Tale

Unless they're in to that kind of thing.

Diablo is officially classified as an Action RPG. The origin of it wasn't just people getting together to bash monsters, the origin of it was people getting together to act out fantasy characters. This included bashing monsters in so much as that is a major concept of fantasy. To say "RPG is bashing monsters" is to essentially say "RPG is fantasy" which is a confusion of RPG with a commonly used style of setting. This is what seperated the RPGs from the miniature wargames. This is STILL (part of) what seperates modern ones like Warhammer from Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. RPGs have been played in "adult" settings for ages with not a monster bashed. Well, I shouldn't say "not a monster bashed," some people might get kinky like that. Cops and robbers is roleplaying by kids. These aren't typically a codified "game," however. You say classification is a good thing. To simply say that people who arbitrarily classify a game an RPG because people on different continents have a culture gap is not being a fan of classification. It is not classification without specific, discriminatory, criteria. Bashing monsters is not specific discriminatory criteria. Nearly every game features either the bashing of humanoids or the bashing of monstrous creatures. Which means you only have two genres according to your criteria. In Atom's definition, playing a role (using the broad sense of playing a character at all) isn't discriminatory in the least. And the depth of the character and the potential to learn about them is more about the quality of the story than the genre of the game. It's discriminatory, if potentially subjective, but I feel genre classifications should at least significant mechanical discrimination. Though, Atom's criteria does automatically rule out Diablo I & II and Elder Scrolls III & IV.

How can you play without me, screw the Donwhatever? I can grace your presence between 7-11 central. Other arrangements might be possible by appointment.

I remember those nice fights that group members got into that would result in them killing each other in BGI. Oh, if only that could happen to Aerie. Now, if only I'd known Xzar was MEGATRON, then I might have used him more. Maybe next time when I play ultra evil ****. WHY WAS I NEVER TOLD THAT XZAR WAS MEGA****INGTRON?

Are you telling me to forgo Edwin for Aerie? Edit: I really should do a playthrough where I don't care about such things and I just pick characters as I wander by flipping coins or something.

The only thing I don't like about Imoen being a Mage is that in my new playthrough, it will have me with 3 mages when I get around to BGII. I won't give up Edwin! Edit: Aaaaaaactually, with my new playthrough maybe I can give up Imoen! But then I won't have the cute Imoen-Sarevok banter in Throne of Bhaal. I know! I'll give up Edwin for Korgan! I like evil characters, they're silly. Good characters take things too seriously.

Quote me where I said it did. And you see the difference! Never once did I say choice. I said contribution. The ability to differentiate my character from another's character on a meaningful level. Because actors are not robots and they are not programmed to perform exactly in a specific manner, even if they have a script they have to be close to, their performances still differ. My Cloud Strife, however, is no different from your Cloud Strife. Because of that, I am not his actor. The acting, which defines it as a role, comes from having a contribution. This is easier done through choice, but to speak of it literally it is not exclusive to choice. No two actors, even under the same director, should be identical. It is practically by definition. Reading a book is in no way roleplaying. Final Fantasy and Xenogears aren't even simply a director being very strict about how it should be acted. They are, quite literally, the director jumping up on the stage and acting it out in your stead.

I need to make a NWN2 mod that lowers Halfling intelligence, wisdom, and charisma by 2-4 points each to put into any other mod I may make. Y'know, for authenticity.

I think it's important to take origin of the term into account. What you are doing, Atom, seems to me just taking every game you like that calls itself an RPG and building a definition around that. Your definition of role and roleplay is manufactured after you have determined what you want to fit into it. I disagree with that because these terms are even older than computer games. Role is taken from theatre, where it refers to the part played by an actor or actress. This converts over quite directly to roleplay, since role is by definition played. People in traditional PnP RPGs are acting a theatrical part (albeit with a limited audience). Games like Xenogears and Final Fantasy I cannot accept into it because there is no character in those games that I would consider myself acting as. The characters do a fine job of acting themselves out, saying their own words, sometimes in their own voices. While actors in theatre often have specific words they are to say, when they say them they contribute to them, as well as the character itself, which is what distinguishes acting from reading aloud. And that's where I build my criteria. RPG comes from the ability to interact. Inter-act, literally, to act together. In multiplayer computer RPGs, this is easy because of multiple actors to interact with with much improv opportunity. In single player RPGs, it is harder because you are the sole actor and improv is limited. So, I have to use a slightly different metric. The developers have to make at least a visible attempt to allow me to be an actor, to allow me to contribute to the character in a more meaningful way than choosing stats or class.

There are a few different perspectives. Genetically you are a man. Medically you can be a post-op transsexual female. Socially, they can follow one of the other two models or consider you a female as an alternative. Personally, you would probably consider yourself female as well. But again, the models each often have standards such as the genetic and medical. I'm not sure I grasp your claim that people differentiate to insult a game they dislike. Does calling Diablo an Action RPG somehow demean it? Does calling Final Fantasy a JRPG demean that? How are these insults? We can either say "well, they all call themselves RPGs or ___RPGs and that's just swell, they're all RPGs" or we can develop a standard of some sort to better facilitate communication.

Anyone who played Descent to Undermountain knows how terrible D&D can be. I see what you did there! I think...

What if it lets you play as a Sanrio kitty that rides horses with no fighting of monsters? Why is D&D about roleplaying and fighting monsters? Who's to judge? The point I'm getting at here is it seems the argument you were trying to put forth exists solely to play off doubt.

Who is the authority that polices what aspects of a game MUST be kept for it to be a sequel? Where does innovation become interference? I ask again: Who is the judge? You use an audience to judge similarity. You have the intended audience of the series attempt to recognize degrees of similarities between games without first knowing of an intended relationship between any. The same way that trademark/likeness/copyright (when not applying to whole works) infringements are measured. To just go and remark on the lack of a specific judge is to render the term "sequel" arbitrary and moot. Humans can identify patterns, if you refuse to acknowledge that, then you can make an argument for a hello kitty horse adventure game being labelled as a dungeons and dragons game. Who's to judge? "interference" is a good/bad judgement call and I don't think it applies. There's a difference between innovating and taking only a setting. If a reasonable audience sample cannot gleam a relationship beyond setting without first being informed the relationship, then it would be more suitable for a spin-off classification. I'm not saying Fallout 3 is only taking a setting. I'm still on the fence with it. It has action points, but I don't know if they're really similar to action points in more than name. It does have a limb targetting system, too. And probably other similarities, but I don't know how similar they are.

He was a Bounty Hunter, too. So he has a penalty on his thieving skills.

I have to agree with Sand in some ways. If you're going to make a sequel, make it like the previous games. If you're going to take only the setting, then it's more of a spinoff.

I think the only reason they dual-classed Imoen is so the cowled wizards would have an excuse to take her. I wish I could de-dual class her because I need the Thief in BG2.

Except that argument is based on the assumption that good players that participate in a session and a good Game Master are a constant in PnP, when this isn't true. Bad GM

designer fiat? EHHHH! Correct answer: Minsc got her killed.

Post apoc and retrofuture?

If she's so cool, then how comes she lets Irenicus kill her? Just like Khalid.

The recoilless M72 LAW bazooka is a single-use weapon. (Of course we like the 8.8-cm Raketenpanzerb

I like equipment degradation. On conditions: 1) No special one-time weapons. 2) If 1, I can repair them completely.

You scumbag Jedi turned your back on HK-47 and he hasn't shot you yet? I knew it had to be something like that.

I've never once killed a group character before. But I just killed Minsc. I had in a hard place where it was choose between Minsc and Dynaheir or Edwin. Though I love Minsc and his loveable hamster, I have no room for his girlfriend along as baggage! Edit: Just got the gender changing girdle. So, I put it on Edwin. More games should be so bold!

So what's the verdict? Good, bad? It has to better than the first one right? Well, it's slightly better than the first. Some of the CGi shots of the planet are pretty damn cool. But then when you think about the acting, things go a bit to ****. This movie screams 'renter'. Either that of 'matinee'. Don't pay full price to watch this one. I was happy in Denton where student prices were 6.50. Here in Wylie? 8 bloody dollars!