Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="molonel" data-source="post: 3661519" data-attributes="member: 10412">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?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.Moral imperative? That's stating it rather dramatically. It's an internet discussion. Take it for what it is.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."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.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."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."</blockquote>

Verification