So, what to do with all those games that don't fall into the RPG category? Well, when I was a kid we used to call them by various names.
Dungeon crawler (Might and Magic, Dungeon Master)
Action-adventure (Ultima, Witcher?)
Hack and Slash (Diablo, Oblivion, Nethack (I do believe roguelike is a term regarding presentation rather than gameplay)
Hes already knocked off some your examples of "RPGs" in the first post. You couldn't even manage to read the first post!
Nope, I read it, you just happen to be a jackass, Ultima V is not an action adventure, are you aware that we have these things called adjectives, which are used for describing things, and that things are not as you describe them just because you want to win an arguement and you can take things out of context?
Also, Mayday, Nethack is a dungeon crawler, a hack and slash is a game wherin the entire point of the game is to hack and slash, and most things can only be resolved by violence, I can name quite a few roguelikes with significant enough roleplaying to be called RPG's.
What about the commonly used definition of RPG as involving improving character skills so bad that it should be changed?
Yeah, because stats aren't necessary for playing a role. Defining that role is.
Thread over, if you do not understand this, then do not talk until you do.
You're using a very, very narrow definition of "role playing" then.
Actors role play, but they rarely define those roles or get to choose the actions of their characters...yet I don't think anyone would realistically suggest they are not playing a role.
Roleplaying is just that. You play a role. Every game is a roleplaying game as long as you inhabit a character to some degree. I don't think "playing a role" is a useful definition for a genre. We need to define further, and I think sticking with "Your characters actions and abilities define success rather than your own" is a pretty good way to explain it.
I never thought Adventure games meant literally what they said. I just thought of them as being a clever way to say 'story game'. Or 'boring' as others might have it...
"Illogical MacGyver puzzles"?
'Boring' doesn't cover that?
I always found them more frustrating.
You might not immediately jump to such a conclusion, but adventure games breed anger too.
What the fuck people, I did not know this would be debate club/mock trial all over again.
I don't think genre definitions are that literal.
If you need an example, I've stated numerous times that "puzzle" games, or at least the games that earn that title, don't really have much to do with solving puzzles.
That they don't fit the definition of "puzzle" literally doesn't mean the genre name isn't useful.
Internal definitions are more important to videogames than external, dictionary definitions.
I never thought Adventure games meant literally what they said. I just thought of them as being a clever way to say 'story game'. Or 'boring' as others might have it...
"Illogical MacGyver puzzles"?
'Boring' doesn't cover that?
I always found them more frustrating.
You might not immediately jump to such a conclusion, but adventure games breed anger too.
Nah, I like Adventure games. Usually. MacGyver puzzles frustrate me to no end. Hardly boring, but not quite fun either.
OK, this defining RPG thing is hard. I say we start by defining definition. After that we will attempt to define chair.
Eventually we will all have PhDs in philosophy, be completely unemployable, and thus have lots of time to play the computer programs commonly, if erroneously, referred to as RPGs.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
You're using a very, very narrow definition of "role playing" then.
Actors role play, but they rarely define those roles or get to choose the actions of their characters...yet I don't think anyone would realistically suggest they are not playing a role.
Roleplaying is just that. You play a role. Every game is a roleplaying game as long as you inhabit a character to some degree. I don't think "playing a role" is a useful definition for a genre. We need to define further, and I think sticking with "Your characters actions and abilities define success rather than your own" is a pretty good way to explain it.
I disagree. Actors do define their roles. That definition is not solely by choosing actions. One character can be played many different ways by different actors. Look at the difference between characters in different runs of plays, or remakes of movies. The actors usually try to differentiate, or put a different spin on a character, even if they're constrained to the same actions. That's why they are said to play a role, and not simply recite lines.
I never thought Adventure games meant literally what they said. I just thought of them as being a clever way to say 'story game'. Or 'boring' as others might have it...
"Illogical MacGyver puzzles"?
'Boring' doesn't cover that?
I always found them more frustrating.
You might not immediately jump to such a conclusion, but adventure games breed anger too.
Nah, I like Adventure games. Usually. MacGyver puzzles frustrate me to no end. Hardly boring, but not quite fun either.
I like adventure games, but the genre name doesn't really tell you much. IIRC, wasn't there a game simply called "Adventure" which sort of spawned the genre?
I never thought Adventure games meant literally what they said. I just thought of them as being a clever way to say 'story game'. Or 'boring' as others might have it...
"Illogical MacGyver puzzles"?
'Boring' doesn't cover that?
I always found them more frustrating.
You might not immediately jump to such a conclusion, but adventure games breed anger too.
Nah, I like Adventure games. Usually. MacGyver puzzles frustrate me to no end. Hardly boring, but not quite fun either.
I like adventure games, but the genre name doesn't really tell you much. IIRC, wasn't there a game simply called "Adventure" which sort of spawned the genre?
You're using a very, very narrow definition of "role playing" then.
Actors role play, but they rarely define those roles or get to choose the actions of their characters...yet I don't think anyone would realistically suggest they are not playing a role.
Roleplaying is just that. You play a role. Every game is a roleplaying game as long as you inhabit a character to some degree. I don't think "playing a role" is a useful definition for a genre. We need to define further, and I think sticking with "Your characters actions and abilities define success rather than your own" is a pretty good way to explain it.
I disagree. Actors do define their roles. That definition is not solely by choosing actions. One character can be played many different ways by different actors. Look at the difference between characters in different runs of plays, or remakes of movies. The actors usually try to differentiate, or put a different spin on a character, even if they're constrained to the same actions. That's why they are said to play a role, and not simply recite lines.
While true, that doesn't really change the argument. He's trying to argue that feeling like "This is why my character acts this way" isn't good enough, if you can't actually decide the character's actions.
I just want a definition of the action adventure genre.
"Wherein the player runs about and possibly performs actions. And usually drives a vehicle at some point. And probably jumps. And there are sometimes explosions. Must have a witty sidekick for comic relief."
You're using a very, very narrow definition of "role playing" then.
Actors role play, but they rarely define those roles or get to choose the actions of their characters...yet I don't think anyone would realistically suggest they are not playing a role.
Roleplaying is just that. You play a role. Every game is a roleplaying game as long as you inhabit a character to some degree. I don't think "playing a role" is a useful definition for a genre. We need to define further, and I think sticking with "Your characters actions and abilities define success rather than your own" is a pretty good way to explain it.
I disagree. Actors do define their roles. That definition is not solely by choosing actions. One character can be played many different ways by different actors. Look at the difference between characters in different runs of plays, or remakes of movies. The actors usually try to differentiate, or put a different spin on a character, even if they're constrained to the same actions. That's why they are said to play a role, and not simply recite lines.
While true, that doesn't really change the argument. He's trying to argue that feeling like "This is why my character acts this way" isn't good enough, if you can't actually decide the character's actions.
I think it's more complicated than that. Two people can do the same thing, and still be very different people. For example, we're performing identical actions right now, posting on a forum. Why I'm posting what I'm posting and why you're posting what you're posting is what makes us different in the context of this action. Two characters don't need to perform different actions to be different.
You're using a very, very narrow definition of "role playing" then.
Actors role play, but they rarely define those roles or get to choose the actions of their characters...yet I don't think anyone would realistically suggest they are not playing a role.
Roleplaying is just that. You play a role. Every game is a roleplaying game as long as you inhabit a character to some degree. I don't think "playing a role" is a useful definition for a genre. We need to define further, and I think sticking with "Your characters actions and abilities define success rather than your own" is a pretty good way to explain it.
I disagree. Actors do define their roles. That definition is not solely by choosing actions. One character can be played many different ways by different actors. Look at the difference between characters in different runs of plays, or remakes of movies. The actors usually try to differentiate, or put a different spin on a character, even if they're constrained to the same actions. That's why they are said to play a role, and not simply recite lines.
While true, that doesn't really change the argument. He's trying to argue that feeling like "This is why my character acts this way" isn't good enough, if you can't actually decide the character's actions.
I think it's more complicated than that. Two people can do the same thing, and still be very different people. For example, we're performing identical actions right now, posting on a forum. Why I'm posting what I'm posting and why you're posting what you're posting is what makes us different in the context of this action. Two characters don't need to perform different actions to be different.
Which is what I'm saying. You can easily be "role playing" without getting to define the exact actions your role involves. Our OP seems to be suggesting that is not the case.
There's plenty of strategy in right-clicking the "buy plasma gun" for each squad.
Nuh uh.
I really fucking hope there is a multiplayer mode like the singleplayer mode.
Good news!
There is?
Thank god, I fucking hate most RTS games, fucking spreadsheeters always killed me dead.
Problem with most RTS games is that they are based around build orders and micro managing unit skills. While the former is technically strategy, its hardly very satisfying in the long run.
You're using a very, very narrow definition of "role playing" then.
Actors role play, but they rarely define those roles or get to choose the actions of their characters...yet I don't think anyone would realistically suggest they are not playing a role.
Roleplaying is just that. You play a role. Every game is a roleplaying game as long as you inhabit a character to some degree. I don't think "playing a role" is a useful definition for a genre. We need to define further, and I think sticking with "Your characters actions and abilities define success rather than your own" is a pretty good way to explain it.
I disagree. Actors do define their roles. That definition is not solely by choosing actions. One character can be played many different ways by different actors. Look at the difference between characters in different runs of plays, or remakes of movies. The actors usually try to differentiate, or put a different spin on a character, even if they're constrained to the same actions. That's why they are said to play a role, and not simply recite lines.
While true, that doesn't really change the argument. He's trying to argue that feeling like "This is why my character acts this way" isn't good enough, if you can't actually decide the character's actions.
I think it's more complicated than that. Two people can do the same thing, and still be very different people. For example, we're performing identical actions right now, posting on a forum. Why I'm posting what I'm posting and why you're posting what you're posting is what makes us different in the context of this action. Two characters don't need to perform different actions to be different.
Which is what I'm saying. You can easily be "role playing" without getting to define the exact actions your role involves. Our OP seems to be suggesting that is not the case.
Yes, I disagree horribly with the OP.
edit: I agree with you too. I don't want it to seem like I object to what you're saying.
If this discussion is about RPGs, and the OP goes about defining RPGs, why does the OP immediately start talking about cRPGs and also give no definition of what a cRPG is?
e- About the topic at hand. I don't get why "Computer RPGs" fans are so butt hurt that "Japanese RPGs" are known as RPGs. The definition has been made through use. If cRPG means computer RPG, then cRPGs and jRPGs have been part of what a RPG is for 20 years now. Why are people trying to change that now?
If you want to have some special word for what a cRPG is which excludes jRPGs, then make up some new one. The term RPG has been in use for decades, get your own word. Oh wait, there is one. cRPG.
If this discussion is about RPGs, and the OP goes about defining RPGs, why does the OP immediately start talking about cRPGs and also give no definition of what a cRPG is?
e- About the topic at hand. I don't get why "Computer RPGs" fans are so butt hurt that "Japanese RPGs" are known as RPGs. The definition has been made through use, like googling. If cRPG means computer RPG, then cRPGs and jRPGs have been part of what a RPG is for 20 years now. Why are people trying to change that now?
If you want to have some special word for what a cRPG is which excludes jRPGs, then make up some new one. The term RPG has been in use for decades, get your own word. Oh wait, there is one. cRPG.
cRPG isn't a real term, no one actually uses it outside of forum discussions.
jRPG isn't a real term, no one actually uses it outside of forum discussions.
Pretty much, though if you walked into a gamestop and asked for jrpgs, they'd probably know what you were talking about. Its not like you can't play jrpgs on the computer, many are. Which makes the term "crpg" ridiculous to me.
Well, the OP used the term without defining it, and this thread seems to be using the term as well. I'm sorry for having to assume the usage for the word because it was poorly defined. I think some use eastern/western games to separate the two.
This all goes with my original complaint as to why the OP has one topic title yet discusses something completely different without any defining terms of said discussion.
e- if I walked into a gamestop and asked for some RPGs, i would get both "crpgs" and jrpgs as answers, so that pretty much answers the OP when you couple it with my previous definition that words are defined from common and repeated usage.
One person has already been banned for their conduct in this thread. I'd like people to know that if they are unable to have debates about video game terminology without screaming abuse at their fellow posters that they should not post in the thread at all and should probably reevaluate some of their life choices.
jRPG isn't a real term, no one actually uses it outside of forum discussions.
Pretty much, though if you walked into a gamestop and asked for jrpgs, they'd probably know what you were talking about. Its not like you can't play jrpgs on the computer, many are. Which makes the term "crpg" ridiculous to me.
I think it's more useful to use WRPG and JRPG, but truth be told, I can't think of any PC JRPGs (aside from some multiplatform/ported titles)
Granted, there's plenty of console-based WRPGs these days.
jRPG isn't a real term, no one actually uses it outside of forum discussions.
Pretty much, though if you walked into a gamestop and asked for jrpgs, they'd probably know what you were talking about. Its not like you can't play jrpgs on the computer, many are. Which makes the term "crpg" ridiculous to me.
I think it's more useful to use WRPG and JRPG, but truth be told, I can't think of any PC JRPGs (aside from some multiplatform/ported titles)
Granted, there's plenty of console-based WRPGs these days.
I think that genre titles are the sort of thing that everyone understands as long as no one tries to define them.
Sorta like colors, there's no limit to how many can be combined in one painting. The painting of the forest is described as green not because green is the only color used, but because it's the most predominant color. It's just a shorthand for people who are lazy.
Likewise, people can debate whether orange is more red or more yellow until they're blue (sorry) in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that "it's both" is an equally valid answer.
No, I'm not on drugs, but thanks for asking.
What I'm trying to say is that acting as if all games must fall into certain categories is a disservice to the medium.
Posts
You're using a very, very narrow definition of "role playing" then.
Actors role play, but they rarely define those roles or get to choose the actions of their characters...yet I don't think anyone would realistically suggest they are not playing a role.
Roleplaying is just that. You play a role. Every game is a roleplaying game as long as you inhabit a character to some degree. I don't think "playing a role" is a useful definition for a genre. We need to define further, and I think sticking with "Your characters actions and abilities define success rather than your own" is a pretty good way to explain it.
I always found them more frustrating.
You might not immediately jump to such a conclusion, but adventure games breed anger too.
I don't think genre definitions are that literal.
If you need an example, I've stated numerous times that "puzzle" games, or at least the games that earn that title, don't really have much to do with solving puzzles.
That they don't fit the definition of "puzzle" literally doesn't mean the genre name isn't useful.
Internal definitions are more important to videogames than external, dictionary definitions.
Nah, I like Adventure games. Usually. MacGyver puzzles frustrate me to no end. Hardly boring, but not quite fun either.
Eventually we will all have PhDs in philosophy, be completely unemployable, and thus have lots of time to play the computer programs commonly, if erroneously, referred to as RPGs.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I disagree. Actors do define their roles. That definition is not solely by choosing actions. One character can be played many different ways by different actors. Look at the difference between characters in different runs of plays, or remakes of movies. The actors usually try to differentiate, or put a different spin on a character, even if they're constrained to the same actions. That's why they are said to play a role, and not simply recite lines.
I like adventure games, but the genre name doesn't really tell you much. IIRC, wasn't there a game simply called "Adventure" which sort of spawned the genre?
Colossal Cave Adventure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_Cave_Adventure
While true, that doesn't really change the argument. He's trying to argue that feeling like "This is why my character acts this way" isn't good enough, if you can't actually decide the character's actions.
Puzzles+realtime
Done.
"Wherein the player runs about and possibly performs actions. And usually drives a vehicle at some point. And probably jumps. And there are sometimes explosions. Must have a witty sidekick for comic relief."
As best I can tell action/adventure seems to almost always mean "You could picture this as an Indiana Jones movie".
I really fucking hope there is a multiplayer mode like the singleplayer mode.
Couscous, you said Tetris wasn't a puzzle game.
A better definition would probably be:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zelda_series
I think it's more complicated than that. Two people can do the same thing, and still be very different people. For example, we're performing identical actions right now, posting on a forum. Why I'm posting what I'm posting and why you're posting what you're posting is what makes us different in the context of this action. Two characters don't need to perform different actions to be different.
Blowing shit up with a plot.
There needs to be a genre for blowing up shit without a plot. I say we call it the Michael Bay genre.
There is?
Thank god, I fucking hate most RTS games, fucking spreadsheeters always killed me dead.
Which is what I'm saying. You can easily be "role playing" without getting to define the exact actions your role involves. Our OP seems to be suggesting that is not the case.
Problem with most RTS games is that they are based around build orders and micro managing unit skills. While the former is technically strategy, its hardly very satisfying in the long run.
Yes, I disagree horribly with the OP.
edit: I agree with you too. I don't want it to seem like I object to what you're saying.
e- About the topic at hand. I don't get why "Computer RPGs" fans are so butt hurt that "Japanese RPGs" are known as RPGs. The definition has been made through use. If cRPG means computer RPG, then cRPGs and jRPGs have been part of what a RPG is for 20 years now. Why are people trying to change that now?
If you want to have some special word for what a cRPG is which excludes jRPGs, then make up some new one. The term RPG has been in use for decades, get your own word. Oh wait, there is one. cRPG.
cRPG isn't a real term, no one actually uses it outside of forum discussions.
Pretty much, though if you walked into a gamestop and asked for jrpgs, they'd probably know what you were talking about. Its not like you can't play jrpgs on the computer, many are. Which makes the term "crpg" ridiculous to me.
This all goes with my original complaint as to why the OP has one topic title yet discusses something completely different without any defining terms of said discussion.
e- if I walked into a gamestop and asked for some RPGs, i would get both "crpgs" and jrpgs as answers, so that pretty much answers the OP when you couple it with my previous definition that words are defined from common and repeated usage.
I think it's more useful to use WRPG and JRPG, but truth be told, I can't think of any PC JRPGs (aside from some multiplatform/ported titles)
Granted, there's plenty of console-based WRPGs these days.
I can think of many.
They just tend to have porn in them.
Sorta like colors, there's no limit to how many can be combined in one painting. The painting of the forest is described as green not because green is the only color used, but because it's the most predominant color. It's just a shorthand for people who are lazy.
Likewise, people can debate whether orange is more red or more yellow until they're blue (sorry) in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that "it's both" is an equally valid answer.
What I'm trying to say is that acting as if all games must fall into certain categories is a disservice to the medium.
It's oranred.
Damned heretics.
That trigger looks red to me.