Definition of cRPG

[Sarvis]

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".

Ah, so it's "factor" that you don't know the meaning of.

Factor means a part of something, not everything.

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:

Right....

I said man, many posts ago that success is random but influenced by skills. By the way, not all RPGs have skills.

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?

To bad there is no way it's either of those genres.

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

Too bad for you.

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.

This is not new knowledge. And I've referred to plenty of games other than FF or GTA.MGS, Geneforge 2, the Gold Box series just to name three.

I can't help it if you only consider two or three games to be RPGs, we're discussing a definition that applies to far more than a couple of games that you like.

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

Yes, one of them is an RPG.

You see, I play a LOT of RPGs. I know I know... I haven't played two that you like so that completely invalidates anything I say.

Sorry, but you've only played 5 RPGs by your own reckoning. I've played 20-30, so apparently I have a bit more experience on the subject than you.

[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.

They haven't proved me wrong. What they do sounds great, except of course that the combat systems on both games bored me in about 5 minutes, but it isn't roleplaying.

It isn't roleplaying any more than playing the role of Kain in Blood Omen is roleplaying.

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.

We're talking about the name!

You can't say they are called something "in name only" when that is what we are defining! Yes, they are called RPGs, tha tis the NAME used to describe them. "In name only" is what we are coming up with.

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?

Yes, it should be. Unfortunately people like you seem to have no idea what it means.

RPG is a NAME, which means specific things about a GAME. It means when you play it you will see stats, probably skills, quests and your character will gain levels. Combat success will depend on choices you make and random factors such as dice rolls.

That is IT. There is nothing more to the basic RPG experience than that.

You can talk all you want about dialog, story and game affecting choices but those things do not change the basic gameplay. This is why all of those elements could be found in an FPS, or in a driving game, ora sports game. That is why games as a whole are moving towards a stronger storyline!

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.
[/quote]

Let's see... average game development time is probably at least a year...

No, no I don't think any of us wants this argument going on that long.

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.
[/quote]

No, because it isn't an RPG. It might have roleplaying, so it's a hockey game with roleplay elements. (Note: NOT RPG elements.)

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

Right, because RPGs were so very popular before FF7! That's why all those pre-FF7 games were labled RPGs!

Good work detective!

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

Haven't played it, but from what I hear it sounds like a pretty advanced FPS.

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.

Actually, yes you can. Dialog choices are on the very light side however. Definately NOT an RPG though.

You said Vice City wasn't an RPG, well gameplay is exactly the same in GTA:SA except there are now skills. So if Vice City isn't an RPG then how can SA be one?

I would define it as an action-adventure game.

Except that there are no puzzle solving elements, which means it is not an adventure title.

" 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?

I inferred that you don't enjoy anything but Arcanum, Geneforge, Fallout and... what was it, prelude? I inferred that simply by your residency on these forums (where that attitude seems to be required) and your refusal to admit Dragon Warrior is an RPG.

 

[Vault Dweller]

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".

Ah, so it's "factor" that you don't know the meaning of.

Factor means a part of something, not everything.

You must feel so clevAr. I know what factors are, and that's why I asked you about skills, that was your chance to do the smart thing and say "yeah, sure, and skills too". You chose to do the stupid thing, which later did bite you in the ass, and said "nah, dice rolls"

I said man, many posts ago that success is random but influenced by skills. By the way, not all RPGs have skills.

Then they aren't RPGs. Simple as that.

I can't help it if you only consider two or three games to be RPGs, we're discussing a definition that applies to far more than a couple of games that you like.

You do realize that if try to put everything that's ever been called an RPG under one "definition" roof, it will be the most idiotic definition ever, like a game with stats.

You see, I play a LOT of RPGs. I know I know... I haven't played two that you like so that completely invalidates anything I say.

Don't be an idiot, Sarvis. It's not the two that I like, it's the two that feature gameplay that according to you does not exist.

Sorry, but you've only played 5 RPGs by your own reckoning. I've played 20-30, so apparently I have a bit more experience on the subject than you.

Another idiotic argument. Yeah, let's play "who played the most games" game. Just because you think that every game that's been sold to you as an RPG is an RPG, doesn't mean that you understand the subject. In fact, it shows the opposite.

What they do sounds great, except of course that the combat systems on both games bored me in about 5 minutes, but it isn't roleplaying.

Yeah, they should have released a patch for people with attention-deficit disorder.

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?

Yes, it should be. Unfortunately people like you seem to have no idea what it means.

Well, thank God, we have people like you, who are only too happy to accept anything without thinking.

RPG is a NAME, which means specific things about a GAME. It means when you play it you will see stats, probably skills, quests and your character will gain levels. Combat success will depend on choices you make and random factors such as dice rolls.

Sounds like a very crappy game, Sarvis. Are you sure you want to play it?

You can talk all you want about dialog, story and game affecting choices but those things do not change the basic gameplay. This is why all of those elements could be found in an FPS, or in a driving game, ora sports game. That is why games as a whole are moving towards a stronger storyline!

This is so stupid and ignorant that I don't even know where to begin to explain that to you.

You said Vice City wasn't an RPG, well gameplay is exactly the same in GTA:SA except there are now skills. So if Vice City isn't an RPG then how can SA be one?

How the fuck should I know? I told you I didn't play it, and I've never tried to define it.

I would define it as an action-adventure game.

Except that there are no puzzle solving elements, which means it is not an adventure title.

I see. So, solving a problem in a specific and the only way isn't a puzzle? So, RPGs are everything that has the RPG sticker on the box, but for adventure games you are using your own rather specific and limiting definition? Double standards?

 

[Sarvis]

You must feel so clevAr. I know what factors are, and that's why I asked you about skills, that was your chance to do the smart thing and say "yeah, sure, and skills too". You chose to do the stupid thing, which later did bite you in the ass, and said "nah, dice rolls"

Look, you are wrong. Admit it.

I said factor, and then I said the success was influenced by skills. Dice are still random, and still the final determinant of success whether they are modified by skills or not.

You are the one claiming that skills eliminate randomness, which is wrong. You are still rolling a dice no matter how much skill your character has.

What are you, a Republican?

You do realize that if try to put everything that's ever been called an RPG under one "definition" roof, it will be the most idiotic definition ever, like a game with stats.

ROFL! You're the one who would be putting every game in existance under the RPG definition within a few years!

I only put games in my definition if they <i>play like RPGs</i> . You want them in your definition if they have roleplaying, but what you call roleplaying can be done in any type of game!

Don't be an idiot, Sarvis. It's not the two that I like, it's the two that feature gameplay that according to you does not exist.

Because it doesn't.

Another idiotic argument. Yeah, let's play "who played the most games" game. Just because you think that every game that's been sold to you as an RPG is an RPG, doesn't mean that you understand the subject. In fact, it shows the opposite.

Oh yeah, good argument there. I'm delusional because you think a genre that has existed since the 70's only got it's first game in 1995!

Yeah, they should have released a patch for people with attention-deficit disorder.

It wasn't attention deficit... it was just boring. Plus I absolutely hate AI controlled henchmen.

Well, thank God, we have people like you, who are only too happy to accept anything without thinking.

I'm not thinking?

Here's an idea, how about if you actually make a point for once instead of insulting me?

You keep saying any game with strong storyline and dialog options is an RPG... but what makes it so?

What makes Quake an RPG if you add those things to it?


More importantly, why are you defining the genre of a video game based on things that have nothing to do with the gameplay?

You have stated several times that any gameplay you could have becomes an RPG if you stick a couple things in there. Why?

RPG is a NAME, which means specific things about a GAME. It means when you play it you will see stats, probably skills, quests and your character will gain levels. Combat success will depend on choices you make and random factors such as dice rolls.

Sounds like a very crappy game, Sarvis. Are you sure you want to play it?

You're calling Geneforge, Arcanum, Fallout and Prelude crappy games!?!? HEATHEN!

You can talk all you want about dialog, story and game affecting choices but those things do not change the basic gameplay. This is why all of those elements could be found in an FPS, or in a driving game, ora sports game. That is why games as a whole are moving towards a stronger storyline!

This is so stupid and ignorant that I don't even know where to begin to explain that to you.

Yeah, good argument there! You're wrong but I'm not telling you why!?! Why don't you just run home and tell your mommy on me next?

You said Vice City wasn't an RPG, well gameplay is exactly the same in GTA:SA except there are now skills. So if Vice City isn't an RPG then how can SA be one?

How the fuck should I know? I told you I didn't play it, and I've never tried to define it.[/quote]

That's funny, because you were telling me how to decide what it was. Talking out your ass then?

Though I was thinking about it this morning, and I think GTA, in all incarnations, allows for a lote more roleplaying than just about any game I've ever played. (Keep in mind I _have_ played Arcanum and Geneforge 2, just not completed them)

You have almost complete freedom to do whatever you want in that game. You want to walk around killing people, go ahead! You want to drive around? Go for it. You want to go on mob hits? There's missions just waiting for you. Don't want to fight? Sneak around in dangerous territory or just run away.

It only gets moreso with the new one, you can go play arcade games, go dancing, ride your bike around town, work out at the gym, hang out eating fast food.

Just about everything you can imagine but masterbating into a sock! But you can chill in your bedroom.

I see. So, solving a problem in a specific and the only way isn't a puzzle? So, RPGs are everything that has the RPG sticker on the box, but for adventure games you are using your own rather specific and limiting definition? Double standards?

Umm... most puzzles can only be solved in one way. That's what makes them puzzles. But there are NO puzzles in GTA games, they tell you specifically everything to do and you go do it. There's no thinking about how to accomplish any task.

Interesting though. Just read the Adventure game definition at Wikipedia, and it says nothing about puzzle solving.

I could have sworn puzzle solving was a very important part of the genre, especially considering Adventure purists will tell you the only true Adventure games are things like King's Quest.

"n adventure game is a type of computer game. The definition is very broad in scope, but fundamentally an adventure game can be defined as a game where the story is developed through gameplay, as opposed to other genres where the story (if there is one) is developed through the use of cut-scenes between sections of gameplay. There is a slightly grey area between role-playing games (RPGs) and Adventure games. In general, if a game involves the use of player attributes/stats (whether visible to the player or not) it is an RPG, otherwise it is an adventure game. It should be noted, however, that this distinction is an extremely loose one, and many games blur the line between the two categories. In particular, the status of what are sometimes called action-adventure games as members of the category is largely in doubt, with adventure gaming purists (and, to a lesser extent, action gaming purists) labelling action-adventure games as belonging to neither the action nor adventure genres rather than to both." -


Maybe it is an Adventure title. Doesn't feel like one though...

Of course, according to that the simple presence of stats (Which GTA:SA has) shifts it from Adventure to RPG... which you shouldn't agree with because of the lack of true dialog.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

My dick is bigger than both of yours. :twisted:

 

[Volourn]

My boobs are bigger than all of yours.

 

[RGE]

I felt inclined to agree with Sarvis that CRPGs don't need roleplaying to qualify for the CRPG definition, and that stats would be enough to qualify a game as a barebones CRPG. But I suppose that Rosh's definition in the thread that Vault Dweller recommended is a better one, since it among other things excludes Diablo, a game which I always considered to be an actiongame rather than a CRPG.

Remember Space Hack, a Diablo-like sci-fi RPG with some really stupid design ideas?

I'm curious though. What makes Space Hack an RPG if Diablo 2 isn't one?

When it comes to 'true roleplaying' I understand the argument that it can only be had in the company of others, much like masturbating doesn't count as 'real sex', even though it's clearly a sexual act. But with single-player computer games I think that the definition of "roleplaying" has to be changed from what it means in PnP, and dialogue options and such would have to be counted as roleplaying in computer games. And thus roleplaying would be possible in games such as Fallout and Arcanum.

 

[Sarvis]

I felt inclined to agree with Sarvis that CRPGs don't need roleplaying to qualify for the CRPG definition, and that stats would be enough to qualify a game as a barebones CRPG. But I suppose that Rosh's definition in the thread that Vault Dweller recommended is a better one, since it among other things excludes Diablo, a game which I always considered to be an actiongame rather than a CRPG.

But that has nothing to do with dialog or anything. Diablo comes off as an action game to you because it is not turn based. If everything about the game were the same, except turn based you probably wouldn't get that impression.

It's clearly not a pure action game because the <i>character</i> skills and stats matter more than the <i>player's</i> reflexes in determining combat success.

It might barely be considered an Action RPG though...

I'm curious though. What makes Space Hack an RPG if Diablo 2 isn't one?

When it comes to 'true roleplaying' I understand the argument that it can only be had in the company of others, much like masturbating doesn't count as 'real sex', even though it's clearly a sexual act. But with single-player computer games I think that the definition of "roleplaying" has to be changed from what it means in PnP, and dialogue options and such would have to be counted as roleplaying in computer games. And thus roleplaying would be possible in games such as Fallout and Arcanum.

Roleplaying defined that way is possible in ALL games.

Which is why using that to define RPGs would be far too general.

 

[RGE]

But that has nothing to do with dialog or anything. Diablo comes off as an action game to you because it is not turn based. If everything about the game were the same, except turn based you probably wouldn't get that impression.

Well, Rosh claimed that it was an action-adventure/dungeon crawler, so with turnbased I guess it would be an adventure/dungeon crawler. Due to the lack of roleplaying elements I still wouldn't consider it a CRPG though.

It's clearly not a pure action game because the <i>character</i> skills and stats matter more than the <i>player's</i> reflexes in determining combat success.

I don't really think of action games as 'pure', because they all have stats, such as how quickly the avatar can move, how much damage they can take, how much damage their different weapons do, how far they can jump etc. Usually the player is at least in charge of choosing the weapon to use, and thereby the stats are being influenced by the player's choice. That doesn't make those games CRPGs, even though using a rocket launcher or a sniper rifle instead of a pistol can probably matter at least as much as the reflexes.

I couldn't really say how much reflexes and stats matter in Diablo, because I didn't have much trouble with the reflexes, but others claim that they had enough trouble to make it a big enough issue to argue about. Also, the worse the stats are compared to the monsters, the more the reflexes matter.

It might barely be considered an Action RPG though...

That still makes it an actiongame when one is trying to define what a CRPG is. After all, a mule is not a horse.

Roleplaying defined that way is possible in ALL games.

Possible in all games or all genres? I don't think all games have "dialogue options and such", so I don't see how that kind of roleplaying would be possible in games that lack such things. Or rather, I don't see all games providing it. We can't very well define things by what certain players might imagine while they're playing games, can we?

Which is why using that to define RPGs would be far too general.

Just because there's roleplaying in a game doesn't mean that it's a CRPG, but I could see how roleplaying could be required in order to qualify a game for the CRPG genre.

I could go with your "stats = CRPG" definition, but it's not very useful to me, even for describing the gameplay I could expect from the game. To me there's a significant difference between a game where all I do is fight and a game where I also have to pay attention to the plot, and where I also may be able to affect that plot. "stats + roleplaying = CRPG" works a lot better for me, but seeing as Vault Dweller called Space Hack an RPG, perhaps we'll have to settle for your definition and use something like "stats + roleplaying = 'true' CRPG" to define games such as Fallout and Arcanum.

 

[Sarvis]

Well, Rosh claimed that it was an action-adventure/dungeon crawler, so with turnbased I guess it would be an adventure/dungeon crawler. Due to the lack of roleplaying elements I still wouldn't consider it a CRPG though.

Well, according to Wikipedia the line between Adventure and RPG is drawn by stats...

I dunno about that though, but I wouldn't call Diablo an Adventure title.

I don't really think of action games as 'pure', because they all have stats, such as how quickly the avatar can move, how much damage they can take, how much damage their different weapons do, how far they can jump etc. Usually the player is at least in charge of choosing the weapon to use, and thereby the stats are being influenced by the player's choice. That doesn't make those games CRPGs, even though using a rocket launcher or a sniper rifle instead of a pistol can probably matter at least as much as the reflexes.

That's a fairly loose definition of stats, but remember that I also require character development and random factors to determine success. Pure action might have a certain small number of stats, but no development or random factors. It's all dependant on player skill rather than character skill right?

More and more games, even action, are having equipment that you can pick up and change around so we can't really say that is part of the definition either...

I couldn't really say how much reflexes and stats matter in Diablo, because I didn't have much trouble with the reflexes, but others claim that they had enough trouble to make it a big enough issue to argue about. Also, the worse the stats are compared to the monsters, the more the reflexes matter.

This, of course, is why it would be Action RPG rather than pure RPG right?

However, and my memory is hazy on this, don't some swings not actually cause damage? As in you fail to hit the monster because your hit rate is not high enough to beat the monster AC?

That is the _character_ skill determining success, and since yo udon't always fail or succeed there must be a random factor in there somewhere.

That still makes it an actiongame when one is trying to define what a CRPG is. After all, a mule is not a horse.

Actually it would be a donkey, mix of horse and mule right? Diablo is not an action game because we are discussing the definition CRPG. In fact, since it is a hybrid of both RPG AND Action we should look at what elements are there from each genre and separate them so we can see what is what.

Possible in all games or all genres? I don't think all games have "dialogue options and such", so I don't see how that kind of roleplaying would be possible in games that lack such things. Or rather, I don't see all games providing it. We can't very well define things by what certain players might imagine while they're playing games, can we?

You are right, I should have said genres.

Just because there's roleplaying in a game doesn't mean that it's a CRPG, but I could see how roleplaying could be required in order to qualify a game for the CRPG genre.

Maybe, if it didn't disqualify so many other games which are RPGs.

I could go with your "stats = CRPG" definition, but it's not very useful to me, even for describing the gameplay I could expect from the game. To me there's a significant difference between a game where all I do is fight and a game where I also have to pay attention to the plot, and where I also may be able to affect that plot. "stats + roleplaying = CRPG" works a lot better for me, but seeing as Vault Dweller called Space Hack an RPG, perhaps we'll have to settle for your definition and use something like "stats + roleplaying = 'true' CRPG" to define games such as Fallout and Arcanum.

I said much earlier that a new term for such "roleplaying enabled" games may be needed.

Whether or not that can really be considered roleplaying is a separate argument though I guess.

 

[RGE]

I dunno about that though, but I wouldn't call Diablo an Adventure title.

I wouldn't either, since I still feel that it is an actiongame. Could be because position and movement plays a big part in playing both Diablo and Diablo 2, and moving is controlled by non-randomized mouseclicks that to a large extent rely on player reflexes as opposed to character stats (although Diablo 2 introduced faster moving with the consequence that everyone wanted to move at top speed, thus making it a no brainer 'choice'). Since I moved around a lot during combat when playing, a large part part of the game became action rather than RPG-gameplay, and often when using area attacks they depended on my aim rather than the stats of my character. And I never managed to master the keyboard, so in that area my reflexes weren't as good as they could have been. So, lots of action in those games.

Actually it would be a donkey, mix of horse and mule right?

Dictionary.com says: "The sterile hybrid offspring of a male donkey and a female horse, characterized by long ears and a short mane."

Diablo is not an action game because we are discussing the definition CRPG. In fact, since it is a hybrid of both RPG AND Action we should look at what elements are there from each genre and separate them so we can see what is what.

The thing is, a mule is not a horse and/or a donkey, it is a mule. Diablo is not a complete CRPG and a complete actiongame, it is a mix. If you just take the RPG parts out of Diablo and claim that those parts are the complete definition of CRPG all you've accomplished is to extract the common denominator, which is not necessarily the entire definition of the genre. It feels as if something is lacking in Diablo for it to be considered a CRPG, but perhaps it's just the fact that there's so much action and so little roleplaying that makes me feel that way. I mean, it's got a story of sorts...or doesn't it? At least Diablo 2 has a story! Right? And surely story is part of the definition of CRPGs? Because all CRPGs has story, of that I'm sure.

Maybe, if it didn't disqualify so many other games which are RPGs.

Which games do you mean? The japanese linear games? The gold box AD&D games? I played Pool of Radiance a little, and played through Champions of Krynn, and there weren't many opportunities to roleplay or affect the plot in the latter. Didn't feel like much of an RPG to me, so I wouldn't mind if it got kicked out of the genre definition. Maybe those old school games could be called "vintage-RPGs"?

I would prefer a modern definition that separates the combat RPGs from RPGs where the plot can be affected by the player, because such a definition would be useful to me. Your definition is pretty much useless to me because I don't care one way or the other about character progression, randomized outcomes or character advancement. All that is left of your definition is then character stats (right?), and I don't care that much about those either. What attracts me to RPGs (both CRPGs and PnP) is the non-linearity and ability to affect the plot, but I suppose neither of these things are required for CRPGs, because the majority seem to be lacking both. Maybe RPGs just plain suck, and I need to find a website dedicated to my kind of games?

 

[Sarvis]

The thing is, a mule is not a horse and/or a donkey, it is a mule. Diablo is not a complete CRPG and a complete actiongame, it is a mix. If you just take the RPG parts out of Diablo and claim that those parts are the complete definition of CRPG all you've accomplished is to extract the common denominator, which is not necessarily the entire definition of the genre. It feels as if something is lacking in Diablo for it to be considered a CRPG, but perhaps it's just the fact that there's so much action and so little roleplaying that makes me feel that way. I mean, it's got a story of sorts...or doesn't it? At least Diablo 2 has a story! Right? And surely story is part of the definition of CRPGs? Because all CRPGs has story, of that I'm sure.

Almost all video games have a story. Even early action games have a story, even if the entirety of that story is one paragraph in the instruction book.

Which games do you mean? The japanese linear games? The gold box AD&D games? I played Pool of Radiance a little, and played through Champions of Krynn, and there weren't many opportunities to roleplay or affect the plot in the latter. Didn't feel like much of an RPG to me, so I wouldn't mind if it got kicked out of the genre definition. Maybe those old school games could be called "vintage-RPGs"?

It doesn't matter if you mind or not, those games are at the core of what RPGs are. Just like everything in Wolfenstein 3D is at the core of what an FPS is. You don't disqualify Wolfenstein 3D from being an FPS because it can't have rooms on top of each other do you?

I would prefer a modern definition that separates the combat RPGs from RPGs where the plot can be affected by the player, because such a definition would be useful to me.

It's not about what you prefer, it's about what <i>is</i>.

The Gold Box games are RPGs, even though there is almost no opportunity for roleplaying. They are, in fact, based on AD&D. AD&D is a roleplaying game, which is largely why the term was applies to those sorts of games despite the complete lack of any actual roleplaying.

Look at it this way: Would you consider the Model T a car? It really doesn't have any of the features of modern cars, such as ABS, automatic transmission, fuel injection...

But it IS a car. It's a car at it's most basic level, a box with an engine on wheels.

Your definition is pretty much useless to me because I don't care one way or the other about character progression, randomized outcomes or character advancement.

But if you see a game whose genre is CRPG you know you can expect those things right? It might not tell you what bonus things are there, but you WILL know to expect those things regardless of other available elements.

All that is left of your definition is then character stats (right?), and I don't care that much about those either.

Pretty much, though I think something needs to be worked in about how moves are chosen and pulled off. For instance in pretty much all pure RPGs you choose some moves out of menus, though in some basic attacks are done just by clicking.

What attracts me to RPGs (both CRPGs and PnP) is the non-linearity and ability to affect the plot, but I suppose neither of these things are required for CRPGs, because the majority seem to be lacking both. Maybe RPGs just plain suck, and I need to find a website dedicated to my kind of games?

Your kind of <i>games</i>, yes. And maybe RPGs do just suck for you. But all the elements you are saying you care about could be placed into any other kind of game. In fact, doesn't Deus Ex do this? Yet it is at heart an FPS...

I think RPGs have naturally been the first to start including those elements, and we will likely be seeing more of that in RPGs in the future. But this does not make the more linear Japanese RPGs, let alone the great "vintage RPGs," any less of an RPG.

As to whether you like RPGs or not... well, ask yourself: If you had the choice between two games where it was non-linear and you could affect the plot would you rather play something with stats, skills, randomization and where you pick moves out of a menu, or would you rather play something where everything was rendered in first person perspective, and you got a variety of weapons that you aim with your mouse?

 

[kris]

After reading the rest here I just lost my interest in what a real crpg is. :D The way the business uses it is in the end not even close to as bad as the term "strategy" is abused.

 

[RGE]

It's not about what you prefer, it's about what <i>is</i>.

Not necessarily. Language and definitions can evolve to better match new phenomena.

Look at it this way: Would you consider the Model T a car? It really doesn't have any of the features of modern cars, such as ABS, automatic transmission, fuel injection...

But it IS a car. It's a car at it's most basic level, a box with an engine on wheels.

It's a vintage car. If you tell people that you have a car, they're going to expect you to have a modern car, and they might consider your Model T to be something closer to a horse carriage, even though it's still a car. Thus, the definition of car in everyday language has evolved to mean a modern car and not a vintage car. Remember Crocodile Dundee? "That's not a knife. This is a knife." Ok, so he was joking, but definitions can change over time.

Your kind of <i>games</i>, yes. And maybe RPGs do just suck for you. But all the elements you are saying you care about could be placed into any other kind of game. In fact, doesn't Deus Ex do this? Yet it is at heart an FPS...

Deus Ex was fun, but it didn't have nearly enough non-linearity and the plot could only be affected in a superficial manner that ended up not affecting more than a short transition period as well as the ending of the game.

I think RPGs have naturally been the first to start including those elements, and we will likely be seeing more of that in RPGs in the future. But this does not make the more linear Japanese RPGs, let alone the great "vintage RPGs," any less of an RPG.

Well, that depends on what definition you're using. According to your definition they're CRPGs, according to the definition I'd prefer to use they're "linear Japanese RPGs" and "vintage RPGs". It's ok to have clunky definitions for games that I don't play and therefore don't discuss, but it's not really ok to by definition include them among games that I do play and discuss.

As to whether you like RPGs or not... well, ask yourself: If you had the choice between two games where it was non-linear and you could affect the plot would you rather play something with stats, skills, randomization and where you pick moves out of a menu, or would you rather play something where everything was rendered in first person perspective, and you got a variety of weapons that you aim with your mouse?

Interesting question, but I honestly don't know the answer. I'm lazy, so RPG mechanics might suit me better. But FPS mechanics might get me up and keep me up, and thus I might become more immersed in the game. This is why I don't really care about the type of the mechanics, only the quality. I'd probably prefer the best of both worlds: enough RPG mechanics to not force me to master my reflexes, yet enough action mechanics to better keep me focused.

Here at the end of this post I think I'm going to admit that your definition is probably the one that best suits what Kamaz was asking for in the original post, which was "the most precise, the most universal definition of computer role playing game". Unfortunately I can't help but feel that the precision of the definition becomes weaker as the definition becomes more universal, but perhaps I'm just misinterpreting that part.

 

[Sarvis]

Not necessarily. Language and definitions can evolve to better match new phenomena.

Perhaps, though I think this tends to not happen when the old version of the definition is still hanging around in your face all the time.

It's a vintage car. If you tell people that you have a car, they're going to expect you to have a modern car, and they might consider your Model T to be something closer to a horse carriage, even though it's still a car. Thus, the definition of car in everyday language has evolved to mean a modern car and not a vintage car. Remember Crocodile Dundee? "That's not a knife. This is a knife." Ok, so he was joking, but definitions can change over time.

Ok, then just look at the features I listed. You can get a car that doesn't have many more features than a model T, about the only ones which are universal are power steering and ABS these days (ABS only because it is required by law, some people would prefer not to have it!).

So if you can get a Pontiac Grand Am that has ONLY ABS and power steering, is that a car compared to a Grand Prix with power windows, power locks, air conditioning, automatic transmission, and OnStar?

Point: While it's ok to call something like Dragon Warrior or Pool of Radiance a Vintage game, it doesn't work so well for Final Fantasy X or Temple of Elemental Evil which follow similar styles of gameplay but are modern games.

Deus Ex was fun, but it didn't have nearly enough non-linearity and the plot could only be affected in a superficial manner that ended up not affecting more than a short transition period as well as the ending of the game.

Maybe, but that's still more than is found in most RPGs lately isn't it?

Well, that depends on what definition you're using. According to your definition they're CRPGs, according to the definition I'd prefer to use they're "linear Japanese RPGs" and "vintage RPGs". It's ok to have clunky definitions for games that I don't play and therefore don't discuss, but it's not really ok to by definition include them among games that I do play and discuss.

However, the games you play and discuss are very much the same at the core as games you do not play and discuss. That's why an RPG definition which includes all at it's basic level is necessary. The things you like about Arcanum et al are just <i>features</i> like power locks or OnStar on a car.

Interesting question, but I honestly don't know the answer. I'm lazy, so RPG mechanics might suit me better. But FPS mechanics might get me up and keep me up, and thus I might become more immersed in the game. This is why I don't really care about the type of the mechanics, only the quality. I'd probably prefer the best of both worlds: enough RPG mechanics to not force me to master my reflexes, yet enough action mechanics to better keep me focused.

Of course, when you say RPG mechanics are you are basically referring to everything I have been talking about as being an RPG. You KNOW what that means, even if it is not what you are looking for. Plus you understand that the features you do look for can be added into FPS mechanics as well.

Therefore wouldn't it be even more useful for you to have a term for your features that could be applied to any genre it might appear in?

I dunno what that term would be, but it would go <i>term</i> RPG, or <i>term</i> FPS, or <i>term</i> Action Adventure.

Here at the end of this post I think I'm going to admit that your definition is probably the one that best suits what Kamaz was asking for in the original post, which was "the most precise, the most universal definition of computer role playing game". Unfortunately I can't help but feel that the precision of the definition becomes weaker as the definition becomes more universal, but perhaps I'm just misinterpreting that part.

I don't think so really. I think at it's most precise a definition includes everything that should be and nothing that shouldn't.

 

[Kamaz]

Well, Ford Model T is DEFINETLY a car. And very noble car. Respect.

But what I wanted to say on this matter is - before you define term, ask yourself - why? For God's sake, why do you need that definition? And as soon as you get /find the purpose/use of this definition, you can quickly determine which game is RPG and which is not.

I suggest using 'recognition' as a purpose. Yeah, why else do you need to decide is Diablo RPG or not, you can just play it, if you have bought it. But how do you decide to buy it? You read some review. But, nowadays, there are so many games coming out - how do you orientate yourself in this great market to even start looking for a certain review? The answer is - you need to expect something. ANd that is when definitions and genres come into play. I guess you wouldnt have paid attention to Kult unless it would be called RPG, would you? If it was like 'action' or 'space-sim', you''d never expect to see some attunements, stats, dialogues, ionventory in it. Actually, very many people would be really pissed off, because they bought 'action', 'space-sim' and where expecting something else. Therefor Kult is RPG. The same applies for Diablo/Diablo2/NWN/KOTOR as well as Fallout not regarding how actionous/adventorous those games would be.

Therefor, being called an RPG is not a title, its not an honor, it does not mean anything special. It just approximatly determines what to expect from game. Every game is very original, it has elements from different genres, but still, you have to tell people what approximatly expect from this title, so you have to decide on which "shelf" put it. To determine that, you look at other games in that shelf and compare seeking similar characteristics and combinations of them. And then you nominate game an RPG if it has most of all RPG-istic characteristics. This, of course, can lead to situation when in shelf piles up too much crap and new crap much easily fits the definition, because it has similiarities with that crap that is allready on that "shelf", but...it's just life and evolution. Nothing bad will happen anyways.

 

[Sarvis]

Well said.

Would just point out that at one point Arcanum was placed on a shelf next to games some people here are now trying to say aren't RPGs... heh.

 

[hans_af_claes]

Arguing on a forum is just like running the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard!

 

[Sarvis]

Arguing on a forum is just like running the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard!

Wow, that was hilarious, witty AND original all in one!

You should become a writer!

 

[Spazmo]

Digging up old topics to post a horribly tired catchphrase is like I'm going to fucking kill you!

 

[sInfernal]

Arguing on a forum is just like running the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard!

A "forum" is a "public meeting place for discussion" (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum). I don't think I need to dig up a definition for "argue" to show that it is a form of discussion.

 

[suibhne]

Attack of the calendrically-impaired newbies! OH NOES!!11

 

[hans_af_claes]

I thought I would retaliate on that one spazmo, but since your signature already say enough about you I have no need for futhure insults.

btw, im a very lazy person.

Yawn* :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

 

[ichpokhudezh]

If it was like 'action' or 'space-sim', you''d never expect to see some attunements, stats, dialogues, ionventory in it. Actually, very many people would be really pissed off, because they bought 'action', 'space-sim' and where expecting something else.

I do recall that Wing Commander had a respectable storyline, quite a few NPC interactions and pilots were definitely different (I don't remember char stats per se, but your crafts had those).
It was a very good game. I don't recall people complaining or being pissed about it having these non-sim-fitting elements.