Definition of cRPG

[Sarvis]

Success should never be guaranteed, but good skills make it as close to that as possible. That's the whole point that you've failed to grasp. The better you are the harder it is for you to fail. Random = unpredictability. Skills = pattern. Like I said, when I hit 7/10 at a certain skill level, it's not random. That's what skills do.

Yes, success should never be gauranteed. I'm not failing to grasp anything here. The point is that even if your skill is completely maxed out there is a random factor which determines success. If there wasn't, you would not be rolling dice. You would just compare the number on the paper to the number on the other guys' paper.

Compare that to an action game where success is determined entirely by when you press the button and nothing else. That is NOT random.

The odds of that are very small (assuming that you are talking about rolling 1 3 times in a row). However, even if you are that unlucky, you have to look at the whole game. If it was as random as you describe, games would be constant reload fests. They are not, and that proves you wrong.

Look, you admit there is always a chance of failure. That means it is random. If it were not random you would _always_ fail or _always_ succeed. That's what non-random is.

First, if you had to start throwing "what if" points - i.e. what if he's wounded, what if he's lost all his good stuff, what if he's poisoned and dying anyway, etc - is there a point to be made?

You said a level 1 char could never kill a level 20 char. You were wrong, there are situations where it is possible due to <i>randomness</i>.

Nope. Sorry. Doesn't fly. If you add a story and dialogues, it stops being a sport game right there, and becomes something else ranging from adventure to RPG, depending on what you add, set in a sport setting.

You are an idiot.

You are saying the The Legend of Zelda is an RPG.

You are saying Metal Gear Solid is an RPG.

You are wrong.

You are erasing anything that could be called genre in an attempt to define a genre.

The game described above could not be an RPG because there is no character development or stats, and it could not be an Adventure game because there is no puzzle solving.

You are trying to falsely lable a game based on criteria which do not apply.

Just because there were some dungeon crawlers some time ago, doesn't mean that we have to ignore games that had story, dialogues, and choices, and focus on the former just because they fit your cute little theory.

We are not ignoring them. We just are not defining the term CRPG based upon them. Those games you are talking about happende AFTER the term RPG was coined.

To change the definition now would be to <i>exclude those earlier games</i>.

Not to mention it is completely unnecessary, and the elements you are talking about can be inserted into any genre of game.

Uh, because we can role-play in them? Because we can play different characters the way we want?

You keep believing that.

It's funny though that any character you choose will speak exactly the same and have exactly the same thoughts...

But I went ahead and agreed to kris' definition of roleplaying, which essentially states you RP in every game and that it can not be used as a useful criterion for defining a genre. after all, if it were than the old Top Gun arcade game would be an RPG!

Remember I am demonstrated that roleplaying is not required in a CRPG!

*Alert!* Priceless signature material is detected! *Alert!*

Try to keep up, this is at least the second time I've said that specifically, and it has been the point of my argument the entire time.

So when I say that you can not roleplay in a game I am not saying the game is not an RPG.

Well, you see, we aren't talking about some pseudo RPGs where there is no role-playing. We are talking about games that are RPGs, and what defines them.
[/quote]

Yes...

Only your definition is wrong. Either it discludes early RPGs or it includes too much depending on what definition of roleplaying you go with.

Nice job.

You can't define away games as not RPGs using a definition that is still under discussion by the way.

Saying that you can't role-play just because you can't shrug a certain way is exactly like complaining about pants.

Not because I can't shrug a certain way, but because words are being placed in my characters mouth by someone other than me.

That is a LOT different than red pants.

Of course, I agree, but if you paid attention, I also said "a character system, situations that could be handled differently...". If a game can do all that plus good dialogues, then I would call it an RPG.

But very few RPGs through time have had those things.

Proves that it's not impossible (see your original statement)
[/quote]

I never said it was impossible (in this thread.) I sad that games are RPGs even without those things.

In fact, you made fun of that point about 5 quote blocks ago! It's in bright red if yo don't remember...

If shooting things with a bazooka is just one out of many ways to play the game, and if the mouse merely indicates direction of attack, and then my weapon skills take over, then I would consider it an RPG.

No one said anything about weapon skills. I'm discluding dialog options which affect the story, what you call roleplaying, from being part of the definition of an RPG. Skills and stats are what I said WERE parts of an RPG.

Also, I never said there were any skills in this hypothetical game. I said it was Quake, the actual game Quake, with dialog options and roleplaying as you see it.

In other words, you just agreed with me by saying if skills determined what happened with your shot it was an RPG.

Because I am claiming that that is what makes an RPG, combined with stats and character development.

Well, although there are many definitions provided by all kinda morons, but here, at RPG Codex, we talk about RPGs where RP actually stands for something.

You talk about a lot of RPGs. You guys, in fact, frequently discuss RPGs which do not measure up to your standards. RP is one of your standards, which is very rarely met. Yet you find all kinds of RPGs which do not meet that standard, and you talk shit about them constantly.

Remember, despite the storyline being on a rail and the player not having any dialog options at all Final Fantasy X is an RPG.

Maybe not a _good_ RPG by your standards, since it does not provide what you are looking for, but it is an RPG nonetheless.

It seems to me that RP for you is mostly conversations. For me, it's about choices when handling different situations.

Ok.

Then you must consider GTA: San Andreas an RPG.

The same could be said about anything else. Take your favourite conversation thing. By now, I'm aware of your position, and of the arguments you are using. You may think that you are instantly role-playing here, thinking up responses as you go, but technically, it's just picking from the list of choices available to you and sorted down by your own character development. I'm not sure how long you've been hanging around here, but take a look at this forum, everyone, including myself, is predictable. If I were to post a news post right now, I know what most people would say: Saint, Volourn, Exitium, Role-Player, etc. So, while we may think that we are about to make the most original point evar, to the others it's merely picking an option they expect you to.

An interesting theory.

However the difference is that the option is coming from within, rather than being dictated to the poster by an outside force such as a game designer.

More to the point, I could roleplay a different character if I wanted and throw you off completely.

In fact, that is what roleplaying is about. Putting yourself into a different persona and acting based upon that, rather than just acting like yourself.

when you say you are roleplaying because you see different solutions to a problem, are you really roleplaying? Is it _you_ thinking of a solution to the problem, or <i>your character</i>, as acted by you, thinking of the solution...


<b>Astromarine</b>

Sarvis, you are being moronic. You are arguing from the flawed premise of binary definitions. Either something allows unlimited choice and possibility, and it is a roleplaying game, or it limits you in some way and is therefore NOT roleplaying.

Well, yes. If something else is determining your actions how can you be considered to be roleplaying?

Also, there is a second fallacy of your argument: the fact that the definition of RPG has to be immutable, and was frozen in time when Akallabeth was released.

It _should_ be though. Changing the definition leads to confusion, and adds nothing that can't be done with combinations of genre or new terms.

The genre tells people what type of <i>gameplay</i> to expect. If I see RPG on a game box, then load up a game and am playing a Quake clone I'm going to be awfully confused no matter how much story and dialog there is.

Not to mention that those things are becoming increasingly large elements of almost all genre of game. Even in GTA games, which always had a fairly intricate storyline, there is now an option where you can pick positive or negative responses when people yell at you on the street.

How long until a GTA game has intricate dialog and you can actually affect the plot? (Maybe you can do this in GTA:SA, just got it so don't know yet...) But the basic gameplay will still be different than an RPG.

Though I should admit here I have absolutely no idea what genre GTA is... heh.

A cRPG is nothing less than the attempt to code a P&PRPG using computers. The tool used to attempt that translation, the computer, has evolved since the Apple 2 and Akallabeth, and therefore so has the "completeness" of the translation. While at the beginning only the mathematical rule model and a linear path was possible, the advances since then in hardware performance, and game theory, have allowed for a greater portion of the P&P experience to be translated. Now it is possible for developers to give us storylines and gameplay which branches in several points, so that two people who choose differently since the baginning of the game telling each other how it went will relate two completely different experiences. Of course, most developers choose to still limit their game to the older formula, but that doesn't change the fact that the possibility is there.

I understand what you, and the others, are saying.

However you guys seem to keep ignoring what I am saying:

All of those things can be inserted into any genre of game you want.

Therefore it is pointless to label games as CRPGs based on those aspects, unless you want to just call ALL games CRPGs.

Not to mention that defining the term CRPG based on these new elements would automatically disclude many past games and many modern games that you admit do not make use of this potential.

Make up a new term for the type of game you guys want or somethihng, don't change an existing term to something which discludes the past games.

Let's face it: in 90% of the P&P RPGs, there will not be more possible branches planned than in a cRPG. A GM will prepare a storyline, and leave the details fuzzy so that the players, whose gameplay possibilities are chosen from a finite set, can tailor those details to their style and choices. Granted, there are completely freeform stories made up on-the-fly by the whole group, but let's face it: unless they are VERY good and know each other VERY well, these will mostly suck. When I was a GM, and I decided that some event would happen, it simply would, even though I gave the players some choice of where and when based on their movements prior to the event, and complete choice on how they react to it.

Yes, but a computer can't leave the details fuzzy. It has to lock people into a specific set of action the entire way, and each extra specific set of actions takes more time to design. You cannot cover everything everyone would do.

A DM can react and play along, and if he is good continue the good story.

A computer cannot, in can only offer you a specific list of actions which yo ucan choose from.

Therefore, your point where a game is not an RPG unless it gives you COMPLETE freedom is both naive, because in P&P you also don't have complete freedom, and invalid, because cRPGs are the best possible approach to P&P, where developers prune the universe of choices to a meaningful set that can be a) accurately portrayed and b) fun to play. You are saying that a game where a dev gives you the choice between some possible reactions to an event is not an RPG (or at least not "roleplaying") unless you ALSO have the option "do nothing, go home, masturbate into an old sock, then kill myself".That's just retarded

What is it with you people.

I am not saying a game cannot be an RPG unless it has the freedom of a GM. I am saying you cannot roleplay in that game. I am saying that an RPG does not require roleplaying.

Again, designers could offer you all those same choices in a freaking flight sim if they wanted. That does not make the flight sim an RPG, even if you could roleplay in it. Even if you could go home and masturbate into a sock in that game, it is still a flight sim.


<b>kris</b>

Many RPGs have been without those choices, and those choices could be inserted into any other genre without making it an RPG.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You are an idiot.

Ah, things've just got interesting. I can't reply right now, old boy, I have a meeting shortly, but I'll definitely get back to you in about 4 hours.

 

[Sarvis]

You are an idiot.

Ah, things've just got interesting. I can't reply right now, old boy, I have a meeting shortly, but I'll definitely get back to you in about 4 hours.

Sorry, really.

You are just seriously beginning to exasperate me with your constant ignoring of my point.

I have stated several times now that I don't think roleplaying is or should be required for a game to be an RPG, and have explained why yet you still pretend to act surprised and amazed when I point it out to you again and again.

Believe me, if I had meant to just flame you there would be a lot more insults in that post. There were, in fact, before I caught myself and deleted them.

I'll probably be asleep when you post, but I'll be on later...

 

[Vault Dweller]

Look, you admit there is always a chance of failure. That means it is random. If it were not random you would _always_ fail or _always_ succeed. That's what non-random is.

I think it's time we ask Mr. Webster what random is. He says it's "relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence". Dice roll is totally random, I agree. The end result, after a heavy skill modifier had been applied, is NOT. Like I said so many times, when you consistently hit 7-9 out of 10, it's not random, it's a predicatble pattern. Am I getting through here?

You said a level 1 char could never kill a level 20 char. You were wrong, there are situations where it is possible due to <i>randomness</i>.

No, it's not. If the lvl 20 character is deadly wounded and dying anyway (as in your example), that doesn't really count, now does it?

Nope. Sorry. Doesn't fly. If you add a story and dialogues, it stops being a sport game right there, and becomes something else ranging from adventure to RPG, depending on what you add, set in a sport setting.

You are an idiot.

You are saying the The Legend of Zelda is an RPG.

You are saying Metal Gear Solid is an RPG.

You are wrong.

Wow, such a powerful statement! Too bad you are wrong. Now, let's read together, shall we? "...becomes something else ranging from a FUCKING ADVENTURE GAME to rpg, DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU ADD..." The key words are in nice big letters.

The game described above could not be an RPG because there is no character development or stats, and it could not be an Adventure game because there is no puzzle solving.

See above. Read the "depending on what you add" part.

We are not ignoring them. We just are not defining the term CRPG based upon them. Those games you are talking about happende AFTER the term RPG was coined.

Concepts evolve. Btw, did you get that memo that says that Earth is no longer using those 4 elephants on a giant turtle?

It's funny though that any character you choose will speak exactly the same and have exactly the same thoughts...

How do you know what thoughts they have? They don't talk to you, do they? As for any character you choose speaking exactly the same..., that's a flat out lie.

But I went ahead and agreed to kris' definition of roleplaying, which essentially states you RP in every game and that it can not be used as a useful criterion for defining a genre.

That calls for some eye-rolling , I'm not sure what exactly this fella said, but this old "I can role-play in any game" argument is one of the most retarded ones and shows complete lack of understanding what role-playing is and all about. Can't say I'm surprised considering your previous comments like "I like to play a silent type and the game forces me to speak; MMORPGs are teh roel-play; and Fallout is not an RPG"

Only your definition is wrong. Either it discludes early RPGs or it includes too much depending on what definition of roleplaying you go with. Nice job.

I don't really care whether or not it includes early or latest RPGs. It's a definition that's based on existing games that stand out from the pseudo RPG crowd. It definitely doesn't include too much, as there are very few games that falls under that category.

You can't define away games as not RPGs using a definition that is still under discussion by the way.

If you think that we can agree on something here, you are mistaken. I simply stated my opinion and I couldn't care less whether everyone agrees with me or not. I don't mind discussing it though.

Not because I can't shrug a certain way, but because words are being placed in my characters mouth by someone other than me.

That is a LOT different than red pants.

Not really. It's the point that counts, words are of no importance. If you want to intimidate/offer a deal/betray/suggest something, and you can, that's all that should matter.

I never said it was impossible (in this thread.) I sad that games are RPGs even without those things.

Your memory is failing you: "Role playing is not required, and in fact nearly impossible to achieve, in a computer game". I heard that vitamins help.

Also, I never said there were any skills in this hypothetical game. I said it was Quake, the actual game Quake, with dialog options and roleplaying as you see it.

And my short and simple definition ( see the first post in this thread ): "an RPG is a game that allows you to play in a manner fitting your character using only your character's skills and abilities".

Remember, despite the storyline being on a rail and the player not having any dialog options at all Final Fantasy X is an RPG.

Maybe not a _good_ RPG by your standards, since it does not provide what you are looking for, but it is an RPG nonetheless.

If you say so.

It seems to me that RP for you is mostly conversations. For me, it's about choices when handling different situations.

Ok. Then you must consider GTA: San Andreas an RPG.

I didn't play it.

More to the point, I could roleplay a different character if I wanted and throw you off completely.

You could, but you would still be picking from a limited list of options: agree, pretend that you agree, disagree politely, disagree rudely, leave the discussion, leave the site, create another account. The exact choice of words hardly counts.

when you say you are roleplaying because you see different solutions to a problem, are you really roleplaying? Is it _you_ thinking of a solution to the problem, or <i>your character</i>, as acted by you, thinking of the solution...

My character. Based on a situation, what's known of it, and my character's personality.

 

[Sarvis]

Look, I said "with the success of various actions being determined by random factors rather than player reflexes and coordination. "

Dice are a random factor. I never said dice entirely determine the success or failure, only that a random factor did. You just fucking admitted a dice roll was totally random. Unless you are arguing dice are NOT a factor in determining success you are WRONG.

Wow, such a powerful statement! Too bad you are wrong. Now, let's read together, shall we? "...becomes something else ranging from a FUCKING ADVENTURE GAME to rpg, DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU ADD..." The key words are in nice big letters.

You said " If you add a story and dialogues, it stops being a sport game right there, and becomes something else ranging from adventure to RPG".

You are wrong, and no amount of "depending on what you add" will change that. Adding story and dialog to a sports game does not change it from being a sports game. If it is a hockey game you will still be playing hockey!

Story and dialog do not make Zelda an Adventure game, much less an RPG as so many claim. The puzzle solving elements make Zelda an adventure game, considering we were not talking about any such things it's more than a little disengenous to now claim it in the little category of "depending on what you add".

Same with MGS, it is... what, tactical espionage? Hell I don't know. But it isn't Adventure or RPG, that's for sure. Yet it has plenty of dialog and story.

How do you know what thoughts they have? They don't talk to you, do they? As for any character you choose speaking exactly the same..., that's a flat out lie.

In some games the character does think to himself in the dialog occasionally. And no, this is not a lie. You have different options to choose from, but they are always exactly the same options.

That calls for some eye-rolling , I'm not sure what exactly this fella said, but this old "I can role-play in any game" argument is one of the most retarded ones and shows complete lack of understanding what role-playing is and all about. Can't say I'm surprised considering your previous comments like "I like to play a silent type and the game forces me to speak; MMORPGs are teh roel-play; and Fallout is not an RPG"

Yeah...

I don't actually agree with that definition either, I'm just tired of arguing about it and thought it would be useful for this discussion. AND YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE, FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME I NEVER SAID FALLOUT WAS NOT AN RPG, I WAS SAYING YOU CANNOT ROLEPLAY IN FALLOUT. Now I am saying you don't roleplay in fallout any more than in any other game.

I don't really care whether or not it includes early or latest RPGs. It's a definition that's based on existing games that stand out from the pseudo RPG crowd. It definitely doesn't include too much, as there are very few games that falls under that category.

Awww.... look, you're starting to realize you are wrong. How cute!

Sorry, but there are more than 5 games in the RPG genre. You can say they are not very good RPGs if they aren't the 5 games you guys focus on... but they are still RPGs. Unless you are going to go over to Gamefaqs and force them to remove all games other than Geneforge 2, Arcanum and Fallout from the RPG category you are wrong.

Not to mention that you woud still be wrong, because you are focusing on elements which are not traditionally part of RPGs, and which can be inserted into any genre and trying to use that to define the term.

If you think that we can agree on something here, you are mistaken. I simply stated my opinion and I couldn't care less whether everyone agrees with me or not. I don't mind discussing it though.

You know what, I take back my earlier apology.

You can have your opinion, but we are discussing a definition here. We are not discussing your opinion, if your opinion does not match the definition then that's just too damn bad.

You might as well be of the opinion that the original Eye of the Beholder was an FPS! Or that Contra III is a flying game because of that one stage where you ride on missiles! Just as valid of opinions, but still WRONG!

Not really. It's the point that counts, words are of no importance. If you want to intimidate/offer a deal/betray/suggest something, and you can, that's all that should matter.

Often, you can't.

Your memory is failing you: "Role playing is not required, and in fact nearly impossible to achieve, in a computer game". I heard that vitamins help.

Impossible == nearly impossible?

Also, we're talking about choices and dialog, which are quite possible. I said <b>roleplaying</b> was nearly impossible in a video game.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I know that means you will have to stop arguing, since it is the only tactic you have used so far. But it's really just pissing me off.

And my short and simple definition ( see the first post in this thread ): "an RPG is a game that allows you to play in a manner fitting your character using only your character's skills and abilities".

There are no skills and abilities in quake.

Also, your definition doesn't mention roleplaying, except in the sense kris gave us. You can play in a manner fitting the Quake marine quite easily even in Quake.

You could, but you would still be picking from a limited list of options: agree, pretend that you agree, disagree politely, disagree rudely, leave the discussion, leave the site, create another account. The exact choice of words hardly counts.

I'm going to assume at this point that you are merely trolling, and stop.

But thanks for wasting several hours of my time!

 

[Vault Dweller]

You just fucking admitted a dice roll was totally random. Unless you are arguing dice are NOT a factor in determining success you are WRONG.

I never argued that dice roll wasn't random. My entire point was that that's what skills do, turn a random dice roll into a predictable non-random result. Too complex for you to understand?

You are wrong, and no amount of "depending on what you add" will change that. Adding story and dialog to a sports game does not change it from being a sports game.

Why don't you think about what you wrote? Like try to imagine a sports game with story and dialogues.

And no, this is not a lie. You have different options to choose from, but they are always exactly the same options.

Huh?

AND YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE, FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME I NEVER SAID FALLOUT WAS NOT AN RPG, I WAS SAYING YOU CANNOT ROLEPLAY IN FALLOUT.

You know what your problem is, Sarvis? You are too fucking serious. Have a lot of built-up anger inside. That's why you can't think clearly.

Not to mention that you woud still be wrong, because you are focusing on elements which are not traditionally part of RPGs, and which can be inserted into any genre and trying to use that to define the term.

I'm beginning to suspect that you are stupid.

Not really. It's the point that counts, words are of no importance. If you want to intimidate/offer a deal/betray/suggest something, and you can, that's all that should matter.

Often, you can't.

Then often it's not an RPG :wink:

Impossible == nearly impossible?

Technicality?

Also, we're talking about choices and dialog, which are quite possible. I said <b>roleplaying</b> was nearly impossible in a video game.

And role-playing, of course, means an option to "do nothing, go home, masturbate into an old sock, then kill myself" as Astro so eloquently said?

Also, your definition doesn't mention roleplaying, except in the sense kris gave us. You can play in a manner fitting the Quake marine quite easily even in Quake.

Didn't I say "in a manner fitting your character"? Not the one-trick pony character provided by a game.

But thanks for wasting several hours of my time!

I'm afraid to think what you would have done with all that time

 

[Sarvis]

This will be quick, already running late for work.

I never argued that dice roll wasn't random. My entire point was that that's what skills do, turn a random dice roll into a predictable non-random result. Too complex for you to understand?

I never said the dice roll was the only thing the result counted on, only that it was a factor. Too complex for you to understand?

Why don't you think about what you wrote? Like try to imagine a sports game with story and dialogues.

I have, and it seems like an interesting game.

Just not an RPG.

Huh?

Just what I said. Go through Geneforge 2 20 times and you will always see the same options in every dialog. You may choose different ones, but even then you usually ended up running through every option on the list except in cases such as choosing your faction!

You know what your problem is, Sarvis? You are too fucking serious. Have a lot of built-up anger inside. That's why you can't think clearly.

Yeah, lots of anger isa given. Doesn't keep me from thinking clearly.

What keeps you from understanding simple English? Willful ignorance?

I'm beginning to suspect that you are stupid.

Right. From you at this point, that means nothing.

Still your only response too my points is to misinterpret them and respond to said misinterpretations.

You've done nothing to show _why_ a sports game with dialog and choices should be considered an RPG for instance.

Often, you can't.

Then often it's not an RPG :wink:
[/quote]

Tell that to the RPG label on the box...

Impossible == nearly impossible?

Technicality?

Not really.

And role-playing, of course, means an option to "do nothing, go home, masturbate into an old sock, then kill myself" as Astro so eloquently said?

It means having the option to do so, or anything else you dream up that you want to do. For the record, even if a sports game has that option it is not an RPG.

Didn't I say "in a manner fitting your character"? Not the one-trick pony character provided by a game.

A character is a character. Doesn't matter if he is one trick or not. Asking for more tricks is the equivalent of wanting red pants actually, you are just grousing that specific options you want aren't there.

Quake wouldn't be any less an FPS without a rocket launcher, but I would certainly enjoy the game a lot less! For you simply not enjoying a game makes it a different genre...

I'm afraid to think what you would have done with all that time

Play GTA:SA and get to work on time... see ya!

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

How long until you people start ansewring back with just like, a single word, or grunts? He who grunts louder wins. Get to it, young grasshoppers.

 

[Vault Dweller]

WTF?

 

[Vault Dweller]

I never said the dice roll was the only thing the result counted on, only that it was a factor. Too complex for you to understand?

Maybe it's the language "lost in translation" thing, but here is our original dialogue that started this whole mess:

Sarvis: ...with the success of various actions being determined by random factors...
VD: Random factors? Don't you mean skills?
Sarvis: No, skills would fall under the category of stats. Random factors means dice rolls, or RNGs in computer games.

Dig your way out of this one.

I have, and it seems like an interesting game. Just not an RPG.

I've never said it's an RPG, only that it could become one if certain features were added. You, however, argued that it will always remain a sports game.

Just what I said. Go through Geneforge 2 20 times and you will always see the same options in every dialog. You may choose different ones, but even then you usually ended up running through every option on the list except in cases such as choosing your faction!

What about Fallout and Arcanum? Same?

You know what your problem is, Sarvis? You are too fucking serious. Have a lot of built-up anger inside. That's why you can't think clearly.

Yeah, lots of anger isa given. Doesn't keep me from thinking clearly.

What keeps you from understanding simple English? Willful ignorance?

Well, when a fella states that Fallout is an RPG but doesn't have any role-playing (did I got you right this time?), it does sound kinda confusing.

Still your only response too my points is to misinterpret them and respond to said misinterpretations.

First of all, you ideas that it's not necessary for a role-playing game to have any role-playing are easy to misunderstand. Assuming that your point is that RPGs are a genre that "historically" has nothing to do with the actual role-playing and, assuming that your expectation of the actual role-playing is the absolute freedom which means that no game is a role-playing game, well, I disagree.

I believe that I already explained my position and expectations of role-playing in RPGs, and as for the old games and the variety of games that claim the RPG label, there are many directions there. While you may think that any game with stats and quests is an RPG, I prefer a different definition (see above) and different criteria.

You've done nothing to show _why_ a sports game with dialog and choices should be considered an RPG for instance.

First, it was a hypothetical example, and it would be silly to talk in "what if" terms in details. However, if you want an answer, see my definition at the beginning. If I can play a character of my choice that fits the setting (no magician in moden games, etc) and handle situations in a way that fits my character (talkiing for a diplomat, etc) using corresponding skills and abilities ( diplomatic, etc) then I'd consider such a game an RPG. So, if a game set in a sport setting would provide that, it would be an RPG.

Then often it's not an RPG :wink:

Tell that to the RPG label on the box...

Is that what your position based on? A label on a box?

For you simply not enjoying a game makes it a different genre...

Care to explain how you arrived to this conclusion?

 

[Sarvis]

Sarvis: ...with the success of various actions being determined by random factors...
VD: Random factors? Don't you mean skills?
Sarvis: No, skills would fall under the category of stats. Random factors means dice rolls, or RNGs in computer games.

Dig your way out of this one.

Why don't you?

Are you saying dice are not a factor? Or are you saying that dice are not the final determining factor?

I've never said it's an RPG, only that it could become one if certain features were added. You, however, argued that it will always remain a sports game.

You said that in response to two specific features I mentioned, now you are trying to equivocate by saying you meant other features.

Don't do that.

Hell, you could even point something out from sports games to strengthen your argument... but I'll just let you fail miserably.

What about Fallout and Arcanum? Same?

Don't know, haven't played enough of either of those to tell.

I'll assume you mean that if you pick different races or something you will get different dialog options? That would be interesting, but each character of the same race would have the same options no matter what their personalities right?

[
Well, when a fella states that Fallout is an RPG but doesn't have any role-playing (did I got you right this time?), it does sound kinda confusing.

Yes, you got it right. I'm amazed.

I just don't consider following a script, even one with options, as roleplaying.

First of all, you ideas that it's not necessary for a role-playing game to have any role-playing are easy to misunderstand.

Only because "role-playing" is part of the term RPG... but that is an honorrific really, meant to pay tribute to the games that CRPGs were originally designed to emulate. The problem is that the roleplaying elements weren't the part that could be emulated on a computer.

Assuming that your point is that RPGs are a genre that "historically" has nothing to do with the actual role-playing and, assuming that your expectation of the actual role-playing is the absolute freedom which means that no game is a role-playing game, well, I disagree.

That you disagree is fairly obvious... we wouldn't be on page two if you did.

However, even YOUR definition of roleplaying is absent from a large portion of CRPGs.

I believe that I already explained my position and expectations of role-playing in RPGs, and as for the old games and the variety of games that claim the RPG label, there are many directions there. While you may think that any game with stats and quests is an RPG, I prefer a different definition (see above) and different criteria.

The problem being that your criteria, and I've said this many times already, can be applied to any type of game and are often lacking in what are considered RPGs.

Therefore they aren't good criteria to define the term "CRPG" with.

First, it was a hypothetical example, and it would be silly to talk in "what if" terms in details. However, if you want an answer, see my definition at the beginning. If I can play a character of my choice that fits the setting (no magician in moden games, etc) and handle situations in a way that fits my character (talkiing for a diplomat, etc) using corresponding skills and abilities ( diplomatic, etc) then I'd consider such a game an RPG. So, if a game set in a sport setting would provide that, it would be an RPG.

You may be roleplaying in the game, but if you are playing hockey it is a hockey game.

If I picked up an RPG, and loaded it up and found myself playing NHL2005 I'd be a little confused... wouldn't you?

[
Is that what your position based on? A label on a box?

That's what we are discussing.

The label is there for a reason. (Note that I don't think they actually label game boxes with the genre.) The reason is so that people have some idea of what kind of gameplay to expect from the game.

If I load up an RPG, I expect quests, stats, character development and dice rolls. I do not expect to be aiming a cursor with my mouse and trying to get a headshot.

There is a fundamental difference in those playstyles.

Not to mention that stronger storylines and dialog are likely to become extant in most video games eventually.

There's a reason I can't figure out what genre GTA games are you know... it's because they combine so many things from so many genres that it's impossible to tell.

You could consider it an RPG under my definition almost, but it sure as hell doesn't play like one.

You could consider it a driving game, but if you drive like I do you spend most of your time jogging.

Is it an Action title? There's so much more there than just shooting enemies.

For you simply not enjoying a game makes it a different genre...

Care to explain how you arrived to this conclusion?

" It's a definition that's based on existing games that stand out from the pseudo RPG crowd. It definitely doesn't include too much, as there are very few games that falls under that category. " - Vault Dweller

 

[Araanor]

And for some roleplaying is about the effect they have on the world and for some it is about amount of personality in the characters... Noone is exactly right or wrong, but I do agree more with Vault dweller when it comes to defining CRPGs. I feel the choices you can make is a integral part of them.

Some people think Dungeon Siege is an RPG; some people do not have very useful definitions of CRPGs.

But as long as we are not set in our opinion we could agree that any game slated to be a crpg should be judged by how enjoyable it is, not by how much freedom it entails.

If I had the choice between playing a game that was fun, and a game that only had freedom, I'd pick the fun one. But remember, this isn't the Fun Codex, it's the RPG Codex.

Where Morrowind had a gameworld with freedom it lacked "life".

Freedom - to do what? Explore? Morrowind doesn't bring much to the table with it's linear story and lack of meaningful choices and consequences.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Dig your way out of this one.

Why don't you?

Are you saying dice are not a factor? Or are you saying that dice are not the final determining factor?

Sarvis, you can ignore my points if you want to, that's fine, but there is no need to do all that twisting and omitting. Once again, originally you said that success is being determined by random factors. I asked about skills, you said no, dice rolls (and rng) only. Then you started backpeddaling and said that "the dice roll was NOT the only thing the result counted on".

Anyway, I'm tired of playing "what he said" games and trying to show you how you contradicted yourself. It's not that important anyway. As long as you've learned that success in RPGs isn't random, my work as an educator is done :wink:

I've never said it's an RPG, only that it could become one if certain features were added. You, however, argued that it will always remain a sports game.

You said that in response to two specific features I mentioned, now you are trying to equivocate by saying you meant other features.

Look it up. I said "depending on other features" right there, using these other features as a deciding factor between an adventure game or an RPG. How's your reading comprehension?

Hell, you could even point something out from sports games to strengthen your argument... but I'll just let you fail miserably.

I've never played a (computer) sports game in my life.

What about Fallout and Arcanum? Same?

Don't know, haven't played enough of either of those to tell.

Then why the FUCK are you arguing here about RPGs where the only games your actually referred to in this thread were FF games and GTA? Jesus Fucking Christ, you are something.

I'll assume you mean that if you pick different races or something you will get different dialog options? That would be interesting, but each character of the same race would have the same options no matter what their personalities right?

Tell me again why are you talking about RPGs in these thread, don't you have some console game to play?

[Well, when a fella states that Fallout is an RPG but doesn't have any role-playing (did I got you right this time?), it does sound kinda confusing.

I just don't consider following a script, even one with options, as roleplaying.

Whatever floats your boat. There is not much point in arguing here since you have managed to skip games that could have proved your wrong.

Only because "role-playing" is part of the term RPG... but that is an honorrific really, meant to pay tribute to the games that CRPGs were originally designed to emulate. The problem is that the roleplaying elements weren't the part that could be emulated on a computer.

There is no doubt that there were, are, and will be games that are called RPG in name only, as a tribute, a reference, false advertising, whatever. That's a fact. Another fact is that there were, are, and will be RPGs that are true role-playing games. That's the part that you are having a hard time to accept, and now that I know that you didn't play 2 best role-playing games, I can understand why.

However, even YOUR definition of roleplaying is absent from a large portion of CRPGs.

So? What seems to be the problem, officer? Was I supposed to come up with a definition that fits all games that have a shiny RPG label on the box? Why bother then? Isn't that label a good definition already then?

The problem being that your criteria, and I've said this many times already, can be applied to any type of game and are often lacking in what are considered RPGs.

Go ahead, apply and show me.

You may be roleplaying in the game, but if you are playing hockey it is a hockey game.

If the game fits my definition, it's an RPG set in a hockey setting.

Is that what your position based on? A label on a box?

That's what we are discussing.

The label is there for a reason. (Note that I don't think they actually label game boxes with the genre.) The reason is so that people have some idea of what kind of gameplay to expect from the game.

Yeah, the label is there for a reason: to sell the game.

If I load up an RPG, I expect quests, stats, character development and dice rolls. I do not expect to be aiming a cursor with my mouse and trying to get a headshot.

What about Deus Ex? Not that I consider it an RPG, but you said that that's what labels are for.

There's a reason I can't figure out what genre GTA games are you know... it's because they combine so many things from so many genres that it's impossible to tell.

Actually it's easy to tell. Just use my definition. Can you play any logically fitting character using your character skills and abilities to handle situations? Not sure about SA, but definitely not in Vice City.

Is it an Action title? There's so much more there than just shooting enemies.

I would define it as an action-adventure game.

For you simply not enjoying a game makes it a different genre...

Care to explain how you arrived to this conclusion?

" It's a definition that's based on existing games that stand out from the pseudo RPG crowd. It definitely doesn't include too much, as there are very few games that falls under that category. " - Vault Dweller

Did I say that I don't enjoy a game unless it's a hardcore RPG? Or are you giving me a benefit of the doubt?

 

[Volourn]

Role-playing is about playing a role, and making choices that effect the game world in reasonable ways that matter. Hence forth, Gothic 2 is a role-playing. Next.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Maybe. Did you finish it? Gothic 1 was great at the beginning, but after a certain point (about half of the game) the game railroaded you in a very choice-less manner till the end. How's Gothic 2 in that regard?

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

The same. Once you choose your side, it's pretty linear from there. Making choices that affect the world is all good and fun, but with most RPGs out there, it's just a smokescreen that leads to the same ending no matter how many times you play through.

Edit: I should add though that, depending on what class you choose for your character, you will get different quests and different items. That's where the replay value lies. Other than that, it's the same story all the way through to the end.

 

[Volourn]

"Maybe. Did you finish it? Gothic 1 was great at the beginning, but after a certain point (about half of the game) the game railroaded you in a very choice-less manner till the end. How's Gothic 2 in that regard?"

Finish it? Hahaha. As much as I think it's a rpg, and how much fun I have with it I cna't play it that much as the controls are horrid. However, choices do matter from what i've seen.. You piss off the wrong person, and watch out. Maybe Otaku is right and it goes away later on but meh. I have yet to join a guild.

Overall, the game is a mixed bag because of the controls; but as far as role-playing goes; it's at least ok; if not good. Dialogue skillz or no dialogue skillz. Haven't played Gothic 1 so can't compare.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Basically, it boils down to the fact that if you got any sort of enjoyment out of the first one, then the second one shouldn't be a problem for you. I just hate the combat engine.

 

[Volourn]

"Basically, it boils down to the fact that if you got any sort of enjoyment out of the first one, then the second one shouldn't be a problem for you."

Weird. I got 0 enjoyment of Gothic 1 yet I'm enjoying Gotic 2. Weird...


"I just hate the combat engine."

Amen.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Weird. I got 0 enjoyment of Gothic 1 yet I'm enjoying Gotic 2. Weird...

I was making an observation. Didn't say enjoying the first one was a requirement to like the second one. Merely that if he liked the first one then he should like the second one as well.

 

[Volourn]

Okay.

 

[Kamaz]

Actually I like Gothic combat engine. Because its so chaotic, hard and unpredictable, every fight can be your last and that un-intentionally makes you more cautious when choosing oponents - feature I miss in every other cRPG. Is it Fallout, BG or Diablo I never avoided enemies - fought them till they fall, reloaded as many times as it needed, allways had chance. Here I am really afraid to go into woods at night - there are real monsters in there! That is one of the best Gothics features - the game world is very realistic if you want. Its not about choices for me, its about world.

 

[Volourn]

"hard and unpredictable,"

Huh? No, the combat is not hard. the controls are awful. Don't mix the two up. And, the combat is very much predictable. It's boring, and it's crappy, and it's unfun.

 

[Transcendent One]

No, it's actually very much exciting, fairly good and quite fun. Its only problem is that at times the controls can be unresponsive.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Its only problem is that at times the controls can be unresponsive.

And that's the only real gripe I have about the game series. There's some other minor issues, but they aren't game killers like the combat controls can be.