I'm extremely disappointed that "bare breasts" isn't a poll option despite being the very first response to this thread. That's a piece of history that you're trying to whitewash, and I shan't stand for such censorship. Which is why I'm sitting.
And am I the only one who doubled the number of posts that show per page? We're on page 8 for me. Makes things way easier to read.
And am I the only one who doubled the number of posts that show per page? We're on page 8 for me. Makes things way easier to read.
There's a limit of 10 questions, so I had to consolidate (hence question 9). Consider it as part of the "Relationships" option. Or "Statistics". Whichever is best for you.
Yes.
Which is kind of redundant, actually, since we ended up agreeing on four things that define an RPG and three of them are on the list. If you replaced number 9 with inventory/loot, then it'd be possible to select all four things.
I don't understand. Question #9 *does* say "Inventory/Loot".
I vote freedom to do what you want because that is the sole parameter that applies to all aspects - gameplay, ability progression, defining personality, C&C, etc. I also want to call out Ray Muzyka for being one of the first to try and blur genre lines, only for the sake of justifying simplified mechanics in Bioware's games. He did a great disservice saying half the shit he did. It's because of him people are saying Call of Duty and GTA are RPGs.
Freedom to do what you want would also allow you to wander around with bare breasts.
(See, 227, I *did* cater for slim's requirement)
Which is why it's helpful to have a list of things that define the genre, from the earliest examples to modern iterations. Aside from the four things Rep and I agreed on, the criteria everyone else has mentioned in this thread kick a number of high-profile RPG games out of RPG-ness, which you'd think would be a major red flag.
The early Tales series, the Lufia series, the Fire Emblem series, Parasite Eve, Legend of Dragoon, South Park: The Stick of Truth, Anachronox, the Final Fantasy series, Super Mario RPG, Earthbound, the Deception series, the Sword of Hope series, Chaos Rings, Golden Sun, the Grandia series, Skies of Arcadia, The Last Remnant, Lost Odyssey, (arguably) Blackguards, and... well, most of what Squaresoft and Enix put out before 2000. Those are just the ones that I've played and can think of; I'm sure there are tons of others. Gorky 17 might fit from what I've heard of it, and I doubt that all of those old first-person dungeon crawlers had all that much role-playing since they seemed to focus around combat primarily (not that I have much experience with them). Then there's the Shining Force series, Warsong, and a whole bunch of other sRPGs.
Wars' definition is even worse and would cut out every single RPG lacking multiple endings, including the Drakensang series and countless others.
Me, fans of those series, GOG, Wikipedia, Japan, and four out of five dentists.
Why would i care what anyone else thinks? If everyones definition of RPG was correct, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place..
Which one sounds more like an RPG to you:
...
I choose to save those people instead of those other people because i believe it is the right thing to do and they might be important in the future..
OR
I need to menage my inventory to make room for the "shield of sucking terribly" and i need to increase my dexterity stat so i can hit faster..
...
Because that second one is more like tetris and calculator with a story..
Because words meaning the same thing for everyone is kind of a prerequisite for clear communication?
Yes, but a common definition of something can still be wrong.. Consider that..
Okay. SO if Japan and GOG are correct, those are RPGs. Why are GoG and Japan correct? Who are they when they are at home? What is their criteria? Have you seen it? Examined it?
I'm not sure which of those ones you listed don't let you play as you like and build a personality built on those choices. The little of South Park I saw allowed that. Explain why, I don't know...some FF game I've never played doesn't let you play a role and suffer/rejoice in that freedom - and why that would then somehow be a role-playing game.
Lots of those probably have role-playing elements, sure. Call them role-playing lite. We tolerated that in, say, Bard's Tale because we had to. We gloried in Ultima when it let us actually, you know, role-play.
Like the phrase "begs the question," which has come to be used to mean "raises the question" rather than retaining any of its logical fallacy roots. However, if someone says it the wrong way, you still know what they're talking about, and things like that often become acceptable over the years as the old meaning fades out. Whiiiiich is basically what happened to the term RPG.
Because the meaning of anything is wholly dependent on how it's perceived by large groups of people, and GOG + Japan > you + wars and wisdom. if we switched blue's name to purple and purple to blue and the vast majority of people agreed on it, that would be the way things are regardless of your own feelings about what's blue and what's purple.
You're always a boy. You're always referred to as Douchebag. You don't talk, so you never have any input or choices.
No. Simply not true. If everyone thinks the emperor has clothes and he's naked, he will still freeze, catch a cold and die. If you are moving the goalposts by saying because there are more of GoG + Japan and that makes them automatically correct, regardless of criteria of argument, then you have effectively nullified your own point. As soon as the poll up there disagrees with you, whatever your criteria were and opinions are, are irrelevant.
And that's neither an accurate statement of language consensus or conceptual framework validity. It is the same logic used to justify the flat earth falsehood for so long. If you think it works that way, well, when and if that poll demonstrates a consensus against you, I'll expect you to stop arguing and contributing your otherwise excellent points because a lot more people, all of whom might be wrong, disagree with you.
Always a boy and name aren't as important as choosing who you are and how your character reacts. Your Geralt is a ruthless mercenary who sleeps around, despises elves and kills dragons. Mine is a sympathetic villager-saver who loves Triss and Yennefer, gets along with all races and does not kill dragons. You like swords, I prefer drugs.
Choice. Consequence. Name and gender are just start points, they aren't essential. Nicer to have them than not, but not essential.
I thought you chose dialogue and whatnot in South Park?
Hardly a large enough sample size to make any kind of broad statement about people in general, and even if it were, we're not exactly diverse enough to represent the opinions of the whole world. I'm sure you knew that already, though.
False equivalency.
Language is fluid. The earth being round isn't. Words have their meanings morph over time. Earth stays round because space like balls (or something).
Nope. You can choose who to side with midway through the game, but you end up railroaded into the same plot soon after either way. All the choice changes is a boss fight or two. Other than that, it's totally linear and your character is mute, which becomes a running joke.
I didn't make it about people in general. I was using your own logic that a greater consensus nullifies a smaller one. It does not, not without examination. You haven't examined or even listed the reasons why GoG or Japan or Wikipedia considers those RPGs,probably because you are well aware that their criteria are no more valid than ours. Quite possibly less well thought out, too.
"False equivalency"? Really? Because language is fluid? You're moving the goalposts again. This thread is discussing what defines a role-playing game, not the concept of role-playing itself. Things like inventory and stats, or choice and consequences, no one is really arguing over what those mean, just as to which is more important in an RPG.
Not to mention, you're inaccurate. The earth isn't round, and even a cursory glance at either linguistics or geology will tell you that language may be fluid, but that's because language is a tool used to describe. Tools change to do a better or more..regional..job. The jobs are the point, and the job here isn't the language, it's what makes up a role-playing game.
Language itself, scientific language even, does change, but choice and consequence, for example, those ideas are what language tries to describe.
Your point was that greater people believing something defines that thing. My point was that "things" are often, maybe always, what they are regardless of the number of people who believe otherwise. This is the point of examination and criteria: accurate measurement.
To reiterate: because GoG believes a game is an RPG does not automatically make them more correct than you or I or Wars, simply because GoG is bigger. No more than the millions who believed the earth was flat made the earth flat. Unexamined belief is the point of the example, not language vs fact.
Woah. That does suck. Okay,how is it role-playing then? What role are -you- playing? How is it not just you in South Park?