- Joined
- Jun 18, 2002
- Messages
- 28,363
Irony!Sarvis said:If being belligerant and unreasonable qualifies as an opinion I don't really see the point.
Irony!Sarvis said:If being belligerant and unreasonable qualifies as an opinion I don't really see the point.
Sarvis said:Yeah yeah, save it. I HAVE provided a universal definition, I HAVE provided outside sources, I HAVE provided references.
You guys just don't give a shit.
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.
Linkage?Sarvis said:Yeah yeah, save it. I HAVE provided a universal definition, I HAVE provided outside sources, I HAVE provided references.
What test?
So lets set up a test:
1. To get your attention. 2. To make you think harder (its obviously not working)And why do you need to resort to insults? Is your position really so weak?
If someone had defined RPGs by storyline content, then an FPS like Advent Rising would qualify under that definition.
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.
You are looking at everything EXCEPT the gameplay for your definition, rather than defining based on gameplay.
5. was character to character interaction (other than fighting) important or a sideline?
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.No, the fact that you feel the need to make a new definition for something which is already defined makes you wrong.
Anyone, including kids that ride the short bus, with intelligence > Sarvis.Tomorrow why don't you tell us the new definition for 'Human'?
truekaiser said: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.Sarkile said:What about them? You aren't even insinuating an argument with this.truekaiser said:what about ogre battle and tactics ogre(the snes version that got released on the psx)?
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.
Role-Player said:If I didn't gave a shit, I wouldn't even post.
Sarvis said: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.
DarkSign said:Thanks for not responding Sarvie. Ill just take that as teh win. No apology necessary.
Role-Player said: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.
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.
Things which you've never resorted to before, especially not when someone challenged your point of view. Right.
Sarvis said: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.
You guys have never challenged my point of view, you've just labeled and insulted me.
Sarvis said:You guys aren't gamers, you're arguers.
CAn you point out where there are any insults I made 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.
You guys have never challenged my point of view, you've just labeled and insulted me.
Sarvis said:DarkSign said: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.
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 aren't gamers, you're arguers.
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.
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.It's more a symptom of the Codex in general than any specific people.
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.You guys have never challenged my point of view, you've just labeled and insulted me
Role-Player said: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.
Sarvis said:Just to put this in perspective, you are NOW arguing about whether or not you argue.
DarkSign said:I dont really need your approval, Sarv. Just making it crystal clear that you've failed to support your argument.
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.
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?
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.
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 said: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.
Sarvis said:DarkSign said: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.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.
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.Considering you can't go three sentences without calling me a name I don't think a polite conversation was ever a possibility.
DarkSign said:You do realize you have a "dumbfuck" under your name based on the fact that people hate your ideas, right?
Human Shield said:The correct definition for RPGs on the computer includes strategy games.
Sarvis said: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 said:Sarvis said: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.