Why morons shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[Vykromond]

RE: PennyAnte ~ RE: Vault Dweller

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

Did you just say this to get in a cheap shot at MW? What does the word "lots" have to do with the word "variety"? When did any of the VD5 (or the other respondents to the Role-Playing section of the Gamasutra feature) talk about "lots of characters"? I see "dynamic characters," "characters that you will grow attached to on an emotional level," etc. Hell, even the Final Fantasy 6 kid that we agree is stupid said "variety of characters," not "lots of characters." (I just noticed that the Final Fantasy 6 kid isn't even part of the VD5; another person who answered with the Final Fantasy series is, whose response isn't as egregious, though he says some stupid things, is.)

The main point is the stupidometer is way over into the red here.

Except it's not. Of the VD5, respondent 2 gave what I think is a good response (of course, VD's excerpt tossed out "numerous character development options..." (choice!) "including one of the best good/evil systems I have ever played," (choice!) "[ . . . ] a world full of life with characters that you will grow attached to on an emotional level" (depth!)). Respondent 3, the EA guy, gave a response that you were fine with, despite his baffling awe of party-based RPGs. Respondent #4 cited "world-affecting decisions" and "robust character creation" among his list of reasons for liking the BG series, which are good reasons. Whether you think the games succeeded in these aspects is beside the point. Respondent #5 approaches the concept of choice through the avenue of not being constricted to a certain path- nonlinearity. Of course, this approaches the freedom vs. choice-making problem discussed elsewhere in this thread, but regardless, it's not stupid.

GamaSutra should have known better than to publish it.

No no no no no no no no. The point of the article was to see what people thought. That's what people think. There are retards (Ogre Battle 64?) and there are a lot of people that, while not CODEX-STYLE XPERTS, are not morons and don't deserve to be treated as such arbitrarily.

~

A new champion has risen!

Hah. Champion of the idiots. I like it.

Ever heard about adventure games?

No idea, what are those? In all seriousness, many adventure games (definitely the commonly-understood "genre-defining ones" a la MI1 and 2, Grim Fandango, etc.) have a very different concept of story (not to mention a common shunting aside of the "epic story" albatross) as compared to RPGs. On a related note: Why do you think some of the VD5 give lists of characteristics? Because they probably recognized that alone, none of the characteristics necessarily qualify an RPG- they had the same internal dialogue that you're externalising in some of your points in this thread. I don't think that's moronic.

Played any story-less dungeon crawlers lately?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean... aren't dungeon crawlers RPGs? They certainly are by your definition; they have stats, don't they?

Btw, I have seen some FPS with more detailed & interesting stories than in most RPGs.

I'm not sure which FPSes you're referring to, but I would venture that those RPGs sure aren't the genre-defining ones in your opinion or in the VD5s', which is something you and the morons have in common.

What was the story in Fallout again? Find a chip and stop them mutants?

What was the story in Crime and Punishment again? Kill this old woman and stew about it for a while? Putting things into capsule form for the sake of absurdism isn't a worthwhile way to approach the "detailed-story, undetailed-story" divide at all.

Bio's infamous "find 4 itamz" storylines?

They're still pretty well-written, aren't they? (You're actually probably going to say no, I guess.)

EDIT: Forgot one thing I meant to comment upon in this post.

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.

Really? Which ones are those? (genuinely curious, here)

 

[Shagnak]

Ach, I "heard" my name again up there (Deathboy/VD) so I thought I'd pop in again. Hi!
(Yes, I am now a hypocrite as well as a retard, as I said I wouldn't post again )

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!

Actually, this is not totally black and white. You see, "reasonably" has a reducing effect of a variable strength - there is a dynamic tension between what you thought I meant and what I thought I meant and so on. The ameliorating effect of the second half of the statement is therefore very relative.

At the moment I imagine it to be oscillating in the upper thoughtsphere of our consensus concept-space, flickering between conflicting concept contexts and differing adjective strength assertions, not being able to settle on the one "true" configuration (perhaps because it does not exist).

Rather than being "black and white" it is my belief that it is continually varying shades of grey, but polluted by our angry purple and red thoughts.

Therefore, it is my conclusion that it is a continually varying mauve :shock:


EDIT:

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.

Hmmm.
I wasn't trying to be directly insulting, but Deathboy is at least partially correct in that there was a slight backhand in there. So, not really black-and-white at all, I guess you missed the nuance (?). But you deliberately mangled it so as to make it black-and-white, hence proving my original point I guess.

The funny thing is, my eyes are slightly "colour-fucked", so all this talk of seeing in black-and-white is rather ironic really. But I fear I have given you amunition now. Oh well.

EDIT2:
"Shagga"?
And Ex calls me "Shaq", too.
Hell, I'm getting a few pet names lately

 

[Greatatlantic]

Why don't I just show the real reason morons shouldn't be allowed to vote..

Now thats out of the way; yes, people have opinions. No, we probably shouldn't assume that Fallout is the only RPG. No, a different opinion is not necessarily a wrong one. However, idiots/morons do exist. And they don't know anything about the genre we all love, other than they maybe played a game or two. I'm talking about the people who think Link is an RPG since it has swords and a fantasy backdrop. I'm talking about the people who complain about having to oh my goodness create their own character. If they do like an RPG, its inspite the RPG elements, not because. And these people exist in droves. Letting them have their opinions is one thing. Viewing them as equally valid to our own is another. I'm sure the editors of the article could have done a lot worse in picking out submissions, but some of the comments were pretty out there.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Re: RE: PennyAnte ~ RE: Vault Dweller

In all seriousness, many adventure games (definitely the commonly-understood "genre-defining ones" a la MI1 and 2, Grim Fandango, etc.) have a very different concept of story

True, but it's a story nonetheless, and that's what adventure games, unlike rpgs, are all about. That's why I disagreed with your claim that "A detailed storyline is a hallmark of the role-playing genre ... that doesn't receive nearly the same amount of emphasis in any other genre".

On a related note: Why do you think some of the VD5 give lists of characteristics? Because they probably recognized that alone, none of the characteristics necessarily qualify an RPG- they had the same internal dialogue that you're externalising in some of your points in this thread. I don't think that's moronic.

That theory implies that they gave the question some thought which is unlikely. Even if you are correct, they arrived to mostly incorrect conclusions failing to realize what rpg gameplay is all about, and what the key difference from ANY OTHER genre.

I have seen many idiotic review, and I even wanted to start a collection in some thread where gaming journalists defined rpgs in a variety of stupid ways, from you get XP for killing things to it has an inventory so it must be an rpg. Sadly, it's not a joke.

Played any story-less dungeon crawlers...

I'm not exactly sure what you mean... aren't dungeon crawlers RPGs? They certainly are by your definition; they have stats, don't they?

They sure are, mister. My point was about the story. It's an RPG, yet it doesn't have any story!

I'm not sure which FPSes you're referring to, but I would venture that those RPGs sure aren't the genre-defining ones in your opinion or in the VD5s', which is something you and the morons have in common.

Wow! That's a nice one. I must say that I admire the skill, it's been awhile since I saw such finesse in an insult. Two thumbs up for that one!

Unfortunately, those rpgs would belong to the genre-defining variety, simply because a story is not very important in an rpg. In fact, that's why many people prefer to think of PST as an adventure game, mostly on account of the too restricting story. A story in an RPG should be more like a guideline, allowing players to craft their own stories as they go. A setting and background stories are a different matter though.

What was the story in Crime and Punishment again? Kill this old woman and stew about it for a while?

I hated that fucking book. Way overhyped, imo, but the story was more complex than that, even in a few words.

Putting things into capsule form for the sake of absurdism isn't a worthwhile way to approach the "detailed-story, undetailed-story" divide at all.

It does help though. There is a difference between find a water chip and find your memories. The former implies a relatively simple task , the latter implies an emotional journey. It's easy to tell which comes with a story.

They're still pretty well-written, aren't they? (You're actually probably going to say no, I guess.)

No, I will say yes, but story and quality of writing are two different things. One doesn't imply the other.

Really? Which ones are those? (genuinely curious, here)

Using your character's skills and abilities for example.

 

[Shagnak]

@GreatAtlantic: AARRRGGGGH...IT BURNS MY EYES!!!

 

[Vykromond]

a bunch of stuff that i'm neither putting in this quote box nor really responding to for the sake of brevity

Fair enough (the comment about the adventure games is a good point, as is the water chip vs. emotional journey thing). I don't actually disagree with a lot of the points you bring up here (at the very least, I haven't given much thought to some of them, like the PS:T as an adventure game thing for instance)- what I do take issue with is the thrust of your OP that the opinions of the VD5 are somehow exceptionally moronic, which I don't think your last post has done anything to prove. If anything, the longer we drag this argument out, the better my position will look, because it'll seem like you're qualifying (and thus neutering) your initial blunt remark.

So in leaving this post as-is, I'm really giving you a way out of a losing battle. :wink:

On another note, you didn't like Crime and Punishment? What about it turned you off?

 

[Shagnak]

Letting them have their opinions is one thing. Viewing them as equally valid to our own is another.

I essentially agree with you.
I don' t think anyone thinks that their opinion is equally valid as ours to us necessarily (aside as some sort of barometer of CRPG awareness out there).
Really, my only issue is that they are not offering their opinion from the platform of being some sort of expert, just their personal opinion. This may be understandably naive, rather than moronic.
If they were game critics (or someone else who is implicitly an "expert") then, fuck it, jump all over them. But they're not.

I'm sure the editors of the article could have done a lot worse in picking out submissions, but some of the comments were pretty out there.

Yeah. maybe we should have jumped up and down and accused the editors (who do wear some sort of mantel as "expert") of being morons. I find it hard to believe that they couldn't find better responses from the masses than these.

To put it simply, I think we may have the wrong target in our sights.

 

[Trash]

Maybe a bit ot, but somehow the title of the thread kinda seems right with this newly elected pope.

 

[Fez]

Those back-stabbing bastard cardinals. They'll get their comeuppance.

 

[Shagnak]

I voted for you Fez.
They musta lost it in the post

 

[Vault Dweller]

Actually, this is not totally black and white. You see, "reasonably" has a reducing effect of a variable strength - there is a dynamic tension between what you thought I meant and what I thought I meant and so on. The ameliorating effect of the second half of the statement is therefore very relative.

You said something like "I don't accuse you of stupidity BECAUSE I think you are reasonably intelligent". "Because" implies that it's either one or another, otherwise known as black-n-white regardless of the relativity of "reasonably".

I wasn't trying to be directly insulting, but Deathboy is at least partially correct in that there was a slight backhand in there.

No kidding! And I thought that you were making me a compliment! (Note for Deathboy, that's sarcasm). Yes, I saw that, so? What did you expect me to do? Start a flame war? Call your local law-enforcement agencies? I ignored the remark, but since you claimed that my world is black and white or something like that, I used the logic in your remark to make the same statement about you.

 

[Vault Dweller]

So in leaving this post as-is, I'm really giving you a way out of a losing battle. :wink:

Nah, thanks. Appreciate the gesture and all, but I'll take my chances.:wink:

)- what I do take issue with is the thrust of your OP that the opinions of the VD5 are somehow exceptionally moronic, which I don't think your last post has done anything to prove

I wasn't trying to prove anything. I simply explained my position, since questions were asked, and that was it. If someone feels that it was unjustified/wrong/uncalled for/stupid/etc, then that's fine with me. I support diversity of opinions because that's what made such a great discussion in the first place

I have already posted my position on that and an analogy to go with that. If that wasn't sufficient, then feel free to think that I've lost the argument or whatever that was.

On another note, you didn't like Crime and Punishment? What about it turned you off?

The main character. Neither his story, nor his emotional journey, nor the moral of the story weren't interesting to me.

 

[Shagnak]

You said something like "I don't accuse you of stupidity BECAUSE I think you are reasonably intelligent". "Because" implies that it's either one or another, otherwise known as black-n-white regardless of the relativity of "reasonably".

No, 'tis not black and white, because it is not "one or the other" if you think I might have just been being a smart-arse. The implication could be taken, especially since you apparently noticed the potential "back-handedness" of the comment, that you are a little of both, i.e. somewhere in the wafty reality between "stupid" and "intelligent". I could have been meaning, "well, he's not enitirely stupid, but he's no brainiac either".
But rest assured, I don't think stupidity is your problem.

Anyway, it should have been obvious by the cod-intellectual stupidity of what I said that I woz ekstraktin zee urine, jah?

Cleave to the mauve VD, cleave to the mauve :shock:

What did you expect me to do? Start a flame war? Call your local law-enforcement agencies?

Err...no? Huh? What!?

I ignored the remark, but since you claimed that my world is black and white or something like that, I used the logic in your remark to make the same statement about you.

Yep.
And then I in turn pointed out that you must have ignored any subtle nuances (which you were, apparently, always aware of) in order to deliberately warp it into a black-and-white statement.

Err, does that mean we agree on that?

:shock:

(See...this is turning into one of those pages and pages of pointless responses I was talking about. Arguing in circles and triangles and god knows what else. Oh holy Cthulhu, show me the exit! Eat me first!)

 

[Vault Dweller]

Err, does that mean we agree on that?

Well, I think we must agree on something for the sake of agreeing on something and thus feeling better about ourselves. And mauve is my new color of choice.

 

[PennyAnte]

Sorry I'm late here Vykromond. Got held up with work.

What does the word "lots" have to do with the word "variety"?

Well, it's hard to have much variety with, say, 2 NPCs. Also, I don't agree with your earlier statement that "a variety of different personalities- depth in the game." Variety doesn't equal depth. High-quality and complex NPC personalities, on the other hand, can create depth and immersion. Variety and numbers alone just offer diversity and quantity, not quality.

When did any of the VD5 (or the other respondents to the Role-Playing section of the Gamasutra feature) talk about "lots of characters"? I see "dynamic characters," "characters that you will grow attached to on an emotional level," etc.

It's pretty straightforward that a lot of character variety implies a lot of individual characters. Also, that institute of art guy said "world full of life with characters that you will grow attached to on an emotional level."

stuff about how some responses were good.

I agree there are some intelligent answers but, like I said before, it's a few struggling plants in an overall toxic landscape. You've got to allow for all of the responses here, including the Final Fantasy garbage we already agree on.

The point of the article was to see what people thought. ... There are retards (Ogre Battle 64?) and there are a lot of people that, while not CODEX-STYLE XPERTS, are not morons and don't deserve to be treated as such arbitrarily.

There are a few reasonable answers. The other answers are so far-out wrong that they're moronic. There are 9 people in the RPG section on GamaSutra. Only two both 1. described their cited game properly and 2. had any idea what makes an RPG unique. A couple of others did one or the other, but overall, seven out of nine people had responses that just were out in left field.

GamaSutra, in my opinion, made a classic publication snafu. This kind of article is the reason newspapers shy away from "man on the street" interviews. If you just ask random people for their take on, say, the national unemployment rate, and then include a series of answers from people who have no idea what they're talking about, it only makes them and the newspaper look stupid. It also adds nothing for the reader. (Except a chance to make fun of idiots. And let's face it that, which is what we're doing here, is not a high-brow exercise.)

If this interview was about the unemployment rate and not RPGs, GamaSutra would have done the equivalent of publishing answers from people who obviously had no idea how the rate affected anything, and possibly no idea what the rate even was. What's that worth? Maybe it's valuable if it went with a story illustrating how uninformed people were on economic matters. But even then, I'd rather see a scientific poll that accurately reflected the country's level of knowledge instead.

 

[Vykromond]

interest... waning... must... continue... arguing... with... pennyante... can't be seen... to lose the argument... e-peen getting flaccid...

It's pretty straightforward that a lot of character variety implies a lot of individual characters. Also, that institute of art guy said "world full of life with characters that you will grow attached to on an emotional level."

O_o That's crazy talk. You realize he meant "full of life, with characters that you grow attached to [ . . . ]," not "full of characters with life," right?

Also, I don't agree with your earlier statement that "a variety of different personalities- depth in the game." Variety doesn't equal depth. High-quality and complex NPC personalities, on the other hand, can create depth and immersion.

Okay. Maybe I should have watched what I said more. Except that's all you're accusing the VD5 of doing: making a semantic mistake by citing 'variety of characters' instead of 'variety of characters with significant depth.'

You've got to allow for all of the responses here, including the Final Fantasy garbage we already agree on.

Except, bafflingly enough, only one of the VD5 is actually a Final Fantasy fanboy. The other Final Fantasy fanboy, and the guy who said Ogre Battle, weren't excerpted by VD as being idiots. I explained in my second-to-last post, the one you are currently responding to, that the responses of the other four were not stupid. Wrong? Probably. Not experts? Definitely. "Obviously retarded"? No.

stuff about the unemployment rate

I don't see how this "adds nothing for the reader." Doesn't BG2's huge critical and commercial popularity make it a genre-defining game whether you (pl.) like it or not? I guess this is taking a different approach to the definition of "genre-defining" than simply "encapsulates the primary aspects of the genre better than any other game," which seems to be the definition you're working from, but "becomes the standard for all similar products to come after it" is IMHO just as applicable of a definition. And BG2 has made itself the standard: it's defined the RPG genre post-1998 (?), and thus its qualities have become those that define the genre. Coincidentally, BG2 doesn't have much of anything earthshattering in the way of choices, which is yet another explanation for why "choice-making" didn't figure prominently among the responses given by the VD5.

 

[Vault Dweller]

O_o That's crazy talk. You realize he meant "full of life, with characters that you grow attached to [ . . . ]," not "full of characters with life," right?

Maybe he meant characters with full life that you grow attached to? I noticed that I often get attached to characters with full life, and I'm rarely interested in almost dead characters. Does that mean I'm too shalow? :shock:

Doesn't BG2's huge critical and commercial popularity make it a genre-defining game whether you (pl.) like it or not?

What about Diablos?

And BG2 has made itself the standard: it's defined the RPG genre post-1998 (?), and thus its qualities have become those that define the genre.

Really? Show me games that followed this standard and manifested those qualities. Show me the army of clones that follow every genre-defining game.

 

[Vykromond]

Maybe he meant characters with full life that you grow attached to? I noticed that I often get attached to characters with full life, and I'm rarely interested in almost dead characters. Does that mean I'm too shallow?

LOL! :D

What about Diablos?

What about 'em? They defined the "action RPG" genre as surely as BGII defined the "epic RPG." It's just that when asked "what game defines an RPG" people usually think epic first, and the immediate association is BGII. For examples of Diablo II bending the industry to its whim, look no further than Icewind Dale, or Screensaver Siege, or Throne of Darkness... aw hell, any game where the easiest remark to throw at it is "Diablo clone." "Baldur's Gate clone" can just as easily be applied to the games, PC and console, that take the BG mode and run with it.

Really? Show me games that followed this standard and manifested those qualities.

Lord almighty, I dunno, I sort of assumed you'd agree with me on this one. I guess I have to be on my toes more in these discussions. NWN (BGII with a shitty single-player system and awesome customizability), Arx Fatalis (BGII with a cuter magic system), Lionheart (BGII with a stupid premise and awful execution)? That's three pretty high-profile ones.

Show me the army of clones that follow every genre-defining game.

That's a tall order. Definitely happens, though- just look at Starcraft. The way I thought you'd approach this "popularity means genre definition" thing is with an argument like "but those games can still be shit:" for instance, does that mean that the respondents to the Gamasutra poll who said Final Fantasy are also right, just because Final Fantasy is so goddamn popular? I don't know. I don't think the Final Fantasy series are good games, and I do think the Baldur's Gate series are good games. Maybe you disagree; regardless, what makes the FF fanboys stupid is that their reasoning falls short, and I don't feel that the reasoning of the people who said BG falls nearly as short.

 

[Vault Dweller]

What about 'em? They defined the "action RPG" genre as surely as BGII defined the "epic RPG." It's just that when asked "what game defines an RPG" people usually think epic first, and the immediate association is BGII.

Hell of an assumption. Besides, the question was about rpgs in general, and so was my point. If we pick genre-defining games based on "huge critical and commercial popularity", then Diablo is one of the champions. FF is probably too.

Lord almighty, I dunno, I sort of assumed you'd agree with me on this one. I guess I have to be on my toes more in these discussions. NWN (BGII with a shitty single-player system and awesome customizability), Arx Fatalis (BGII with a cuter magic system), Lionheart (BGII with a stupid premise and awful execution)? That's three pretty high-profile ones.

Lionheart? High profile? Anyway, even if it was a high profile game, it's a Diablo clone in execution, and a bad one at that. How do you figure that Arx Fatalis is BG2? And NWN took different direction. So, what else you've got?

Now, take Diablos, for example, those are clearly genre-defining games. They are the symbol of action-RPGs. They defined the genre and the rest followed: IWD, Darkstone, Lionheart, Sacred, Harbinger, Dungeon Siege, Throne of Darkness, etc. We can't say the same about BG2 because, other than Gorasul which was a joke, there were no attempts to make similar games and thus develop the genre further.

That's a tall order. Definitely happens, though- just look at Starcraft.

I know that it happens, but the point was that I didn't see that happening with BG2

The way I thought you'd approach this "popularity means genre definition" thing is with an argument like "but those games can still be shit:"

Well, that's subjective. What's shit for me is awesome for someone else and visa versa. Even if popular games are shit, they can still define the genre, if there is a following. It would be a shitty genre but a genre nonetheless.

...and I do think the Baldur's Gate series are good games.

They are. Not the best RPGs though, but that's a different topic.

what makes the FF fanboys stupid is that their reasoning falls short, and I don't feel that the reasoning of the people who said BG falls nearly as short.

Can't say that I was impressed with BG people reasoning, but we've already discussed that so there is no reason to go over that again.

 

[Psilon]

Does Icewind Dale really count as a Diablo clone? The others, yes, but Icewind didn't especially strike me as a spiritual successor to Diablo. Given that I picked up Diablo II the same day, I'm surprised I even managed to finish Icewind.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Now, take Diablos, for example, those are clearly genre-defining games. They are the symbol of action-RPGs. They defined the genre and the rest followed: IWD, Darkstone, Lionheart, Sacred, Harbinger, Dungeon Siege, Throne of Darkness, etc. We can't say the same about BG2 because, other than Gorasul which was a joke, there were no attempts to make similar games and thus develop the genre further.

Why is Dungeon Siege and IWD being lumped with Diablo? Both of those games have more in common with Baldur's Gate than they do with Diablo.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Because it's easy for him to lump together games he doesn't like as 'clones of Diablo', despite their differences. It beats coming up with a real argument. That would require effort.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Because it's easy for him to lump together games he doesn't like as 'clones of Diablo', despite their differences. It beats coming up with a real argument. That would require effort.

I sense hostililty. And some stupidity. Sorry, Exit, but first, I happen to like Diablos a lot. I also liked IWD, and I think that Sacred wasn't bad after a few patches. Second, you may disagree with my points but I don't think you can claim that I don't have any.

Anyway, all those games feature similar gameplay style, and all are action hack-n-slash loot-driven RPGs. Some of those games are very good, some of those games are painfully bad, but they all belong to the same sub-genre (re)started by Diablo.

And in conclusion, what is it exactly you disagreed with? All I see is "lol u r stupid" type comment. In your own words, "it beats coming up with a real argument. That would require effort"

Why is Dungeon Siege and IWD being lumped with Diablo? Both of those games have more in common with Baldur's Gate than they do with Diablo.

I think that they are much closer to Diablo's mindless hack-n-slash roots then to BG story-driven gameplay. Anyway, care to elaborate your point of view?

Does Icewind Dale really count as a Diablo clone?

Perhaps, clone was a poor choice of a word, but overall IWD gameplay could be summarized as: new area opens up, go in and kill everything in sight, that opens up another area, rinse and repeat. Granted, there was actually a story, and you could talk to many people, but that doesn't change the fact that the gameplay was about wiping out one area after another.

 

[Volourn]

WHAT? IWD has more in common with Diablo than BG? That's hilarious consideirng IWD literally uses BG's engine. It obviously has more in common with BG than Diablo.

As for other examples of BG clones or those who try to make money off of BG's success: Divine Divinity, TOEE, and BGDA (even it's a good 'ol fashion hns).

Let's also not forget about what peopel reference with they talka bout RPGs. Does anyone remember what Bethesda said when they were asked questions abot isometirc RPGs. They referenced the Bg series even though they were discussing their newly acquired FO license. If you don't call that 'genre defining'; you are being silly.

R00fles!

 

[Vault Dweller]

WHAT? IWD has more in common with Diablo than BG? That's hilarious consideirng IWD literally uses BG's engine. It obviously has more in common with BG than Diablo.

So? BL used HL2 engine. MW, Pirates!, FF, and Empire Earth 2 use the same engine. Bio, Obsidian, and inXile got Unreal engine. I guess they are making FPSs then.

As for other examples of BG clones or those who try to make money off of BG's success: Divine Divinity, TOEE, and BGDA (even it's a good 'ol fashion hns).

You've gotta be kidding.

Let's also not forget about what peopel reference with they talka bout RPGs. Does anyone remember what Bethesda said when they were asked questions abot isometirc RPGs. They referenced the Bg series even though they were discussing their newly acquired FO license. If you don't call that 'genre defining'; you are being silly.

I don't think that Pete's stupidity should be used as an argument here. At any rate, he was talking about the isometric thing, not about the entire genre, especially considering that the ES series is one of the long standing champions.