostly a matter of people posting bullshit to feel better about themselves.

Personally, I recognize that some of the games I consider fun are not really any good in the global sense. Is it so freakin' difficult to accept that something you like might not be good? That's what morality, religion, law and craploads of (real) philosophies are about. There is no point in making the distinction between good and bad (or RPGs and other games) if everything you like is automatically good (or RPG).

Moreover, there is no point in discussing your preferences with other people if they are based purely on whimsies of your subconscious. I think Counter-Strike is fun. So what? This particular preference has no rational basis, so there is nothing to speak about.

 

[Voss]

Wow. Way to over-react to something other than the point.

Point was, introducing some bizarrrely impractical 'pure model' of an RPG serves no useful purpose what-so-ever. No one makes RPGs using a pure model. No one criticises them with it, and almost no one (except possibly Elhoim) plays them with such a model in mind.

Additionally, this shit-thread wasn't about good or entertaining or anything else. Just yet another gibbering about 'what is an rpg'. Which is why I was pointing out that a completely impractical model wasn't useful in any way. Further, I never even mentioned rpg=entertaining, or vice versa.

And strangely, though it never came up before your ranting, I can tell the difference between 'entertaining' and 'good'... its a rather different set of judgements.

 

[Gambler]

Sorry, I did miss your point, and I guess the rant was uncalled for.

Point was, introducing some bizarrrely impractical 'pure model' of an RPG serves no useful purpose what-so-ever.

I agree to a some extent. Having a genre definition that does not fit any game is rather strange. However, I think that having a genre that fits pretty much anything is strange as well.

The way I see it, some genres exists mostly for the convenience of describing a game archetype with one word (shooter), while others describe the purpose of the game (simulation). The word RPG is used both ways. It is frequently used as a label, but it also can be used as a concept. Naturally, people here are interested in the concept, because it is more meaningful entity.

...

It's a good thing it isn't, since it's impossible to do in computer games!

Someone asks you to help them fixing their car. Would you quote Shakespeare in response? Would you jump out of the window? Would you whack them with an ice axe? No, you would not (hopefully). In many situations there are only a few logical ways to act. It does not mean you can't act differently, just that usually you do not. Computer RPGs can implement them reasonably well. Also, there is always a possibility to use some algorithm to supplement the hard-coded choices.

 

[theverybigslayer]

A CRPG:

-You play (or mainly control) the role of one fucking idiot who is described by a variety of fucking idiot attributes or fucking idiot skills which can be changed.
-You can interact with the world's fucking idiots reasonably freely.
-Consequences (success/failure) of fucking idiot interaction is based on a fucking idiot rule-system (so that luck and your earlier choices determine likelihood of success)
-Therefore for each fucking idiot interaction you must provide for several possible fucking idiot consequences.

That's basically it.

Fixed.

Now you can go and play the fucking idiot rts Myth (the shittiest 3d rts crap ever).

 

[sheek]

LOL. What did I do now?