Now, if you create a sex simulator, even one like Hot Coffee, well, you're up shit creek.
When the game was rated, ESRB was not aware of the existence of Hot Coffee. When it was revealed that it's in the game (sotr of), they decided that the game's rating must be changed to AO. Rockstar could have included it from the start, but they would have had to ship the game with an AO rating.
IMO you can tell if a game is innovating or not when you look at what they are boasting.
It makes no difference whether a game is "innovative" or not, the only thing that matters is whether it's a good game or a bad game.
In the end, a FPS is a FPS is a FPS. Regardless of story or mini games, the core game play of these games changed very little since the 1990s.
Really? The game mechanics of Doom, Rainbow Six Vegas and Crysis are all the same?
Why people would 'escape' to a war zone is even more mind boggling.
Why?
I think that rather than being immersed in a FPS, people play those kind of games to vent frustration or to prove superiority at the comfort of their own home.
As we all know, breakthroughs in medical science occur almost instantaneously, so since nothing has yet happened I say we forget about this stem cell nonsense.
No, their culture is an Islamic one. That's not the same thing at all.
Actually, it is.
That would be because, as it turns out, religion is of mixed effectiveness as a source of morality. It works fine as a method of social control, which in turn can be used to control morality, but it's the religious leaders doing it and not the religion itself. This causes problems.
The religion itself mandates that men treat women like shit.
Sigh. You already know I don't think that. The reason it seems selective to me is because there are rules in the Koran forbidding some of their shit (many of which don't have a Biblical counterpart).
I guess you've never heard of abrogation. It is also rather revealing that the majority of Muslims don't believe in peaceful Islam.
Yes, if you're using Christianity as the sole arbiter of morality.
Except nobody does this. How is this even relevant?
Meaningless? They're one of the really major, important electoral blocks in the US - not to mention in some significant positions of power within both the Republican party and the current US government. Most of the US Protestant and Baptist community is fundamentalist or at least heavily influenced by it. I admit, they're not quite as bad as the worst of the Islamic fundamentalists yet, but that's not saying much. (A lot of the really nutty Islamists seem to be more inspired by terrorism and fear than Islam.)
The difference between Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists is like the difference between your neighborhood's Neo Nazi gang and Nazi Germany.
Yes, but for the most part they are complying with the laws, and as far as possible the values.
Not really.
The trouble is, the values of many Western countries seem to include "all Muslims are scum" - does this mean they should abandon their religion?
Very few people have anything against Muslims or Islam. The majority of Westerners would kill themselves before saying anything that contradicts multiculturalist ideology. Politicians and the media are no different. The people who understand that Muslims are a threat only feel that way because of actions taken and words spoken by Muslims. Any reputation that Muslims lose is strictly their own fault.
And would you have said the same things about Jews a century or so ago? (In case it helps you make up your mind - Jews lived in their own areas, had set up their own courts and police forces, didn't socialise with non-Jews, and were forbidden from turning over other Jews to the state's law enforcement on penalty of death and from giving testimony in the state's courts by Jewish religious law. Oh, and the Jewish courts didn't accept testimony from non-Jews or women.)
Is there some reason why I shouldn't have said the same thing about Jews a century or so ago, if they were acting in a manner equivalent to that of contemporary Muslims?
Sorry, but it really doesn't have that much to do with Islam. It's more a result of the culture in Arabic states.
Islam is their culture.
As Judeo-Christian religions go, Islam is relatively decent when it comes to things like women's rights, marriage and sex (not that this is saying much!).
What the fuck have you been smoking? When it comes to women's rights, Islam is as bad as it gets.
No, it's very much a fundamentalist movement analogous to Christian fundamentalism.
Christianity != Islam.
You've got your standard selective interpretation of scripture, interpreting all the brimstone, hellfire and hatred bits literally - even extending them - and ignoring the justice and kindness aspects.
It only seems selective to you because you think the Quran is exactly the same as the Bible, which is not the case.
They don't - and to be fair, Christian movements were helpful to putting an end to this sort of thing. It's not something Christianity forbids, either.
That is a ridiculous argument. If Christianity doesn't explicitly forbid something specific, it's acceptable?
No, they're neither irrelevant nor fundamentally different. The press treats them a lot better than their Islamic equivalent - because they're not "other" in the same way, and pissing them off is unwise - and so you don't hear that much about their worst beliefs. Make no mistake, though - they want to turn the US into a theocracy, treat women as inferior, see violence against wives and kids as A-OK, and fully intend to wipe out the gays and convert the non-believers, with force if necessary. (Except the Jews - need them around to be slaughtered at Armageddon.)
Blah blah blah. They are meaningless and in no way comparable to Islamic fundamentalists.
If by that you mean "try and fit in, but aren't willing to abandon their religion and culture entirely and convert to Christianity like Good People(tm)", then yes, exactly that. I suspect I have been trolled.
Fitting in means complying with the laws and values of the country they live in. If that means abandoning their religion and culture, then that's what they're going to have to do. If they're not willing to do this, then they are not willing to fit in.
We could, but it has surprisingly little to do with Islam, to be honest.
It has everything to do with Islam.
For some reason, all religious fundamentalist movement lose grasp of all the non-hellfire and hatred aspect. From what I can tell, a lot of the really awful treatment of women actually violates Muhammed's teachings.
It only appears to be fundamentalism because you think Islam is supposed to be like Christianity.
No, early Christianity wasn't militaristic because, if it was, the Romans would've crushed it like a bug.
It wasn't militaristic because Jesus wasn't militaristic.
Also, Christianity unfortunately doesn't forbid other things, like say executing starving peasants for stealing food to feed their family. Not one of the nicer periods of British history, that.
I didn't know contemporary Christians believe in executing starving peasants for stealing food.
Christianity is, in theory, a bit better. In practice, it took forking the entire Christian church (leading to some very violent secratarian fighting and persecution) to get minor reforms entirely consistent with Christ's teachings in, and the threat of Christianity losing all relevance to get more major changes in. Even then, Christianity and especially Cathoicism are majorly out of sync with popular morality, and there are Christian fundamentalist movements with significant influence still pushing the nasty stuff while ignoring all Christ's kinder, fluffier teachings totally.
Western civilization is built on Judeo-Christian morality, and most Christians are no different from everyone else, because they are everyone else. You've apparently been conditioned into thinking that only those who shout scripture from the rooftops are Christian.
I'm afraid that's not how it works.
I'm afraid that's exactly how it works.
Turkey has influential Islamic fundamentalists, yes, but have you taken a good look at what's been happening in the US lately? The Christian fundamentalists there aren't exactly any better, and they have significant power. Secularism isn't just a magic wand you can wave and make all the evil religious nutters go away.
Christian fundamentalists are a storm in a teacup, completely irrelevant. They are also completely different from Islamic fundamentalists, you can't even compare them.
The reasons Muslim immigrants don't become secular are more interesting than you suggest, too. Loosely speaking, there's a tendency for the first generation to make some effort to integrate, and to be religiously pious but moderate. Then their children grow up and discover they don't fit in, don't have a place in society, aren't welcome. They take the obvious solution, and turn inwards, towards Islam and Islamic fundamentalism - often of a sort entirely alien to their parents.
The reason why they don't fit in, don't have a place in society and aren't welcome is because they go out of their way to ensure that they don't fit, don't have a place in society and aren't welcome. Then they blame it on everyone else, cry a river of tears and stage a riot.
As far as I can tell, you're saying that CRPGs have some quality -- which you refuse to describe with any solid detail -- that JRPGs do not.
CRPGs are computer simulations or representations of roleplaying, so they have the qualities that roleplaying games have, within video game limitations, and they are intended to be roleplaying games. JRPGs are not intended to be roleplaying games or trying to be roleplaying games, and their roleplaying elements (if any) are incidental. JRPG fans don't even treat JRPGs as roleplaying games, until it's time to start asserting that they suddenly are roleplaying games (because otherwise they have no value for some reason).
The entire basis of a roleplaying game is "what is my character like, and what would my character do in this or that situation?" Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization. Typically your character is created from scratch, and you choose its name, gender, race, appearance and class/abilities, and as you play you make your decisions based on what your character would do. Many players even make their equipment choices based on characterization, even if it means making the character less effective. Don't make me laugh myself to death by trying to claim that JRPGs are based on the same design premise.
In Baldur's Gate II you pick a gender, race, class, alignment and name, and adjust the character's abilities, skills and appearance. In the game you are free to play by yourself or recruit up to five party members. You can influence and change some of these party members by interacting with them, or you can even romance them. You can kick them out and they can die permanently (they can also die without ever becoming party members). The party members interact with each other, and some may leave due to disputes or start fighting each other. They may also leave if they don't like what the player character is doing, or even attack the player character.
The game presents you with a considerable number of small and large quests, and how you complete them is determined by what your character would do (a JRPG giving you sidequests is hardly the same thing). And contrary to what you claim, there is a perfectly coherent storyline in the game which you follow from start to finish, and the player character is an essential part of it.
The mechanics couldn't be more different than those found in JRPGs. Whether you're fighting, talking, picking locks, looking for traps, casting spells or carrying/examining/using/selling/buying items, it's all governed by a unified set of mechanics (taken directly from a system designed for PnP roleplaying). There is no separation between combat and everything else. The game mechanics are way more detailed, advanced and freeform than in JRPGs.
The first two Fallouts take things even further. Shit, if you set your intelligence very low, you become unable to communicate properly, and all dialogue in the game is changed to reflect this (but you can still complete the game). The villain in Fallout can be beaten just by talking to him, if your character is good at that sort of thing. And if you know exactly what you're doing, you can complete both games in 10-12 minutes.
Yeah, these sound exactly JRPGs. No difference at all.
CRPGs are far better at replicating one type of roleplaying -- Simulationism. However, they don't handle story-focused play very differently from JPRGs; just a greater emphasis on nonlinearity and a few more dialog choices at the cost of narrative cohesion.
Doom isn't all that different from ArmA 2, the latter is just bit more realistic. Hur hur.
No, you're dancing with a straw man again, and it's very pathetic.
You clearly made a connection between "JRPGs are not CRPGs" and "JRPGs suck."
In essence, you say that (1) JRPGs are not real RPGs, and (2) JRPGs are not worthy of consider
Take a look at how the early Muslims conquerored. Now take a look at how the early Jews claimed to have conquered Israel. Finally, take a look at how Mordechai Eliyahu, former Sephardi chief rabbi of Israel, used this to claim indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in the Gaza Strip - even a million! - was not only morally OK, but had to be done. (I think his leaflets calling for this were widely distributed within Israeli synagogues.)
"Early Muslims were pretty cool guys, or at least that's what I believe, but take a look at this contemporary Jew who said some crazy shit! This proves for realz that Muslims are saints and Jews are blood-thirsty demons from the lowest reaches of Hell itself!"
Note the "was", but yes, it was an improvement. For example, did you know that, if a Jewish women's husband goes missing and is suspected to be dead, she can't ever remarry because if he turns out to be alive, she and her children and her children's children and so on will be outcast as unclean? The same does not apply to men. Islam dodges this problem and many more (whilst introducing, or at least codifying, some other sexism related to who can divorce and when).
No, I'm sure theory still isn't the same thing as practise. We could take a look at how Muslims treat women in reality and compare that to how Jews treat women in reality, but that would reflect very, very poorly on Muslims, so it's better if we don't go there.
Islam was also worse in some respects - it had fundamentalist tendencies from the get-go - and more militaristic (though that's partly because it was new). The most obvious difference, of course, is that it removed or simplified all the really bizarre and impractical religious requirements. Oh, and it reduced the grounds for stoning and capital punishment in general. (I think Jews at the time had mostly abandoned stoning, but it would only have taken one fundamentalist movement...)
Muslims still practise stoning (and other form of violence and torture). To my knowledge stoning was rarely if ever practised by Jews or Christians. Also, Christianity and Buddhism were once new too, yet they were not militaristic at all. Islam is militaristic because it was founded by a warlord.
There's a strong Jewish tradition of finding ways of avoiding inconvenient religious laws, something Islam is fundamentally opposed to. (Christianity is just a mess - it's heavily based on tradition and political convenience. Catholicism is particularly bad.) Note that the underlying religious laws do not change - the Torah says it's OK to mass-slaughter civilians in war, so it will always be OK as long as your rabbi agrees. Also, all the restrictions - limits on what foods can be eaten, activities on the Sabbath, and even the prohibition on gay sex - never go away.
Looking at some ancient religious laws or other crazy shit and going "you know what, fuck this" is one of the things that makes Christianity and Judaism superior to Islam.
In practice, the recent changes are due to secularisation - including Jewish secularisation - and religion was reluctantly dragged along for the ride. If similar secularisation happens in Islamic countries, the same will probably happen in the end, whatever the Koran may say on the matter. It'll be a bloody battle, but it always is; the Enlightenment was relatively clean only because religion was already weakened from other bouts.
A similiar secularization is not going to happen in Islamic countries. Whereever Islam and secularism meet, secularism is almost guaranteed to yield. Ataturk tried to make Turkey secular, but despite his efforts (and the continuing efforts of the military) the country is slowly but surely sliding towards Islamic fundamentalism. Many other relatively secular Muslim countries are undergoing the same process. Muslim immigrants who come to the West do not become secular, and neither do their children. In fact, they actively work to destroy secularism and replace it with Islam.
Well, it's important to a core question I've been trying to present from different angles: at what point does the ability to make decisions for the main character turn a game from "not an RPG" to "a real RPG?" Personally, I think you've just arbitrarily drawn your line in the sand to include CRPGs and to exclude JRPGs without providing a solid, logical basis for doing so.
The fact that JRPGs lack the things that make a game a CRPG is not logical?
This less about the game itself than how you play it, and it's constrained by the game itself in all cases -- JRPGs and CRPGs. All JRPGs allow you freedom to act in *some* ways, and some give you more freedom to decide your character's fate than some CRPGs. There is no solid, dividing line here.
Exceptions still don't invalidate a rule.
As I pointed out earlier, and you dismissed as "irrelevant," no CRPG gives you the "freedom to improvise." By the article's own definition, no CRPG with truly an RPG. So why do you keep citing the same passage I mentioned earlier that you ignored?
I already told you quite clearly that I consider CRPGs to be a close enough representation of RPGs. They are also intended to replicate the experience of roleplaying, and I doubt that is something Japanese developers consider (so if a JRPG ends up being similiar to a CRPG in some ways, it's unintentional).
I mean, what a "significant" choice that can be character driven, and what is not? Without some clear, defining guideline, your entire argument that JRPGs are not "real RPGs" comes down to simply, "but I don't like them!"
At no point have I said that I don't like JRPGs. I am simply making the factual statement that JRPGs are not CRPGs (and I don't see why they have to be CRPGs). If I said that Doom isn't a tactical shooter, would that mean I don't like Doom? Ridiculous.
My argument is that there are no meaningful distinctions between CRPGs and JRPGs, least of all one that supports calling one "real RPGs" and the other "not RPGs."
Then you are either ignorant or a fanatic, since the differences are so plainly obvious. It's like failing to see the difference between MS Flight Simulator and Ace Combat.
The real differences between the two is solely a matter of style. Do you focus on letting a character explore a (limited) open world, or do you tell a coherent narrative?
You know what, I think the only difference between Command & Conquer and Galactic Civilizations is that one of them is in space. Beyond that, they could be mistaken for twins!
I turn that question right back at you. After all, it's not me that is stating that one type of game is inferior to the other, so why do JRPGs bother you so much that you pooh-pooh them as "not real RPGs?"
The notion that JRPGs may not be CRPGs immediately makes you think that this is the same thing as saying that JRPGs are inferior. So it is as I said: in your eyes, the quality of JRPGs depends solely on whether or not they are CRPGs.
I'm perfectly happy playing both types of games. Why aren't you?
You're only happy with JRPGs if you think of them as CRPGs, whereas I don't have to resort to such strange practises. I'm fine with JRPGs not being CRPGs.
And, in any case, I was responding to the previous post (not yours), if you'd care to actually read the thread before whipping out your oh-so-biting nerd-sarcasm.
The post you were replying to did not show up anywhere on my screen (no, not even through searching).
You haven't really answered his main question. Just give an example of how typical "western" CRPGs are inherently more "role-playing" than "JRPGs".
A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game. -- In my opinion, the difference between a token and a role-played character is this: Hypothetically, a person watching the game looks over your shoulder and suggests a move, and your reply is "No, my character wouldn't do that." If this happens, or is capable of happening, then at some level you are playing a role-playing game. This simple distinction puts a world of difference between RPGs and other games.
The best we have seen for CRPGs are elements like dialogue trees, side and main quests, alternative paths and endings. And all of them are present in Western as well as Japanese RPGs. The biggest difference I see is in artistic style than anything else.
They are not present in JRPGs the same way they are in CRPGs. Trying to claim that CRPGs and JRPGs are exactly the same reeks of despair. As I've said, JRPG fans have an inferiority complex.
But they are on rails -- inherently. Some games just have more than one track, but there is no game on the market that adapts freely to the arbitrary decisions of the player AND has a coherent story. That would require strong AI to replace a GM.
Who said anything about adapting freely to arbitrary decisions? That is not what we are talking about.
Some have a "good path" and an "evil path." Some have the option of letting you do things in a different order. Some let you decide to overcome obstacle 22 with charm or force or stealth, but you still must ultimately beat obstacle 22 somehow to advance the plot. No matter what, you still start at point A, go through points B, C, and D in some order, and you end at point E. For example, in Baldur's Gate II, you start out in a cage and end up killing the mage that captured. It doesn't matter what order you take the quests in between the beginning and rescuing Imoen, and it doesn't matter which of various choices you make, the game still runs along the same general path to the end. Switching tracks doesn't matter if the rails all run in parallel.
Uh, welcome to video games.
Because you can't pick option C or option Q. You can't improvise.
Irrelevant.
*sigh* "Chapters" is a metaphor, not an explicit, linear division of the story. Each time you visit a new location in the game, it has a series of largely self-contained bits of storytelling -- side-quests, characters, etc. There's not a lot of linked plots between locations. Shady Sands has the radscorpions and rescuing Tandi, and neither of these plot threads in the "chapter" have anything to do with the greater plot of the game. It's all just "Chapter B" in the progression from A to E.
Why exactly should every single event in the game be directly tied to the main storyline? Is every single game event in a PnP game always directly tied to the main storyline? What does this matter?
Then, can you name something else that makes something a "true RPG," because that seemed to be the focus of the article you presented.
A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game. -- In my opinion, the difference between a token and a role-played character is this: Hypothetically, a person watching the game looks over your shoulder and suggests a move, and your reply is "No, my character wouldn't do that." If this happens, or is capable of happening, then at some level you are playing a role-playing game. This simple distinction puts a world of difference between RPGs and other games.
Your entire argument against CRPGs is just "they're not perfect in every way, therefore they are exactly the same as JRPGs!"
Oh, come off it. I mean, "If you love CRPGs so much, why don't you marry them?" Maybe we can just cut the juvenile crap and try to have a real conversation here.
You desperately wish for JRPGs to be exactly like CRPGs, so it's a valid question to ask.
This whole "massive inferiority complex" is just BS -- if anything, it's only that JRPG fans have to mount a defense against one-sided attacks by CRPG fanboys calling the other side's favored games "not real RPGs." JRPG fans don't say the same about CRPGs, and responding to attacks by elitist is not reveling in an "inferiority" complex.
It's not an attack, it's a simple factual statement. JRPGs are not CRPGs, CRPGs are not JRPGs, and GTA isn't a racing simulator. Why does this bother you so much?
I mean all games have some kind of monetary system and by extension a way to trade money for goods. But very few are able to recreate the real world so closely.
That's because no sane person wants to recreate their daily existence in a video game. Video games are (meant to be) escapism and entertainment.
Every time I read a story about EVE, all I can think of is why the hell anyone would want to play it, let alone pay a monthly fee to do so. It does a better job of simulating the boredom and dreadfulness of real life than Sims does, and it also sounds like it was practically designed for griefing. What a shitload of fuck.
And if you want to pretend that Western CRPGs aren't linear, then I'm going to have just shrug and shake my head.
It is a simple fact that they are not linear. Just because they aren't == PnP RPGs doesn't mean they are on rails.
All you have is an illusion of choice created by a conversation tree.
If I can clearly make a choice between A and B or X, Y and Z, all of them different options, how could that possibly be an illusion?
However, the result of more linear play is a more coherent storyline. D can be plotted with reliance on the events in B & C. Games like Fallout, NWN, etc. have to run their story with self-contained chapters for each location, but a JRPG can put together a story that runs the course of the entire game.
Fallout doesn't have any chapters, and the last time I checked it has a coherent storyline from start to finish. I don't know where you're getting your information from. And what does it suddenly matter if a JRPG has a more tightly focused story? If you're trying to argue that JRPGs are CRPGs, that is an irrelevant argument to make.
Exceptions prove that a rule isn't really a rule. Many JRPGs have completely different endings based on what choices you make -- which is something many Western CRPGs do not have (as they are ultimately just as linear as the JRPGs you complain about). When you strip away the stylistic differences, all you have is a flowchart. Games from both sides of the big pond fall into linear and nonlinear camps. The stereotypes are just that.
There are multiple endings in Chrono Trigger, but their existence has nothing to do with roleplaying.
And when an option would make a choice, you were only one load & replay away from seeing all the others.
Clearly, this problem just doesn't exist outside CRPGs, because only CRPGs let you save the game.
A dialog tree alone does not make for roleplaying (any more than it made the classic games StarControl 2 or Monkey Island into RPG).
Has someone claimed that the only thing that makes an RPG an RPG is a dialog tree (and that Monkey Island is therefore an RPG as well)? No, because that is not the case.
On the other hand, several JRPGs are capable of creating characters realistic enough to empathize with and to get drawn up in their story. I've felt more emotional attachment to a JRPG hero than I have any CRPG hero. That's why I feel that they're more about the story, which is what I like out of playing RPGs.
This is irrelevant. Are you trying to argue that JRPGs are CRPGs, or are you just defending them in general?
In my experience, this hasn't been true.
I have not played or heard of a JRPG with a combat system as intricate as Baldur's Gate II's.
The irony is that his "encyclopedia definition" denies you the right to call Western CRPGs roleplaying games as well.
I had no idea that he is now in a position of authority to deny things from me. I never said I agree 100% with him, and seeing as how I've read that article several times I am well aware of its contents. CRPGs such as Fallout are a sufficiently close approximation of roleplaying.
Your action do not shape the direction and the outcome of the game beyond choosing which rail line you run down.
If you make an action and it changes the outcome of the game, you've just made an action that changed the outcome of the game.
A curious thing about JRPG fans is that they have a massive inferiority complex towards CRPGs. Whenever someone points out that JRPGs are not CRPGs, they immediately protest as if the value of all JRPG games was determined exclusively by whether or not they're CRPGs. If you love CRPGs so much, why don't you just play CRPGs instead? I never see GTA fans desperately claiming that their games are racing simulators because you get to drive cars.
JRPGs are completely linear. You make no choices and everything is pre-determined. There are no moments when you think "what would my character do?" Your character is exactly as the developers intended.
And no, I don't care if a small number of JRPGs allow for some degree of choice, or bear some other similarities to CRPGs. That means nothing. Exceptions don't invalidate rules.
Rare in JRPGs, but this is a point where I think the JRPG philosophy leads to better storytelling because its easier to write more moving stories when a character isn't an unknown mass of stats.
Strawman. Your character in a game like Baldur's Gate is not an "unknown mass of stats."
Insomnia: On Role-playing Games (although I think the guy is an assclown and mentally unstable, he still manages to have some good articles).
Likewise, why should the existence of a "scripted monologue" in JRPGs or the existence of a "script" in Western RPGs prevent the player from "playing" the "role" of the character in the game?
What's preventing you from roleplaying in your average JRPG is the absence of any opportunities for roleplaying. If you can't roleplay, how is it a roleplaying game?
Really, it seems like you're using the word as a vehicle for multiplayer elitism.
Yes, because I mentioned multiplayer somewhere in my post. Oh wait, no I didn't. What are you talking about?
Have you actually played any CRPGs made during the past 10-15 years? There is no shortage of storytelling in them. JRPGs are not RPGs because there is no roleplaying involved. It is not enough that you level up and pick up new equipment. That's not roleplaying.
Either way, don't fall into the "No True Scotsman!" fallacy and declare everything that it's your favored style of play "not actually RPGs."
This has nothing to do with what style of play I favor.
It's a misunderstanding that developed somewhere along the way, and I doubt it's ever going to be rectified. I suppose they must be called JRPGs for lack of a better term, but just because they're called that way doesn't mean they actually are RPGs. So they shouldn't be part of this article.
So you believe that this government will somehow read your post on Slashdot and then attempt to uncover your identity (almost certainly impossible) in case it's their country you are talking about, and once they've done that they will imprison or execute your family?
Companies whining about piracy is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy if you think about all the obnoxious, intrusive and restrictive DRM schemes that we've seen over the past few years (that are curiously absent from the pirated versions). When your attitude towards customers is "go fuck yourself," I would expect piracy to increase (which of course leads to an even bigger pity party and even more draconian DRM).
Slashdot Mirror
When the game was rated, ESRB was not aware of the existence of Hot Coffee. When it was revealed that it's in the game (sotr of), they decided that the game's rating must be changed to AO. Rockstar could have included it from the start, but they would have had to ship the game with an AO rating.
Good graphics are relative. Doom was the Crysis of its time. Even in the eighties reviewers gushed about graphics.
It makes no difference whether a game is "innovative" or not, the only thing that matters is whether it's a good game or a bad game.
Really? The game mechanics of Doom, Rainbow Six Vegas and Crysis are all the same?
Why?
What the fuck?
Uh, what? There is nothing new or old about his attitude, it's just a different approach to gaming.
As we all know, breakthroughs in medical science occur almost instantaneously, so since nothing has yet happened I say we forget about this stem cell nonsense.
Actually, it is.
The religion itself mandates that men treat women like shit.
I guess you've never heard of abrogation. It is also rather revealing that the majority of Muslims don't believe in peaceful Islam.
Except nobody does this. How is this even relevant?
The difference between Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists is like the difference between your neighborhood's Neo Nazi gang and Nazi Germany.
Not really.
Very few people have anything against Muslims or Islam. The majority of Westerners would kill themselves before saying anything that contradicts multiculturalist ideology. Politicians and the media are no different. The people who understand that Muslims are a threat only feel that way because of actions taken and words spoken by Muslims. Any reputation that Muslims lose is strictly their own fault.
Is there some reason why I shouldn't have said the same thing about Jews a century or so ago, if they were acting in a manner equivalent to that of contemporary Muslims?
Islam is their culture.
What the fuck have you been smoking? When it comes to women's rights, Islam is as bad as it gets.
Christianity != Islam.
It only seems selective to you because you think the Quran is exactly the same as the Bible, which is not the case.
That is a ridiculous argument. If Christianity doesn't explicitly forbid something specific, it's acceptable?
Blah blah blah. They are meaningless and in no way comparable to Islamic fundamentalists.
Fitting in means complying with the laws and values of the country they live in. If that means abandoning their religion and culture, then that's what they're going to have to do. If they're not willing to do this, then they are not willing to fit in.
It has everything to do with Islam.
It only appears to be fundamentalism because you think Islam is supposed to be like Christianity.
It wasn't militaristic because Jesus wasn't militaristic.
I didn't know contemporary Christians believe in executing starving peasants for stealing food.
Western civilization is built on Judeo-Christian morality, and most Christians are no different from everyone else, because they are everyone else. You've apparently been conditioned into thinking that only those who shout scripture from the rooftops are Christian.
I'm afraid that's exactly how it works.
Christian fundamentalists are a storm in a teacup, completely irrelevant. They are also completely different from Islamic fundamentalists, you can't even compare them.
The reason why they don't fit in, don't have a place in society and aren't welcome is because they go out of their way to ensure that they don't fit, don't have a place in society and aren't welcome. Then they blame it on everyone else, cry a river of tears and stage a riot.
CRPGs are computer simulations or representations of roleplaying, so they have the qualities that roleplaying games have, within video game limitations, and they are intended to be roleplaying games. JRPGs are not intended to be roleplaying games or trying to be roleplaying games, and their roleplaying elements (if any) are incidental. JRPG fans don't even treat JRPGs as roleplaying games, until it's time to start asserting that they suddenly are roleplaying games (because otherwise they have no value for some reason).
The entire basis of a roleplaying game is "what is my character like, and what would my character do in this or that situation?" Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization. Typically your character is created from scratch, and you choose its name, gender, race, appearance and class/abilities, and as you play you make your decisions based on what your character would do. Many players even make their equipment choices based on characterization, even if it means making the character less effective. Don't make me laugh myself to death by trying to claim that JRPGs are based on the same design premise.
In Baldur's Gate II you pick a gender, race, class, alignment and name, and adjust the character's abilities, skills and appearance. In the game you are free to play by yourself or recruit up to five party members. You can influence and change some of these party members by interacting with them, or you can even romance them. You can kick them out and they can die permanently (they can also die without ever becoming party members). The party members interact with each other, and some may leave due to disputes or start fighting each other. They may also leave if they don't like what the player character is doing, or even attack the player character.
The game presents you with a considerable number of small and large quests, and how you complete them is determined by what your character would do (a JRPG giving you sidequests is hardly the same thing). And contrary to what you claim, there is a perfectly coherent storyline in the game which you follow from start to finish, and the player character is an essential part of it.
The mechanics couldn't be more different than those found in JRPGs. Whether you're fighting, talking, picking locks, looking for traps, casting spells or carrying/examining/using/selling/buying items, it's all governed by a unified set of mechanics (taken directly from a system designed for PnP roleplaying). There is no separation between combat and everything else. The game mechanics are way more detailed, advanced and freeform than in JRPGs.
The first two Fallouts take things even further. Shit, if you set your intelligence very low, you become unable to communicate properly, and all dialogue in the game is changed to reflect this (but you can still complete the game). The villain in Fallout can be beaten just by talking to him, if your character is good at that sort of thing. And if you know exactly what you're doing, you can complete both games in 10-12 minutes.
Yeah, these sound exactly JRPGs. No difference at all.
Doom isn't all that different from ArmA 2, the latter is just bit more realistic. Hur hur.
You clearly made a connection between "JRPGs are not CRPGs" and "JRPGs suck."
"Early Muslims were pretty cool guys, or at least that's what I believe, but take a look at this contemporary Jew who said some crazy shit! This proves for realz that Muslims are saints and Jews are blood-thirsty demons from the lowest reaches of Hell itself!"
No, I'm sure theory still isn't the same thing as practise. We could take a look at how Muslims treat women in reality and compare that to how Jews treat women in reality, but that would reflect very, very poorly on Muslims, so it's better if we don't go there.
Muslims still practise stoning (and other form of violence and torture). To my knowledge stoning was rarely if ever practised by Jews or Christians. Also, Christianity and Buddhism were once new too, yet they were not militaristic at all. Islam is militaristic because it was founded by a warlord.
Looking at some ancient religious laws or other crazy shit and going "you know what, fuck this" is one of the things that makes Christianity and Judaism superior to Islam.
A similiar secularization is not going to happen in Islamic countries. Whereever Islam and secularism meet, secularism is almost guaranteed to yield. Ataturk tried to make Turkey secular, but despite his efforts (and the continuing efforts of the military) the country is slowly but surely sliding towards Islamic fundamentalism. Many other relatively secular Muslim countries are undergoing the same process. Muslim immigrants who come to the West do not become secular, and neither do their children. In fact, they actively work to destroy secularism and replace it with Islam.
The fact that JRPGs lack the things that make a game a CRPG is not logical?
Exceptions still don't invalidate a rule.
I already told you quite clearly that I consider CRPGs to be a close enough representation of RPGs. They are also intended to replicate the experience of roleplaying, and I doubt that is something Japanese developers consider (so if a JRPG ends up being similiar to a CRPG in some ways, it's unintentional).
At no point have I said that I don't like JRPGs. I am simply making the factual statement that JRPGs are not CRPGs (and I don't see why they have to be CRPGs). If I said that Doom isn't a tactical shooter, would that mean I don't like Doom? Ridiculous.
Then you are either ignorant or a fanatic, since the differences are so plainly obvious. It's like failing to see the difference between MS Flight Simulator and Ace Combat.
You know what, I think the only difference between Command & Conquer and Galactic Civilizations is that one of them is in space. Beyond that, they could be mistaken for twins!
The notion that JRPGs may not be CRPGs immediately makes you think that this is the same thing as saying that JRPGs are inferior. So it is as I said: in your eyes, the quality of JRPGs depends solely on whether or not they are CRPGs.
You're only happy with JRPGs if you think of them as CRPGs, whereas I don't have to resort to such strange practises. I'm fine with JRPGs not being CRPGs.
The post you were replying to did not show up anywhere on my screen (no, not even through searching).
A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game.
--
In my opinion, the difference between a token and a role-played character is this: Hypothetically, a person watching the game looks over your shoulder and suggests a move, and your reply is "No, my character wouldn't do that." If this happens, or is capable of happening, then at some level you are playing a role-playing game. This simple distinction puts a world of difference between RPGs and other games.
They are not present in JRPGs the same way they are in CRPGs. Trying to claim that CRPGs and JRPGs are exactly the same reeks of despair. As I've said, JRPG fans have an inferiority complex.
Who said anything about adapting freely to arbitrary decisions? That is not what we are talking about.
Uh, welcome to video games.
Irrelevant.
Why exactly should every single event in the game be directly tied to the main storyline? Is every single game event in a PnP game always directly tied to the main storyline? What does this matter?
A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game.
--
In my opinion, the difference between a token and a role-played character is this: Hypothetically, a person watching the game looks over your shoulder and suggests a move, and your reply is "No, my character wouldn't do that." If this happens, or is capable of happening, then at some level you are playing a role-playing game. This simple distinction puts a world of difference between RPGs and other games.
Your entire argument against CRPGs is just "they're not perfect in every way, therefore they are exactly the same as JRPGs!"
You desperately wish for JRPGs to be exactly like CRPGs, so it's a valid question to ask.
It's not an attack, it's a simple factual statement. JRPGs are not CRPGs, CRPGs are not JRPGs, and GTA isn't a racing simulator. Why does this bother you so much?
That's because no sane person wants to recreate their daily existence in a video game. Video games are (meant to be) escapism and entertainment.
Every time I read a story about EVE, all I can think of is why the hell anyone would want to play it, let alone pay a monthly fee to do so. It does a better job of simulating the boredom and dreadfulness of real life than Sims does, and it also sounds like it was practically designed for griefing. What a shitload of fuck.
It is a simple fact that they are not linear. Just because they aren't == PnP RPGs doesn't mean they are on rails.
If I can clearly make a choice between A and B or X, Y and Z, all of them different options, how could that possibly be an illusion?
Fallout doesn't have any chapters, and the last time I checked it has a coherent storyline from start to finish. I don't know where you're getting your information from. And what does it suddenly matter if a JRPG has a more tightly focused story? If you're trying to argue that JRPGs are CRPGs, that is an irrelevant argument to make.
There are multiple endings in Chrono Trigger, but their existence has nothing to do with roleplaying.
Clearly, this problem just doesn't exist outside CRPGs, because only CRPGs let you save the game.
Has someone claimed that the only thing that makes an RPG an RPG is a dialog tree (and that Monkey Island is therefore an RPG as well)? No, because that is not the case.
This is irrelevant. Are you trying to argue that JRPGs are CRPGs, or are you just defending them in general?
I have not played or heard of a JRPG with a combat system as intricate as Baldur's Gate II's.
I had no idea that he is now in a position of authority to deny things from me. I never said I agree 100% with him, and seeing as how I've read that article several times I am well aware of its contents. CRPGs such as Fallout are a sufficiently close approximation of roleplaying.
If you make an action and it changes the outcome of the game, you've just made an action that changed the outcome of the game.
A curious thing about JRPG fans is that they have a massive inferiority complex towards CRPGs. Whenever someone points out that JRPGs are not CRPGs, they immediately protest as if the value of all JRPG games was determined exclusively by whether or not they're CRPGs. If you love CRPGs so much, why don't you just play CRPGs instead? I never see GTA fans desperately claiming that their games are racing simulators because you get to drive cars.
Half-Life 2 is a racing simulator because you can drive a car. It's true. In fact, all games are the same! Nothing matters!
JRPGs are completely linear. You make no choices and everything is pre-determined. There are no moments when you think "what would my character do?" Your character is exactly as the developers intended.
And no, I don't care if a small number of JRPGs allow for some degree of choice, or bear some other similarities to CRPGs. That means nothing. Exceptions don't invalidate rules.
Strawman. Your character in a game like Baldur's Gate is not an "unknown mass of stats."
Insomnia: On Role-playing Games (although I think the guy is an assclown and mentally unstable, he still manages to have some good articles).
What's preventing you from roleplaying in your average JRPG is the absence of any opportunities for roleplaying. If you can't roleplay, how is it a roleplaying game?
Yes, because I mentioned multiplayer somewhere in my post. Oh wait, no I didn't. What are you talking about?
Have you actually played any CRPGs made during the past 10-15 years? There is no shortage of storytelling in them. JRPGs are not RPGs because there is no roleplaying involved. It is not enough that you level up and pick up new equipment. That's not roleplaying.
This has nothing to do with what style of play I favor.
It's a misunderstanding that developed somewhere along the way, and I doubt it's ever going to be rectified. I suppose they must be called JRPGs for lack of a better term, but just because they're called that way doesn't mean they actually are RPGs. So they shouldn't be part of this article.
What? Have you really not heard of singleplayer CRPGs?
So you believe that this government will somehow read your post on Slashdot and then attempt to uncover your identity (almost certainly impossible) in case it's their country you are talking about, and once they've done that they will imprison or execute your family?
Companies whining about piracy is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy if you think about all the obnoxious, intrusive and restrictive DRM schemes that we've seen over the past few years (that are curiously absent from the pirated versions). When your attitude towards customers is "go fuck yourself," I would expect piracy to increase (which of course leads to an even bigger pity party and even more draconian DRM).