3223 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Klijpope wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
It's a matter of separating the character's performance from your own.

Absolute tosh. That was just simpler to code, or the only way to code, rpgs back in the day. Those limits no longer have to apply.

So if the technology existed in 2003 to put functional starship combat into KOTOR, where you were flying around in an upgradable Ebon Hawk (instead of a couple of levels shooting a turret gun) shooting sith fighters, that would mean KOTOR was no longer an rpg, but a flight simulator?

Yes, those parts would have been a flight simulator. Similarly, lots of RPGs are already part puzzle game.

Il Divo wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
The threshold is very simple. It's the UI. I can only select targets and give instructions. If I start doing the actual doing, ie aim the gun or swing the sword, then we've crossed the threshold.

So what exactly are "action RPGs" then?

By that definition, everything from WoW, to Diablo, to Kingdom Hearts, to Jade Empire are not RPGs?

A not RPG. Yes, including Diablo, Kingdom Hearts, Jade Empire, Oblivion and many others.

[darth_lopez]

Epic777 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

RPG is not "absorbing" everything else, it's just becoming more and more like every game that happens to sell a million copies in one day. As I've said before.

Even if you want to separate the term RPG from loot collecting and stats, I still want look collecting and stats in the game. I LIKE loot collecting and stats. And there are fewer and fewer games that still use them every year.

I completely disagree. More genres are adding RPG elements such as bioshock or dawn of war 2.  If the rigid definietion of an RPG is your litmus test, RPGs have stayed pretty much the same over the years (of course they are exceptions). 

Yeah epic has a point RPG has been more or less absorbed by everyone else to create a more interesting gameplay experience. The classic RPG will not last much longer i think. it's become the second leg of many many games.

[Klijpope]

Men with beards.

[Il Divo]

the_one_54321 wrote...

A not RPG. Yes, including Diablo, Kingdom Hearts, Jade Empire, Oblivion and many others.

That's rather odd, because I could have sworn there existed this sub-genre referred to as 'action RPG' where the player had increased input....

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Action_RPG

But I guess you alone have somehow managed to invalidate an entire sub-genre of gaming.

[EternalPink]

Lots of people pointing what they think isn't an RPG and what games they think aren't RPG's yet after 78 pages we still seem no closer to agreeing what a RPG is anyway

[Varen Spectre]

Still pretty good reading... Keep it up guys. But, I'd like to ask... when there is a game from a genre other than RPGs, e.g. a strategy game and somebody (a reviewer) says it has one or more RPG element(s), what do you imagine first?

Do you imagine that the addition of RPG element(s) means addition of complicated character driven story with a lot of choices and consequences, dialogues, maybe even customization of your avatar (some kind of commander / general), etc. 

or 

do you imagine that your units will be able to level up with growing number of "kills", the player will be able to select new abilities for them, officers / commanders, who themselves will improve, will be able to influnce some of the parametres of those units (morale, resistance to something), there will be "heroes" - units which are much stronger and level much faster, etc.

I don't know, maybe I am a little bit old-fashioned in this regard, or maybe the reviewers whose reviews I used to read were, but I am more likely to imagine the 2nd type of elements. 

I also admit that the provided example may not be the best, because many of those "RPG elements" from 2nd cathegory are used in strategy games so often that they might be treated as inherent strategy elements now. But, when I was a kid, they weren't.

[MightySword]

Varen Spectre wrote...
I don't know, maybe I am a little bit old-fashioned in this regard, or maybe the reviewers whose reviews I used to read were, but I am more likely to imagine the 2nd type of elements. 

and you would be correct: Kingdom Under Fire, Warhammer, men of valor ...etc... are all RTS claiming to have RPG elements. Going back about 10 years ago when these kind of thing just pop up for the first time, any game with some kind of character grown / lvling system could claim they have RPG elements, I remember Freelancer (a spacesim game) made the similar claim. I think the stigma stuck till this day.

Modifié par MightySword, 11 juillet 2011 - 11:28 .

[Il Divo]

EternalPink wrote...

Lots of people pointing what they think isn't an RPG and what games they think aren't RPG's yet after 78 pages we still seem no closer to agreeing what a RPG is anyway

I doubt we ever will. We're simply a bunch of guys arguing over an internet forum with a million different opinions.
If I manage to convince another person of anything on the internet, good for me. But I normally don't count on it. I use debate and discussion as an exercise to keep the mind sharp. That's about it.

[darth_lopez]

Varen Spectre wrote...

Still pretty good reading... Keep it up guys. But, I'd like to ask... when there is a game from a genre other than RPGs, e.g. a strategy game and somebody (a reviewer) says it has one or more RPG element(s), what do you imagine first?

Do you imagine that the addition of RPG element(s) means addition of complicated character driven story with a lot of choices and consequences, dialogues, maybe even customization of your avatar (some kind of commander / general), etc. 

or 

do you imagine that your units will be able to level up with growing number of "kills", the player will be able to select new abilities for them, officers / commanders, who themselves will improve, will be able to influnce some of the parametres of those units (morale, resistance to something), there will be "heroes" - units which are much stronger and level much faster, etc.

I don't know, maybe I am a little bit old-fashioned in this regard, or maybe the reviewers whose reviews I used to read were, but I am more likely to imagine the 2nd type of elements. 

I also admit that the provided example may not be the best, because many of those "RPG elements" from 2nd cathegory are used in strategy games so often that they might be treated as inherent strategy elements now. But, when I was a kid, they weren't.

i think it depends on the context of the game.for example if you had asked many of my friends, at least, in regards to shogun 2 containing a customizable avatar they would've said Option A.

However when it came to DOW 2 having RPG elements meant Option B by opinion. 

In any case units due in most RPGs gain veterancy or have inventories or item selections at this point. COH has a very simple Item/inventory system while the player levels up through kills and unlocks extra command powers. bu tthe later example in COH could be seen as simply a research option/mechanic.  then there is Men of war which boast full inventories down to the hat the trooper is wearing and the amount of fuel a tank has, however it has no veterency as far as i can tell (at least assault squad) personally when i hear RPG elements in a game i think BW style decision making, maybe a small inventory but definately levling up and powers. Story is debatable though based off the imagined environment of the game for me. 

[Gatt9]

In Exile wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Significant amount of irony here considering that you two are talking to the guy that has said on numerous occasions that I don't care whether or not people agree with me on whether or not something is "RPG" enough, so long as the specific features I want in the game are in the game. 

Except on this occasion, where you lamented the use of the RPG label. I'm sorry, but I don't keep very close track of your all views. 

You literally said: "...slapping an RPG label over all the marketing, and enjoying runaway financial success. that you all are looking down in Gatt9 in spite of this..."

So what I said is entirely in line with what you said.

Actually,  that's to be expected.

There's a few people who exist only in the isolated world of BSN,  and think that ME2 was "Very well received" and that the "RPG Elistists are a minority!  Everyone else wants this!".

It makes them extremely uncomfortable when you point them in the direction of other websites some of whom have equivalent traffic to BSN,  and another gets more hits in an hour than BSN gets in a month.  Because at that point,  you shake the foundation of their beliefs,  "Everyone but him thinks like I do!",  and so rather than deal with the counterpoint,  they attack the poster.

But at the end of the day,  those sites still exist,  and they still are very important barometers of acceptance of a mechanic(s).  They can deal with it now,  or they can deal with it in 5 years when everyone's talking about "Why did the gaming market implode",  but either way,  they're going to deal with it.

Because those people are all gamers too,  all just as valid as anyone here,  and the whole "Stats aren't necessary" stance isn't going to do nearly as well outside of BSN and Bethseda.

Absolute tosh. That was just the limitations of code back in the day, limits that no longer have to apply.

So if the technology existed in 2003 to put functional starship combat into KOTOR, where you were flying around in an upgradable Ebon Hawk (instead of a couple of levels shooting a turret gun) shooting sith fighters, that would mean KOTOR was no longer an rpg, but a flight simulator?

Lord British implemented "Radiant AI" 20 years before Bethseda tried it,  and he did it on a 1mhz machine with 64 kilobytes of RAM.  Gateway to Apshai was a RT RPG nearly 20 years before Bioware made Baldur's Gate.  Fallout 2 had more depth of character progression and customization on a platform with less power than your cell phone.

Wing Commander,  Descent Freespace,  Tie Fighter,  Privateer,  preceeded KotOR by a decade.

It's a myth,  the "Technological limitations" thing is a internet urban legend.

[Gatt9]

Il Divo wrote...

EternalPink wrote...

Lots of people pointing what they think isn't an RPG and what games they think aren't RPG's yet after 78 pages we still seem no closer to agreeing what a RPG is anyway

I doubt we ever will. We're simply a bunch of guys arguing over an internet forum with a million different opinions.
If I manage to convince another person of anything on the internet, good for me. But I normally don't count on it. I use debate and discussion as an exercise to keep the mind sharp. That's about it.

I'm right there with you,  though I'm a bit more optimistic than you are.  As I said before,  the gaming market is projected to shrink by 20% this year,  and it looks primed to do worse in 2012 (Since all E3 showed was "Shooter shooter shooter shooter!!!").

So I'm optimistically expecting that around the end of 2012,  begining of 2013,  when the question "What happened to gaming?" becomes a critical question,  these mammoth threads will be remembered as a possible reason for it.

Because,  quite honestly,  the All-shooter lineup means that they're locked in for 2 years at a minimum to a creatively-dead list of games,  combined with the high probability of unimpressive consoles being announced or released next year,  we're right in the middle of 1989.  When Nintendo and Sega were releasing non-stop Super Mario clones,  and then fragmented the market with hardware that didn't penetrate because it was more gimmick than improvement.  Which prompted the 2nd big Console crash.

[darth_lopez]

@gatt9
Wait a minute i thought we were arguing over what consitutes an RPG not Bioware's, according to the article if i remember correctly, apparent disregard for Stats?

Isn't it an accepted fact that RPGs Have to involve Stats? I'm pretty sure no one here is arguing that they don't

Modifié par darth_lopez, 11 juillet 2011 - 11:53 .

[the_one_54321]

d_l, the original purpose of this thread was a head honcho saying that stats are small potatoes in the grand RPG scheme of things.

I'm not sure whether to respond by saying he is wrong, or by saying that what he really means is that BioWare just intends to make story based action games from now on.

[EternalPink]

If your meaning Privateer : The Darkening (with clive owen) and the wing commander series from 3 onwards both made extensive use of filmed video which takes no more processing power than your current DVD player and the choices they presented were scripted, usually to two options one at the top of the screen and the other at the bottom.

Todays graphics are not pre-recorded film that the game launches windows media player/real player/quick time/divX to play which again would not take a huge amount of of cpu or gfx power to do.

Tie Fighter was sweet i'll agree with that but as i also recall was it not in basic VGA graphics? as it use to run best via dos and at the time of its release graphics cards didn't exist in there current form and they did not come in PC by default and the first ones that came in 32/64mb versions while cutting edge for the time would never be able to render the graphics of today's games.

None of the above 3 games would i consider an RPG either, out of the three i suppose Privateer did have the most character choices and a good story but it was primarly a space shooter/trading game to my mind.

[Vaeliorin]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]Vaeliorin wrote...

While that definitely sounds better than ME2, it still brings up the question of why Shepard becomes more persuasive based entirely on how nice/how much of a dick he is to people. [/quote]
Social skills are experiential. The more you act a certain way, the better you get at doing it. Shepard becoming a better dick the more he acts like a dick actually makes sense. It's a little like doing your math homework.[/quote]
But the thing is, that being better at being a dick doesn't make you any better at talking people into doing what you want.  Neither does being a nice guy.
[quote]
[quote]Of course, it also punishes players who don't want to play one extreme or the other by forcing them to put
points into something those who push the extremes don't have to (assuming I'm understanding what you mean by 'switch' correctly...I'm assuming you meant some sort of skill, since it apparently has 4 ranks.)[/quote]
Well, I would have "paragade" checks, where you get unique outcomes based on the combination of paragon + renegade as well as paragon + renegade outcomes. But you know me - I'm opposed to a persuasion button and think gameplay via dialogue has to come from the interplay of in-character choices. 

I should have clarified this bit.[/quote]
The problem with this is that it only allows you to play a character who's as persuasive as you are.  I'm, generally speaking, not a persuasive person.  So, because I'm not persuasive, Shepard can't be persuasive?

This has always been a pet peeve of mine, from the days of playing PnP when the DM would allow players of characters who dumped charisma and didn't bother putting points into social skills to be really persuasive because
they're really persuasive in real life, while my character, with a high charisma and maxed social skills, isn't capable of persuading anyone because I'm not persuasive in real life.

Basically, what it boils down to is that my character's abilities should be as divorced from mine as possible.  Even to the point of my character's intelligence/wisdom/whatever limits his ability to issue commands to party members.
[quote][quote]Persuasive ability should either be based on some sort of persuasion skill not tied to Paragon/Renegade, or just be something Shepard can do regardless of his Paragon/Renegade status (I'd prefer the first, of course.)  Regardless, Paragon/Renegade shouldn't play into it, unless Shepard has a little glowy meter on his uniform somewhere that says "I've been this nice to people [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angel.png[/smilie]" or "I've been this much of a dick [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/devil.png[/smilie]"[/quote]
Persuasion, IMO, should never be a skill. In the same way "winning combat" should never be a skill.[/quote]

See above.  Also, I'd say that "winning combat" is, in fact, skill-based, since the way you've developed your skills tends to determine whether or not you win combat.
[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]Vaeliorin wrote...
Loot, I think, simply adds a layer of character customization.  That, and getting a neat piece of loot adds a moment of excitement/enjoyment to games (at least for me.) [/quote]
I've nver responded well to conditioning, so the loot was never a reward - it was just trash I had to shift through.[/quote]
I don't know that it's really a conditioning thing.  I don't exactly get excited about every piece of loot (you'll never seen me get excited about a health potion or a non-unique crafting ingredient), but rather about pieces that have a good story behind them or allow me to progress my character.  Loot (before you actually see what it is) is kind of like presents at Christmas or your birthday.  There's an excitement to see what you got.
[quote]What I'm really curious about is the customization argument. How should loot vary to get that feeling? I like customizing and building, but only when the choices matter. DA:O had the One True Build ™ problem. ME
had trash loot that essentially came down to 1-2 choices.[/quote]
Well, yeah, Bioware hasn't done a very good job with loot lately.  There shouldn't be any best loot, but rather multiple pieces of loot that are equally good and which one would be best for you are dependent on your playstyle.  Even then, many people go for aesthetics over stats on loot.[quote]
[quote]I also think that randomized loot (not completely random Diablo-style, but such that while you may always get a 2-handed weapon out of a particular chest, the particular 2-handed weapon can change on each playthrough) adds to replayability, as it gives back a bit of that "What next?" excitement that's generally lacking after you've beaten a game once (unless it's a game that differs vastly from one playthrough to the next, and those are very rare.)[/quote]
Only if you care about loot. To me, random loot just give a "****, again?" feeling, because I'm just forced to deal with the random # generator to get a similar bonus to my builds.[/quote]
It's not so much about the loot, but about the progression of the character.  And again, I think there's that sense of anticipation, much like Christmas morning when you're a kid, of "What did I get?" Not sure how you'd have to deal with the random number generator, though, unless you're one of those people that reloads until they get
what they want out of a randomly generated chest (which wouldn't be possible in a system I'd want, as I'd generate all the random loot at the start of the game.)

I think you and I just have different priorities in what we think is important in games (I know you think reactivity is important, and I think it's nice, but not necessary.  Of the "Choices and Consquences" concept that people like to toss around, I've come to the conclusion that only the choices really matter to me.)

[quote]EternalPink wrote...
Lots of people pointing what they think isn't an RPG and what games they think aren't RPG's yet after 78 pages we still seem no closer to agreeing what a RPG is anyway[/quote]
Is it really important?  I mean, sure, it would be nice if the labels actually gave some idea of what you were getting with a game, but other than that, does it really matter?  If you bother to do your research before buying, the labels aren't particularly important.

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 12 juillet 2011 - 12:04 .

[EternalPink]

Gatt9 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

EternalPink wrote...

Lots of people pointing what they think isn't an RPG and what games they think aren't RPG's yet after 78 pages we still seem no closer to agreeing what a RPG is anyway

I doubt we ever will. We're simply a bunch of guys arguing over an internet forum with a million different opinions.
If I manage to convince another person of anything on the internet, good for me. But I normally don't count on it. I use debate and discussion as an exercise to keep the mind sharp. That's about it.

I'm right there with you,  though I'm a bit more optimistic than you are.  As I said before,  the gaming market is projected to shrink by 20% this year,  and it looks primed to do worse in 2012 (Since all E3 showed was "Shooter shooter shooter shooter!!!").

So I'm optimistically expecting that around the end of 2012,  begining of 2013,  when the question "What happened to gaming?" becomes a critical question,  these mammoth threads will be remembered as a possible reason for it.

Because,  quite honestly,  the All-shooter lineup means that they're locked in for 2 years at a minimum to a creatively-dead list of games,  combined with the high probability of unimpressive consoles being announced or released next year,  we're right in the middle of 1989.  When Nintendo and Sega were releasing non-stop Super Mario clones,  and then fragmented the market with hardware that didn't penetrate because it was more gimmick than improvement.  Which prompted the 2nd big Console crash.

Gaming market shrink? in the UK atleast i read that it was projected to grow by a double digit percentage so i take it you refer to the gaming market in a different part of the world?

[Xewaka]

AlanC9 wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
PnP RPG definition (shortened version and from a player, not the GM, perception): game where you play as a character coherent within the setting (ideally, created by you), and interpret him in any given situation, with a ruleset mediation to determine degree of success or failure of your character's actions.

Works for me. Doesn't have a heck of a lot to do with the sort of "RPG mechanics" this thread is about, of course.

I've played and/or GM'ed about a dozen different systems and read about twice as many. There is simply too much variation from ruleset to ruleset to stablish anything else than the most basic guidelines when it comes to PnP RPG.

[darth_lopez]

@the one
I'm well aware of what and when the thread started about i visited at least one time before it hit 70 pages i was suprised to see it get this far. I was Questioning gatt9 for bringing up something that seemed to be solved now that we moved on to deciding what genre of RPG qualifies for an RPG in your opinion, which the answer seems to be none. including table tops.

Excluding that i was pretty sure we were still discussing what makes an RPG an RPG with the passive acceptance of the Fact that RPGs must have statistics and with out statistics of some sort one can not have an RPG at all. So it seemed rather pointless to bring the original context of the thread up again.

[darth_lopez]

EternalPink wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

EternalPink wrote...

Lots of people pointing what they think isn't an RPG and what games they think aren't RPG's yet after 78 pages we still seem no closer to agreeing what a RPG is anyway

I doubt we ever will. We're simply a bunch of guys arguing over an internet forum with a million different opinions.
If I manage to convince another person of anything on the internet, good for me. But I normally don't count on it. I use debate and discussion as an exercise to keep the mind sharp. That's about it.

I'm right there with you,  though I'm a bit more optimistic than you are.  As I said before,  the gaming market is projected to shrink by 20% this year,  and it looks primed to do worse in 2012 (Since all E3 showed was "Shooter shooter shooter shooter!!!").

So I'm optimistically expecting that around the end of 2012,  begining of 2013,  when the question "What happened to gaming?" becomes a critical question,  these mammoth threads will be remembered as a possible reason for it.

Because,  quite honestly,  the All-shooter lineup means that they're locked in for 2 years at a minimum to a creatively-dead list of games,  combined with the high probability of unimpressive consoles being announced or released next year,  we're right in the middle of 1989.  When Nintendo and Sega were releasing non-stop Super Mario clones,  and then fragmented the market with hardware that didn't penetrate because it was more gimmick than improvement.  Which prompted the 2nd big Console crash.

Gaming market shrink? in the UK atleast i read that it was projected to grow by a double digit percentage so i take it you refer to the gaming market in a different part of the world?

The only thing i can think of that he might be talking about is the american PC gaming market due to numerous publishers shafting us, delivering poorly performing games etc... But i don't know of any other market that seems to be angry at the current state of games, then again i don't read about other markets much

[Epic777]

darth_lopez wrote...

EternalPink wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

EternalPink wrote...

Lots of people pointing what they think isn't an RPG and what games they think aren't RPG's yet after 78 pages we still seem no closer to agreeing what a RPG is anyway

I doubt we ever will. We're simply a bunch of guys arguing over an internet forum with a million different opinions.
If I manage to convince another person of anything on the internet, good for me. But I normally don't count on it. I use debate and discussion as an exercise to keep the mind sharp. That's about it.

I'm right there with you,  though I'm a bit more optimistic than you are.  As I said before,  the gaming market is projected to shrink by 20% this year,  and it looks primed to do worse in 2012 (Since all E3 showed was "Shooter shooter shooter shooter!!!").

So I'm optimistically expecting that around the end of 2012,  begining of 2013,  when the question "What happened to gaming?" becomes a critical question,  these mammoth threads will be remembered as a possible reason for it.

Because,  quite honestly,  the All-shooter lineup means that they're locked in for 2 years at a minimum to a creatively-dead list of games,  combined with the high probability of unimpressive consoles being announced or released next year,  we're right in the middle of 1989.  When Nintendo and Sega were releasing non-stop Super Mario clones,  and then fragmented the market with hardware that didn't penetrate because it was more gimmick than improvement.  Which prompted the 2nd big Console crash.

Gaming market shrink? in the UK atleast i read that it was projected to grow by a double digit percentage so i take it you refer to the gaming market in a different part of the world?

The only thing i can think of that he might be talking about is the american PC gaming market due to numerous publishers shafting us, delivering poorly performing games etc... But i don't know of any other market that seems to be angry at the current state of games, then again i don't read about other markets much

Again if the litmus test for an RPG is the very narrow and rigid defintion then most RPGs have not changed drastically over the years, maybe even less than the much hated mainstream shooter.

[darth_lopez]

Epic777 wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...

EternalPink wrote...



Gaming market shrink? in the UK atleast i read that it was projected to grow by a double digit percentage so i take it you refer to the gaming market in a different part of the world?

The only thing i can think of that he might be talking about is the american PC gaming market due to numerous publishers shafting us, delivering poorly performing games etc... But i don't know of any other market that seems to be angry at the current state of games, then again i don't read about other markets much

Again if the litmus test for an RPG is the very narrow and rigid defintion then most RPGs have not changed drastically over the years, maybe even less than the much hated mainstream shooter.

whoa i'm not suggesting that the litmus test for RPG is very narrow, My response was more targeted towards the question of what market. i was simply saying the American PC market over the past year recieving some fairly dissapointing games not RPG specific but inclusive. I've heard many complaints and seen many articles/posts from PC community members expressing frustration over feeling betrayed by main strem publishers in recent releases. I was branching out to possibly explain where he is expecting the shrinkage. Honestly i've heard very few complaints on Games from console communittes or friends :/ not as many as PC gamers at the very least.

I am off the opinion that RPG is basically any game, with a stat system that involves the Main PC leveling as the game goes on developing new skills and in some cases making big decisions and typically involving a party. My definition for RPG is very minimalistic. Imho a good RPG can be made from any other genre of game that heavily takes on those types of mechanics in a game combined with good or decent story (i wouldn't say TES oblivion had a story better than Kotor but i would say it was on par with DA:O) Though an RPG must also for me be typically 3rd or first person(not too fond of this sometimes) and cannot be an RTS with RPG elements that's all i use to define RPG. Any game from that SOnic one released by bioware to Mass Effect or TES to KOTOR to BG to etc... Is an RPG to me. I did not mean to come off as that if that's what i came off as >.>

Modifié par darth_lopez, 12 juillet 2011 - 12:41 .

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The threshold is very simple. It's the UI. I can only select targets and give instructions. If I start doing the actual doing, ie aim the gun or swing the sword, then we've crossed the threshold.

What if there are no lots or stats?

[the_one_54321]

In Exile wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
The threshold is very simple. It's the UI. I can only select targets and give instructions. If I start doing the actual doing, ie aim the gun or swing the sword, then we've crossed the threshold.

What if there are no lots or stats?

You'd probably end up with a very poor or primative RPG. I'm having trouble imagining how it would work at all, though.

[In Exile]

Gatt9 wrote...
There's a few people who exist only in the isolated world of BSN,  and think that ME2 was "Very well received" and that the "RPG Elistists are a minority!  Everyone else wants this!".  

Like metacritic. That's really a place that shows the BSN hive-mind how **** ME2 is.

It makes them extremely uncomfortable when you point them in the direction of other websites some of whom have equivalent traffic to BSN,  and another gets more hits in an hour than BSN gets in a month.  Because at that point,  you shake the foundation of their beliefs,  "Everyone but him thinks like I do!",  and so rather than deal with the counterpoint,  they attack the poster.

The place that said the last good RPG was MoTB, and that DA:O was a **** game? 

But at the end of the day,  those sites still exist,  and they still are very important barometers of acceptance of a mechanic(s).  They can deal with it now,  or they can deal with it in 5 years when everyone's talking about "Why did the gaming market implode",  but either way,  they're going to deal with it.

Or we can look at things like sales and compare it with their reception, and see that ME1/ME2 were both very well received yet were a joke by codex standards, and Bioware's best-seller in DA:O was a **** RPG.

Because those people are all gamers too,  all just as valid as anyone here,  and the whole "Stats aren't necessary" stance isn't going to do nearly as well outside of BSN and Bethseda.

You're right. Bestheda will be shamed after their 3rd (or is it 4th?) release that sells 4 million + units. 

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...
You'd probably end up with a very poor or primative RPG. I'm having trouble imagining how it would work at all, though.

What if you had some loot and stats, as well as quests, but there was effectively no dialogue?