Teh irony! (Dave Gaider on RPGs)

[Human Shield]

The whole argument is pointless because you see a binary on-off switch for RPGs, when the rest of the world sees levels.

You also treat the idea as a historical concept, while the rest of world treats it as definition concept.

It's good to know classics like The Bard's Tale and Pool of Radiance aren't RPGs then. What a relief!

Didn't Bard's Tale have open travel? Reactive world means using skills to effect the environment in permanent ways, that would be different from other skills. As well as a seamless and open progression.

The whole point of RPG gameplay was to remove rails, create a world with many facets, and using character skill to react to those facets in different ways.

Old dungeon crawlers had traps, water, puzzles, etc... Different facets interacted with differently based on a created character.

On-off, forward-stop. Any one directional element outside an overall goal is a detriment to RPGs.

Almost as relieving as knowing that GTA, Zelda and DeusEx really are RPGs!

GTA is a mission-based action game. Forward-pause gameplay.
Zelda is an action-adventure game. Forward-pause gameplay.
DeusEx is an action game with weak RPG fragments. Forward-pause gameplay.

Oh, and don't forget your classic "game with nothing but story is really a strategy game!"

The correct point (since your memory is shit) is a game based on dialog using stats to accomplish a goal.

Strategy to pick sword attack. Strategy to pick "persuade option".

Just because you're retardedly hung up on superficial means....

"If researching on a computer ingame provides game information it still isn't good enough because it needs to display every single website."

 

[Atrokkus]

2Sarvis:
Again I would like to inquire: what games you deem RPGs? Just make a list of, according to your standarts, pure RPGs.

 

[Sarvis]

Reactive world means using skills to effect the environment in permanent ways,

...
Old dungeon crawlers had traps, water, puzzles, etc... Different facets interacted with differently based on a created character.
[/quote]

So a single hallway with a trap is an RPG because you have "different facets?" Oh wait, I guess you need another hallway so you can just walk around.

GTA is a mission-based action game. Forward-pause gameplay.
Zelda is an action-adventure game. Forward-pause gameplay.
DeusEx is an action game with weak RPG fragments. Forward-pause gameplay.

You didn't say anything about forward-pause gameplay, you just said reactive world. All of those have reactive worlds. GTA is all about a reactive world, even if you are forced into a linear plot. Cops chase you down, gangs try to take over your territory.

Zelda has a reactive world, as you gain abilities to solve puzzles you change the face of the world. A simple example is in OoT you can plant vines in the past and they grow into new pathways in the future.

The correct point (since your memory is shit) is a game based on dialog using stats to accomplish a goal.

No, the correct point is that story is expressed through dialog so a game of nothing but dialog is actually nothing but story.

Hrm... remember that experimental game posted a couple weeks ago? That's what I had in mind. To most of us it's... well I don't even know what it would be really. You call it a strategy game though.

 

[Sarvis]

But yet you keep replying. So you want to reply...but its all vapor.

Oh yeah, and I'm still waiting for one of you to tell me the difference in genre between Fallout <i>expressed as</i> an FPS, an Adventure game and an RPG.

Then again, I wasn't expecting you to deal with my actual argument... it's much easier to just paint a bad picture of me and call my arguments vapor so you don't need to.

 

[Atrokkus]

C'mon, Sarv, don't avoid my questions.
Name some of games that you consider true RPGs and analyze their traits that actually make them qualify as such.

 

[Sarvis]

C'mon, Sarv, don't avoid my questions.
Name some of games that you consider true RPGs and analyze their traits that actually make them qualify as such.

Why bother?

None of you are worth the effort.

Oh yeah, and I HAVE done so already. I fucking posted a chart of it a few weeks ago in fact.

 

[Atrokkus]

Nono, you misunderstood.
I meant, not just a chart, but some example and just tell what elements of it you consider RPG-defining.

Why bother?

But you do bother posting here in the first place!

 

[Sarvis]

Nono, you misunderstood.
I meant, not just a chart, but some example and just tell what elements of it you consider RPG-defining.

Nope, I didn't misunderstand. I mentioned the chart, but the posts I made contained plenty of waht you are looking for. You probably read it even, but didn't actually care enough to remember it. Why bother when you can just forget and then make it look like I never provided a decent argument later rather than coming up with your OWN argument.

But you do bother posting here in the first place!

I used to enjoy the little debates here, but you guys are just getting more and more tedious.

 

[Calis]

Link.

Unless, of course, you just want to keep the argument going so that you don't have to go back to playing those pesky games... :D

 

[Atrokkus]

I used to enjoy the little debates here, but you guys are just getting more and more tedious.

Well, I have no interest in arguing with you.
Im just curious what you find appealing in the RPGs you mentioned, compared to those other people listed.

 

[fnordcircle]

The stupid part about this argument is that you are thinking in archaic terms. Going forward you are going to see more and more games which are a combination of elements and trying to pin down a game as a character-RPG, RPG where you change the world or whatever is silly.

To a certain degree games are less limited by technology and therefore it follows that we'll see more GTA-like genre potpourri. GTA:SA combined racing games, action games and RPGs into one and going forward I think we'll see more, not less of that.

Regardless it seems like there is a lot of 'define RPG to mean it includes the games I like and excludes the games I don't like' around here. Just like linearity was redefined to mean multiple endings and that Morrowind was an on-rails action game with character levelling or some bullshit.

If you are levelling up a character it is either an RPG or a game with RPG elements. That doesn't mean it's a good RPG or that the RPG elements are good ones, it's just the way I view these things. It's not the dictionary definition of 'roleplaying game' but that's not the point. Certainly having multiple choices, freedom to explore and have an impact on the world around your character are nice things but they aren't a part of the classical definition of RPGs.

 

[Nick]

Sarvis, you are the most dodgy man ever.

One of your first arguments against DarkSign's definiton was:

Stop trying to redefine something when the definition is largely accepted by everyone EXCEPT 12 or so people at RPGCodex.

So, please, show us that definition. If you are not able to do that, it will mean (at least for me) that your words are worthless and you really deserve your title.

You do realize that the dumbfuck tag is nothing more than a sign of their, and your, inability to defend your stances in debate.

It looks to me that your title is there because of YOUR "inability to defend your stances in debate". This thread makes me think so. How many times were you asked to provide that goddamn link to back up your words? You ignored them all, you pick only those arguments that you have a chance to reply to, so your replies are based on pure arguing and nothing more.
Oh, yes, there is also YOUR OPINION. It's good, really. But you should also try to use some FACTS to prove that your opinion is worth of something, and that your posts have some value except of entertaining.

 

[Sarvis]

Sarvis, you are the most dodgy man ever.

One of your first arguments against DarkSign's definiton was:

Stop trying to redefine something when the definition is largely accepted by everyone EXCEPT 12 or so people at RPGCodex.

So, please, show us that definition. If you are not able to do that, it will mean (at least for me) that your words are worthless and you really deserve your title.

You do realize that the dumbfuck tag is nothing more than a sign of their, and your, inability to defend your stances in debate.

It looks to me that your title is there because of YOUR "inability to defend your stances in debate". This thread makes me think so. How many times were you asked to provide that goddamn link to back up your words? You ignored them all, you pick only those arguments that you have a chance to reply to, so your replies are based on pure arguing and nothing more.
Oh, yes, there is also YOUR OPINION. It's good, really. But you should also try to use some FACTS to prove that your opinion is worth of something, and that your posts have some value except of entertaining.

Hey, why don't you provide us with a link to your first post?

No?

Oh, you DON'T save links to every post you've ever made here?

It's fucking amazing then, that you expect me to do so.

Anyone here will tell you that there are pages and pages of me defending my points. The fact that I am not doing so now is merely a symptom of my complete lack of desire to get into a real argument here.

Besides, I'm getting basically the same responses from people by just throwing out my snide comments... so why should I bother to put any effort in? To your average Codexer a well thought out argument with sources, links, examples and explanation is no better than a simple half-assed remark.

 

[Human Shield]

Sarvis never has an argument. I consistently make points that Sarvis just avoids quoting and fails to accept.

So a single hallway with a trap is an RPG because you have "different facets?" Oh wait, I guess you need another hallway so you can just walk around.

With a character system for dealing with the trap in different ways would be basic part of D&D; people would just consider it a really shitty adventure.

You didn't say anything about forward-pause gameplay, you just said reactive world.

And forward-pause is opposed to a reactive world.

All of those have reactive worlds. GTA is all about a reactive world, even if you are forced into a linear plot. Cops chase you down, gangs try to take over your territory.

Not really. Nothing happens unless you do the next mission, which is only accomplished one way and has one unchanging effect.

You can also play mini-games in Sam & Max.

Zelda has a reactive world, as you gain abilities to solve puzzles you change the face of the world. A simple example is in OoT you can plant vines in the past and they grow into new pathways in the future.

One solution to puzzles; no choice; or more importantly character stats effecting options.

One forced cause and one forced effect. On/Off switch.

I don't know why these concept go over your head so often.

No, the correct point is that story is expressed through dialog so a game of nothing but dialog is actually nothing but story.

Hrm... remember that experimental game posted a couple weeks ago? That's what I had in mind. To most of us it's... well I don't even know what it would be really. You call it a strategy game though.

I said look at the gameplay, you look at the type of obstacle.

"Of course, the nature of the obstacle itself pretty much dictates how the problem can be solved. For instance a guy shooting at you is not an obstacle you can solve with decision making, you pretty much need to shoot back." -you

"If a guy is shooting you and the game goes into turn-based mode and you have to plan how to best get around it would be different then press WASD and aiming with the mouse." -me

"VERY GOOD POINT!

That's why one would be an FPS and the other would be, assuming there are no Character skills here, a Turn Based Strategy game." -you

So if it is shooting the genre changes, but if it is words it doesn't change?

Owned, Dumbfuck.

 

[Sarvis]

Sarvis never has an argument. I consistently make points that Sarvis just avoids quoting and fails to accept.

You make this claim after the pages and pages of posts we've had against each other point by point?

Then to make this MORE amusing for me you ignore my points about Facade (that experimental game) and Fallout <i>expressed as</i> different genres?

This is kinda fun.

 

[Nick]

Hey, why don't you provide us with a link to your first post?

No?

Yes! It's in this thread:
http://rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=57153

Are you happy now? Let's return to our main problem - non existing definition.

Oh, you DON'T save links to every post you've ever made here?

It's fucking amazing then, that you expect me to do so.

Ah, you understand everything literally and skew the meaning of my post. Let's play according to your rules then:
Did I ask you about links to all of your posts? No. I'd like to see only one of them that leads to the ultimate definition of "RPG" term.

Do you think that it's me who should look for it to make sure that your words are not bullshit? Let's assume you do. But, you see, there is a little problem - I'm not the only man here who'd like to see that secret post with a secret definition that is accepted by everyone except 12 Codexers. I thought that *you* are defending your position and *you* should care about looking for your own posts. If you don't care, why did you post something at all?

Anyway, don't waste your time looking for it (besides, I'm pretty sure you will find nothing). Just post that definition here. As you (probably) understood, my target is not to see a text line that starts with "www...", but to see what were you talking about - the explanation of "RPG" term that you think is better than DarkSign's. And, of course, it would be good to know where did you take it from, and why is that source so reliable.

Just don't say that you don't remember every definition that you've read during your life. That would mean that you were arguing with DarkSign without any idea of what you were talking about - as you couldn't look up the definition and then quickly forget it - you have no link! Arguing for the sake of arguing.

Understand, Sarvis, I'm not going to keep discussing this with you during whole day. I didn't offend you, and didn't even disagree with you, did I? More than that, I believe you! Don't make me think that you just LIED. I don't ask you to do something complex, reposting that definition and links to its source is enough for me.

Anyone here will tell you that there are pages and pages of me defending my points.

Why should I ask anyone? I've joined Codex before you, so I had a chance to see everything myself . I don't say that I 've all 1789 of your posts, but enough of them, to create my own opinion about you.

Besides, I'm getting basically the same responses from people by just throwing out my snide comments... so why should I bother to put any effort in?

But people *asked* you themselves to prove your point, including me. They were throwing out your comments? OK, you don't like them at all so you don't want to show them that sacred definition. They do not deserve to see it, right? :D
But why do you ignore my question? What did I do to you?

EDIT: forgot to copy/paste that link. Enjoy! There is nothing interesting to read there, though - there is no deep or hidden contex in my first post

 

[Sarvis]

Did I ask you about links to all of your posts? No. I'd like to see only one of them that leads to the ultimate definition of "RPG" term.

And as I tried to point out, I don't keep links to my posts. As I have also indicated several times in this thread, I don't want to put forth any effort on this so I'm not going to search for it either.

I'm not the only man here who'd like to see that secret post with a secret definition that is accepted by everyone except 12 Codexers. I thought that *you* are defending your position and *you* should care about looking for your own posts. If you don't care, why did you post something at all?

*yawn* How about if I simply point out that everyone who isn't a Codex regular understands that Final Fantasy and Fallout are both RPGs?

Why should I ask anyone? I've joined Codex before you, so I had a chance to see everything myself .

Then you've already seen the definition and I need not waste my time.

But people *asked* you themselves to prove your point, including me. They were throwing out your comments? OK, you don't like them at all so you don't want to show them that sacred definition. They do not deserve to see it, right? :D
But why do you ignore my question? What did I do to you?

Well, you keep asking me to put in the effort to fulfill your requests even though I've said clearly I didn't want to. Oh yeah, and you claim to have seen it before so why bother?

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Sarvis, you've spent more time talking about how you're too lazy to present the defintion than it would take to write the definition, unless the definition was elephantine to the point that we can immediately reject it.

 

[Sarvis]

Sarvis, you've spent more time talking about how you're too lazy to present the defintion than it would take to write the definition, unless the definition was elephantine to the point that we can immediately reject it.

Maybe, but I've already posted the definiton. at least this way I'm not repeating myself!

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Maybe, but I've already posted the definiton. at least this way I'm not repeating myself!

Repeat yourself. Repeat, repeat, repeat yourself. How much time did it take you write all these posts? How much time could you save by just posting it again?

 

[Sarvis]

Maybe, but I've already posted the definiton. at least this way I'm not repeating myself!

Repeat yourself. Repeat, repeat, repeat yourself. How much time did it take you write all these posts? How much time could you save by just posting it again?

Considering most of these posts were because I was having a really slow day at work, it would have been counterproductive to save time.

 

[Neverwhere]

You also treat the idea as a historical concept, while the rest of world treats it as definition concept. [/quote]

The rest of the world treats it as a what? A tautology? Frankly, I do not quite see what you are getting at. In my world, definitions/concepts are usually based on some pieces of information that allow the identification of their content. There seems to be some merit to taking the history of RPGs as a starting point, given that it is (at least to a certain extent) empirically verifiable.

Didn't Bard's Tale have open travel? ... Old dungeon crawlers had traps, water, puzzles, etc... Different facets interacted with differently based on a created character.

I can't recall your characters' stats having an influence on anything but combat in Bard's Tale. Nor in Dungeon Master, Might and Magic, Eye of the Beholder, ... In fact, character choice was far more important in Defender of the Crown than in any of these games.

Even the Gold Box series were largely tactical combat games. Which is hardly surprising, since this is where PnP RPGs initially came from.

 

[DarkSign]

Maybe, but I've already posted the definiton. at least this way I'm not repeating myself!

Repeat yourself. Repeat, repeat, repeat yourself. How much time did it take you write all these posts? How much time could you save by just posting it again?

Considering most of these posts were because I was having a really slow day at work, it would have been counterproductive to save time.

Thats at least the second time you've given that lame excuse. If you had the link (which you dont) it would have taken less time to post the link.

lmfao

 

[Sarvis]

Maybe, but I've already posted the definiton. at least this way I'm not repeating myself!

Repeat yourself. Repeat, repeat, repeat yourself. How much time did it take you write all these posts? How much time could you save by just posting it again?

Considering most of these posts were because I was having a really slow day at work, it would have been counterproductive to save time.

Thats at least the second time you've given that lame excuse. If you had the link (which you dont) it would have taken less time to post the link.

lmfao

What part of that sentence did you fail to understand?

I WANTED to WASTE time, therefore saving time would be counter... err... bad.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present unto you, Sarvis:

I WANTED to WASTE time, therefore saving time would be counter... err... bad.

Never argue with a man who has no arguments. Hence the clear "dumbfuck" warning indicator beneath his name and above his avatar. This is our way at the Codex of telling you, our readers, who the idiots are that you can safely ignore.