How is that relevant? I suppose, if you want to standardize the design process, what spaz and I have said is very silly. But standarize the design process and you don''t have one anymore. You end up with a copying process.

If a game is to be viewed as a piece of art, it must be a holistic entity. The gameplay, art, music writing, engine and everything else must be created to support the theme of the game. Sure, it would be much more efficient to standardize, but it would be like painting-by-number. Slight variation on a sea of conformity.

''RPG'' are of course decendants from ''live'' Role playing games with a bunch of friends. One of who has a world of sorts planed out and explains how you find your self at the begining of the game and then (in the good ones anyway) you decide how your character will navigate throught this world, with the aim of doing something or stoping or what ever. Unfortunatly we alwase end up too drunk and never get that far but thats another story.

Computer ''RPG''s were initally like this, but now. ? I suggest that the RPG rpg term realy only applys to games which incorporate a group, some objective or goal, with the computer performing the role of GM, providing the universe in which to play while alowing the play absolute freedom to play how they wish.

Sure other games alow you to ''Play a role''. If you want to be picky, all games do. But that doesn''t make them RPG''s.

And your mother to!

As Mr Cup always says,
''I pretend to work. They pretend to pay me.''

Hey, Landfish, you are totally right; I actually always thought that the classification of games in genres is stupid, not only the term RPG; a game is just a game, maybe some games contain elements of other games, but cramming games into genres only leads to stupid dogmas; you have to make resource-management in RTS, you must have the classes wizard, warrior and thief in your RPG, in a FPS you can not let the player have an inventory and let him solve object-puzzles, in a ScFi-world there must always be teleporters, and they are always called "teleporters" (where does the word come from anyways?) and make flashes and a buzzing sound...it's stupid, but you see it every day.

I say, put everything in a game (or take everything out of a game) you want, as long as it's fun! Yeah, what I say sounds redundant and totaly obvious, but when you look at the computer games of today and really think about it, it doesn't seem so obviuos anymore. I even think that sometimes it's not bad if you willingly ignore other games; people who have never played a computergame sometimes have the most original and strange ideas when you ask them about how something should be done in a computer game...

Edited by - Roderik on June 21, 2000 6:50:37 AM

Now I''m furious! All right if you say that the classification is wrong (I agree Ingenu), but, NO WAY TO FINISH THEM. Some minutes after I''m back with my rage

Thanks, Arthur(rockslave)

Did you fall on your head as an infant? I mean, Personally, I LOVE RPG's, and just about everybody I know does too. I'm sure that there are people that hate them. Look at this thread, it's proof. And everybody is entitled to their opinion.

But I simply love RPG's too much to just stay out of this. I will admit, they do have flaws. And there are more bad RPG's than good ones. RPG's are based on story, and many story writers simply suck.

As for the definition of RPG? I'm going to leave that alone. The definition has changed since the days of pen-and-paper RPG's to todays more technological approach. Although EverQuest comes fairly close to the old days of Pen-and-paper RPG's. I guess some people don't feel that it comes close enough.

I truly hope that you people change your mind. I feel that it's really too bad that so many people don't like RPG's. It's a great genre.



Edited by - psychoprog on June 21, 2000 7:55:35 AM

Personally I love a good RPG, to get involved in the goings on of a fantasy. But I must say that too many people seem to be developing RPGs and a lot are turning out bad.

This , I feel, is what is giving the impression of RPGs being bad, people just are sick of it.

Myself, I will always like RPGs and will always play RPGs (even some crap ones) but would not, at present, create one - not until the trend of games in development moves onto something else.

I''d appreciate it if people read the messages in the thread properly before answering, but oh well.

In case you missed it: We are not saying role playing games are bad, per se. Only that the genre currently known as CRPG''s has generated a stereotype that everyone follows that SUCKS.

A good "Role Playing" experience on the PC should not come near that dreaded four-letter acronym, CRPG, because it will generate the wrong impression entirely.


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment..
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~

Hey, I don''t think RPGs (by that I mean that traditional games such as Ultima, Fallout etc.) suck; actually, these are my favourite games of all time, and I love RPGs, heck I even like Bard''s Tale, teh biggest HAck&Slash of all time! It''s just that you shouldn''t pack a lot of different games in one slot, calling them all RPGs, because this will make people stick to dogmas when they create a so-called RPG, IMHO. And anyway, what have the games "Bard''s Tales", "Ultima 7", "Fallout", "Eye of the beholder" and "Champions of Krynn" in common? Actually, not very much, except for the leveling system and all that stuff, nonetheless they''re all called RPGs. I bet these games would have been even more diverse, if their makers wouldn''t have intended to make an "RPG" and thus wouldn''t have sticked to certain dogmas, such as the leveling system or the murder-based EXP-System (although these can be fun, of course!)

There is a big difference between playing a role and playing a character. There really has never been a computer game that makes you play a role. Therefore, there are no RPG''s so stop kidding yourselves. It''s all an illusion and a bad one at that. Besides, no ones answered my serious question yet..."Who PLAY''s a ROLE anyhow? Do you?"

When was the last time anyone here played a game where you had to "Role Play"? anyone, anyone?

There are no RPG''s. CRPG''s etc are a mask, they are either an adventure game and/or action game underneath. The mask comes from the use of clever graphic orientations(top down/isometric) or GUI (stat system). But that''s got nothing to do with role playing does it?

The genre of this sort in computer games never existed!

Ok, RPG''s never existed on computers, CRPG''s are a falsehood of all falsehoods.

Think about freestyle roleplaying for a second ok. There is no peices of paper, no keyboard or screen. It''s not acting, it''s trying to portray a role. This doesn''t mean acting! Acting is replicating a character not a role. A role is more open to interpretation. Think!

The reasons why (C)RPG''s suck is because they insult/slander the term role playing! (C)RPG''s suck it.

Stand up for the term people don''t let the marketer''s walk all over you!

The measure of intelligence is in the question not the answer.

I think some of you are missing the point a bit.

The point isn''t so much that RPG''s suck, the point is that you shouldn''t design your game to be based off a misconception of an idea.

In other words, don''t say "I''m going to make an RPG!", instead say "I''m going to create a story driven game and incorporate whatever systems are appropriate for the theme and the type of experience I want to give the player!" (although you might not be so long winded ).

In other words, don''t include certain systems in a game without really thinking of why they''re their first. Don''t just blindly add something to your game just because you see it in other games.

Think different.