Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 08.01.2011 at 17:45


Well, about the RPG definition talk. All I'm saying is that if the gameplay cannot be traced back to the original definition, being that an RPG game is a digital adaption of pen and paper campaigns, which run with a certain kind of game mechanics based on the skills of the characters and the tactical interpretations of the player, then the game is something else than an RPG.

An RPG isn't mostly based on player skills in the way that a shooter is, but more around using the characters in a tactical way. The characters are supposed to be doing the work, you just give them orders. An example of implemented RPG mechanics would be the melee combat in Morrowind. You are ordering your character to hit a mudcrab, but regardless of how you aim the mouse cursor (as long as it is in the vicinity of the mudcrab) the chance to hit and the damage dealt is determined by RPG mechanics based on the skills of your character. You are not doing the work, the character is, and you are just ordering him/her around. That is the definition of an RPG, you play the role of the character (or characters), and thus assume your characters attributes, and your impact on the outcome of a situation comes down to tactical decisions made by you. You are deciding to hit the mudcrab, since that seems like a good idea, but your character is doing the work. This is the definition of RPG mechanics.

In ME, only a few elements resembling these mechanics in some ways have been exported from the genre to complement 3rd person shooter mechanics. The gameplay runs on shooter mechanics, and not RPG mechanics. There are traces of RPG elements in the game, but since this integral part is not there, and replaced by a groundwork coming from another genre, a game which has taken this evolutionary turn is no longer an RPG.

DA, on the other hand, runs on RPG mechanics. That still doesn't make it good though.

Another rhetorical question. If I was so sure that my opinions would be so adamant about this type of game (been playing RPGs since I was 6 years old or so and played Might and Magic VI, so yeah I know my stuff), why would I try ME (both 1 and 2) and DA (bought it upon release, which meant I was hoping for something) in the first place?

But most people don't share that level of categorical imperialism when it comes to games. You may indeed be right, on a technical level, but I studied video game design at college for two years (and came top of my class, so I also know my stuff </penis waving>) and this kind of thing did not crop up even once. The definition of the "RPG" has changed from its origins through generations of varied games and interspersing of style to the point where the term RPG often has pre-fixes (Adventure, Action, Tactical, PC, Console, J, Western etc.). That's just how the modern industry and userbase uses the term. Frankly I'm far happier to capitulate to the masses on this one and just go with what I've felt as in "RPG" since I first played Terranigma way back when.

Written by Guest on 08.01.2011 at 17:53

But most people don't share that level of categorical imperialism when it comes to games. You may indeed be right, on a technical level, but I studied video game design at college for two years (and came top of my class, so I also know my stuff </penis waving>) and this kind of thing did not crop up even once. The definition of the "RPG" has changed from its origins through generations of varied games and interspersing of style to the point where the term RPG often has pre-fixes (Adventure, Action, Tactical etc.). That's just how the modern industry and userbase uses the term. Frankly I'm far happier to capitulate to the masses on this one and just go with what I've felt as in "RPG" since I first played Terranigma way back when.

That was the original definition though. However, since the early 2000s, anything that includes interactive dialogue and quest like structured plots can be an RPG it seems, when the real definitions lie in the gameplay mechanics. If we go by modern definitions, most of the founding games of the genre (the dungeon crawlers and the roguelikes) wouldn't be RPGs (since they have the mechanics and nothing else).

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 08.01.2011 at 17:58

Written by Guest on 08.01.2011 at 17:53

But most people don't share that level of categorical imperialism when it comes to games. You may indeed be right, on a technical level, but I studied video game design at college for two years (and came top of my class, so I also know my stuff </penis waving>) and this kind of thing did not crop up even once. The definition of the "RPG" has changed from its origins through generations of varied games and interspersing of style to the point where the term RPG often has pre-fixes (Adventure, Action, Tactical etc.). That's just how the modern industry and userbase uses the term. Frankly I'm far happier to capitulate to the masses on this one and just go with what I've felt as in "RPG" since I first played Terranigma way back when.

That was the original definition though. However, since the early 2000s, anything that includes interactive dialogue and quest like structured plots can be an RPG it seems, when the real definitions lie in the gameplay mechanics. If we go by modern definitions, most of the founding games of the genre (the dungeon crawlers and the roguelikes) wouldn't be RPGs (since they have the mechanics and nothing else).

On a different note, I think you should substitute your current icon with this one:

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 08.01.2011 at 13:14

Written by wormdrink414 on 08.01.2011 at 06:51

Red Dead Redemption
Mass Effect 2
Alan Wake
Deadly Premonition
Black Ops (for its multiplayer)

Haven't played Assassin's Creed Brotherhood yet, but I've heard good things. I'd quickly remove Black Ops from this if Assassin's Creed lives up to the hype.

Just because RPGs are changing--evolving, really--doesn't mean that they aren't Role-playing games. The Mass Effect franchise offers plenty of opportunities to play a role and affect the in-game world. Therefore, the Mass Effect series is an RPG series. They mark, if anything, an evolution of the Bioware RPG formula, if not the RPG in general.

On another note, Fallout 3 is easily one of the better games floating around. New Vegas sucked, not just because it was buggy as hell, but because it committed the worst sin for its sort of game: the world was boring. Boring as fuck.

According to that logic, anything could be an RPG. "Lets you play a role" could mean anything really, and this is also not a feature associated only with RPGs. Calling ME an RPG is a bit like calling Children of Bodom death metal. You're not completely wrong on all levels (you can trace it back to DM), but you're sure as hell not right. There are some tendencies towards the RPG genre, but the 3rd person shooter elements overpower the gameplay, making it mostly a shooter.

I've heard it referred to as a hybrid, which I could agree with. It's not in any way mostly an RPG though, even if there are some elements associated with the genre. In fact, calling it an RPG puts it in the same genre as Wizardry, when there are next to no common denominators between the two. As such, the RPG tag is incompatible with ME, just like the death metal tag is incompatible with COB.

To illustrate, Deus Ex offers far more opportunities to "play a role" and "affect the game world" than ME ever does, yet that is not really an RPG and isn't really seen as such. Hybrid? Yeah, that might be a proper term, but for most of the gameplay, it plays like an FPS.

The point is, that ME lacks so many of the elements that define RPGs that it isn't an RPG anymore. For the most part, it is a cover based shooter.

This fact alone however doesn't necissarily make it a bad game. I don't like it for a multitude of reasons, but it has nothing to do with whether it is actually an RPG or not. There are many RPGs that I vehemently hate (yet I cannot deny that they in fact are RPGs), and some hybrids that are excellent (Deus Ex comes to mind). My dislike for ME stems from the fact that it has picked up some of the more disturbing trends from the modern mainstream RPGs, instead of incorporating well-done RPG elements (basically focusing more on people who don't really play RPGs).

As for Fallout 3, that world was boring as hell. The game was also practically unfinished upon release (seems to be the Bethesda trademark nowadays). The mechanics were horrendous, the game was extremely easy, it was short as hell and most places on the map were completely generic. I also love how people complain about New Vegas being buggy. Bethesda games (no matter if it says Obsidian on the box, the core mechanics are Bethesda through and through) are notoriously buggy. Morrowind for instance is one of the buggiest and glitchiest games I have ever played, and it seems to be praised to the high heavens. I also bought Fallout 3 upon release, and at that time it was buggy as pure hell.

The best part of New Vegas is that they made some attempts to fix some of Bethesda's horrendous mechanics. The iron sights made you actually use the FPS mechanics for any reasons, while in F3 you just got stuck using VATS all the time, since it pretty much allowed you to plow through the entire game if you had a decent weapon (like Lincoln's repeater or the terrible shotgun, none of them hard to find). NV had a few challanging sections and combat didn't feel like as much of a chore as it did in F3.

Don't get me wrong though, NV is still not Fallout standard (set by 1 and 2) in any way (even if it's a lot better than 3, which was horrendous). In fact, for the ultimate Fallout experience, I would advice people to stay away from 3 and NV and wait for a worthy successor to be released. Hopefully they ditch the shooter mechanics since they barely work anyway.

Well, let's take Gears of War as an example here. In it you do indeed play a role, that of Marcus Fenix. But the role you play is, in a linear way, predetermined. In a game like Mass Effect, the choices you make (in other words, the role you choose to play) effects the way the game unfolds. Mass Effect is an RPG and Mass Effect 2 is a better RPG (I needn't even bother to mention the character customization and the skill-distribution systems).

On to Fallout 3. I'm curious to know what exactly made the world boring as hell for you. New Vegas' map had a sense of scale that asks players to be overwhelmed by the map's size rather than its content. Fallout 3 was packed with interesting characters and locations, all of which had interesting stories. Take the city of children, for example, or the Oasis. Take the ruined mall, as another one, or the snobs who live in the tower. If they struck you as boring, I can't grasp what you find interesting. I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice deep combat for deep stories and world-immersion. But this is a matter of opinion differences and can be tossed aside, for the moment.

When I play an RPG, I play it for the story and the role-playing. I don't play them for complex number-based skill-sets. Clearly you play them for other reasons, which is understandable. But to claim that a game isn't an RPG because it has fluid combat and engaging stories (side-stories in particular) is absurd.

I agree that the RPG has a vague definition. But is this fact not closely linked to the genre's immense versatility? My answer: of course it is.

I detect a hint of nostalgia for the olden-days of the RPG. If my sense isn't deceiving me, I have a game recommendation: play Demons' Souls. I hated it, but you might not. Very difficult.

Written by wormdrink414 on 09.01.2011 at 02:20

Well, let's take Gears of War as an example here. In it you do indeed play a role, that of Marcus Fenix. But the role you play is, in a linear way, predetermined. In a game like Mass Effect, the choices you make (in other words, the role you choose to play) effects the way the game unfolds. Mass Effect is an RPG and Mass Effect 2 is a better RPG (I needn't even bother to mention the character customization and the skill-distribution systems).

On to Fallout 3. I'm curious to know what exactly made the world boring as hell for you. New Vegas' map was empty and dull, with a sense of scale that asks the player to be overwhelmed by the maps size rather than its contents. Fallout 3 was packed with interesting characters and locations, all of which had interesting stories. Take the city of children, for example, or the Oasis. Take the ruined mall, as another one, or the snobs who live in the tower. If they struck you as boring, I can't grasp what you find interesting. I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice deep combat for deep stories and world-immersion. But this is a matter of opinion differences and can be tossed aside, for the moment.

When I play an RPG, I play it for the story and the role-playing. I don't play them for complex number-based skill-sets and interesting combat-mechanics. Clearly you play them for other reasons, which is understandable. But to claim that a game isn't an RPG because it has fluid combat and engaging stories (side-stories in particular) is absurd.

I agree that the RPG has a vague definition. But is this fact not closely linked to the genre's immense versatility? My answer is: of course it is.

I detect a hint of nostalgia for the olden-days of the RPG. If my sense isn't deceiving me, I have a game recommendation: play Demons' Souls. I hated it, but you might not. Very difficult.

But, as I said, these elements (dialogue/choices and such) do not even exist to a big extent in most of the founding RPGs. If we go by those definitions, the games that started the genre wouldn't be RPGs. The elements of interactive dialogue and such are not necessary for RPGs, and are not a defining element. "Not an RPG" says nothing about quality though. Quite simply, it is wrong to call ME an RPG just because it shares some elements with some RPGs, when these do not even define the genre.

Also, plenty of great RPGs are linear as can be. It's just that in these cases, something else has to make up for it. And let's put it like this, the stories in ME and DA aren't very good.

I can also sacrifice interesting combat for deep stories and world immersion. Take a game like Arcanum. Combat blows and you usually want it to be over as quickly as possible (hence you select the real time option instead of turn based have the dog with you), but the story, non-linear gameplay and world immersion are immense (on a completely different world than ME and DA). It does however run on RPG mechanics, and is an RPG.

Written by Guest on 02.01.2011 at 04:44

Dragon Age is also really fucking hard unless you put in on easy, and even then the dragon bosses will still force you to use all your potions and whatnot.

Had to quote you on this one, because after some careful thinking and planing, it became a piece of cake, even on Nightmare (major bosses excluded, of course).

Anyway, what a sad, sad, pathetic excuse for a gaming year 2010 has been.... I'm talking about the PC scene, I don't have a console, and won't get one for as long as I live. PC pride.
Mass Effect 2 was solid, but when I compare it to its predecessor, it makes me want to cry in grief for the once truly great company known as Bioware. I also liked the PC version of Darksiders, but that's hardly Game of The Year material. The only game that really impressed me was New Vegas.
I don't see 2011 being any better. Small companies who had good ideas and guts to take risks and expand the gaming scene further are systematically being destroyed by the big ones, who play safe, providing us with nothing but good graphics and gameplay intended to give you a few cheap thrills. Oh well, at least I won't be wasting so much time playing games...

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 09.01.2011 at 14:43

Written by wormdrink414 on 09.01.2011 at 02:20

Well, let's take Gears of War as an example here. In it you do indeed play a role, that of Marcus Fenix. But the role you play is, in a linear way, predetermined. In a game like Mass Effect, the choices you make (in other words, the role you choose to play) effects the way the game unfolds. Mass Effect is an RPG and Mass Effect 2 is a better RPG (I needn't even bother to mention the character customization and the skill-distribution systems).

On to Fallout 3. I'm curious to know what exactly made the world boring as hell for you. New Vegas' map was empty and dull, with a sense of scale that asks the player to be overwhelmed by the maps size rather than its contents. Fallout 3 was packed with interesting characters and locations, all of which had interesting stories. Take the city of children, for example, or the Oasis. Take the ruined mall, as another one, or the snobs who live in the tower. If they struck you as boring, I can't grasp what you find interesting. I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice deep combat for deep stories and world-immersion. But this is a matter of opinion differences and can be tossed aside, for the moment.

When I play an RPG, I play it for the story and the role-playing. I don't play them for complex number-based skill-sets and interesting combat-mechanics. Clearly you play them for other reasons, which is understandable. But to claim that a game isn't an RPG because it has fluid combat and engaging stories (side-stories in particular) is absurd.

I agree that the RPG has a vague definition. But is this fact not closely linked to the genre's immense versatility? My answer is: of course it is.

I detect a hint of nostalgia for the olden-days of the RPG. If my sense isn't deceiving me, I have a game recommendation: play Demons' Souls. I hated it, but you might not. Very difficult.

But, as I said, these elements (dialogue/choices and such) do not even exist to a big extent in most of the founding RPGs. If we go by those definitions, the games that started the genre wouldn't be RPGs. The elements of interactive dialogue and such are not necessary for RPGs, and are not a defining element. "Not an RPG" says nothing about quality though. Quite simply, it is wrong to call ME an RPG just because it shares some elements with some RPGs, when these do not even define the genre.

Also, plenty of great RPGs are linear as can be. It's just that in these cases, something else has to make up for it. And let's put it like this, the stories in ME and DA aren't very good.

I can also sacrifice interesting combat for deep stories and world immersion. Take a game like Arcanum. Combat blows and you usually want it to be over as quickly as possible (hence you select the real time option instead of turn based have the dog with you), but the story, non-linear gameplay and world immersion are immense (on a completely different world than ME and DA). It does however run on RPG mechanics, and is an RPG.

Definitions change--its in their nature. Mass Effect is considered an RPG by most, and although I, as a rule, distrust public opinion, I'm willing to side with it on that point. Although the games industry is more fluid than its film counterpart, more fluid than, at the moment, the novel or the painting, genre-definitions in all the arts are determined to change--if they don't, art is stagnant. You will find it difficult to find, for example, a person who would argue that a Coen Brothers comedy isn't actually a comedy because it doesn't resemble the works of Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin. RPG has become a broad term for one of the most exciting game-genres around. I agree that Mass Effect doesn't resemble (quite literally, it doesn't) the RPGs of the past, but the relevance of that point is questionable. It plucks elements from the 3rd-person shooter, yes. But it is a role-playing game at its core.

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 09.01.2011 at 14:43

But, as I said, these elements (dialogue/choices and such) do not even exist to a big extent in most of the founding RPGs. If we go by those definitions, the games that started the genre wouldn't be RPGs. The elements of interactive dialogue and such are not necessary for RPGs, and are not a defining element.

How would you define an RPG? Customising character's equipment, stats and dialogue perhaps? I would.

Dialogue options were established in RPG's in 1985 with Ultima IV and have been a staple of western RPGs ever since. Another staple of western RPGs is character customisation and leveling. ME2 has all three of these elements coupled with an excellent combat mechanic. So how is it not an RPG again?

Quote:
Also, plenty of great RPGs are linear as can be. It's just that in these cases, something else has to make up for it. And let's put it like this, the stories in ME and DA aren't very good.

Once a game is linear it's forcing you into a role rather than letting you establish your own and ceases to be an Role Playing Game. Final Fantasy 13 is as much of a role playing game as Call of Duty Black Ops online mode is. In fact NO! COD:BO has more right to be called an RPG because there you can tailor the gaming experience and play a role you choose yourself. In FFXII you can't, you're just along for the ride.

Quote:
I can also sacrifice interesting combat for deep stories and world immersion.

If you think ME and DA:O are lacking in these areas I don't know what to say to you. Dragon Age has an insane amount of back story, books and books worth of accompanying text on the history of feralden, the folklore, the religion. There's a reason people have written DA and ME novels. If you don't think the stories are deep enough, I'm not sure what to say...I'm tempted to say "you're wrong" but it's totally subjective I can only assume you're the kinda of vunderbrain who see's War and Peace as a light read...

*going off on my rant now*

I'd say ME2 has more right to be called an RPG than anything that's come out Japan since the PSone came out, and probably before, which disregard any player choice in relation to dialogue and customisation where in regards to appearance, and largely in regards to equipment, where the best thing to use is a matter of fact not choice.

ME2 removed stats from weapons and equipment allowing the decision of what you use to be entirely based upon playing style and choice rather than a calculation of which is objectively best. In fact I feel ME2 should have gone further. By hiding stats you make the game more about choice and playing a role of your own choosing. Compare this too the Final Fantasy series where you basically lose all choice by the end where everything is unlocked and all characters maxed out. Mass Effect 2 with is limitations of levelling actually enforces an environment where skill attribution matters because you can't simply grind out your stats to the max as in all JRPGs.

Mass Effect 2, unlike any other game in memory, provides you with the tools to create your own role within it's universe and choose to play it your own way. That for me is what (western) RPGs have been shooting for for the past 30 years of game development and we're now closer than ever.

Mass Effect 2, for me, is the ultimate example of an RPG and the best example of the genre. PS3 owners should be stoked that it's coming to Sony's platform.

Written by King Bonzo on 10.01.2011 at 12:04

Mass Effect 2, unlike any other game in memory, provides you with the tools to create your own role within it's universe and choose to play it your own way. That for me is what (western) RPGs have been shooting for for the past 30 years of game development and we're now closer than ever.

Man, you should really, REALLY play Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura.

If that's what you're going for, you'll love that game!

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 10.01.2011 at 14:28

Written by King Bonzo on 10.01.2011 at 12:04

Mass Effect 2, unlike any other game in memory, provides you with the tools to create your own role within it's universe and choose to play it your own way. That for me is what (western) RPGs have been shooting for for the past 30 years of game development and we're now closer than ever.

Man, you should really, REALLY play Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura.

If that's what you're going for, you'll love that game!

Never heard of it lol but I'll have a look

Written by King Bonzo on 10.01.2011 at 14:41

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 10.01.2011 at 14:28

Written by King Bonzo on 10.01.2011 at 12:04

Mass Effect 2, unlike any other game in memory, provides you with the tools to create your own role within it's universe and choose to play it your own way. That for me is what (western) RPGs have been shooting for for the past 30 years of game development and we're now closer than ever.

Man, you should really, REALLY play Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura.

If that's what you're going for, you'll love that game!

Never heard of it lol but I'll have a look

Do so only if you can stomach incredibly boring and unbalanced combat... No matter how impressed I was with other aspects of Arcanum, combat just killed the experience for me.

Just wanted to say if I'd played Vanquish last year it would have made my top ten easy. Fucking insane game I love it.

Written by Slayer666 on 10.01.2011 at 21:06

Written by King Bonzo on 10.01.2011 at 14:41

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 10.01.2011 at 14:28

Written by King Bonzo on 10.01.2011 at 12:04

Mass Effect 2, unlike any other game in memory, provides you with the tools to create your own role within it's universe and choose to play it your own way. That for me is what (western) RPGs have been shooting for for the past 30 years of game development and we're now closer than ever.

Man, you should really, REALLY play Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura.

If that's what you're going for, you'll love that game!

Never heard of it lol but I'll have a look

Do so only if you can stomach incredibly boring and unbalanced combat... No matter how impressed I was with other aspects of Arcanum, combat just killed the experience for me.

Yeah, combat is the weak point for sure. There are however a number of ways to make sure the battles always end really quickly (fire spells...)

What a horrible year for PC gaming IMO. If I had to pick a few that I liked:

Bioshock 2
Singularity
Metro 2033

Written by tea[m]ster on 20.01.2011 at 02:54

What a horrible year for PC gaming IMO. If I had to pick a few that I liked:

Bioshock 2
Singularity
Metro 2033

At least this year will be awesome.

Always bet on Duke.

Written by Guest on 21.01.2011 at 19:26

Written by vezzy on 20.01.2011 at 16:35

Written by tea[m]ster on 20.01.2011 at 02:54

What a horrible year for PC gaming IMO. If I had to pick a few that I liked:

Bioshock 2
Singularity
Metro 2033

At least this year will be awesome.

Always bet on Duke.

Then you'll have to wait until the 6th of May!

Yep, comrade, I found out the news a few hours ago.

Written by tea[m]ster on 20.01.2011 at 02:54

What a horrible year for PC gaming IMO. If I had to pick a few that I liked:

Bioshock 2
Singularity
Metro 2033

Is it just me, or did anyone else think Bioshock 2 was a huge steaming pile of shit?

Games of the year in my humble opinion:

Donkey Kong Country Returns

I was never impressed with the series before, which is also due me not getting used to DKC's weird jumping mechanics. This game also still has them but vastly improved so I can look over it. There is a whole lot to enjoy, the catchy music, lush happy graphics, co-op, challenging difficulty, variety in it's platforming.

Vanquish

A game that gave me one hell of an adrenaline rush. The bright futuristic setting, the industrial music, the frantic shoot outs, the speed - it all goes hand in hand so perfectly. The story was crap though but the game knew that and so little attention is made to it.

Deadly Premonition
A very obscure horror game that plays heavy in on the "so bad it's good" spectrum. the controls are awkward, the driving controls are even worse, the graphics are shit and the voice acting is so so but the game gives so much back once you look past those flaws. An awesome storyline filled with interesting, funny and weird characters helps a lot. The "FK in the coffee scene" is already legendary on youtube, it gives the impression that the game is only funny bad and can't get really scary but the game does actually manage to create really horror despite this. Thanks to the encounters you will get with the Raincoat killer where you either have to hide or run or must do a quick time event.

Super Mario Galaxy 2
Al tough I found the original quite overrated I still enjoyed it so I got this one as well and it's pretty solid.

Other good games: BlazBlue Calamity trigger and Halo Reach

2010 was for the rest a horrible year for games. With awful and disappointing games such as Command & Conquer 4, Super monkey ball step & roll, Fable 3, Bioshock .

It could have probably been worse, As a Metroid fan I avoided "Other M" because I heard how bad the story was and as my heart was already destroyed by Command & Conquer 4 it couldn't take an other blow. If I were an Final Fantasy fan than maybe FFXIII and FFXIV would have made the list. I also avoided the new Castlevania, which I played the demo and it really came across as a weak God of War clone.

Written by vezzy on 21.01.2011 at 20:44

Written by Guest on 21.01.2011 at 19:26

Written by vezzy on 20.01.2011 at 16:35

Written by tea[m]ster on 20.01.2011 at 02:54

What a horrible year for PC gaming IMO. If I had to pick a few that I liked:

Bioshock 2
Singularity
Metro 2033

At least this year will be awesome.

Always bet on Duke.

Then you'll have to wait until the 6th of May!

Yep, comrade, I found out the news a few hours ago.

Looking forward to in 2011:

Deus Ex 3
Dragon Age 2
Duke Nukem
Fear 3
Crysis 2
Rage
Brink

Written by tea[m]ster on 29.01.2011 at 19:05
Looking forward to in 2011:

Deus Ex 3
Dragon Age 2
Duke Nukem
Fear 3
Crysis 2
Rage
Brink

Now that is true gaming.

(on an unrelated note, today is the 15th anniversary of Duke Nukem 3D)

Written by vezzy on 29.01.2011 at 19:37

Written by tea[m]ster on 29.01.2011 at 19:05
Looking forward to in 2011:

Deus Ex 3
Dragon Age 2
Duke Nukem
Fear 3
Crysis 2
Rage
Brink

Now that is true gaming.

(on an unrelated note, today is the 15th anniversary of Duke Nukem 3D)

Yea, I am a hardcore PC gamer, FPS's mostly; 15 years already? "Come get some!"

Written by Guest on 08.01.2011 at 18:09

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 08.01.2011 at 17:58

Written by Guest on 08.01.2011 at 17:53

But most people don't share that level of categorical imperialism when it comes to games. You may indeed be right, on a technical level, but I studied video game design at college for two years (and came top of my class, so I also know my stuff </penis waving>) and this kind of thing did not crop up even once. The definition of the "RPG" has changed from its origins through generations of varied games and interspersing of style to the point where the term RPG often has pre-fixes (Adventure, Action, Tactical etc.). That's just how the modern industry and userbase uses the term. Frankly I'm far happier to capitulate to the masses on this one and just go with what I've felt as in "RPG" since I first played Terranigma way back when.

That was the original definition though. However, since the early 2000s, anything that includes interactive dialogue and quest like structured plots can be an RPG it seems, when the real definitions lie in the gameplay mechanics. If we go by modern definitions, most of the founding games of the genre (the dungeon crawlers and the roguelikes) wouldn't be RPGs (since they have the mechanics and nothing else).

On a different note, I think you should substitute your current icon with this one:

fucking EPIC!!!!! where did you find that?

Written by tea[m]ster on 29.01.2011 at 19:45


fucking EPIC!!!!! where did you find that?

From here a while back: http://kotaku.com/5481821/fallout-2s-rejected-childkiller-icon-is-uh-whoa-

The best thing is is that it's a real concept art that was considered for Fallout 2.