Re: RPG versions
Faux Pas, on host 38.164.171.7
Tuesday, June 19, 2001, at 07:56:58
Re: RPG versions posted by wintermute on Tuesday, June 19, 2001, at 01:21:09:
>>> To a child of Dungeons & Dragons (been playing since the blue box came out), these Final Fantasy games or other run-around-and-kill-things video games aren't really "role-playing".
>> How is it not role-playing? You're playing a game. In that game, you're assuming the role of one or more characters as you guide them through their world. I'm not trying to be picky with exact dictionary definitions, either. Calling computer/video games of this type role-playing games is not unreasonable at all.
> To my mind, an RPG is something where you can do whatever the character you are playing would do, and see the consequences. CRPGs and VGRPGs don't fit that criteria.
That's exactly why I don't think CRPGs (and VGRPGs) are true roleplaying. You can't have your character say and do everything you want the character to say or do. They're going to be limited by what the programmer will allow the character to do.
In other words, you can't fully role-play your character.
> winter"but in the end, who cares, as long as you have fun?"mute
-Faux "indeed. they're just games." Pas
|