Teh irony! (Dave Gaider on RPGs)

[DarkUnderlord]

If being belligerant and unreasonable qualifies as an opinion I don't really see the point.

Irony!

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Yeah yeah, save it. I HAVE provided a universal definition, I HAVE provided outside sources, I HAVE provided references.

Ok, I'll believe you for now because I honestly can't remember when you posted it, or if it held up to scrutiny. Regardless I'll ask something else. Ok, you provided the definition, the sources and the references - but why do we have to accept them as they are and can't challenge them? What makes it so this so-called universal definition so correct and immutable that you believe can't be challenged, yet there's no short amount of people questioning it, or the object which it attempts to define?

You guys just don't give a shit.

If I didn't gave a shit, I wouldn't even post.

I'm really getting sick of arguing with you guys, and this thread only got the replies it did because we had an ultra slow day at work.

Does Santa know you're being a bad elf?

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Yeah yeah, save it. I HAVE provided a universal definition, I HAVE provided outside sources, I HAVE provided references.

Linkage?

 

[DarkSign]

What test?

Ok. You've really just earned your title. What did you think those 6 points/elements were? A test for RPGs. Thats what we've been talking about. Get your head out of your ass.

I even call it a test when I said:

So lets set up a test:

And why do you need to resort to insults? Is your position really so weak?

1. To get your attention. 2. To make you think harder (its obviously not working)

If someone had defined RPGs by storyline content, then an FPS like Advent Rising would qualify under that definition.

No, shit-for-brains. Thats why I add the part that you think ISNT necessary (hint:"based on your characters actions." ) This is what illustrates AR isnt an RPG and Fallout is - the entire crux of the storyline is based on what you do...not where the developers want to take you.

Except that you are including things which have nothing to do with what an RPG is, and which can and probably WILL eventually be found across all genres.

Wow. More baseless sensationalism. Shocker coming from you. Care to point out what part has nothing to do with an RPG, or are you just going to keep jerking yourself off?

You are looking at everything EXCEPT the gameplay for your definition, rather than defining based on gameplay.

Maybe you missed this...or dismissed it. Let me bring it back

5. was character to character interaction (other than fighting) important or a sideline?

Other than fighting. Fighting is a verb...it describes action. This is crucial because an RPG would have to have a vast use of dialog or other interactions (faction, quest completion) rather than action.

No, the fact that you feel the need to make a new definition for something which is already defined makes you wrong.

You seem to be the only one with this mystical definition. And the bullshit of "Ive posted it before" is just that...bullshit. Repost it tard-boy.

And as was said before...why does this definition defy scrutiny.

Tomorrow why don't you tell us the new definition for 'Human'?

Anyone, including kids that ride the short bus, with intelligence > Sarvis.

I was nice when I started this convo, but you fucked that all to hell.

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

what about ogre battle and tactics ogre(the snes version that got released on the psx)?

What about them? You aren't even insinuating an argument with this.

the former allowed you to create your main character more or less the way you want through ultima style questions. and the ending is influenced by your choices at the begining of the game and how you handle the revolution.
the latter is like the former but you have more control over the class of your main character.
they both fit your characteristics of rpg's
control over both your character's and the story.

Thats not all the great. We like it deeper where you are making decisions the whole game that rock the foundation of the earth. SO when you get to the end its like a box of chocolates.

 

[Sarvis]

If I didn't gave a shit, I wouldn't even post.

No, you don't.

None of you actually care about roleplaying, games or CRPGs. You just want to fucking argue and prove people wrong.

Case in point: Last week most of you were arguing AGAINST having more choices in video games. Counter to the normal position of the codex, just because I was the one saying there weren't enough options.

You don't want to find the correct definition of CRPG, you just want to prove me wrong.

The sad fact is that the best weapons in the Codex arsenal are insults and labels.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

No, you don't.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but being me, I think I'm entitled in knowing what I want or don't want. Speak for yourself if you have to, but leave me out of your narrow mindset.

None of you actually care about roleplaying, games or CRPGs. You just want to fucking argue and prove people wrong.

Read my previous post. By the way I assume all the posts you personally made that attempted to redefine the RPG genre, or establish a new definition that challenged the definition that went trough some of the minds here, are also "just for argument" - that which you're seemingly against? That's funny because that's what the forums pretty much stand for: arguing about CRPGs. If you go back to every post I've made over the time I've been here, I've discussed CRPGs back and forth, with almost all debates usually being interesting and insightful... Even if a definition was still missing. And if I go back I bet I can say nearly the same thing about you: you never were one to take a definition for granted, so why is it that your own outlook on the subject matter is acceptable if perpetrated by you but not by others?

Case in point: Last week most of you were arguing AGAINST having more choices in video games. Counter to the normal position of the codex, just because I was the one saying there weren't enough options.

Case in point: I wasn't even here the last week. At least not to any meaningful level, and I wasn't a part of that argument you're talking about. Again, choose your targets right. Take it to the people you have something against.

You don't want to find the correct definition of CRPG, you just want to prove me wrong.

I want to find the correct definition of CRPG. What I don't want is to challenge your opinion and having you tell me, simply or via insult, that I'm wrong because you are right then just leaving it at that.

The sad fact is that the best weapons in the Codex arsenal are insults and labels.

Things which you've never resorted to before, especially not when someone challenged your point of view. Right.

 

[Drakron]

He is confusing you with me, the argument was that I was once again subjected to the retard ideas from Wizards forums and I posted what was wrong with certain a example.

He must be still pissed because I pretty much show the diference of Roleplaying Games and Interactive Fiction.

 

[DarkSign]

Thanks for not responding Sarvie. Ill just take that as teh win. No apology necessary.

 

[Sarvis]

Thanks for not responding Sarvie. Ill just take that as teh win. No apology necessary.

Well, considering I don't see anyone else here bubbling over with enthusiasm over your definition I can see why you'd take my clearly stated lack of desire to argue any further as "teh win."

It's the best you can hope for.

 

[Sarvis]

Case in point: I wasn't even here the last week. At least not to any meaningful level, and I wasn't a part of that argument you're talking about. Again, choose your targets right. Take it to the people you have something against.

It's more a symptom of the Codex in general than any specific people. Constantly asking for more innovation, then leveling the basest insults at any developer who dares try something different. Wanting non-linear games, but bitching and moaning about games like Morrowind. Even shooting down my examples as stupid or perverted, then using them a few weeks later with minor changes as examples of good quest options.

You guys aren't gamers, you're arguers.

I want to find the correct definition of CRPG. What I don't want is to challenge your opinion and having you tell me, simply or via insult, that I'm wrong because you are right then just leaving it at that.

CAn you point out where there are any insults I made in this thread?

Didn't think so.

I don't generally start insulting until I get frustrated, whereas most Codexers START with the insults and move on from there. Just like DarkSign here.

Things which you've never resorted to before, especially not when someone challenged your point of view. Right.

You guys have never challenged my point of view, you've just labeled and insulted me.

 

[Drakron]

It's more a symptom of the Codex in general than any specific people. Constantly asking for more innovation, then leveling the basest insults at any developer who dares try something different. Wanting non-linear games, but bitching and moaning about games like Morrowind. Even shooting down my examples as stupid or perverted, then using them a few weeks later with minor changes as examples of good quest options.

Morrowind is a big sandbox game and a sequel to Daggerfall.

I dont feel like to go over Morrowind vs Daggerfall, I address the fact Morrowind is linear since there are no branching paths, it offers a liniar path to complete questions without the possibility to make other choices.

And that example was not your, at least you did not pass it as your and you ARGUED that it sould be possible because the player wanted, without ANY REGUARD TO EXISTING RULESET that example was made over, I put logical obstacles over the intended result and yet you discard then.

You guys aren't gamers, you're arguers.

We are RPG players, you on the other hand appear to be more at home in Interactive fiction.

You guys have never challenged my point of view, you've just labeled and insulted me.

Sure we did, at least I picked that example and run the reasons why it would fail, I even picked that one because it reeked of the so called "roleplayers" gamming style that try to run the game as a interactive play without any reguards to ruleset, they come up with a idea and so it must work.

I object to that in RPGs and cRPGs, there is a rule system and because I want to try something does not mean it must work, something so called "roleplayers" refuse to admit.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

You guys aren't gamers, you're arguers.

Some gamers can argue, and vice versa. And if you're not targetting anyone specific, as you say, then I suggest leaving me out of the generalizations you're making.

CAn you point out where there are any insults I made in this thread?

As soon as you point out where I said you insulted anyone in this thread.

I don't generally start insulting until I get frustrated, whereas most Codexers START with the insults and move on from there. Just like DarkSign here.

The time at which one starts insulting isn't much of an excuse, really. The minute one person insults the other, whatever the reason, he or she loses any moral high ground they might have. Me and you included.

You guys have never challenged my point of view, you've just labeled and insulted me.

So what you are suggesting is that any and all debates people here ever had with you on the forums about CRPGs never produced an exchange or challenging of ideas. Funny, my memory reminds me of at least a couple of ones, especially one between you and DarkUnderlord, which took place in the News forums. I seem to recall some or other debate between both of us under the same context.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

I haven't played any games for quite a while, though I do waste a lot of time talking about them in forums. I also really like interactive fiction, which I was into before I ever played an RPG. So I guess I'm the kind of person everyone hates.

 

[DarkSign]

Thanks for not responding Sarvie. Ill just take that as teh win. No apology necessary.

Well, considering I don't see anyone else here bubbling over with enthusiasm over your definition I can see why you'd take my clearly stated lack of desire to argue any further as "teh win."

It's the best you can hope for.

I dont really need your approval, Sarv. Just making it crystal clear that you've failed to support your argument.

Where's the link to this supposed definition of cRPG that everyone but The Codex believes in? You cant come up with one because its bogus.

You guys aren't gamers, you're arguers.

Wrong. We're gamers who debate. Obviously we are gamers because we come up with specific information about the games we've played. Not just old games but new ones as they come out. The idea that we dont play games is just idiotic.

Even shooting down my examples as stupid or perverted, then using them a few weeks later with minor changes as examples of good quest options.

Oh yes. We all just sit around waiting for your next post so that we can bide our time and claim it to be ours. Does the doctor have you on meds for your paranoia complex?

It's more a symptom of the Codex in general than any specific people.

Well that doesnt wash either. You couldnt have a forum board if it werent made up of individuals. Surely some individuals exhibit this trait more than others here. What a dumbfuck to blame people for something...but then when called on it...you shift to the abstract.

Yes, I just called you a dumbfuck. Thats an insult. But you insulted me by rejecting my ideas as false on their face with no consideration. That's insulting where I come from. If I had done that to my teachers in law school...reject their ideas without listening...I can tell you that it would be taken as an insult.

You guys have never challenged my point of view, you've just labeled and insulted me

What egotism to think that we have never changed one idea or concept in your brain or even given you anything to mull over. If you cant admit that you have ever learned something from these forums then you are worthless to have an argument with.

Its a shame that you brashly scoffed at someone rudely instead of having a polite discussion, dumbfuck.

 

[Sarvis]

Some gamers can argue, and vice versa. And if you're not targetting anyone specific, as you say, then I suggest leaving me out of the generalizations you're making.

Just to put this in perspective, you are NOW arguing about whether or not you argue.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Just to put this in perspective, you are NOW arguing about whether or not you argue.

To put this into perspective, you had said we weren't gamers but arguers instead... All I intended to point out is that just because one is a gamer doesn't mean he isn't an arguer, because being one does not preclude being the other. I assume you are also a gamer, and here you are, arguing. You didn't stop being one to become the other, did you? I doubt it.

And also, I just wanted to make that clear when it came to me. You can keep hammering away on that one regarding others, though. That isn't my problem.

 

[Sarvis]

I dont really need your approval, Sarv. Just making it crystal clear that you've failed to support your argument.

Hey, I fully admit that I haven't tried. Good for you!

I fail to see that as WINNING however, since no one else seems to be supporting your definition either. That could actually be considered LOSING in some books.

I could do you the favor of actually arguing against your definition, which would almost instantaneously make the rest of the Codex accept it... but I'm just not feeling like it today.

Wrong. We're gamers who debate. Obviously we are gamers because we come up with specific information about the games we've played. Not just old games but new ones as they come out. The idea that we dont play games is just idiotic.

You guys are as much gamers as the girl in the cube next to me who plays nothing but Zuma. Just replace Zuma with Fallout or Arcanum and a tendency to bitch about anything that ISN'T one of those and you have a Codexer. Oh, also she'd have to consider Zuma the only game qualified to be a puzzle game because... oh, I don't know, it uses little round balls on a track or something.

Oh yes. We all just sit around waiting for your next post so that we can bide our time and claim it to be ours. Does the doctor have you on meds for your paranoia complex?

Miss the point much? I could care less that someone used a similar example to mine. Probably even happened accidentally.

The point is that when I used it everyone jumped down my throat calling me a pervert for thinking of it, but when someone else used it it was just fine.

Well that doesnt wash either. You couldnt have a forum board if it werent made up of individuals. Surely some individuals exhibit this trait more than others here. What a dumbfuck to blame people for something...but then when called on it...you shift to the abstract.

Yes, I just called you a dumbfuck. Thats an insult. But you insulted me by rejecting my ideas as false on their face with no consideration. That's insulting where I come from. If I had done that to my teachers in law school...reject their ideas without listening...I can tell you that it would be taken as an insult.

Good for you, taking an insult where none was given! It's not enough for you to change genre definitions, you have to change the definitions of everyday words too!

What egotism to think that we have never changed one idea or concept in your brain or even given you anything to mull over. If you cant admit that you have ever learned something from these forums then you are worthless to have an argument with.

I've learned that arguing gets old after a while. Congrats on that.

Its a shame that you brashly scoffed at someone rudely instead of having a polite discussion, dumbfuck.

Considering you can't go three sentences without calling me a name I don't think a polite conversation was ever a possibility.

 

[Nick]

Come on, Sarvis, post your sikret link!
No, I'm serious, I want to see a True Definition of All RPGs.

I've read the whole thread, and nearly 10 of your posts. Would you be so kind now to show me what were you talking about? If you have already posted something at Codex, as you say, you should have a link to that thread, right?

 

[DarkSign]

Hey, I fully admit that I haven't tried. Good for you!

But yet you keep replying. So you want to reply...butyou cant support your assertions with one decent reply. Not even a link to this mystical definition.

I fail to see that as WINNING however, since no one else seems to be supporting your definition either. That could actually be considered LOSING in some books.

What because people didnt respond? That means they werent interested...not that they disagreed. Keep up.

I could do you the favor of actually arguing against your definition, which would almost instantaneously make the rest of the Codex accept it... but I'm just not feeling like it today.

You do realize you have a "dumbfuck" under your name based on the fact that people hate your ideas, right?

I dont really need your approval, Sarv. Just making it crystal clear that you've failed to support your argument.

Hey, I fully admit that I haven't tried. Good for you!

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

I fail to see that as WINNING however, since no one else seems to be supporting your definition either. That could actually be considered LOSING in some books.

What because people didnt respond? That means they werent interested...not that they disagreed. Keep up.

I could do you the favor of actually arguing against your definition, which would almost instantaneously make the rest of the Codex accept it... but I'm just not feeling like it today.

You do realize you have a "dumbfuck" under your name based on the fact that people hate your ideas, right?

You guys are as much gamers as the girl in the cube next to me who plays nothing but Zuma. Just replace Zuma with Fallout or Arcanum and a tendency to bitch about anything that ISN'T one of those and you have a Codexer. Oh, also she'd have to consider Zuma the only game qualified to be a puzzle game because... oh, I don't know, it uses little round balls on a track or something.

I could make a list end to end of all the games that get discussed here and it would be 10x the length of your brain matter strung from end to end. Yes, we like certain games and hold them up as models, but we discuss a ton of games in HIGH detail.

Im stumped as to how you think this claim even passed the laugh test.

Miss the point much? I could care less that someone used a similar example to mine. Probably even happened accidentally.

The point is that when I used it everyone jumped down my throat calling me a pervert for thinking of it, but when someone else used it it was just fine.

No. I got your point. But you make it sound like it happens over and over...like its some vast conspiracy. Get over yourself. Hell...you even admitted that it might be by accident. What are you whining about for then?

Good for you, taking an insult where none was given! It's not enough for you to change genre definitions, you have to change the definitions of everyday words too!

Seeing as how English probably isnt your first language, Ill give you a by on this one. I didnt change the meaning of insult. To respond aggressively to someone's post by telling them they are automatically wrong...implying that it was stupid to even say something similiar is an insult. But maybe you dont get that.

I've learned that arguing gets old after a while. Congrats on that.

You still dont answer the point of if The Codex has challenged you. Again, if you arent humble enough to admit that you've learned something here...you're a pompous ass.

Considering you can't go three sentences without calling me a name I don't think a polite conversation was ever a possibility.

You guys are as much gamers as the girl in the cube next to me who plays nothing but Zuma. Just replace Zuma with Fallout or Arcanum and a tendency to bitch about anything that ISN'T one of those and you have a Codexer. Oh, also she'd have to consider Zuma the only game qualified to be a puzzle game because... oh, I don't know, it uses little round balls on a track or something.

Well Im not really sorry about that. You, unknowingly, insulted me and I dont take that from anyone. Then, instead of taking the high road or apologizing after I had explained, you responded in kind. As others have said, once you stoop to that level, you've lost the high-ground.

So live in your little world with your mystical definitions that you think people believe. Ill keep laughing at your title.

Cheers.

 

[Sarvis]

You do realize you have a "dumbfuck" under your name based on the fact that people hate your ideas, right?

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

The ultimate tactic of the Codex in action.

If you can't beat 'em, insult 'em.

 

[Human Shield]

Sarvis, shut the fuck up. You make no sense, you claim:

Role playing is about unlimited options.
RPGs on the computer can only have limited options.
The difference between one option and 7 doesn't matter because they are both far away from infinity.
If one option is limited out of infinity, even if rationally explained, it completely voids the game.
All DMs let their players do absolutely anything.
If you can't collect rats, bred them, set up a shop and sell them; it isn't an RPG.
The correct definition for RPGs on the computer includes strategy games.

 

[Sarvis]

The correct definition for RPGs on the computer includes strategy games.

And according to you the correct definiton for RPGs on the computer includes nothing.

Oh, and including strategy games is nothing but a straw man you had to create because you have no real argument against my definition. The fact that RPGs grew out of Wargaming, and Strategy games grew out of Wargaming pretty much explains the close similarity.

 

[Human Shield]

And according to you the correct definiton for RPGs on the computer includes nothing.

Oh, and including strategy games is nothing but a straw man you had to create because you have no real argument against my definition. The fact that RPGs grew out of Wargaming, and Strategy games grew out of Wargaming pretty much explains the close similarity.

I've already defeated this point.

Playing a wargame to pause-unpause a storyline is not an RPG, as your definition would include.

Wargames became RPGs with the inclusion of a reactive world.

You reject the idea of a reactive world, when everyone else here accepts it.

The other idiotic points stand for themselves.

 

[Sarvis]

And according to you the correct definiton for RPGs on the computer includes nothing.

Oh, and including strategy games is nothing but a straw man you had to create because you have no real argument against my definition. The fact that RPGs grew out of Wargaming, and Strategy games grew out of Wargaming pretty much explains the close similarity.

I've already defeated this point.

Playing a wargame to pause-unpause a storyline is not an RPG, as your definition would include.

Wargames became RPGs with the inclusion of a reactive world.

You reject the idea of a reactive world, when everyone else here accepts it.

The other idiotic points stand for themselves.

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

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

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