332 réponses à ce sujet

[wright1978]

Cstaf wrote...

For the last 10-12 years the gaming industry, in my opinion, have been quite liberal in what is considered a RPG. I have always considered that RPGs are games where the game and player together creates a story. But for the last decade there seems to have been a shift thoward telling this story by through cinematic at the cost of player input. Now, i do not hate or love this shift because i like both types of games but for very different reasons. But i do play these types of games very different.

The question i have that i think would be interesting hearing from you guys is:
At what point does a RPG turn into another genre? That is, what are the fundamental requirement you have for a game to be considered an RPG. I've bolded the "you" for a reason because i do consider this to be something subjective.

For me the elements i'm looking for in an RPG are player characterisation of the protaganist coupled with a feeling of player choices throughout the plot giving the sense of player agency. Bioware has traditionally been strong in this regard through dialogue wheel and before that full dialogue choices coupled with visual customisation of protaganist etc. Elements like romance and friendship/rivalry/affection add an extra layer to this.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Technically, culture can create its own norms, which are then reflected by those establishing the formal.

"Ain't" is a double contraction of are, is and not, something not allowed in conventional language. It has no set noun/adjective agreement, since it implies both singular and plural noun states, which is impossible.

Singular/plural ambiguity wasn't prohibited, though.  There simply wasn't a way to do it prior to ain't.  The singular they (which is a terrible idea, by the way) does much the same thing.  

However, that didn't stop Webster from adding it to the dictionary after a century of people using it.

For the record, I think Webster is a terrible dictionary, but your point isn't harmed by using them as a reference in this case.

By the same token, games that have leveling, stats and equipable armor or weapons are RPGs or games that have RPG elements to them, despite giving no contr to what the character thinks, says or acts like - hence, no role playing.

Calling features which have nothing to do with roleplaying "RGP elements" is obfuscatory, though.  Letting that pass without comment only serves to let the definition grow more and more muddy.

Does that make it right? No. But it does make it the social norm.

 But still not right.

And without a governing body to officially define genres, the only option is to accept the social norm or, if not, then at least recognize that when people use that term incorrectly, there could be a double meaning.

When people use the term incorrectly, they should be corrected. 

Or, conversely, you could do what religions have done for millennia - name your brand of religion as a specific, 'purer' subset. Like Roman Catholicism. Or Orthodox Judaism. Or Southern Baptists.

I suggest a new name for video game RPGs which allow you to have total (or at least as close to it as possible) control of your character - True Test RPGs. Implying they can pass the True Test of what an RPG is - mainly, allowing you play the role of a character as you see fit.

Given the nature of the internet, that would only invite accusations of No True Scotsman.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

But a process is used to arrive at the formal definition.

Not usually.  Formal definitions are typically assigned all at once to establish a standard by which things can be measured.

Formal definitons have change over time given that society itself has change the definition to the point it becomes acceptable. Thereby being accept as formal.

Even if the definitions are assign all at once, there is a process that occurs. During that process the definition is subject to change until an agreement on what constitutes the definition is reached. And over time new definitions for a word may be reached therefore adding to the original definition.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 21 août 2012 - 09:33 .

[MerinTB]

Best way to shut down trolling and spamming and flaming in a forum?

Start actual intellectual discussions - with give and take, fact-based and logic-based reasoning, and pointing out any and all fallacious and/or facetious points and arguments given.

[wsandista]

MerinTB wrote...

Best way to shut down trolling and spamming and flaming in a forum?

Start actual intellectual discussions - with give and take, fact-based and logic-based reasoning, and pointing out any and all fallacious and/or facetious points and arguments given.

Pretty much.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It does seem to work at least some of the time.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It does seem to work at least some of the time.

You have to stick at it.  They will either get bored at their inability to drag you down to their level, or learn something despite themselves, or (preferrably) start to engage on an honest, logical and factual level themselves (whether they realize it, want to, or not.)

[LinksOcarina]

MerinTB wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It does seem to work at least some of the time.

You have to stick at it.  They will either get bored at their inability to drag you down to their level, or learn something despite themselves, or (preferrably) start to engage on an honest, logical and factual level themselves (whether they realize it, want to, or not.)

Thats with trolls though.

When dealing with people who know a thing or two, just be open to ideas.