Irenaeus III
Unwanted
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2016
- Messages
- 990
Well trolled.
Do you play actual RPGs, Lurker King? Or just videogames?
I played AD&D, GURPS and some White Wolf RPGs in the olden days.
Then you understand that you could have played a railroaded combat romp in any of those games, and as far as anyone is concerned you'd still be playing an RPG?
Because CRPGs are inherently more limited. By the same token even a P&P combat romp has potentially more C&C than AoD.you could argue that a cRPG it’s an attempt to imitate a pure combat focused campaign in a video game, but even in these campaigns you have less linearity and more choices than what most pseudo-cRPGs will offer.
It's not irrelevant. It shows it's a valid playstyle. Naturally some developers preferred to focus on that style because it's simpler to implement.
you could argue that a cRPG it’s an attempt to imitate a pure combat focused campaign in a video game, but even in these campaigns you have less linearity and more choices than what most pseudo-cRPGs will offer.
Because CRPGs are inherently more limited. By the same token even a P&P combat romp has potentially more C&C than AoD.
You can play a role, within the limitations set by the game. Just like an actual RPG.A cRPG is an attempt to implement a RPG in a video game format. The defining feature in a RPG is the ability to role-play or, to use your words, to satisfy different “play styles”. If you can only have one play style, then you are not playing a cRPG anymore, because you can’t role play.
You can play a role, within the limitations set by the game. Just like an actual RPG.
But that's wrong. "Killing things" is the context of the adventure, but there's various roles to be played within that context.You can play only one role because these games aren’t about roleplaying, but about killing things.
It has a LOT to do with medium limitations.That restriction has nothing to do with the medium limitations, but with developers preferences about the nature of gameplay.
5 mins sharing the same space with an Undertale fan will make you hate Undertale.Still not getting thr Undertale hate.
But that's wrong. "Killing things" is the context of the adventure, but there's various roles to be played within that context.
It has a LOT to do with medium limitations.
Different characters with different ways to go about killing things. Those are roles to be played in an adventure about killing things.But that's wrong. "Killing things" is the context of the adventure, but there's various roles to be played within that context.
Oh, really? Please, humor me.
Ah, so roleplaying to you = CYOA?It has a LOT to do with INTELLIGENCE and PREFERENCE limitations. You just need text-adventures to provide opportunities to roleplay.
Aren't all CRPGs?Wizardry is an adventure now! Only on the Codex, folks.
mondblut
Dungeon Siege proves you wrong.Every game has C&C since it depends on player input that is processed and gives different outputs.
Different characters with different ways to go about killing things. Those are roles to be played in an adventure about killing things.But that's wrong. "Killing things" is the context of the adventure, but there's various roles to be played within that context.
Oh, really? Please, humor me.
Ah, so roleplaying to you = CYOA?It has a LOT to do with INTELLIGENCE and PREFERENCE limitations. You just need text-adventures to provide opportunities to roleplay.
Different characters with different ways to go about killing things. Those are roles to be played in an adventure about killing things.
Wizardry is an adventure now! Only on the Codex, folks.
mondblut
CRPGs are different from pen & paper RPGs only in that each one is forced by necessity to acknowledge the advantages and limitations of their respective medium.
The "choice & consequences" so beloved by story-LARPers seemingly never applies to choices in combat, never applies to choices in exploration, and applies only to a limited extent to choices in character customization.
Instead, they use the term almost exclusively for reactivity in the story, but this type of reactivity is vastly more difficult to accomplish in a computer program than in a P&P game where a human acting as dungeon master can improvise reactions to anything the players might do.
It would be possible to create a text adventure game with deep reactivity in terms of the story and the characters involved, but this would of course remain a text adventure game and not be an RPG.
So different ways to the play the same role is to use different roles?
So different ways to the play the same role is to use different roles?
Umm, yes? Playing an archer and soldier is different even though the whole point of the game is killing things. Let us say you rolled a melee soldier.
So “Knights of the round” for SNES must be a RPG, since you can use an archer or a knight.
So “Knights of the round” for SNES must be a RPG, since you can use an archer or a knight.
there was no archer character in knights of the round
credibility = zero
So different ways to the play the same role is to use different roles?
Umm, yes? Playing an archer and soldier is different even though the whole point of the game is killing things. Let us say you rolled a melee soldier.
So “Knights of the round” for SNES must be a RPG, since you can use an archer or a knight. What about any other game that allows you to kill things differently? So, “Call of Duty” is a cRPG? What about “Mario Bros”? The fact of the matter is that even the more convict combat-fag doesn’t think like this. Being different in this sense means very little, because you are just playing one role, that is, to kill things. Different ways to kill things is different ways to implement the same role. You aren’t role-playing anything.