There's RPGs and there's true RPG's (or at least games that come close).

artur79

I can agree with that. And I think at this stage it would almost be necessary to create a new genre to account for the games that actually follow the old definition. If you see what I mean.

[QUOTE="Plomdidom"]

@anofalye:

I like your attitude. That's flaming with style.

Anofalye

I fear it is bruised feelings rather then flaming. :(

What if I made everyone forget the soul-o-meter ever existed? If I erased it from the tablets of history? Would you feel better then?

@artur79: I can't make up my mind if I agree with you or not. Sort of like I agree with all the arguments but not the conclusion. Or vice-versa. I'm confused :roll:

But basically I think a RPG is a game with an emphasis on role-play, of which Group 1 is the essence and Group 2 some possible though not exclusive means. Because noone really tries anything else (I think most gaming companies are very conservative), it doesn't mean it's not possible.

@anofalye:

I like your attitude. That's flaming with style.

Geeze, do these people get violent on a topic they claim not to care about. Sheesh. So much for the non-flaming anyway :(

And the no-life-nerd insult, now that's low. And to think I don't even live in the same country as my parents. I'd love to be in my father's cellar right now actually. Good wine there. 8)

@Cobra-nVidia:

Look, I'm not here to trade insults, but you did barge in, in an otherwise civilised dialogue, with blunt, condescendant and definite statements and no apparent will to actually discuss the topic. I don't know, maybe you were just in a bad mood that day. Anyway, that kind of attitude does tend to stimulate the pedantic **** that lurks inside me (sorry, censored). I over-reacted maybe, and I apologise for that.

The meaning of a word shifts and changes all the time, words acquire new meanings and nuances. The meaning of a word is always relative to place, time, social group, context, individual even (Cf. the current results of the poll). It doesn't mean that people can't communicate, and it's not like I'm inventing a new definition out of the blue (Cf. same poll). Just want to discuss it with whoever's interested.

Adding the words "meaningful", "complex", "original", "rich" and all that is completely irrelevant to the definition, that's relevant to the quality of the RPG.

WhiteWorld

I know, I know. Not the best formulation by me. Well to me it means very precise things but it would take forever to explain everything in objective terms. For (the usual) example, choosing the order in which you do quests isn't a meaningful choice. I hope that most people will know what I mean.

You're probably right, but it's still interesting. A lot of people, funnily enough, still haven't given up on trying to understand what God, or life, was.

I'll just try to fail better than the people before and after me.

Plomdidom

For Zeus's sake, am I being over-dramatic about it.

I decided to limit myself and chose option 1. For me, what really defines an RPG is it's meaningfull choices in dialogue, a responsive world that get's affected by every option I make, character developement and a original plot, etc.

You should get the point.

By heart, option 1 is the true RPG. Option two is more on the gameplay wise side, but it's still important to many. Most people get a kick out of role-playing their character. Not me though. In truth, one cannot live without the other. Option 1 is just a good game without the 2. option, not an RPG. Vice Versa.

RealDuffi

I think points 1 and 2 often get in each other's way. Oblivion is all 2 with no 1, VtM Bloodlines is all 1 with next to no 2 for example.

My dream RPG would have no character sheet, would be first-person so you just imagine yourself what you look like, and would be all Group 1. Not gonna happen any time soon though.

when it comes to defining RPGs as a whole, it's sort of like trying to define life, or God. No one will be able to agree with anyone...narf101

You're probably right, but it's still interesting. A lot of people, funnily enough, still haven't given up on trying to understand what God, or life, was.

I'll just try to fail better than the people before and after me.

Thanks Herrick, much appreciated.

hey there, i think choice of character is important (unless the game's intent is to tell the story of one specific person, like in the witcher). that should have been in features no. 1, because race, class, appearance often have a LOT to do with the personality of the character (it does in real life, imo).

the problem is that stats also have a lot to do with the personality of the character. a person who's strong and good at fighting tends to be more aggressive and confident, for example. it's just tough to separate features no. 1 and no. 2, so conceding that point i voted for no. 1.

fireandcloud

Welcome, nice to see you here, fireandcloud. foxhound already dropped by, I was worried I wouldn't see you.

I can see your point. It's about broad trends anyway, I know it's not that clear-cut. As in the Witcher, the Nameless One in PT is given, but he's still the character I've found the most role-playable ever. And I really didn't care when I was playing if he was a fighter, a mage or a thief. And usually in RPGs dialogues and quests are not class- or race-specific, so it only affects practical matters, and your own representation of your character which is, I agree, important.