Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 3674373" data-attributes="member: 32536">More accuratly, an admitedly and probably regrettable flame that preceds my argument. It is not ad hominem if it is not the argument itself. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> Err... You are going to be clearer onwhat the heck you are meaning here... I don't see either the logic, or how it applies to my argument, at all... Let me try to dissect the analogy... Fish=RPG... Whale=computer RPG... Trout=pen and paper RPG, correct?You seem to be misunderstanding me. I am not saying that the whales (computer RPGs) are perfectly equivalent to pen and paper RPGs because they share the same name. That is an absurd argument. I siad they were "similar" earlier, but I never once said they were the same, because they are not. They are two very different things, each of which is becoming more different each year, and I never claimed similarity.This might be a case of you misinterpreting the goal of my argument. I will need to elaborate my argument below. To be blunt, you are far too late to be condemning the "unacceptability" of this term now. It is already widespread, and might already be wider spread than the use of RPG for D&D type games. One of the most important classic videogame RPGs, Dragon Quest, was first released in May of 1986, and has thus been considered an RPG for 21 years. There are much older games for the PC. Whole generations have grown up calling that game an RPG. Any battle to avoid the usage of that name has already been lost. Again, you misunderstand my argument (or perhaps are just restating your own after quoting me?). I never once said that the "definition for RPG has expanded to include". I said that, because of historical similarity, a new definition for RPG has been created. It is the same thing as a new definition for "plant" being created to describe a type of factory. It seems I will need to elaborate my argument further...Very well then, let us look at this chronologically. Somewhere more than 20 years ago, various people started making games that, to varying degrees, played a bit like pen and paper RPGs (games like Ultima, the first Pool of Radiance game set in the Realms, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy). They were a unique genre, similar to but very different from adventure games like the Zork or King's Quest series. For lack of any other name to call this genre, the name RPG was applied to these games by fans and other people who needed to make the distinction, and the name sticks.Over the next 20 years, more games like those early videogames are made. People called Final Fantasy an RPG, so of course, fans knew that Final Fantasy 3 must also be an RPG. Dragon Quest was an RPG, so Dragon Quest 4, which was very simiar in stlye except more complex, must also be an RPG. As years passed and these game crossed into their 5th and 6th iterations, all kinds of games of the same style emerged (Breath of Fire, Suikoden, etc), all evolving from the base set of games that were called RPGs. It was a distinct progression, which occured completely independant of any influence from D&D or the like.So now, there are two forms of RPG. One is the pen and paper RPG, which is a tabletop game that evolved from the original Dungeons and Dragons through new interpretations like GURPS or HERO and new editions. The other is the RPG genre of videogames, which evolved independantly and became something totally new and distinct from pen and paper RPGs.Thus, the two were historically related, but they are currently unrelated. Pen and paper RPGs and electronic RPGs are not the same thing, and should not be considered the same thing. But, the name RPG equally applies to both, since the name was applied to both since the beginning of their existence. Two seperate definitions of the same word.As such, the whole premise of this thread, appraising whether or not electronic RPGs deserve the name RPG based on how they emulate the experience of playing D&D, is completely absurd. It is the same thing as appraising the value of Chess or Go upon its ability to emulate real tactical warfare. Chess and Go arn't trying to emulate tactical warfare, they are trying to be fun and interesting games. Similarly, electronic RPGs are not trying to simulate D&D, or even be anything remotely like D&D, they are emulating older iterations of the electronic RPG genre, and are trying to be fun on their own terms.Game makers like Wizards of the Coast and Malhavoc Press use the term RPG because fans of pen and paper RPGs recognize the term and understand the kind of game it implies, based on their experiences with other games called RPGs. Similarly, videogame companies like Square-Enix or Nippon Ichi use the term RPG because fans of games like Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest will recognize the usage, and will guy their games based on the emrits of those games. Two different groups, using different definitions of the same word.I guess, to answer the original title of this thread: yes, computer RPGs should indeed be called RPGs, but no, they are not pen and paper RPGs, and they don't want to be.EDIT: By the new title, if this is about Elitism vs. Inclusion, and I am arguing for neither, than am I just in the wrong thread and should have been smarted than to stick my head into a hornets nest that was raging before I got here?</blockquote>

Verification