khalil

It's weird. Only they're hostile, everyone outside is A. OK with me. Save and suchforth at this dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2vs4kv9ld1gjyf1/bugstuff.zip?dl=0

No. The NPCs in BG1 were cardboard cutouts with whom you could have no meaningful interaction. If you had said Baldur's Gate 2 I'd have let it slip, but saying BG1 has meaningful interaction with NPCs is like saying a soggy piece of cardboard is the best piece of literature since Don Quixote. You, uh, you know I wasn't responding to you, right? I didn't say it had "meaningful interactions with NPCs," and rjshea didn't describe a game like that. He described BG1, which has interactions with lots of companion NPCs, most of which aren't very deep, but which are deeper than IWD's nonexistent NPC companions. Yes, I realize. And I could have sworn he said deep and meaningful. Sorry about that. Carry on.

No. The NPCs in BG1 were cardboard cutouts with whom you could have no meaningful interaction. If you had said Baldur's Gate 2 I'd have let it slip, but saying BG1 has meaningful interaction with NPCs is like saying a soggy piece of cardboard is the best piece of literature since Don Quixote.

It is not! It is too!

Combat was **** in all of the IE games. The difference is Torment let you talk your way out of it. (Unless you want Nordom, then you're ****ed.)

The character development systems (or RPG mechanics) in those games are significant enough for both to be considered RPGs. Of course, they're also a hybridization of the stealth genre and the horror genre respectively. If you took away the stats, they would just be action games with an emphasis on stealth and horror respectively. And there's the problem. I think RPGs are dependent on choices and fleshing out what starts as a blank slate, whereas you think RPGs are dependent on using stats and levels. Our ideas of the genre are fundamentally different.

I enjoy pointless arguments that I have no chance of winning. Plus, I get to see how other people think, which is nice. You know what game lets you advance characters via the use of numbers and stats? TF2: MVM mode. You get money from shooting the robots, and then spend said money on upgrades to jump height or whatever. Is TF2 an RPG? Bioshock Infinite let you upgrade your guns and plasmids vigors. Is it a RPG? Getting money for upgrades isn't the same as having a fleshed out character who's defined by attributes and skills. Some action-adventure games even have very basic skill systems, but because character development isn't fleshed out or important enough, I would only consider them action-adventure games with RPG elements. I find the upgrades in MVM to be fairly defining, and that goes doubly so for loadouts (both in MVM and in normal games). A demoman with targe, eyelander, and booties plays very differently from one with the scottish resistance and ullapool caber.

Yes, that has RPG elements, too. I'd go as far as to say it is more RPG than FPS. But once again, you're not making a very good case (or any case) besides "I don't like it so it's not". Which is all good and fine, but for some reason you seem to want to "win the argument". What I intended for my case to be is "these two games that we can agree are not RPGs (TF2 and Bioshock) are considered RPGs under the definition proposed by Piccolo. Thus, his definition is not valid." Sorry if I did not make that clear enough.

Yes, those are RPG elements. But those are not the primary styles of gameplay. What about say... Deus Ex? I've seen arguments for and against it being an RPG. The primary style of gameplay seems to be pointing at the bad men and making them fall down, but it does have extensive character building options. Also, System Shock.

No, I was saying that his definition of an RPG would classify obviously non-RPG games as RPGs, and thus his definition must be invalid. (This is assuming we all agree TF2 isn't an RPG, but that's a fairly reasonable assumption) I consider the role playing bit to be more important than the mechanics, and ToEE and IWD were lacking in that regard.

Oh, please, do explain. Sure: Every pos game that included a moral choice system because all the other kids were doing it, and then gave three choices instead of two. That seriously gives more opportunities for roleplaying than ToEE did (Which just went with the generic good/evil checklist). Also [joke]mass effect[/joke]. You know what game lets you advance characters via the use of numbers and stats? TF2: MVM mode. You get money from shooting the robots, and then spend said money on upgrades to jump height or whatever. Is TF2 an RPG? Bioshock Infinite let you upgrade your guns and plasmids vigors. Is it a RPG?

A games journalist is no different than a sports journalist or any other sort of boring journalist. If you want to complain about one not doing any useful work, you have to go complain about all the others too.

[joke]Yes, and just like religion and politics, I am right and everyone else is wrong. [/joke] On a more serious note, I do realize that is a big problem with arguing over the definition of RPG, but I just really hate seeing someone say "this is a RPG because it has classes and item management", even though if that's all you need to count as a RPG, than TF2 counts as one.

Sounds to me like you don't even know what an RPG is. A lot of ignorant IE-era kiddies do this. They base their definition of an RPG on what they like about RPGs released decades after the genre started. I assume this is the point where you argue that Rogue is an RPG? It's not. In order to be a ROLEPLAYING game, a game has to include roleplaying. Rogue does not, so it gets dumped into the dungeon crawler bin. Same thing goes for Ultima 1-3ish, Diablo, and yes, Icewind Dale. Also, since you brought it up, I base my definition of RPG on tabletop roleplaying games as a whole, whereas you seem to have based your definition on RPGA modules.

If you want party based Diablo, I am OK with that, but please do not dignify it with the term "Role Playing Game." Icewind Dale was not a RPG. Temple of Elemental Evil was not an RPG. There are third person shooters that are closer to being RPGs than those.

Just turn off the steam overlay. You actually are required to turn it off if you want VtM:B to function with Steam.

I've always really disliked the 4e hate. It's no more conductive to roleplaying than any other edition of D&D. As far as fighters not being fighters, I suggest you go play a 15th level fighter in 3.5 for several hours. It's a good thing that these fighters aren't fighters.

I will say I dislike when games have their own popups, if only because I disapprove of redundancy. (Although it would be funny if portal 2 had done that for the part where he kills you.)

Exactly. There's just something really satisfying about re-rolling for an hour and finally getting the stats you wanted. That and rubbing them in Sarevok's face. I find that to be annoying as hell.

I lived in Alabama once. Just one year. Never again.

I hated that, oddly enough. If you get to roll stats, the optimal approach is to reroll until you get all 18s. That's boring, and it gives me an absurdly unfair advantage.

I'm so sorry.

Sadly enough, I highly doubt he cares. In the south it's not uncommon to hear someone say "and after we <blank> we'll start sliding down the slippery slope!" While it is nice for them to point out the logical fallacy in their argument for me, it still shows that it's not seen as a fallacy anymore.

You shoudn't be forced to wear a pointy hat, but they should be an option if you want to wear them. ... I'm dissapointed no-ones called me on the Capirote being associated with wizards joke.

That'd be great. I loved waypoints in Arcanum, they made walking to the other side of town much less aggravating. Can only imagine how useful they'd be in combat. And I was supposed to know this how? One shouldn't have to jump through hoops to access a feature that should already be there. However, they fixed it for the sequel, so it really doesn't matter.