it's an expansion; what are you going to do.

fireandcloud

Sometimes expansions are better and deeper than the original game. HotU and MotB were much more interesting than, respectively, NWN and NWN2. It's even better when you don't expect anything original.

Anyway, I'll try to set up my poll soon, unless someone has more suggestions on my two groups. We'll see then if there's still hope for the "true" RPG genre.

I was thinking of Damsel actually, don't know why I said Cammy. Can't even remember where I got that name. I precisely had the line you're quoting in mind. I really loved the way people felt real in the game, unlike the stereotyped, pompous, overblown dialogues you often find in games like BG2.

@smerlus: I don't think that post should have been dignified with a rational answer. But fair play to you for your patience.

If people invent their own definitions of what a word means, that defeats the purpose of language.

Cobra_nVidia

You have just contradicted about two centuries and a half of modern linguistics, dear contributor. From the confidence with which you assert such a revolutionary statement, I imagine you are a distinguished academic. We are indeed lucky to have you here to enlighten us.

However, I would not want to waste your towering intellect. This is but a humble thread which is obviously not worthy of your analytic talent.

As regards dialogue, I think a sign (though not a definition) of a first-class RPG is when you talk to people even when you have nothing to obtain from them. Just for pleasure, because they have style, interesting things to say, because they surprise you or make you laugh.

Think of Jack in VtMB, or Cammy.

I really do think we should start terming adventure games as role-playing games.

foxhound_fox

A few of them maybe, if they do indeed have an emphasis on open dialogue and action. I think a game like Pathologic would qualify. But not the typical Monkey-Island-like kind of game. Ever tried Interactive Fiction? some of those would also fit in the genre.

Technically, D&D was a Table Top Turn Based Strategy Game. A Role Playing Game is basically any game where you take on the role of someone or something else. So any game where you play a character is an RPG and therefor should not be used to characterize a gaming genre...

Johnny_Rock

Well, actually, I don't think DnD is good example of a PnP RPG :P, precisely because it has too much emphasis on strategy. Many people use it to have games where role-playing is central however, and the game has evolved in this direction.

But anyway, that definition of role-playing is inaccurate and over-simplistic. In a RPG context it means much more than that; even in non-RPG contexts (in psychology for example) it implies an element of improvisation and adaptation of your behaviour in order to interact with people. I'm not going to go through the definition again though.

And please, don't quote the whole original post, it's unnecessary and it clogs up the space here.

@ Hewkii:

I don't like talking about KoToR because I don't like it that much, especially since I had played NWN before and the plot is identical, even though it wasn't very original in the first place. KotoR II is a more fully-fledged RPG. And I have never heard of Paper Mario. But here it is anyway:

In KotoR it's not only the plot which is affected by your choices. In all the conversations you get to define who your character is (even though it's usually just over-simplistic good-evil, and a weird definition of it by light-dark side whereby emotion is evil). That would never happen in a JRPG, and that's imo the fundamental difference. In a JRPG you never have a say in who the main character is. Therefore you don't role-play, and it's not a RPG. Does that make sense?