EnderAndrew

There are still 2 nations that have not submitted moves! Bad France! Bad Turkey! Since I don't have a graphics program here at work to do the map, I am extending the deadline another 3 hours. I hope those players log on in the next 3 hours.

I assume most people with checking accounts in this country also have Visa check cards.

If the primary mechanic driving the game stat-based gameplay? It is quite possible to take an inferior team with inferior stats and consistently beat a better team with better stats. If stat-based gameplay was the primary mechanic, that would not be the case. Edit: @Demonking, I was not able to select a character when playing the Ultima games, let alone Planescape: Torment. Are you saying those don't count as RPGs then?

I think there is certainly validity in the monthly fee with the new content, bandwidth, paid GMs, paid support staff, constant patches, etc. However, MMOs don't allow me to become a hero, or affect the world really. The worlds are always so static.

How many times did Hades insist he would never play KOTOR:2 because he was forced to play a Jedi?

It is off-topic far too often, but I think otherwise good.

Rock auras haven't quantified or defined, so yes they currently equate to random nonsense. How does a term come to have a definition? It is assigned one, accepted, and used commonly enough in language to stick. The definition of a genre is much the same process. If a definition exists, is documented, and is applied by millions of people for several years, then it is not absurd nonsense that could mean anything. Just because you don't know the definition of a term, does not mean the term does not have a definition. If the term didn't mean anything at all, then why has it had a consistent meaning and usage in the industry for 30 years? Answer me that.

And apparently you don't understand what the various branches of government are for either. FEMA is not charaged with preventing natural disasters, nor charting weather paterns. You criticized Bush, saying that this could have been predicted and prevented. How can FEMA possibly have intimate knowledge of every possible scenario that could befall the entire nation? It can't. But the mayor of NO last year said that if the leevies did break, the onus would be on the people to evacuate when told, saying it would be near impossible to rescue people. That would be a largely unpopular and difficult thing to say now. If he said it was people's own fault for staying behind, he would be stoned. But he said it last year. I would have to imagine the mayor of NO would have a much better idea what his city is like, and how feasibility rescue plans are than you or I. What bothers me is that you exploit the misfortune of others to futher your political agenda.

You contradict yourself. You say you don't believe in misuse and then say by your definition people mangle grammar. If grammar means nothing, and definitions mean nothing then why persue a career that involves writing? Why bother using proper grammar yourself if no one will notice or care? Perhaps the very reason people use poor grammar, or don't speak well is that no one emphasizes the importance of such things. You can't criticize people for mangling grammar while at the same time saying that accepted definitions don't exist, or don't mean anything. What is the point of language if not to communicate? And without a common reference, who effective is communication? In formal debate, the first step is to define terms. I wonder why that is.

The federal government isn't in charge of making sure the leevies don't break in NO. We have state charters which clearly outline what a state has authority over, etc. Then we have local charters, etc. The federal government does not tell the states where to spend state revenues. The state does not tell the city where to spend city revenues. The city was responsible for the upkeep of city property. Blaming the federal government for this implies that you think the federal government should control all actions on the state and city level. If that is what you are really saying, then you are arguing for toltarianism, and I will scoff at you. If that is not what you are saying, then I will call you an opportunist spin doctor.

No. A more apt analogy: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That is really funny. Your analogy says there is no wrong or right, but two different opinions, and you give a definitive no and say I am wrong. So are there correct definitions or not? Your analogy contradicts your post. What are you really trying to say?

To say that definitions don't exist outside of people's heads is pretty silly. Let's take the dictionary's definition of the word definition. A statement conveying fundamental character. A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry. Then you are just stating your opinion, and I am stating mine. I haven't made any personal attacks, or said anything negative about people. Technically the author asked how people view RPGs. You state how you view RPGs, and I didn't say that you don't have a right to that opinion, however I am stating that simply because you or any other arbitrary individual decides to redefine an item from its accepted definition, that doesn't change the definition for anyone else. The reason why I feel this is important enough to warrant such a discussion is two fold. 1 - I think some people ask this question because they don't see or understand what defines a given genre. 2 - Without a common basis of reference, actual communication breaks down. I recall various debates that once popped up when you lumped grenades under melee and people argued the definition of melee. I didn't care too much because I felt overall the game balance looked better with an equal number of skills split between the game paths. People argued none the less, because defined terms are imporant. I think you are being evasive here. I'll get into that more below. I honestly can't believe that you are denying that communal definition doesn't exist. If we didn't have accepted definitions, then langauge on the whole wouldn't exist. Given the existance of lexicons and dictionaries, I think your arguement that terms don't exist beyong individual usage is "wack". Are you not assuming here yourself? If my belief is shared by the majority, then yes I do have a majority belief. I quote dictionaries, wikipedias, and refer to industry accepted terms for a reason. I am trying to call upon what is accepted by the majority while you say such definitions don't exist. Is this perhaps a means of dodging the one-simple point I'm trying to make, that your definition does not jive with the accepted definition? Again, I know you are a very intelligent individual, and given the time between posts I have to assume you think them out very carefully. So please do not intentionally miscontrue my posts. I have said an RPG is defined by the primary game mechanic being driven by stat-based gameplay. Hybrid games feature or include stat-based gameplay. Given that Jade Empire is an Action/RPG hybrid, one could argue that Forze has RPG elements, but I don't think hardly anyone would really call Forza an RPG on the whole unless they were trying to be obstinate. Your analogy was that a game could be both Action and RPG at the same time, and then you said that both a Square and Circle could be Blue. Action and RPG are both qualifiers of the same category, as are Square and Circle. Blue is a qualifier of a seperate category. I'm not saying that a Circle can't be blue. That statement makes logical sense. Your analogy however, doesn't make a direct correlation. No, I qualified my statement that RPGs have stat-based gameplay driving the main mechanic, and that definition would not include Half Life 2 or The Sims. I don't see where you inferred that from my post. There are plenty hybrids between genres. However, before we can define an Action/RPG or a Sandbox/Simulation, we must first define Action and RPG seperately, or Sandbox and Simulation.

Here is the problem with your logic, as pointed out by your very first post in this thread, if acting a role defined a RPG game, then Mario and Doom would be RPG games. BG:DA is called an RPG by its developers, publisher, and the entire industry. And just so you know, there are specific characters in BG:DA. You can even play the cheese-monkey Drizzt. So you do play a role in that game as much as you do in Doom. So how can you argue that Doom should be an RPG but BG:DA shouldn't?

I agree. The value of an item is what someone is willing to pay for it, and apparently people are willing to pay $25 for Geneforge or Jeff Vogel would be out of work.

However that definition won't work for a good chunk of RPGs out there if we are talking about computer and console RPGs, especially consider the definition mentions players rolling dice. I've yet to see a computer of console RPG that requires the player to roll dice themself. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the term role-playing has many meanings, many of which do not apply to RPG genre of computer and console games.

Given that this thread is in the Computer and Console section, I can assume we are talking about CRPGs and not pen-and-paper RPGs. The above definition is for a pen-and-paper RPG. The Wikipedia offers this: While worded poorly, I think it is trying to express that RPGs (when we are talking about computer or console RPGs) are defined by stat-based gameplay.

Here is the problem. Let's say that you see a red door (and you want to paint it black). Suddenly, I say that orange is the new red, as traditional red is too primary, and only little children are into such things. Orange has more depth, and is evocative of both powerful, bright imagery like the sun, and subdued earth tones at the same time. So I look at the red door and call it orange despite the fact that everyone has been calling red, well red for ages. The purpose of language is to communicate. A word can change meanings through use over the years, but what bugs me is when this happens due to misuse. The term moot is a great example. We say something is a moot point, and because the term was misused often enough, most people assume moot means trivial, where as the original and perhaps correct defintion is the moot meant worthy of debate. So if someone is familiar with both definitions and hears someone say that something is a moot point, which definition should they assume the speaker meant? If you have to assume what a word means, rather than know clearly, then language is beginning to fail. All words can have personal connotations, but that if you believe red is really orange, or orange is really red, that doesn't change the correct definition for the rest of the world.

You talk about value, and quality of experience. Yet those who purchased Geneforge generally seem to have a higher sense of satisfaction then those who paid $50 to buy the modern Bard's Tale travesty. Bard's Tale featured decent graphics, good sound, quality voice actors, good writing, etc. It had all the elements for good immersion. So why did the RPG purist crowd hate it?

I know plenty of people who really dig Kilborn, but I also expressed that I'm probably one of 3 who prefers Kilborn over Stewart, expressing (and assuming) that would put me in the minority.

I would buy another Ultima VII today, even with the same 2D graphics (though hopefully supporting a higher resolution) simply because how immersive the game is, even today. Yet how do you know if Geneforge is capable of immersion until you try the free demo? Yet people won't based solely on screenshots.

If I have war, I try to have it early, and make it quick. I make a quick run for a city or two that has resources I need, and the negotiate surrender/peace quickly after.

Then we're talking apples and oranges, since I believe the discussion is about RPGs as a genre. Role-playing as a term can mean many other things. Job training might feature role-playing with a customer, and yet that has little bearing on the definition of a CRPG. I've seen people argue all day long that Zelda is an RPG simply because it features swords, but those people are in the minority. Just because someone doesn't know what defines a genre doesn't mean the genre isn't defined. Given that a word is a collection of letters that represents an ideal, I think acronyms count as words, but that is just my love of semantics. If you are just offering your opinion, then so be it, and perhaps I've been too harsh on you in that regard. However, I don't feel your opinion represents what the majority of consumers, or the industry defines an RPG as. And since I am such a big fan of semantics (with definitions being arguably the first and most important step in debate) I feel it necessary to establish the common, accepted definition of a term. However if there is a game on a shelf that you know absolutely nothing about, and it says RPG on the cover, are you first going to assume the game has an interactive story, or stat-based gameplay given that interactive stories abound in all genres, but stat-based gameplay is the staple of the genre? I think what you are describing is what you want the term RPG to mean, and not so much what the term actually exists as today. No, rather I would argue that marketing and retail are going to use terms that the majority of consumers understand and accept rather than what a small niche market would hope to redefine. I've also called Jade Empire an action RPG. However, the speed with which your character reacts is controlled by both the player's speed, and the character's speed attribute. Stats do control the gameplay mechanics in Jade Empire, even though that is less the case in real-time systems. I think that you are an extremely smart fellow who normally expresses themself quite well, so I am disappointed with what I feel is a poor metaphor here. If Circle is to Action as Square is to RPG, then were does Blue fit in? If Circle/Action and Sqaure/RPG are all in the same category (Shape/Genre) then color is beside the point. Your logic would be that a Circle/RPG can be Blue/Console while a Square/Action can also be Blue/Console. Arguably Half Life 2 has a stat as well, called your Health Meter in the way you have Mood Meters in The Sims. Your Bladder rating does not affect your success/failure in actions. It is more like a Health/Mana/Fatigue bar that you would see outside of the RPG genre that dictates the need to replenish said bar. I don't see how Fable is a sandbox game because it allows no ability to create anything outside of your character. I define Fable as an Action/RPG, and coincidentally enough, so does the developer and publisher.

I might if the storyline is good, and the gameplay is as well. It is funny that you argue that people aren't going to buy a game unless it features modern technology while at the same time the RPG Purist crowd is up in arms about how games are TOO focused on visuals, and not enough on good gameplay. I am not trying to point fingers at you, but I think as a whole, we've become hypocritical in expecting great gameplay, but only looking at games with good graphics.

He was voted the funnied Sportscenter anchor of all time.