Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Without definition, communication breaks down. It has nothing to do with fear, or being irrational. In fact, it is irrational to think that we do not need direct definition for the meaning of words because without meaningful words we cannot communicate properly.
Well, we've had 2-3 people actually attempt a definition. Were the fuck is the conceptual bravery, effort and clarity from the genuine CRPG fans when it comes to their favorite genre ? It's fucking easy as hell to sit aside and spit on attempts at definitions. Do they not realize the ultimate risk is that we will, quite literally, LOSE the genre ?
Irrational fear vs. rational concern. Is maximum conceptual leniency what CRPG fans really want ? Do we really want *any* video game to be classifiable as a CRPG ?
Well, we've had 2-3 people actually attempt a definition. Were the fuck is the conceptual bravery, effort and clarity from the genuine CRPG fans when it comes to their favorite genre ? It's fucking easy as hell to sit aside and spit on attempts at definitions. Do they not realize the ultimate risk is that we will, quite literally, LOSE the genre ?
Irrational fear vs. rational concern. Is maximum conceptual leniency what CRPG fans really want ? Do we really want *any* video game to be classifiable as a CRPG ?
Sounds like one of those cheesy country songs, "You don't know what you had until it's gone!" Cheesy as it may be, it's a reality not just for country singers but also gamers, and just about every other person in life too.
If developers create games and market the content of the game at consumers, then it would only make sense that having a strongly voiced, common definition for the label "cRPG" would ensure we get the games we're looking for. This is, I believe, a strong case for arguing in these debates Ad Nauseum until the tiny ripple effect of this cause has touched as many gamers as possible. If only there were more of us.(and if we could come to some common ground on it's definition! :D ) /shrug
- Characters a broad spectrum of abilities to choose from, be them in the form of skills, classes, or training; mutually exclusive if possible. I'm talking about either being a thief, mage, fighter, or a sniper, martial artist, diplomat; or a weaker combination.
- These abilities should have a big impact on my playing style. Player skill is still required to a degree, but it should never be so much that it breaks the game.
- I don't care if I can't choose my character's background all that much, nor the gender. Being an undying amnesiac has proven to be a more role-immersive experience than being some random prisoner whose reason of being locked up is a constant unknown.
- Player Characters don't talk unless I have selected a dialogue option; the PC speaks only the selected lines. He or she doesn't trail off with bullshit; if he or she does, it must be an exception, and following along the spirit of the selected line.
- I don't fucking care if it's a morally ambiguous game (strike an alliance with the terrorists, or the lynchers?), or a good vs. evil one (slay villagers to save my skin, or save them and face the odds?). I do care if it's a stupid good vs. evil game, though (slay the villagers for slaying's sake, or save them to get an ueber sword?).
- I have to have lots of choices. And lots of ways of finishing a quest. I won't bother explaining here, you know what I'm talking about.
- There also have to be consequences to my actions. I'm not asking for a fucking peasant revolution if I hand some apples to some farmer, but I'd expect that if I supplied them with weapons, mercenaries, and some ideals.
- Verisimilitude. A (good) reason for things being the way they are, including plot twists (a recent example came from Gothic: read the spoiler). I also expect NPCs to die if I hit them with a big sword or gun.
when the Old Mine collapses from a water flood, the Ore Barons, whose power depended on the ore income from said mine, decide to grab the New Camp's mine for themselves
And that's pretty much it. That leaves all the Final Fantasies out, Oblivion, Diablo, The Witcher, and a couple of other pseudo-CRPGs.
Anything that can’t be clearly and formally defined in two or three sentences probably isn’t an individual entity but rather a collection of otherwise distinct concepts. I had a quick jab at a formal definition of an RPG (below) and all I ended up with was long-winded shite that said much but explained little. Granted part of this may be due to the fact my writing sucks donkey balls, and I was aiming too low-level generic, but that can’t be the whole truth. An RPG really is a series of related concepts all of which require clear definition before the whole means anything. What is a player character? Who controls the game? What is statistics? What is experience? What is a goal? What is the purpose of rules? How do they relate to the game world? How do they relate to the players? A definition has to be completely unambiguous.
(six sentences and I gave up…)
An RPG is structured game in terms of rules, freeform in terms of goals, and does not necessarily have a winning condition. The game's agents consist of one or more players, a persistent environment or "game world", and a coordinator between the environment and players. Goals may be player-set or coordinator set, and players have meaningful freedom of action on how and when to pursue these goals.
Players act on the environment either through an individual or group avatar commonly termed "player character" in the singular and "party" in the plural. While the player dictates an avatar’s actions in a freeform manner the player character's actual abilities to execute those orders are limited by the game rules - in particular by rules concerning the avatar's personal characteristics or "statistics". There may be additional restrictions placed on player freedom by the nature of the game world itself; this is especially true when the coordinator is a computer rather than human agent and thus only capable of representing limited game worlds.
I'm not even really sure "RPG" represents a useful scientific categorization, any more than "rocks" does. While everyone can clearly recognize what a rock is, scientific attempts to classify rocks have resulted in a more or less arbitrary set of rules which may or may not properly categorize any given set of rocks. Arguing about whether or not something is an RPG or something else is much like an argument over whether something is a rock or a stone. Ultimately, this is a fundamentally unedifying argument which ignores the entire point of a game. It is pointless to debate whether or not a game is or is not an RPG. Games are either GOOD or BAD. Whether or not it is or isn't a real RPG is irrelevant!
RPG casts the player in roles like the ones in the books that inspired it, such as those by J. R. R. Tolkien, Fritz Leiber and Edgar Rice Burroughs. Players collaborate on efforts and themes consistent with their roles. In the case of single-player computer games, software provides the collaboration.
They are typically set in dangerous worlds where combat is a common theme. Systems vary, but all provide rules for dealing with every type of encounter and structure for handling inventory and to record and measure progress.
Ultimately, this is a fundamentally unedifying argument which ignores the entire point of a game. It is pointless to debate whether or not a game is or is not an RPG. Games are either GOOD or BAD. Whether or not it is or isn't a real RPG is irrelevant!
I understand your point but I view it from a different angle. For example, I'm sure F.E.A.R. is an objectively good game on many levels but because I don’t enjoy “run and gun” shooters that information is irrelevant to me. Good or bad simple doesn’t factor into it. CRPGs on the other hand I do enjoy, so if a game contains a high degree of RPG attributes then I’m more likely to enjoy it than the latest AAA FPS or RTS hit - even if it is an objectively worse game in absolute terms.
Obviously there’s an element of pointless pissing-contest as to whether games x, y and z are ‘real’ RPGs, but lack of clarity on what constitutes a quality RPG isn’t helping to put decent CRPGs on the shelves. Or as Xi put it:
If developers create games and market the content of the game at consumers, then it would only make sense that having a strongly voiced, common definition for the label "cRPG" would ensure we get the games we're looking for.
Again, I chalk it up to the "rock" analogy. Clearly, when you hold the game in your hands, you can tell whether it is an "RPG". However, attempting to try to DEFINE the list of attributes will end up excluding things that most people believe are RPGs, while including things that most people agree aren't RPGs, much like how one can come up with a definition for a rock that ends up including chunks of cement, which, while exhibiting all the relevant rock-like properties, are clearly not things most of us would consider to be actual rocks. At the same time, most of us believe we have a pretty good idea what a rock is. But if you try to define a rock by its list of attributes, you end up including non-rock things like chunks of iron, while excluding other clearly rock-things.
