Shooters come from a tradition of shooting, using guns. Team Fortress two uses a mouse. Time Crisis uses a gun. Time Crisis is a shooter and Team Fortress two is more like a hack n slash, since the primary element is mowing through enemies.
Having multiple options in what to do does not make 'role playing' a gameplay element. Because 'role playing' is not gameplay.
So you're saying that running around a battlefield and shooting enemies is not playing the role of a soldier?
So you're saying that racing a car is not playing the role of a race driver?
So you're saying that sneaking into a bank and robbing it is not playing the role of a thief?
It is. Role-playing IS the gameplay in all these cases. But if the role-playing in general has received more attention in the development process than any of the single ways of role-playing (ie. you have many role-playing options), that means you're dealing with a role-playing game.
You seem to be equating role playing and sandbox games. Is Spore a role playing game? How about Black and White? Populous?
The core gameplay of Spore changes throughout its chapters and therefore it's easy to notice that it's a multi-genre title. I leave defining the fraction genres up to you, it's irrelevant.
Black and White and Populous are called God-Games because you're assigned the role of a god and there's no choice but to play a god. This fits my definition perfectly, if I may be so bold.
This is a really unorthodox approach, considering that strategic planning is the key element determining your success in the game. But I see what you mean- you get to choose from many different approaches (military, cultural, scientific, diplomatical). It certainly as close to a strategy-RPG crossbreed as gaming has ever gotten.
I still stand by my previous assertion and haven't seen anything that disagrees with it convincingly -
An RPG as it is currently is a game in which the characters attributes and skills, along with all modifiers, are the main factor in the games progression.
It seems to me that instead of following logical notions of defining a genre, you're trying to coin a definition that simply encompassess all the games YOU consider RPGs subconsciously. And while you certainly succeed in this goal, your definition also encompassess many games from other genres. Allow me to illustrate:
In Thief: Deadly Shadows the character's attributes and skills, along with all modifiers, are the main factor in the game's progression. The distance at which Garret is spotted, the amount of noise he produces while walking on various surfaces, his ability to use a bow, the amount of damage he can absorb- those are all attributes of the character and they play a more significant role than the player's skill. In fact, you can change those attributes by modfiying game options- you can see for yourself how big an impact it has on the game progression.
In Street Fighter the characters' attributes and skills, along with all modifiers, are the main factor in the game's progression. All characters have various attributes that define their fighting style and available maneuvers. Depending on what character you choose, the way you play can change dramatically.
In Super Mario Bros the character's attributes and skills, along with all modifiers, are the main factor in the game's progression. Much more important than the player's agility is Mario's superb jumping skill, allowing him to cross all the platforms before him. Bah! You can even witness character development- just eat a mushroom or touch a flower!
So according to your definition, Thief, Street Fighter and Super Mario Bros are RPGs. Where lies your mistake? This next quote from you is a good hint:
"What is an RPG" though? It's a game where the focus of the mechanics of the games is the Characters skills, not the Players.
This right here. While all the other genre names use the GAMEPLAY to define the genre, for some reason you've decided that in the case of RPGs it's the GAME MECHANICS that matters.
GAMEPLAY is what is immediately visible to the player- the way the game plays. GAME MECHANICS are the inner workings of the game- they can be exposed or hidden, and it doesn't affect the genre.
Roleplaying Game taken literally is absolutely meaningless as a genre of games, because it applies to pretty much every singleplayer game ever. The RPG video game genre is defined by being similar in gameplay to tabletop RPGs(which are so named because playing a role is unusual in board games). So it really is just about dice rolling and leveling up.
Except that it's really not what tabletop RPGs are all about. In fact, there are many magnificent tabletop RPGs that feature neither of those- see Call of Ctulhu for example.
I consider a game an RPG when: I kill/do stuff to get exp to better my skills in something. Whether it be increasing my stats, or increasing my abilities.
So far I haven't been wrong.
"So far every game I consider an RPG has turned out to be considered an RPG by me". That is a very silly thing to say.
As for Sporky's and Pika's latest comments, I don't feel like dignifying those with a response. Maybe next time?
Of course this brings up the question of whether Oblivion has too much grundle or Ultima doesn't have enough shank, but that is a discussion for another 13 page thread.
As much as leveling wasn't mentioned in Khavall's definition, I have already shown that character development IS in fact present in Mario (the health and jumping abilities increase thanks to the mushroom, you get shooting abilities thanks to the flower).
How so? In both instances, the attributes of your character are increased due to a certain action. In both cases that increase can be lost.
Example: by visiting a trainer you can have your skill increased in Oblivion. You can lose those skill points because of going to jail.
It's the same thing, just a different instance of it.
BTW, I'd like you to notice what a ridiculous position you're putting yourself into. You're arguing that Super Mario isn't an RPG only because power-ups aren't level ups.
Having multiple options in what to do does not make 'role playing' a gameplay element. Because 'role playing' is not gameplay.
So you're saying that running around a battlefield and shooting enemies is not playing the role of a soldier?
So you're saying that racing a car is not playing the role of a race driver?
So you're saying that sneaking into a bank and robbing it is not playing the role of a thief?
It is. Role-playing IS the gameplay in all these cases. But if the role-playing in general has received more attention in the development process than any of the single ways of role-playing (ie. you have many role-playing options), that means you're dealing with a role-playing game.
Just a quick point. Just because you say something enough times, in a lengthy post to put Defender to shame, does not make it true. In NONE of these cases is role-playing gameplay. The gameplay is shooting enemies, or racing a car, or sneaking around. The gameplay is what you DO.
According to your definition, EVERY game is a 'role playing game', because you are taking on the role of whatever is in the game. That doesn't mean that role playing is every kind of game play - that means it's NOT gameplay.
You seem to be equating role playing and sandbox games. Is Spore a role playing game? How about Black and White? Populous?
The core gameplay of Spore changes throughout its chapters and therefore it's easy to notice that it's a multi-genre title. I leave defining the fraction genres up to you, it's irrelevant.
Black and White and Populous are called God-Games because you're assigned the role of a god and there's no choice but to play a god. This fits my definition perfectly, if I may be so bold.
Fallout leaves you no choice but to play a vault-dweller. All the D&D games leave you no choice but to play an adventurer. I guess they're not role playing games either.
Seriously, get a grip. Your entire argument rests on your inability to understand what the words you use mean. You don't comprehend what gameplay is. You don't.
Please answer this question. Do you or do you not play the role of a soldier in Call of Duty?
My definition of an RPG game:
"A game in which you have choice of the role you're playing and in which you have to play this role well in order to succeed".
How so? In both instances, the attributes of your character are increased due to a certain action. In both cases that increase can be lost.
Example: by visiting a trainer you can have your skill increased in Oblivion. You can lose those skill points because of going to jail.
It's the same thing, just a different instance of it.
BTW, I'd like you to notice what a ridiculous position you're putting yourself into. You're arguing that Super Mario isn't an RPG only because power-ups aren't level ups.
Are you seriously suggesting this? Really?
I'll repeat:
You're being disingenuous. Stop it.
Stop suggesting that all games are RPGs just because the player controls a character. That is a false equivalence argument. Nearly every game ever made qualifies under this concept and every game isn't considered an RPG. I don't wonder why that is because I can tell the difference in the intent of the game makers.
I haven't played Oblivion. Does training cost money? How do you get that money? Is there a level cap to skills gained via training?
When jailed, how do you regain lost skills? The same method used before?
You get x amount of XP for a level up. Power ups are found and given. I'm sure you'll find a loophole for this, too.
You realize that there's already a category that everyone knows is an RPG but as you put, you yourself are trying to coin a definition that simply encompassess all the games YOU consider RPGs subconsciously. And when I apply this same tactic to shooters and racers, you believe the arguement not worth a reply. Your true arguement shouldn't warrant a reply as well, but you've added on enough side discussions that people do reply.
PikaPuff on
0
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
Please answer this question. Do you or do you not play the role of a soldier in Call of Duty?
My definition of an RPG game:
"A game in which you have choice of the role you're playing and in which you have to play this role well in order to succeed".
My answer was actually in the part above which you converted to 'blah'. Yes, you do. You play a role in EVERY game you play.
You're being disingenuous. Stop it.
Stop suggesting that all games are RPGs just because the player controls a character.
You, on the other hand are using a straw man argument. I've never said that just because you play a role in a game, it makes it a role playing game. If you believe I did, please point me to the exact post where I did. Otherwise stop bothering me with your accusations of disingenuity.
As for Sporky's and Pika's latest comments, I don't feel like dignifying those with a response. Maybe next time?
Why not?
Do you disagree with me when I say that RPGs are not defined by the words that describe their genre?
I mean we have an entire subgenre that describes perfectly what every "genre word" gets at: the roguelike. What does it mean to be like Rogue? Does it have to be ASCII? Apparently not. Does it have to be turn based? That's also debatable. A roguelike is a roguelike because a lot of people start calling it that, and usually because it's obvious that it is one. Some people try to say, oh, it's not a roguelike without ASCII, or without food, or without randomly generated dungeons. That doesn't change the fact that whatever game they're trying to say isn't, probably still is.
A racing game is like real life racing in some aspect. Pretty broad? I guess so, since that includes both Mario Kart and Gran Turismo. But if it's too broad then you can bet it'll get categorized into a different genre by the people who matter; that is, the company that puts it out and the public.
The fact of the matter is, you can't get absolutely, precisely specific with these things. What makes an action movie an action movie? Are you going to set an arbitrary requirement that 50% of the movie must be comprised of "action" or it's not actiony enough? Now you have to define what action is. Or maybe you'll say that there can be no romance plot, since that makes it a general audience "blockbuster" movie instead. Once you define what "romance" is, suddenly half the action movies section at Hollywood Video has to relocate.
That's what this is. You're saying that to be this sort of game, it has to meet this and this criteria, which is impossible. There are general statements that hold true based on what has and has not been labeled "RPG" over the years, but what you are doing cannot be done to anyone's satisfaction. Not even your own!
Now if you'll excuse me, I'mma go play one of my favorite grundleshanks.
Kinda weird that the term RPG in video games is confusing people now, after all these years!
Neva on
SC2 Beta: Neva.ling
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
Do you disagree with me when I say that RPGs are not defined by the words that describe their genre?
Yes, thank you. This is the exact point I've been trying to make: just because many people call something an RPG, doesn't make it an RPG- because many people are idiots.
Just because you call something red, doesn't make it red. It is a specific name reserved for a certain bracket of light rays (or something).
It is ridiculous to think that a game can't be part of more than one genre. We usually just call hybrids part of X genre because it is closer to the typical game of X genre than Y genre. It is why we don't call every Mario game a racing game because there are parts where you have to race other characters.
It is ridiculous to think that a game can't be part of more than one genre. We usually just call hybrids part of X genre because it is closer to the typical game of X genre than Y genre. It is why we don't call every Mario game a racing game because there are parts where you have to race other characters.
I completely agree with you on that! Many games can be hybrids of an RPG and a shooting game for example. Or an RPG and a strategy.
The problem is that games like most J"RPG"s or Diablo or Oblivion have nothing to do with RPGs in the first place. They have their own genre (hack'n'slash for the two latter).
Anyway, good night for now. Try to read the thread with an open mind. I'm hoping it will give you some fresh perspective.
The problem is that games like most J"RPG"s or Diablo or Oblivion have nothing to do with RPGs in the first place. They have their own genre (hack'n'slash for the two latter).
Hack and slash has its roots in "pen and paper" RPGs such as Dungeons & Dragons, denoting campaigns of violence with no other plot elements or significant goal. The term itself dates at least far back as 1980, as shown in a Dragon magazine article by Jean Wells and Kim Mohan which includes the following statement: "There is great potential for more than hacking and slashing in D&D or AD&D; there is the possibility of intrigue, mystery and romance involving both sexes, to the benefit of all characters in a campaign." [1] The article goes on to report the experience of one D&D player who claimed that "when she plays in tournaments, she does run into the "hack and slash" type of player, but most of them are adolescent males. These types of players not only aggravate her, but other, more mature players as well."[1] As demonstrated by the term's context in the article, it has carried a derogatory meaning from early on, one intended to suggest that mindless violence makes for a one-dimensional RPG and is a style favored by juvenile players.
Other times, hack and slash is employed as a judgement-neutral term simply used to describe one of the different types of RPG gamers and different styles of gameplay. Hack and slash can be used to contrast fighting one's way through a dungeon (a "dungeon crawl") with role-playing for the purpose of plot development and character development.
Do you disagree with me when I say that RPGs are not defined by the words that describe their genre?
Yes, thank you. This is the exact point I've been trying to make: just because many people call something an RPG, doesn't make it an RPG- because many people are idiots.
Just because you call something red, doesn't make it red. It is a specific name reserved for a certain bracket of light rays (or something).
So you're saying you didn't read the rest of my post, wherein I said you were wrong for trying to use the words "role playing game" to define what one is? And in fact, wrong for debating that which was decided ages ago, and not by you?
By the way, did we ever get a list from you of any games considered "real RPGs?" I think we're all still waiting. Maybe also a list of games typically considered RPGs that you insist are not.
The problem is that games like most J"RPG"s or Diablo or Oblivion have nothing to do with RPGs in the first place. They have their own genre (hack'n'slash for the two latter).
Hack and slash has its roots in "pen and paper" RPGs such as Dungeons & Dragons, denoting campaigns of violence with no other plot elements or significant goal. The term itself dates at least far back as 1980, as shown in a Dragon magazine article by Jean Wells and Kim Mohan which includes the following statement: "There is great potential for more than hacking and slashing in D&D or AD&D; there is the possibility of intrigue, mystery and romance involving both sexes, to the benefit of all characters in a campaign." [1] The article goes on to report the experience of one D&D player who claimed that "when she plays in tournaments, she does run into the "hack and slash" type of player, but most of them are adolescent males. These types of players not only aggravate her, but other, more mature players as well."[1] As demonstrated by the term's context in the article, it has carried a derogatory meaning from early on, one intended to suggest that mindless violence makes for a one-dimensional RPG and is a style favored by juvenile players.
Other times, hack and slash is employed as a judgement-neutral term simply used to describe one of the different types of RPG gamers and different styles of gameplay. Hack and slash can be used to contrast fighting one's way through a dungeon (a "dungeon crawl") with role-playing for the purpose of plot development and character development.
:P
Oh my god you cited wikipedia that doesn't meet my definition of "encyclopedia" therefore it is useless!
Do you disagree with me when I say that RPGs are not defined by the words that describe their genre?
Yes, thank you. This is the exact point I've been trying to make: just because many people call something an RPG, doesn't make it an RPG- because many people are idiots.
Just because you call something red, doesn't make it red. It is a specific name reserved for a certain bracket of light rays (or something).
Just because people try to say rouge isn't red doesn't make that so either, because many people are idiots.
Yes, we have simple definitions for things like red, and idiot. We also have simple definitions for RPG, slightly nebulous and without clearly defined boundaries, but that's the nature of genres.
The problem here, is that you're trying to create a highly complicated, specific definition that is not exclusive of many non-RPGs, for the purpose of excluding many RPGs. When you were explaining why Fallout was an RPG, but Oblivion and Diablo weren't, Civilization fit your definition amazingly well.
Why is Fallout a role-playing game? Hmmmm...
Is it a shooter? No. A vast majority of situations can be handled without combat. Is it a diplomacy game? No- despite many possible diplomatic options, you can solve most situations through properly applied violence. Is it a sneaker? No, there are a few sneaky missions but they're neither prominent nor required to win.
So what do you have to do to win Fallout? You have to PLAY YOUR ROLE. YOU HAVE TO ACT ACCORDING TO THE NATURE OF YOUR CHARACTER(S).
Is Civ a combat game? No, a vast majority of situations (including victory conditions) can be handled without combat. Is it a diplomacy game? No, a vast majority of situations can be handled economically by throwing money at other nations. Is it an economic game? No, a vast majority of situations can be handled by combat. What you have to do is play your role, acting according to the nature of your character (the leader of your nation).
Now, is it an RPG? You said no before, but WHY? This role playing is every bit as central to Civilization as it is to Fallout, I'd even argue moreso, since breaking character once (even if you're forced to for lack of other options) can color your relation with the nation involved as well as others for the duration of the game. In Fallout you take a karma hit (or simply lose a karma gain) but most of the wasteland doesn't really care wether or not you shot the guy holding that hooker hostage.
You're being disingenuous. Stop it.
Stop suggesting that all games are RPGs just because the player controls a character.
You, on the other hand are using a straw man argument. I've never said that just because you play a role in a game, it makes it a role playing game. If you believe I did, please point me to the exact post where I did. Otherwise stop bothering me with your accusations of disingenuity.
I'm creating a strawman argument? The very first post in this thread was a strawman argument. You listed the things that commonly make up what everybody else has considered for years to be the quality of RPGs and then discarded things like EXP gathering and plot as being inconsequential to the definition. And then you've continuously offered the equivilent of 'lalalala I can't heeeeaaaarrr yoouuu' as a response.
You've taken a game like Oblivion and have made comparisons that it is not much different than the likes of Need for Speed or Quake because you don't like how it (Oblivion) presents itself. This is a false equivalence argument.
All games have rules, but not all games must agree on the same rules.
I can only come to the conclusion that you're taking a Uni course (possibly philosophy) and are trying to use this thread in an attempt to write a term paper about the nature of community delusions or some such nonsense.
Whatever your motivations are, you are clearly not participating in this discussion in good faith. You can defend Wookies all you like, but you'll be doing it without any more participation from me.
Posts
First Person Mowers.....
Gardeners of the world, unite!
@ShiftyPumpkin on the Twitterings. Book the Faces at [facebook.com/PerceptivePumpkinProductions]
So you're saying that running around a battlefield and shooting enemies is not playing the role of a soldier?
So you're saying that racing a car is not playing the role of a race driver?
So you're saying that sneaking into a bank and robbing it is not playing the role of a thief?
It is. Role-playing IS the gameplay in all these cases. But if the role-playing in general has received more attention in the development process than any of the single ways of role-playing (ie. you have many role-playing options), that means you're dealing with a role-playing game.
The core gameplay of Spore changes throughout its chapters and therefore it's easy to notice that it's a multi-genre title. I leave defining the fraction genres up to you, it's irrelevant.
Black and White and Populous are called God-Games because you're assigned the role of a god and there's no choice but to play a god. This fits my definition perfectly, if I may be so bold.
This is a really unorthodox approach, considering that strategic planning is the key element determining your success in the game. But I see what you mean- you get to choose from many different approaches (military, cultural, scientific, diplomatical). It certainly as close to a strategy-RPG crossbreed as gaming has ever gotten.
It seems to me that instead of following logical notions of defining a genre, you're trying to coin a definition that simply encompassess all the games YOU consider RPGs subconsciously. And while you certainly succeed in this goal, your definition also encompassess many games from other genres. Allow me to illustrate:
In Thief: Deadly Shadows the character's attributes and skills, along with all modifiers, are the main factor in the game's progression. The distance at which Garret is spotted, the amount of noise he produces while walking on various surfaces, his ability to use a bow, the amount of damage he can absorb- those are all attributes of the character and they play a more significant role than the player's skill. In fact, you can change those attributes by modfiying game options- you can see for yourself how big an impact it has on the game progression.
In Street Fighter the characters' attributes and skills, along with all modifiers, are the main factor in the game's progression. All characters have various attributes that define their fighting style and available maneuvers. Depending on what character you choose, the way you play can change dramatically.
In Super Mario Bros the character's attributes and skills, along with all modifiers, are the main factor in the game's progression. Much more important than the player's agility is Mario's superb jumping skill, allowing him to cross all the platforms before him. Bah! You can even witness character development- just eat a mushroom or touch a flower!
So according to your definition, Thief, Street Fighter and Super Mario Bros are RPGs. Where lies your mistake? This next quote from you is a good hint: This right here. While all the other genre names use the GAMEPLAY to define the genre, for some reason you've decided that in the case of RPGs it's the GAME MECHANICS that matters.
GAMEPLAY is what is immediately visible to the player- the way the game plays. GAME MECHANICS are the inner workings of the game- they can be exposed or hidden, and it doesn't affect the genre.
I do not do that. In fact, I have clearly stated that a role is played in a great majority of computer games.
Except that it's really not what tabletop RPGs are all about. In fact, there are many magnificent tabletop RPGs that feature neither of those- see Call of Ctulhu for example.
"So far every game I consider an RPG has turned out to be considered an RPG by me". That is a very silly thing to say.
As for Sporky's and Pika's latest comments, I don't feel like dignifying those with a response. Maybe next time?
You can never have enough shank.
I like when we pull the same discussion you're having, it's not worth a response.
Stats don't level up in Thief. At least not in Deadly Shadows...
Example: by visiting a trainer you can have your skill increased in Oblivion. You can lose those skill points because of going to jail.
It's the same thing, just a different instance of it.
BTW, I'd like you to notice what a ridiculous position you're putting yourself into. You're arguing that Super Mario isn't an RPG only because power-ups aren't level ups.
Just a quick point. Just because you say something enough times, in a lengthy post to put Defender to shame, does not make it true. In NONE of these cases is role-playing gameplay. The gameplay is shooting enemies, or racing a car, or sneaking around. The gameplay is what you DO.
According to your definition, EVERY game is a 'role playing game', because you are taking on the role of whatever is in the game. That doesn't mean that role playing is every kind of game play - that means it's NOT gameplay.
Fallout leaves you no choice but to play a vault-dweller. All the D&D games leave you no choice but to play an adventurer. I guess they're not role playing games either.
Seriously, get a grip. Your entire argument rests on your inability to understand what the words you use mean. You don't comprehend what gameplay is. You don't.
Not the tabletop ones.
My definition of an RPG game:
"A game in which you have choice of the role you're playing and in which you have to play this role well in order to succeed".
Are you seriously suggesting this? Really?
I'll repeat:
You're being disingenuous. Stop it.
Stop suggesting that all games are RPGs just because the player controls a character. That is a false equivalence argument. Nearly every game ever made qualifies under this concept and every game isn't considered an RPG. I don't wonder why that is because I can tell the difference in the intent of the game makers.
When jailed, how do you regain lost skills? The same method used before?
You get x amount of XP for a level up. Power ups are found and given. I'm sure you'll find a loophole for this, too.
You realize that there's already a category that everyone knows is an RPG but as you put, you yourself are trying to coin a definition that simply encompassess all the games YOU consider RPGs subconsciously. And when I apply this same tactic to shooters and racers, you believe the arguement not worth a reply. Your true arguement shouldn't warrant a reply as well, but you've added on enough side discussions that people do reply.
Facade
My answer was actually in the part above which you converted to 'blah'. Yes, you do. You play a role in EVERY game you play.
You, on the other hand are using a straw man argument. I've never said that just because you play a role in a game, it makes it a role playing game. If you believe I did, please point me to the exact post where I did. Otherwise stop bothering me with your accusations of disingenuity.
I don't see a contradiction. You've just confirmed my point yourself.
Why not?
Do you disagree with me when I say that RPGs are not defined by the words that describe their genre?
I mean we have an entire subgenre that describes perfectly what every "genre word" gets at: the roguelike. What does it mean to be like Rogue? Does it have to be ASCII? Apparently not. Does it have to be turn based? That's also debatable. A roguelike is a roguelike because a lot of people start calling it that, and usually because it's obvious that it is one. Some people try to say, oh, it's not a roguelike without ASCII, or without food, or without randomly generated dungeons. That doesn't change the fact that whatever game they're trying to say isn't, probably still is.
A racing game is like real life racing in some aspect. Pretty broad? I guess so, since that includes both Mario Kart and Gran Turismo. But if it's too broad then you can bet it'll get categorized into a different genre by the people who matter; that is, the company that puts it out and the public.
The fact of the matter is, you can't get absolutely, precisely specific with these things. What makes an action movie an action movie? Are you going to set an arbitrary requirement that 50% of the movie must be comprised of "action" or it's not actiony enough? Now you have to define what action is. Or maybe you'll say that there can be no romance plot, since that makes it a general audience "blockbuster" movie instead. Once you define what "romance" is, suddenly half the action movies section at Hollywood Video has to relocate.
That's what this is. You're saying that to be this sort of game, it has to meet this and this criteria, which is impossible. There are general statements that hold true based on what has and has not been labeled "RPG" over the years, but what you are doing cannot be done to anyone's satisfaction. Not even your own!
Now if you'll excuse me, I'mma go play one of my favorite grundleshanks.
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
Yes, thank you. This is the exact point I've been trying to make: just because many people call something an RPG, doesn't make it an RPG- because many people are idiots.
Just because you call something red, doesn't make it red. It is a specific name reserved for a certain bracket of light rays (or something).
I completely agree with you on that! Many games can be hybrids of an RPG and a shooting game for example. Or an RPG and a strategy.
The problem is that games like most J"RPG"s or Diablo or Oblivion have nothing to do with RPGs in the first place. They have their own genre (hack'n'slash for the two latter).
Anyway, good night for now. Try to read the thread with an open mind. I'm hoping it will give you some fresh perspective.
Oh my god. Is english your second language? You're trying to win arguments by being an incorrect english pedant.
I mean, you could just as easily have asked, 'ARE you playing the role of a soldier.' And I would have said, 'yes, you are.'
You also do a lot of decision making in video games. Is decision making gameplay?
edit:: I mean seriously, this is like...the worst argument ever. You should be ashamed.
So you're saying you didn't read the rest of my post, wherein I said you were wrong for trying to use the words "role playing game" to define what one is? And in fact, wrong for debating that which was decided ages ago, and not by you?
By the way, did we ever get a list from you of any games considered "real RPGs?" I think we're all still waiting. Maybe also a list of games typically considered RPGs that you insist are not.
Oh my god you cited wikipedia that doesn't meet my definition of "encyclopedia" therefore it is useless!
Lots of things confuse pedants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_(assembly)
I guess 'winning' is its own gameplay mechanic, and deserves its own category guys!
Just because people try to say rouge isn't red doesn't make that so either, because many people are idiots.
Yes, we have simple definitions for things like red, and idiot. We also have simple definitions for RPG, slightly nebulous and without clearly defined boundaries, but that's the nature of genres.
The problem here, is that you're trying to create a highly complicated, specific definition that is not exclusive of many non-RPGs, for the purpose of excluding many RPGs. When you were explaining why Fallout was an RPG, but Oblivion and Diablo weren't, Civilization fit your definition amazingly well.
Is Civ a combat game? No, a vast majority of situations (including victory conditions) can be handled without combat. Is it a diplomacy game? No, a vast majority of situations can be handled economically by throwing money at other nations. Is it an economic game? No, a vast majority of situations can be handled by combat. What you have to do is play your role, acting according to the nature of your character (the leader of your nation).
Now, is it an RPG? You said no before, but WHY? This role playing is every bit as central to Civilization as it is to Fallout, I'd even argue moreso, since breaking character once (even if you're forced to for lack of other options) can color your relation with the nation involved as well as others for the duration of the game. In Fallout you take a karma hit (or simply lose a karma gain) but most of the wasteland doesn't really care wether or not you shot the guy holding that hooker hostage.
a genre SageinaRage has never played.
sick burn.
I'm creating a strawman argument? The very first post in this thread was a strawman argument. You listed the things that commonly make up what everybody else has considered for years to be the quality of RPGs and then discarded things like EXP gathering and plot as being inconsequential to the definition. And then you've continuously offered the equivilent of 'lalalala I can't heeeeaaaarrr yoouuu' as a response.
You've taken a game like Oblivion and have made comparisons that it is not much different than the likes of Need for Speed or Quake because you don't like how it (Oblivion) presents itself. This is a false equivalence argument.
All games have rules, but not all games must agree on the same rules.
I can only come to the conclusion that you're taking a Uni course (possibly philosophy) and are trying to use this thread in an attempt to write a term paper about the nature of community delusions or some such nonsense.
Whatever your motivations are, you are clearly not participating in this discussion in good faith. You can defend Wookies all you like, but you'll be doing it without any more participation from me.
Congratulations! You've won the internet!