WizarDru
Adventurer
And here is, to me, a fundemental flaw of the argument: the defacto assumption that all video games are essentially the same, and can be compared on the same criteria. I would not use the same metric to compare Silent Hill 2 as I would Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door or Halo 2. They are wildly different in design principle, goals and style.barsoomcore said:
Not unlike D&D.
I'm not disagreeing that videogames are limited, by any measure. I agree whole-heartedly that they are often 'on rails'....by design. I disagree that D&D is always NOT on the rails, however. Certainly, the capacity exists for it to be...but just as one DM cannot possibly satisfy every player in the world, neither can a video game (and the analogy is, essentially, that a video game is a single DM, with a preset script).
Further, many video games are not RPGs, and the comparison is ludicrious. One doesn't compare Settlers of Catan to D&D...why would you compare Katamari Damacy, Madden 2004 or Mario Pinball Land? As often as not, many video games cross genres and styles, and don't fit in neat little boxes any longer. Quick, what kind of game is Silent Hill 2? Is it an adventure, rpg, platformer? I personally consider it an interactive movie where I have some control over the progression of plot, and my actions determine the games final resolution. Not unlike a traditional pen-and-paper game.
I mean, let's be honest here: you don't have truly complete freedom in a pen-and-paper game any more than you do in a video game, more often than not. Your significant actions are still limited by the DM, and major plots still play out. If your DM isn't prepared for you to fight the BBEG for another month, didn't map out the lighthouse you want to explore or figure out the name of that NPC over there, he has to improvise...or he short-circuits your effort. A DM can afford to say, "hold on" and make something up on the spot or "sorry, guys, I'm not prepared for that" and the group can accept it. Your actions are still limited...it's just much more transparent in a video game. If you pay $50+ for a game, you expect the signifcant actions to be covered....if I can find a flashlight, I expect it to work or be anticipated throughout the game. I don't expect that I'll be able to build a house out of rocks seen lying on the ground in the background, unless the game is written around that concept. When I read the Davinci Code, I don't expect to be given detailed carpentry instructions to build a Japanese Tea House, I expect an entertaining fiction.
Now, if you're merely limiting yourself to console RPGs, then say so. However, even there, the difference is one of style and cultural preference. Console RPGs are the way they are because Japanese gamers don't enjoy video games that are TOO open. They often question what it is they're supposed to be doing. A game like Morrowind confuses the hell out of the average Japanese gamer. The fact that Morrowind does a terrible job of delivering a story is exactly what the typical Japanese RPG player dislikes. Open-ended doesn't automatically equal quality (though I'm not commenting on Morrowind specifically).
None of which makes video games better or worse, merely different. I can say without hyperbole that a game like Silent Hill 2 or System Shock 2 affected me as deeply as any RPG experience I've had in 25 years of gaming. I simply dislike the usage for some that "video game" is shorthand for "lazy, instant-gratification game". I don't accuse "The Incredibles" of being a bad movie because it's not "Lost" or "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?".
