Flexor the Mighty! said:
I don't view it the same way as Gary but I do agree the games by nature are different enough that I don't lump them together. There is such a vast difference between say D&D at a tabletop and an MMOG, the type of experiences they create that I don't put them in the same category. Neverwinter Nights with a DM is different than WoW in most ways too, its seeking to emulate the tabletop using the video game medium way more than an MMO. I've played a lot of MMOG and it just can't scratch the same itch as the tabletop game and its by design. Pretty much as everyone has to be a star and not just you as is the case in a RPG. You can't be the one to save the queen, everyone else paid too and they want to do it as well. There is role playing at times in MMO's, but I've also seen/done rp'ing in Talisman or other board games as well.
I don't recall saying that they were exactly the same in every way.
You might not put them on the same shelf, certainly. But would you go so far as to say that a video game cannot be a roleplaying game?
We've seen people say that a video game absolutely cannot be a roleplaying game, people who say yes they can and people distinguish between games that can be - like NWN - and games that cannot, like WoW.
I do find it mildy amusing that we have to start lopping off letters from an acronym so that we get "MMOG" and "so-called MMP online games" because it's so hard to use the abbreviation that is actually used to describe them: MMORPG.
And guess what the RPG stands for?
Akrasia said:
Why is his "point" "valid"? What exactly is his point? Is it simply that the old modules had lots of loot, that players back then were 'munchkins' (or 'power gamers', or whatever), etc.? Big deal. It seems like a rather uninteresting, petty "point" to devote such energy towards, in multiple threads over multiple years.
And yet, here you reading it. And the threads to discuss it are often multipage, extremely passionate extravaganzas that often get several mod appearances. So even if you disagree with his conclusions, it's a big enough deal for you and a lot of other people, including the founder of the game, to come in and express their opinions.
Seems like a big deal to me.
Akrasia said:
As for the alleged need to "wipe away some of the nostalgia", what kind of moral imperative is there to do this?
Moral imperative? That's stating it rather dramatically. It's an internet discussion. Take it for what it is.
Akrasia said:
(Heaven forbid that people might have positive memories of their early RPG experiences!)
Again, you're missing the point. 1st Edition AD&D is second on my list of editions. I have extremely good memories of playing the game, and two shelves full of books and modules that I still use for reference materials. Pointing out the warts isn't hating the game, or destroying anything essential.
There are entire forums where you can do to do nothing but discuss how awesome 1st Edition AD&D. In fact, you can't even talk about 3rd Edition and they call it "The Edition That Shall Not Be Named."
Akrasia said:
In any case, the fact of the matter is is that many people play 1e AD&D (and OD&D, and Basic/Expert D&D, etc.) today, often because they prefer it over 3e. How can that be "nostalgia"? :\
And they are absolutely free to do so. They can even go to gaming communities that do nothing but talk about how awesome it is, and you are not ALLOWED to talk about 3rd Edition.
But if you're in a forum where people discuss all editions of D&D, so these sorts of discussions are going to come up.
Akrasia said:
As I said earlier in this thread, I can't believe that people devote so much energy to such a pointless debate.
There have been forums that tried to contain edition wars discussions in subforums, and finally banned the discussion as verboten.
And, well, you're contributing energy to the "pointless debate."
Akrasia said:
People have their preferences -- in this case, 3e versus 1e AD&D. Most of the 'points' being made by people here seem to be attempts to give an objective veneer to their subjective preferences.
But that's just the point: they're not. Quas is NOT adding objective veneer to his subjective preferences. People attack HIM, and his motives, but they don't really meet his arguments.
I mean, literally, if you read some of Col_Pladoh's replies, he essentially says, "Well, yes, that's what it SAYS but that's not what we MEANT."