VentilatorOfDoom said:
Codex also covers non-RPGs with RPG elements, like Alpha Protocol.
If you can't understand, just look at all newsitems, determine which ones are "true" RPGs and then look at the number of replies. That's all that has to be said.
Fair and honest. You should talk to BioDocWhores about answering things.
On to Volly and BN: The reason I mentioned my "group similar things" definition is just because I didn't want to create yet another thread of definition jockeying. Both of you essentially replied with versions of "it has these features, so it's RPG" or "would you then define other games by feature x".
Try this thought experiment (or just really try it):
Play Fallout, BG, and Gothic ("action" representative). Then play Halo, Gears of War, Red Dead Redemption. Finally, play ME2 and ask yourself which group it fits into? I should probably have been more broad and just called it a "shooter", I specified TPS because my first reflex was to write FPS, and I knew I'd get jumped becuase ME2 isn't first-person. One thing I'll say about ME2 that isn't overtly "shooter" is the conversations. The story, NPCs, and plot exist in most shooters nowadays, but I agree that ME2 had more conversations.
As for most of BN's examples, I'd say that those features you point out describe the combat, but the combat isn't the sole reson for existence of those games, like it is in ME2. ME2 is a lot of stuff hung around core gameplay of popamole. I think most people believe it's actually an improvement on ME, but I disliked ME2 specifically because they removed 90% of the "RPG" from it. You could say it's a question of focus. If I keep going, we're back to arguing definitions (which I'd be happy to do, and have done, but didn't want to get into right here right now). Maybe I've already gone too far down that road.
I seriously didn't think anyone could honestly think of ME2 as an RPG when I made the first post. The 'codex editors and newsposters obviously have their own definitions of what is appropriate for the 'codex to cover. I am questioning those implicit definitions with the obvious desire of trying to halt some decline, knowing full well that it's not really possible. If you don't reach for the heavens, you won't even get up to the tits, and all that...
Definitions change over time, _especially_ if they're just labels for groups of similar games. I hate moving definitions, but it's a fact of life. In today's world maybe "RPG" is the correct label to apply to ME2, AP, and similar games, but I think there's still enough counter-examples of "real" RPGs that we shouldn't label action games with stats as "RPG"s. Especially since nearly all modern action games have stats (and companions, and plots).
Almost all other genres are stealing "real RPG" elements (because they're good elements!). One could stretch the RPG label over them all, rendering it a completely useless label, or one could restrict the label to only the most "pure" examples, retaining some meaning but unfortunately excluding almost all modern games. Being a grognard, I choose the latter.
