Why morons shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[obediah]

And just in case you plan on bitching about how what defines an RPG isn't as clear or as well observed as something like clouds or witchcraft, think of the context of what I wrote - it's not about how one defines it, it's pointing out that placing the deciding power on the hands of a majority when it comes to determine what something is, is bollocks.

While this assumption may be true for things in the world, it's simply not true for language and communication. The underlying reality may not be directly susceptible to misconceptions of the masses, but our language certainly is. If tomorrow everyone but you decided the definition of the word "cloud" was " a boy riding a donkey", then who would be using the word cloud correctly?

[hint]The key word was "context"[/hint]

Well maybe you understood Role-Player and the context better than I did. I was under the impression that he was saying his argument about not letting the majority arbitrarely determine things was bollocks regardless of how understood and obeserver something is - which isn't true with language.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Like you said, the underlying reality may not be directly susceptible to misconceptions of the masses, and that's what we are talking about here. We are talking about a concept, not a name. After all, you didn't ask to clarify whether RPG was role-playing game or rocket-propelled grenade or rebounds per game.

So, regardless of any name changes, the concept will remain the same as long as there is a market for it.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

While this assumption may be true for things in the world, it's simply not true for language and communication. The underlying reality may not be directly susceptible to misconceptions of the masses, but our language certainly is. If tomorrow everyone but you decided the definition of the word "cloud" was " a boy riding a donkey", then who would be using the word cloud correctly?

HINT: It wouldn't be you.

Context.

This example, and your previous statements, rely on the assumption that a majority, be it a, shall we call it, universal (as the one in your example) or a 'standard' one (which would be the case we're talking about), would have the power to not only change definitions and meanings, they'd also be able to define what is and isn't correct, and that is what I questioned: why are you crediting the majority with the right and/or power to redefine the meaning of things, and saying they decide what is correct, regardless of things actually may be or signify?

 

[Shagnak]

Not necessarily, and you apparently have missed that most don't claim to be experts anyway.

When someone asks you what game defines the genre (vs what's your fav game), your opinion implies that you know what you are talking about, and are knowledgable on the subject.

They said "defines the RPG genre for you".
And as for "are knowledgeable on the subject", they are! They know exactly what game defines the genre for them. They weren't asked to become experts in the subject of "all RPGs" and supply a critique. I think the question was meant to be in a personal context.

Fuck, I won't give another response, because you are such an unreasonable cunt I fear that this could go on forever. I've seen these threads before - pages and pages of alternating counter-points and deliberately misconstrued points and honest misunderstandings.

Suffice it to say that we disagree, and that I think you get a kick out twisting the context out of true "just so" so that you can fuel some pathetic e-penis enlargening RPG-elitist kick.
Because that's all this is. And we have seen it before.
"Huur huur modders are retards cos they asked questions about modding minutae that when i take out of context look RETARDED. LOL!"

Doesn't it get old for you?

Quite simply I think a more accurate thread title might have been "Gamasutra RPG Fans Show Their Lack of Knowledge About the Genre as a Whole, But This Doesn't Make Them Retarded".
Hmmm...but yes, that's a lot less snappy.
You win. :wink:

 

[Vault Dweller]

They said "defines the RPG genre for you".

I posted an analogy with books above. No need to repost it. No need to argue about that anymore either. We have exchanged our positions on the subject, let's leave it that. We can still have some fun with other stuff though.

Fuck, I won't give another response, because you are such an unreasonable cunt I fear that this could go on forever.

Disagree with you = unreasonable cunt? Cool.

I've seen these threads before - pages and pages of alternating counter-points and deliberately misconstrued points and honest misunderstandings.

Shall I assume that I was the one who "deliberately misconstrued and honestly misunderstood" or are you talking in general?

I think you get a kick out twisting the context out of true "just so" so that you can fuel some pathetic e-penis enlargening RPG-elitist kick. Because that's all this is. And we have seen it before.

"Huur huur modders are retards cos they asked questions about modding minutae that when i take out of context look RETARDED. LOL!"

Ah, I see. Deep unresolved issues, huh? Well, anyway, I'm very straightforward, simple as that. I see something that I think is stupid, I state it openly. I did that before I was asked to join the staff, and I do it after. That's just the way I am. Disagree with me? God fucking bless you, that's your right.

As for that modder question, it was incredibly stupid. In or out of context. Could I have been nicer or politically correct in both cases? Sure, but why bother? Someone didn't bother to think up a decent question or to think before typing some crap. I simply returned the courtesy.

 

[obediah]

Like you said, the underlying reality may not be directly susceptible to misconceptions of the masses, and that's what we are talking about here. We are talking about a concept, not a name. After all, you didn't ask to clarify whether RPG was role-playing game or rocket-propelled grenade or rebounds per game.

So, regardless of any name changes, the concept will remain the same as long as there is a market for it.

No, my point is we are talking about a name - 'computer role-playing game'. We each tie this name to a concept, but the concept is different for every person and can change greatly for a given person over time. There is no educated elite that guides the defintion. The accepted definition is like a social contract that changes, develops subgroups, etc.. Like any social construct, some people will apply it loosly, and some will make up elitist cliques to try to separate themselves - "That isn't a real RPG", "That isn't real music", "That isn't real Philosophy", "That isn't real sci-fi", blah-blah-blah.

'cRPG' isn't a universal boolean that is either true or false for every computer game - it is a name attached to certain games that exhibit an extremely mushy and dynamic set of qualities.

You think you know what an "RPG" is and obviously are very comfortable arguing what is and isn't an RPG. It's not all bad, because it fosters discussion and comparsion of games and design decisions, but it taints those discussions with an air of futiility and misguided arrogance.

 

[Shagnak]

I've seen these threads before - pages and pages of alternating counter-points and deliberately misconstrued points and honest misunderstandings.

Shall I assume that I was the one who "deliberately misconstrued and honestly misunderstood" or are you talking in general?

In general :wink:
We are all guilty of it at one time or another. Some of it is honest mistake, some of it is cunning angle-taking to batter down opposition. But I do suspect you do a lot of the latter.
Anyway, I've had my say.
Toodles!

 

[obediah]

I don't know what an aRPG is.

Action RPG, like Diablo II. Not a lot of player character development in the sense of good/evil/personality, like a cRPG, but plenty of development in the sense of skills and a combat "build."

Got ya, guess I hadn't finalized the abreviation yet.

I would argue that an aRPG is a "lesser" RPG relative to a cRPG because a cRPG can give you both kinds of pc development, and is therefore “deeper,” better rounded and a greater achievement. But that statement's likely to frustrate you anew.

More balanced is better, but I disprove of the "lesser" comparison. For many controlling a party is more desireable than developing a single personality. I think focusing on a single character has gotten more popular in the last 10 years, but I don't think it kicks all those party based RPGs from the 80s and 90s out of the RPG genre, or even make them "lesser" members.

Surely, in principle, we can still have broad categories to facilitate discussion about games and other artistic works. Otherwise we'd never be able to meaningfully talk about a mystery novel vs. a thriller vs. a romance novel. Just because a thriller may have a lot of romance and not exactly fit the mold doesn't mean it isn't useful to retain the concept of broad categories.

There's no need to throw away the entire framework of discourse just because there are exceptions to the rules.

I agree with this 100%. My point is that this framework is not rigid enough to support statements like "that book is a thriller, but not a romance". The difference between "That isn't a mystery novel, no one died" and "I don't like mystery novels without a murder" is more than just semantics.

 

[PennyAnte]

… guess I hadn't finalized the abreviation yet.

I suppose I should also say cRPG means, to me, character RPG, not computer RPG, which I assume unless someone types PnP (pen 'n paper). I also don't know that aRPG = action RPG and cRPG = character RPG are necessarily universal understandings, but I think they're fairly common. I find them useful. *Shrugs*

More balanced is better, but I disprove of the "lesser" comparison.

Hmmm. I said deeper and better rounded, not balanced. Every game should be balanced.

For many controlling a party is more desireable than developing a single personality.

The genre, in itself, has nothing to do with number of characters controlled. There are squad shooters (Republic Commando), where the player controls several characters, and other shooters where the player controls just one (Halo). Same with aRPGS (Dungeon Siege = party, Diablo = single) and cRPGs (Baldur's Gate = party, Morrowind = single).

Party size really plays no role in the equation, including whether an RPG is a "lesser" work.

My point is that this framework is not rigid enough to support statements like "that book is a thriller, but not a romance". The difference between "That isn't a mystery novel, no one died" and "I don't like mystery novels without a murder" is more than just semantics.

I think we agree, then, that genre categories are only guidelines, but useful.

 

[Deathboy]

Note that I don't accuse you of the requisite stupidness that that implies, because I think that you are otherwise reasonably intelligent.

OMG! You said that I'm intelligent, so I can't be stupid. This is, like, so black and white, dude! Totally!

Ummmmm would you fly on an Air line whose advertising contained the blurb "otherwise reasonably safe"?

the expression damned with faint praise spring to mind

What's with this thread and people missing points? Is it cursed or something?

Talk about missing points shagga called you a retard (nicely I admit) and you being a bit of a thicky missed it, you actually thought he was giving you a complement......
but he wasn't ya know he was implying he had foot fungus smarter than you NOW THATS THE POINT.
PS Shagnak stop calling people retards no matter how true 'cause it's not very nice to pick on those less fortunate than yourself!

 

[obediah]

… guess I hadn't finalized the abreviation yet.

I suppose I should also say cRPG means, to me, character RPG, not computer RPG, which I assume unless someone types PnP (pen 'n paper). I also don't know that aRPG = action RPG and cRPG = character RPG are necessarily universal understandings, but I think they're fairly common. I find them useful. *Shrugs*

I think action and character are two decent non-mutually exclusive, fuzzy classifiers for current c(omputer)RPGs. They were probably less useful in the past when many RPGs were stat engines, and may be less useful in the future if the trend continues to have stronger character development/freedom and an action fest, forgoing things like a strong story, stat systems, teamwork, etc...

Your aRPG and cRPG terms illustrate one of the layers of confusion that make decisive assertions so absurd, on the top level we have a conflicting set of equally valid terms 'cRPG', 'PnP', etc.. that mean different things to different people at different times, and you map that onto different concepts of what makes an 'RPG', and you can see how projecting a personal definition as a bold assertion will usually start a flamewar.

More balanced is better, but I disprove of the "lesser" comparison.

Hmmm. I said deeper and better rounded, not balanced. Every game should be balanced.

Sorry I was thinking of balanced as being better rounded. I think depth is a measure of a facet of the game, rather than a way to compare facets. I.e characted development in game A can be deeper than in game B, combat mechanics in game B can be deeper than game B, but character development isn't deeper than combat mechanics.

For many controlling a party is more desireable than developing a single personality.

The genre, in itself, has nothing to do with number of characters controlled. There are squad shooters (Republic Commando), where the player controls several characters, and other shooters where the player controls just one (Halo). Same with aRPGS (Dungeon Siege = party, Diablo = single) and cRPGs (Baldur's Gate = party, Morrowind = single).

Party size really plays no role in the equation, including whether an RPG is a "lesser" work.

As concepts, "character development" and "party size" are not independent. Games that focus on "immersion" and "character development/freedom" tend to go the single character route, while other games seem to treat the party as an entity - accentuated the development of your team as a whole rather than one indivual member. There are various hybrids and exceptions (although it's much easier to make a single character game w/o character development than a party game w/ character development). Anyway, if you consider combat/stat development to be lesser to character development then party rpgs would tend to be "lesser" - would the old Pool Of Radiance be a "lesser" RPG than Hillsfar because HIllsfar sacrificed the party to allow one character to develop?

My point is that this framework is not rigid enough to support statements like "that book is a thriller, but not a romance". The difference between "That isn't a mystery novel, no one died" and "I don't like mystery novels without a murder" is more than just semantics.

I think we agree, then, that genre categories are only guidelines, but useful.

Hooray! I'll add this to my tiny list of agreements on the codex.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Talk about missing points shagga called you a retard (nicely I admit) and you being a bit of a thicky missed it, you actually thought he was giving you a complement......

Deathboy, my not overly bright friend, the response in question was in regard to the black-n-white comment Shagga (?) made earlier. As a rule, while you are here, don't take any comment that starts with OMG! seriously.

 

[PennyAnte]

Hooray! I'll add this to my tiny list of agreements on the codex.

Me too.

Anyway, if you consider combat/stat development to be lesser to character development then rpgs would tend to be "lesser" - would the old Pool Of Radiance be a "lesser" RPG than Hillsfar because HIllsfar sacrificed the party to allow one character to develop?

That's not quite how I look at it. A game that offers me ONLY combat stat development (Diablo 2) is less than a game offers me stat crunching and AND robust character development through role playing (Geneforge, Fallout).

I think you're blurring the party/single character issue into the stat/character development issue again. A game might mostly focus on stat development whether or not I control a party (Diablo 2, Dungeon Siege). A game also might offer me both stat and character development whether or not I control a party (Geneforge, Fallout, Baldur's Gate series). It's important to separate the issue of party vs. single character entirely.

Let me throw out that I'm not sure if I'm even prepared to say that character development (story and playing a role) is inherently better than action-oriented stat development. If you have just a story and meaningful choices, is it inherently better than a pure action game with strategic stat development alone and no story? I'm inclined to say yes, but both games, done well, are very refined products.

The story-focused game would seem to offer more intellectual "meat," so that’s in its favor. Then again, a stat-heavy aRPG can get extremely complex. It's not quite as clear cut as the difference between a Hollywood popcorn film and a wrenching independent drama.

 

[Vykromond]

RE: Vault Dweller

A detailed storyline is a hallmark of the role-playing genre of video game that doesn't receive nearly the same amount of emphasis in any other genre. Calling people idiots for considering games with what they consider an abundance of a genre-defining characteristic (the story) as genre-defining games is, well, a little haughty. Essentially, you're saying that these people are idiots for not realising that the only actual RPG hallmark is choice-making, which- though it seems obvious to you- is actually a very refined way to approach the concept. At no point did the respondents to Gamasutra's question claim to be experts.

The kid who said Final Fantasy VI is, however, a complete moron, and for the reasons you've cited in this thread.

 

[PennyAnte]

Calling people idiots for considering games with what they consider an abundance of a genre-defining characteristic (the story) as genre-defining games is, well, a little haughty.

Wow, VD was right, this thread is cursed with people missing points. We really do need Fez, our pope, to bless it.

Most of us are calling them idiots, in part, for citing qualities like:
-variety of characters
-different music
-secret areas
-epic story
-lovely looks

As RPG genre hallmarks. Kinda silly. Epic story fits many game types, including Halo, a shooter. Choice defines an RPG's story. If all you have is story with no choice, you've probably got an adventure game, shooter or something else. An action RPG at least has stat development, or "build" choice.

At no point did the respondents to Gamasutra's question claim to be experts.

1. Can't wait to read the next American Journal of Medicine article that polls lawyers for their opinions on brain surgery techniques. But your statement makes me realize GamaSutra should perhaps share more of the blame for quoting the uniformed, then publishing such useless drivel.
2. At least one person was from EA. But he said BG2 so I like his answer better than most. I don't know if he was, say, a sports guy, but he pretty much listed reasonable RPG qualities.
3. Most responders should have said they didn't know enough to offer an opinion, as VD said in his book example.

EDIT: Sorry for a rapid series of edits.

 

[Vykromond]

Most of us are calling them idiots, in part, for citing qualities like:
-variety of characters
-different music
-secret areas
-epic story
-lovely looks

i) A variety of characters- a variety of different personalities- depth in the game? Those little shits, they think depth (or is depth not a hallmark of the RPG genre?) is good!
ii) I looked back in the Gamasutra article for the people that mentioned music. I counted two Final Fantasy votes and an Ogre Battle 64. As my post stated, I completely agree that those people are idiots. Not because they voted for Final Fantasy and Ogre Battle 64 (well, not entirely because...), but because their reasons are "different music."
iii) I count one "secret areas," and that's the original Final Fantasy kid, who I already said is an idiot. I guess you might have missed my point, har har!
iv) You went into slightly further detail about this one, so I'll answer in slightly further detail when I get home in a few hours.
v) I count one "lovely looks," and this is part of a list that also includes "world-affecting decisions" and "robust character creation," two pretty good reasons IMHO.

As RPG genre hallmarks. Kinda silly. Epic story fits many game types, including Halo, a shooter. Choice defines an RPG's story. If all you have is story with no choice, you've probably got an adventure game, shooter or something else. An action RPG at least has stat development, or "build" choice.

kind of, but this doesn't make VD's Five not worthy of voting. I'll get back to you in this in a bit, as I said above

At no point did the respondents to Gamasutra's question claim to be experts.

1. Can't wait to read the next American Journal of Medicine article that polls lawyers for their opinions on brain surgery techniques. But your statement makes me realize GamaSutra should perhaps share more of the blame for quoting the uniformed, then publishing such useless drivel.
2. At least one person was from EA. But he said BG2 so I like his answer better than most. I don't know if he was, say, a sports guy, but he pretty much listed reasonable RPG qualities.
3. Most responders should have said they didn't know enough to offer an opinion, as VD said in his book example.

1) The first part of this comment is a straw man; the second part may or may not be true, but I don't really feel like thinking about it because it's not really relevant to what we're discussing.
2) I don't see an issue with his response. It made it onto VD's Five People Who Shouldn't Be Allowed To Vote list, though, so he must be a retard, right?
3) Maybe they did, and they were paraphrased by the Gamasutra article because anyone reading it wouldn't want to see five hundred "I don't know that much about this, but..."s in a row...

 

[PennyAnte]

... I'll answer in slightly further detail when I get home in a few hours.

Tease. And you got me all worked up.

Let me sharpen the claws a little anyway.

A variety of characters- a variety of different personalities- depth in the game

Lots of characters don't neccessarily = depth. Morrowind, anyone?

Stuff about exactly how many people referred to lovely looks or music or secret areas and how many times.

The main point is the stupidometer is way over into the red here. There are some seeds of intelligence, but they are struggling to survive in this article's toxic landscape.

... straw man

Sure it's on target. It's the same point as number three, really. People spoke when they knew little, and GamaSutra should have known better than to publish it. It's not about paraphrasing, it's about publishing it at all.

 

[obediah]

Well now we've just devolved to polite conversation.

Anyway, if you consider combat/stat development to be lesser to character development then rpgs would tend to be "lesser" - would the old Pool Of Radiance be a "lesser" RPG than Hillsfar because HIllsfar sacrificed the party to allow one character to develop?

That's not quite how I look at it. A game that offers me ONLY combat stat development (Diablo 2) is less than a game offers me stat crunching and AND robust character development through role playing (Geneforge, Fallout).

Agreed. This is the message I had intended to convey with my 'balanced' comment above - wordsmith I am not.

I think you're blurring the party/single character issue into the stat/character development issue again. A game might mostly focus on stat development whether or not I control a party (Diablo 2, Dungeon Siege). A game also might offer me both stat and character development whether or not I control a party (Geneforge, Fallout, Baldur's Gate series). It's important to separate the issue of party vs. single character entirely.

I see what you are saying, and agree that for the most case the two issues can be separated, but choosing to run a traditional party system (i.e. old Gold Box, Wiz, etc..) places limitations on aspects of character development. I can't imagine, for example, a Geneforge that allowed my 6 party members of my own creation, and then provided them all as much character development as the previous Geneforge game. It's not an either/or thing, BG, Fallout, Geneforce, Arcanum all have different methods of trying to maximize the development of a single character while allowing a party. Off the cuff, I would probably give the nod to BG on this one, it had a key character and made various characters with personalities, that you could mix with characters of your own creation. You could then either have total control of the characters or let the a.i. fuck everything up like in Fallout, Geneforge, NWN, etc...

Let me throw out that I'm not sure if I'm even prepared to say that character development (story and playing a role) is inherently better than action-oriented stat development. If you have just a story and meaningful choices, is it inherently better than a pure action game with strategic stat development alone and no story? I'm inclined to say yes, but both games, done well, are very refined products.

I'm tempted to say yes as well. But, which is the better RPG - GTA, Diablo, or a Gabriel Knight game? You get to choose from the freedom to develop a character, stat-climbing hack-heaven, or progression through a story. I had the most fun with Diablo, but I don't think that makes it a better RPG. VD would say that none are an RPG, and that I'm a moron - but then he wouldn't be able to justify the decision with a boundary definition. I just don't think any one part of an RPG is most important - if Morrowind is an RPG and GTA isn't then the essence of RPG is stat progression. If DivDiv is an RPG and Diablo isn't, then the essence of RPGs is FedEx quests (sorry, unfair jab).

The story-focused game would seem to offer more intellectual "meat," so that’s in its favor. Then again, a stat-heavy aRPG can get extremely complex. It's not quite as clear cut as the difference between a Hollywood popcorn film and a wrenching independent drama.

To talk about PnP RPG's for a bit, some people play to accumulate power and phat loot, some people want an epic adventure, some people want to play a role, some people want a detailed combat or conflict system, and other's want to dress up like a vampyre. Most people incorporate all of the first four to some degree. I would say that all four are valid RPG components that are relatively equal. The way to be "more" of an RPG is to incoporate more of these components, or the components to a greatest extent. It's fine to prefer one component to another, but as long as enough people associate another component with RPG a game incorporating that will be an RPG to some extent.

EDIT: fixed quote

 

[Vault Dweller]

Re: RE: Vault Dweller

A new champion has risen!

A detailed storyline is a hallmark of the role-playing genre of video game that doesn't receive nearly the same amount of emphasis in any other genre.

Ever heard about adventure games? Played any story-less dungeon crawlers lately? Btw, I have seen some FPS with more detailed & interesting stories than in most RPGs. What was the story in Fallout again? Find a chip and stop them mutants? Bio's infamous "find 4 itamz" storylines? I believe (ok, I hope) I've made my point.

Calling people idiots for considering games with what they consider an abundance of a genre-defining characteristic (the story) as genre-defining games is, well, a little haughty.

Well, I'm a haughty boy. BOW TO ME!!!!MWAHAHAHA!!! Sorry about that. I don't know what came over me.

Anyway, we have already established that those characteristics define only one thing - stupidity of those who wrote them, so let's not waste anymore time and move on.

Essentially, you're saying that these people are idiots for not realising that the only actual RPG hallmark is choice-making, which- though it seems obvious to you- is actually a very refined way to approach the concept.

I agree, it's a refined way and I didn't expect to hear that. There are other, more easily recognizable traits that even stupid people may notice. Or so I haughtily thought.

At no point did the respondents to Gamasutra's question claim to be experts.

They did send that crap in, didn't they? Close enough.

The kid who said Final Fantasy VI is, however, a complete moron, and for the reasons you've cited in this thread.

Can't argue with that.

i) A variety of characters- a variety of different personalities- depth in the game? Those little shits, they think depth (or is depth not a hallmark of the RPG genre?) is good!

Good one. Variety -> Personalities -> Depth. Nice stretch. Let's leave your vivid imagination alone for now, and just say that quantity doesn't equal quality. Penny's MW example fits perfectly here.

v) I count one "lovely looks," and this is part of a list that also includes "world-affecting decisions" and "robust character creation," two pretty good reasons IMHO.

Excellent reasons, imo. Too bad those features weren't in BG2.

 

[PennyAnte]

But, which is the better RPG - GTA, Diablo, or a Gabriel Knight game?

That's a pretty interesting question. I only have played 10 -20 hours of GTA, and no Gabriel Knight, so it's tough for me to grasp your example. But as I recall from my GTA time, it offered a lot of freedom, but not a lot of meaningful choice. I think that's an important distinction, but I acknowledge my understanding of the game may be wrong.

VD would say that none are an RPG, and that I'm a moron - but then he wouldn't be able to justify the decision with a boundary definition.?

Is that true VD? Exitium and I (and I think a couple of others) have made passing references to looking at the Sims, for example, as an RPG-like game. What's your take?

I just don't think any one part of an RPG is most important - if Morrowind is an RPG and GTA isn't then the essence of RPG is stat progression.

I agree with the thrust of this comment. It's not a simple equation like: Add RPG characteristic checklist = an RPG. There's a sort of "gestalt" transformation that makes a game an RPG, rather than, say, a shooter with RPG elements.

To talk about PnP RPG's for a bit, some people play to accumulate power and phat loot, some people want an epic adventure, some people want to play a role, some people want a detailed combat or conflict system, and other's want to dress up like a vampyre. Most people incorporate all of the first four to some degree.

LOLOLOLOL! "Most people" and "first four" - kudos to you for a funny left-handed slap to LARPers!

I would say that all four are valid RPG components that are relatively equal.

LOL. A one-two left handed slap!

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'm tempted to say yes as well. But, which is the better RPG - GTA, Diablo, or a Gabriel Knight game? You get to choose from the freedom to develop a character, stat-climbing hack-heaven, or progression through a story. I had the most fun with Diablo, but I don't think that makes it a better RPG. VD would say that none are an RPG, and that I'm a moron - but then he wouldn't be able to justify the decision with a boundary definition. I just don't think any one part of an RPG is most important - if Morrowind is an RPG and GTA isn't then the essence of RPG is stat progression. If DivDiv is an RPG and Diablo isn't, then the essence of RPGs is FedEx quests (sorry, unfair jab).

Since my name was mentioned, I'll join the discussion. First, I can justify the decision with a boundary definition, so your earlier claims "make a definition and I'll show you a game that doesn't fit" go out the window :wink: Second, I wouldn't call you a moron.

Going with a broad definition, Diablo and MW are RPGs, GTA and GK aren't. The definition is being able to play a game using your character(s)' skills and abilities. Hence the word ROLE-playing.

 

[PennyAnte]

Too bad those features weren't in BG2.

Gotta agree. The EA guy was much more on target about what BG2 brought to the table.

Also: sorry if I wrongly interrupted here, VD - I just got all swept up in the thread starting with the last page.

 

[Vault Dweller]

VD would say that none are an RPG, and that I'm a moron - but then he wouldn't be able to justify the decision with a boundary definition.?

Is that true VD? Exitium and I (and I think a couple of others) have made passing references to looking at the Sims, for example, as an RPG-like game. What's your take?

I have no idea. I haven't played the Sims and I'm not going to in the near future. Not my cup of tea.

My preferred, more excluding definition of CRPG is "a game that allows you to play in a manner fitting your character using only your character's skills and abilities". If the Sims games support that, then yeah, sure, why not.

 

[obediah]

I'm tempted to say yes as well. But, which is the better RPG - GTA, Diablo, or a Gabriel Knight game? You get to choose from the freedom to develop a character, stat-climbing hack-heaven, or progression through a story. I had the most fun with Diablo, but I don't think that makes it a better RPG. VD would say that none are an RPG, and that I'm a moron - but then he wouldn't be able to justify the decision with a boundary definition. I just don't think any one part of an RPG is most important - if Morrowind is an RPG and GTA isn't then the essence of RPG is stat progression. If DivDiv is an RPG and Diablo isn't, then the essence of RPGs is FedEx quests (sorry, unfair jab).

Since my name was mentioned, I'll join the discussion. First, I can justify the decision with a boundary definition, so your earlier claims "make a definition and I'll show you a game that doesn't fit" go out the window :wink: Second, I wouldn't call you a moron.

Thanks for not calling me a moron. Out of curiosity, what would your boundary decision be? I'm highly skeptical that you can come up with one that works, but as long as everyone keeps their cool (like that could happen), it would be a really interesting thought expirement. I find the binary labeling of games as RPG/non-RPG pointless and infuriating, but the logic behind such attempts is usually elightening.

Going with a broad definition, Diablo and MW are RPGs, GTA and GK aren't. The definition is being able to play a game using your character(s)' skills and abilities. Hence the word ROLE-playing.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=role

This puts the emphasis much more on social constraints rather than physical or mental ones. It also completely discounts freedom of choice, and minimzes the value of development or story progression. I think by the dictionary, GK would be the most RPG out of the four above.

I don't think that "using your character(s)' skills and abilities" equates to 'ROLE' as much as you had intended it to. Sticking to the skills and abilities, you need to define how reliant the game is on character skills/abilities vs player ones - if you set the requirement too high (like below) no games are RPGs, and too low and all games are RPGs. I don't hink it's possible to draw a clear line, but I'm interested in any ideas you have.

My preferred, more excluding definition of CRPG is "a game that allows you to play in a manner fitting your character using only your character's skills and abilities". If the Sims games support that, then yeah, sure, why not.

This would exclude any game with puzzles that the player determines, or really any game that leaves anything up the player. Combat would have to be completely auto-resolved, dialog trees would have to be very heavily constrained. It could be an interesting game, but I don't think it's been made yet. It certainly doesn't include any of the games you've labeled as RPGs in this thread.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Out of curiosity, what would your boundary decision be?

The one about using your character's skills and abilities. I believe that's a min requirement to qualify.

I'm highly skeptical that you can come up with one that works, but as long as everyone keeps their cool (like that could happen), it would be a really interesting thought expirement. I find the binary labeling of games as RPG/non-RPG pointless and infuriating, but the logic behind such attempts is usually elightening.

At very least it's entertaining.

This puts the emphasis much more on social constraints rather than physical or mental ones. It also completely discounts freedom of choice, and minimzes the value of development or story progression.

In the context of RPG, the emphasis is on being able to play a distinctive, often over the top role of a character that's being determined by stats. In the context of CRPG, the social part is non-existent, and the only difference between HL2 and Bloodlines, for example, is the defining factor of stats. If you recall, many fine but stupid journalists have claimed that ranged is useless in BL, completely ignoring the fact that it's useless if the SKILL is underdeveloped. At 8-10 it was devastating. Since both games have the same FP mode and use the same engine, that's a good example to illustrate the definition.

I don't think that "using your character(s)' skills and abilities" equates to 'ROLE' as much as you had intended it to. Sticking to the skills and abilities, you need to define how reliant the game is on character skills/abilities vs player ones - if you set the requirement too high (like below) no games are RPGs, and too low and all games are RPGs. I don't hink it's possible to draw a clear line, but I'm interested in any ideas you have.

Overall the only difference is whose skills I'm using when I swing that sword, my mad mouse skillz or my character's skill. That's what defines the genre. It's irrelevant, for the purpose of this conversation, whether or not the skills are sufficient. That's game design and mechanics.

This would exclude any game with puzzles that the player determines, or really any game that leaves anything up the player. Combat would have to be completely auto-resolved, dialog trees would have to be very heavily constrained. It could be an interesting game, but I don't think it's been made yet. It certainly doesn't include any of the games you've labeled as RPGs in this thread.

That's why I said excluding, but the way I see it puzzles should be handled by the character as well. Remember that skeleton armor puzzle in PST? You use your character skills and knowledge to handle that. It's irrelevant what you know, it's what your character knows that matters.

As for combat, your involvment there is very simplistic, you point and your characters skills and abilities determines possible attacks, chance to hit, chance to defend, and damage range. By the same token, you are always guiding your character determining where he would go next, which response he would pick, so that's, imo, an acceptable involvement, as your skills aren't involved at all.