ArchAngel
Arcane
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2015
- Messages
- 21,504
that is what my wife says :Dif you play games you're part of the problem
that is what my wife says :Dif you play games you're part of the problem
Someone name a single game in which you do not play a role.
You can't. Thus all games are roleplaying games.
Roles are not what you think.
Roles = Knight, Mage, Priest, Thief, etc.
I would if it was possible on new Xbox. And honor has nothing to do with it. And gaming is still cheaper hobby than going to cinema, to clubs or restaurants. At least per hour spent.You should pirate all shitty AAA games and only pay for games that you really like.Maybe that is easy to say when you live in a rich country where 90% of your monthly paycheck is not going into survival. I have pirated games my whole life (or bought them on steep discounts through KS or years later) but with gamepass I am actually sending some money to developers. I can afford 15$ per month, I cannot afford 40+$ each month (or 2 months) to buy new games.Subscriptions are always anti-consumer, and in the end they are anti-developers/authors.No matter how cheap it is, no matter how good the games offered by the service: never support subscription models.Game Pass
If you pay for Game Pass you are part of the problem.
Basically, distribution monopolist forces the developers/authors to forego big percent of their income for slush fund in the manner of wholesale scalpers.
When Belmondo died, I tried to find a movie with him, Man from Rio or Professional or some other old school action movie, on my friends Netflix.
Not a single movie with one of the biggest international stars ever, but a bunch of overstretched (8 episodes, when in reality there is material for one) documentaries about every kind of serial killer, animal, food or tons of serialized woke propaganda.
You had much better choice in your small local video rental store in 80s.
I ended obtaining complete filmography from popular site for shareware materials.
I hope Netflix, Disney+, XBOX Live, Playstation Plus, Epic Store and all other scammers all go out of the business.
But I'm afraid they will take down whole industries and mediums in the process, like Marvel and DC did to American comics.
Sure if I lived in Germany or some other colonial power in EU I could also look at others from my high horse.
It is cheaper and more honorable than paying subscription to those leeches.
No, that is not the main reason people play RPGs.RPG is a marketing term at its core. When you say a game is an RPG, or has "RPG elements" you are trying to signal that it has some sort of character growth based on some form of experience points. That's all the term really means anymore, like how "roguelike" generally means permadeath and proc gen, not that the game is literally just like the game "Rogue".
Making marketing term from RPG is how we got here.Someone name a single game in which you do not play a role.
You can't. Thus all games are roleplaying games.
Roles are not what you think.
Roles = Knight, Mage, Priest, Thief, etc.role
noun
The dictionary doesn't even mention Knights, Mages, Priests, or thieves!
- A character or part played by a performer.
- The characteristic and expected social behavior of an individual.
- A function or position. synonym: function.
In any game, the player plays the role of "the player". Their function or position is the player. In fact, most games include a so called "player character" or "PC" that the player is playing the role of!
In reality of course nobody means that when they talk about Role Playing Games, but the problem is the "definition" of an RPG is nebulous and really comes down to expectations. When you hear a game is an "RPG" you generally expect things like experience, levels, or some form of the character(s) themselves improving. This is generally separate from the character(s) tools or weapons improving by buying upgrades or what have you. Counter-strike is not an RPG even though you can buy better weapons and equipment in later rounds depending on how well you did.
Of course, if the weapons themselves had an experience meter that went up when you killed stuff, and the weapons were upgraded in some way based on that experience, you could make the case that the game has "RPG Elements".
Traditionally an RPG involves lots of combat, and combat is the main method of experience gain and character improvement. But, Baldur's Gate 2 is still an RPG even if I get most of my XP for finishing quests and reading spell scrolls.
RPG is a marketing term at its core. When you say a game is an RPG, or has "RPG elements" you are trying to signal that it has some sort of character growth based on some form of experience points. That's all the term really means anymore, like how "roguelike" generally means permadeath and proc gen, not that the game is literally just like the game "Rogue".
Which is how PnP RPGs work.That's only combat in the sense that characters are fighting on screen. How you as a player engage in that "combat" is by making a dice-roll in a dialog window, which is mechanically indistinguishable from any other dice-roll you've been making for the entire game.
Changing the meaning of words over time,...
You choose to be a pacifist in Fallout. You do not have such a choice in the visual novel.For all intents and purposes I can agree with that, after all it's just one fight that, like you said, is kind of static.Disco Elysium has no combat.
But, does the fact that it has no combat disqualify it from being an RPG? What if I do a pacifist run of Fallout or any other game that allows me to do so. Am I not having an "RPG experience" without killing anything?
Well RPG literally means Role Playing Game, so I don't know what to tell you. Sorry, the "real meaning" we all cling to of what an RPG actuallly is, is completely based on marketing. There's no emperical provable definition of an RPG, aside from the words it stands for and the dictionary definition of those words. Someone insisting RPG means combat, experience gain, dice rolls, or whatever else is the one using flexible "feelings based" definitions.Making marketing term from RPG is how we got here.Someone name a single game in which you do not play a role.
You can't. Thus all games are roleplaying games.
Roles are not what you think.
Roles = Knight, Mage, Priest, Thief, etc.role
noun
The dictionary doesn't even mention Knights, Mages, Priests, or thieves!
- A character or part played by a performer.
- The characteristic and expected social behavior of an individual.
- A function or position. synonym: function.
In any game, the player plays the role of "the player". Their function or position is the player. In fact, most games include a so called "player character" or "PC" that the player is playing the role of!
In reality of course nobody means that when they talk about Role Playing Games, but the problem is the "definition" of an RPG is nebulous and really comes down to expectations. When you hear a game is an "RPG" you generally expect things like experience, levels, or some form of the character(s) themselves improving. This is generally separate from the character(s) tools or weapons improving by buying upgrades or what have you. Counter-strike is not an RPG even though you can buy better weapons and equipment in later rounds depending on how well you did.
Of course, if the weapons themselves had an experience meter that went up when you killed stuff, and the weapons were upgraded in some way based on that experience, you could make the case that the game has "RPG Elements".
Traditionally an RPG involves lots of combat, and combat is the main method of experience gain and character improvement. But, Baldur's Gate 2 is still an RPG even if I get most of my XP for finishing quests and reading spell scrolls.
RPG is a marketing term at its core. When you say a game is an RPG, or has "RPG elements" you are trying to signal that it has some sort of character growth based on some form of experience points. That's all the term really means anymore, like how "roguelike" generally means permadeath and proc gen, not that the game is literally just like the game "Rogue".
Role playing sounded cool and hip to marketing departments.
It can mean everything from child play, actor training method to sexual intercourse sugar coating.
So, soon every game that their promoters wanted to be special, to stand out form rest of shooters started declaring itself as a RPG.
It sounded more abstract than shooter with loot, RTS with special units, trading card games or CYOA for mature audiences.
Changing the meaning of words over time, "getting along with the times", is the way being liberal now means that you value collective identities and state control over personal freedom - which is complete opposite from what it meant only 10 years ago.
We all know what RPG meant originally - and it certainly didn't mean CYOA, adventure, action game or some cheap edutainment from burned down industry veterans.
Only question is do you want to stretch the poor RPG even more and make it mean whatever you can correlate with roles, playing or games.
Well RPG literally means Role Playing Game, so I don't know what to tell you. Sorry, the "real meaning" we all cling to of what an RPG actuallly is, is completely based on marketing. There's no emperical provable definition of an RPG, aside from the words it stands for and the dictionary definition of those words. Someone insisting RPG means combat, experience gain, dice rolls, or whatever else is the one using flexible "feelings based" definitions.
RTS is the same thing. It literally means "Real Time Strategy". Gamers associate the term with games like warcraft, starcraft, and things like that, but just using the actual dictionary definition of the words it could be almost any real time game in which the user could potentially have a strategy. In Super Mario Brothers, the gameplay is realtime, and not running into goombas is a good strategy.
It's pretty silly of you to try to connect this to state control over personal freedom. Sorry homey, but when they said Dues Ex had RPG elements that didn't mean the same thing as "It's MAAM!"
But if "combat gameplay" is necessary for a game to be an (C)RPG, then choosing to be a pacifist is the same as choosing to not play. Allowing for non combat runs or scenarios in an RPG is pointless because it is the same as allowing people to ignore the adventure hook and go home.You choose to be a pacifist in Fallout. You do not have such a choice in the visual novel.For all intents and purposes I can agree with that, after all it's just one fight that, like you said, is kind of static.Disco Elysium has no combat.
But, does the fact that it has no combat disqualify it from being an RPG? What if I do a pacifist run of Fallout or any other game that allows me to do so. Am I not having an "RPG experience" without killing anything?
And just like RPG, not everyone will agree that a certain band or even style of rock qualifies as "heavy metal". It's a subjective term. Once upon a time Black Sabbath was heavy metal, nobody would call it that anymore. In fact, it's a marketing term. Just like RPG or Roguelike.Well RPG literally means Role Playing Game, so I don't know what to tell you. Sorry, the "real meaning" we all cling to of what an RPG actuallly is, is completely based on marketing. There's no emperical provable definition of an RPG, aside from the words it stands for and the dictionary definition of those words. Someone insisting RPG means combat, experience gain, dice rolls, or whatever else is the one using flexible "feelings based" definitions.
RTS is the same thing. It literally means "Real Time Strategy". Gamers associate the term with games like warcraft, starcraft, and things like that, but just using the actual dictionary definition of the words it could be almost any real time game in which the user could potentially have a strategy. In Super Mario Brothers, the gameplay is realtime, and not running into goombas is a good strategy.
It's pretty silly of you to try to connect this to state control over personal freedom. Sorry homey, but when they said Dues Ex had RPG elements that didn't mean the same thing as "It's MAAM!"
I don't know what you are trying to achieve with all this "it literally means" and then calling dictionary to aid.
If you apply the same logic to every term or phrase coined from couple of words, I guess we can have autistic debates over meaning of them for a very long time.
Heavy metal in context of music doesn't mean "a metal of high specific gravity", or gold, lead or mercury, and it literally says that in dictionary.
And we can debate why every "energetic and highly amplified electronic rock music having a hard beat" isn't heavy metal, even if it says so in dictionary.
Look:
heavy metal
noun
1: a metal of high specific gravity
2: energetic and highly amplified electronic rock music having a hard beat
Example Sentences
He listens to heavy metal.
lead, gold, and other heavy metals
In the same dictionary there isn't exact word "role playing game", so I guess that type of games we talk about don't exist.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/role playing game
Oh, and you can't use "role playing game" in Scrabble.
Black Sabbath was heavy metal, is heavy metal and will be heavy metal.And just like RPG, not everyone will agree that a certain band or even style of rock qualifies as "heavy metal". It's a subjective term. Once upon a time Black Sabbath was heavy metal, nobody would call it that anymore. In fact, it's a marketing term. Just like RPG or Roguelike.
The point being, the only way to disqualify or qualify something as an RPG is based on the shifting opinions of the majority, because there's no way to nail it down, as it has no rational basis in the first place. It means what people think it means.
Trying to prove your definition is the "real" one without any actual way to ground it in objective fact means it's just the no true scottsman fallacy. X isn't an RPG because no true RPG fan thinks it's an RPG.
To me, a game with no combat isn't "really" an RPG because that's part of my expectation for the genre. It seems I'm with the majority here on that, but I realize I can't "prove" my point of view, at best I could take a poll, but that's hardly real proof.
Disagree. Combat should not be the only solution to any obstacle or scenario solution.then choosing to be a pacifist is the same as choosing to not play. Allowing for non combat runs or scenarios in an RPG is pointless because it is the same as allowing people to ignore the adventure hook and go home
OREither combat is not strictly necessary for a game to be called an RPG, or a tabletop game session where no combat happens is just a waste of time or a different kind of game entirely.
Disagree. Combat should not be the only solution to any obstacle or scenario solution.
This might be the purest definition of an RPG. Let's get some authority endorsement by RPG-god Todd Howard (time-stamped at 5:07 for your convenience):To crush your enemies, explore their dungeons, and to see the glitter of their treasure.
You don't understand. There's not much I like above seeing multiple solutions to a problem and ignoring all of them in favour of combat.Disagree. Combat should not be the only solution to any obstacle or scenario solution.
Warlord: This is good, but what is best in RPGs?
Warrior: Collaborative story-telling, choice & consequences, cinematic narrative, and companion romances.
Warlord: Wrong! Conan, what is best in RPGs?
Conan: To crush your enemies, explore their dungeons, and to see the glitter of their treasure.
Warlord: That is good. [crowd cheers]
This is a complete non sequitur. Let us use immersive sims for analogy. Immersive sims, as a genre, must give you multiple ways to tackle things, else they are not immersive sims. If I choose to only use one means to defeat the game and no other, did I not play the game? Was it a waste of time because I didn't use all methods of play? Of course not. But, had they not been available, the game would not have been an immersive sim.But if "combat gameplay" is necessary for a game to be an (C)RPG, then choosing to be a pacifist is the same as choosing to not play. Allowing for non combat runs or scenarios in an RPG is pointless because it is the same as allowing people to ignore the adventure hook and go home.
Either combat is not strictly necessary for a game to be called an RPG, or a tabletop game session where no combat happens is just a waste of time or a different kind of game entirely.
Sawyer claims that Wizardry is not an RPG "anymore". What the hell does "anymore" mean? It sounds very political.
This "definitions change over time" horseshit belongs in poltiics. It belongs to people who debate whether there exists more than two genders or not. Miss me with that shit.
I have played Pillars and followed Sawyer for a long time. He literally lost his compass. Both in a sense of RPG design, and as a person. Dude is a hipster who was driven insane by politics and twitter. He is probably vaxxed too.
EDIT: Why am I not surprised.
What a tool.