Jump to content

Talk:Role-playing video game/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Merge

Merge was carried out. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Computer role-playing game and Console role-playing game have more similarities than differences; and their differences are dealt with at Cultural differences in computer and console role-playing games anyway. As such, I think it'd be more appropriate to have an article dealing with what they have in common. Percy Snoodle 11:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Agree. No point the distinction being handled by 2 articles. But it will be a pain in the ass to merge them, as both are too big already. SSPecter Talk|E-Mail ◆ 14:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC).
  • Strongly Oppose While console and computer RPGs may be getting closer together, they have two quite different approaches to the game. I have no problem with this article being created to discuss the similarities and differences, but strongly oppose merging the other articles into this one. (Didn't we just vote on this? How many times will we have to go through these votes?) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly Opposed They're not that similar. We've discussed this many times before, in fact, just a couple weeks ago. [1] and [2]. I think it's rude to start up another merge proposal so soon, it's like you're trying to catch people off guard who already voted recently. Computer and console RPGs are not that similar. I'd like to see some actual evidence and not just an assertion. There's a ridiculous amount of support for the contrary view. For example even the article Cultural_differences_in_computer_and_console_role-playing_games that you just linked to has more bulletpoints under the differences section than the similarities section. I challenge anyone who votes "Merge" or intends to vote "Merge" to provide 5 console RPGs / JRPGs (your choice) that are similar to the following 5 major computer RPGs: Arcanum, Baldur's Gate, System Shock 2, Neverwinter Nights, Nethack. Also, provide 5 computer RPGs that are similar to the following 5 major console RPGs: Final Fantasy 7, Chrono Trigger, Pokemon Gold, Kingdom Hearts, Vagrant Story. I picked only well known titles from both genres so, if there is indeed similarity, it shouldn't be hard to point out. -- Solberg 22:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Solberg
    • Comment the recent vote wasn't the same; it wasn't to create a page about the similarities, but rather to alter the titles to stress the similarities. I certainly don't mean to catch anyone out, or to be rude. Concerning the number of bullet points about similarities in the differences article; the article concerns the differences, so it's unsurprising if it doesn't dwell on the similarities. Concerning your "challenge", the question isn't whether specific cRPGs exist that are similar to specific CRPGs, but rather whether CRPGs and cRPGs have belong to a wider genre which is worthy of its own article. Percy Snoodle 12:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment The second link I gave was a merge discussion not so long ago, check it again. I probably shouldn't have given the 1st link, you are correct that it was more to alter the title than anything. I disagree with your comment about the 'challenge.' If the RPGs can be placed within a wider genre, then clearly they must have some pretty strong similarity. If there is some strong similarity, then there must exist many clear examples of such similarity among key titles of the 2 genres. If there are few examples, then there should not be a merge. Computer and console RPGs have different game mechanics and media. If that's not enough, I don't see why you're not supporting a merge with role-playing game, which, outside of game mechanics and media, could be said to bear a strong similarity to digital RPGs. -- Solberg 08:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Solberg
        • Comment I hadn't spotted that second link; If I had, I'd probably have waited, so sorry about that. It's still not exactly the same thing, though - that concerned merging cRPG with CRPG, not creating an article for the parent genre. I'm surprised you don't think they're similar; perhaps I should explain:
  Computer role-playing game Console role-playing game Role-playing game
Game? Yes Yes Yes
Video game? Yes Yes No
Involves characters? Yes Yes Yes
Characters have stats? Yes Yes Usually
Involves roleplaying, in the sense of portraying a character? No No Yes
Most interaction between the player and NPCs is combat? Yes Yes Rarely
PCs' actions are chosen from a finite set? Yes Yes No
Story style Western Eastern Either, or neither
That's what I mean when I say they're more alike than different, and that they're not the same thing as RPGs. Of course, if you narrow your focus only to stylistic choices within the field of role-playing video games, the differences will stand out; that's why the cultural differences article doesn't list many similarities. Percy Snoodle 09:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The table is bogus, like loaded dice. Instead of "Video Game?" you could just as easily ask "Media?" which would of course then be "Computer", "Console", and "Paper (as well as books, dice, pencils, possibly figurines, etc)." It's not a trivial distinction considering that genres on different platforms have had different evolutions due to their different strengths and weaknesses. [continues below]
  • You could, but computers and consoles are very similar to each other when compared with, say, paper; and anyway the correct medium would be something more like "voice", since there's no actual requirement for paper. The two share even more similarities that don't show up there; consider a fourth column with something like "Horse" at the top. Whether you think the two are similar or not depends on the scope at which you look, and I think the current distinction is at too narrow a scope. Percy Snoodle
  • I disagree that they're this similar, but as my comment about merging all articles that end with "role-playing game" was just a joke, I'm not going to press. -- Solberg 20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Solberg
As I pointed out before, console games for instance traditionally are played with television monitors, which have low resolution. Thus, you're more likely to find large blocks of text in computer games than console games. This has a tremendous effect on the storytelling in RPGs for instance. You will also find that some genres are virtually nonexistent on some platforms, eg almost no native SHMUPS, fighting games, etc on computers. Computer and console RPGs also have "roleplaying" (yes, I do mean in the vaunted {read: elitist} P&P sense), though it is less common in the P&P sense for console RPGs. That you put a binary "No" there indicates to me that you haven't played all that many computer RPGs. Maybe I am wrong, what is the basis for your argument there? [continues below]
  • I think you've misunderstood the sense I mean. Computers, consoles included, cannot make a judgement about a person's portrayal of a character' feelings, so CRPGs and cRPGs cannot possibly require it of the player. Simply taking control of a personalised avatar isn't what I was talking about; sorry if you think that's elitist, but do note that I'm not saying a game needs roleplaying to be a good game, just to be a (traditional) roleplaying game. Percy Snoodle
  • Because no-one's come up with a program for recognising feelings from a person's words and actions, so no video game could determine how, say, NPCs react to a player's decisions about a character on an emotional level. It is of course possible for a video game designer to provide some options and determine the NPCs responses to each, but in that case it's the designer providing the characterisation of the PC, not the player. Even if the game does include dialogue trees as deep as those in PS:T, those trees are the creation of the designer(s), not the players. Percy Snoodle
What digital RPGs have you played and why would you say they don't have any roleplaying in the P&P sense? I'm also suspicious of your "Rarely" in the combat section for P&P. It's no secret that games like D&D dominate the roleplaying market for the most part and these are all action-oriented types of role-playing games. I'm not saying that there is no role-playing in the sense of theft, espionage, conversation, and other things, but "rarely" is an exaggeration. [continues below]
  • OK, agreed. Would you prefer "sometimes" or "not necessarily"? Percy Snoodle
"Story style" is also suspicious. Define "story style." In so far as there is a specific "Western" or "Eastern" setting, that's a half truth at best. I would say that most, for example, computer RPGs have settings influenced by the West, but that's no different from how a lot of P&P sessions occur, if they are in America and Europe. (P&P is much less common in the East, of course.) I'm curious also why you think P&P roleplaying has non-Western/Eastern story styles, but not computer or console RPGs. Give me some examples. [continues below]
  • I'm using the terms from the comparison article, and I'm not especially happy with them myself. I can't think of better ones, though. In the sense in which I'm using it, both styles require a certain focus on combat and/or exploration and/or advancement; so any RPG where that's not the focus is sufficient - say a Dogs in the Vineyard campaign about redeeming a town, or a political Amber DRPG campaign - would be one not found in CRPGs or cRPGs. But I agree the terms are poor. Percy Snoodle
  • I'm not sure I understand. Are you claiming that Amber doesn't have combat, exploration, or advancement?  ?! I've never heard of Dogs, sorry, I admit I haven't played many Indies RPGs (at least not the P&P kind), but the article seems to imply there is combat. It also says the game was set in a "West that never was" so would also seem to have a "Western" style of storytelling in some sense. -- Solberg 20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Solberg
  • I'm not claiming that combat doesn't exist in RPGs; just that that's not always their focus. though I think there may be one or two without, most RPGs do indeed include a skirmish wargame as their combat system. Traditional RPGs always also involve personal interaction between their characters, through roleplaying (which you might prefer me to descibe as "freeform improvisational acting", but I'd prefer not to) - though of course players are free to ignore that and just use the skirmish wargame rules, hence all the D&D dungeon crawls. Role-playing video games always have the skirmish wargame, and IME it's always been the focus of the game. However, "focus" is a subjective judgement and I'm prepared to accept that modern games have moved away from it in favour of the cutscenes and graphical adventure -style interaction between characters. Percy Snoodle
Btw, to wrap my lengthy paragraph up, I'd like to say this again-- it's not about style, though that is also different. We're talking about game mechanics here-- the very heart of ANY game no matter what form it takes. A P&P D&D session in the Forgotten Realms is, in my opinion, a lot more like playing Baldur's Gate 2, then it is like playing GURPS Infinite Worlds although they may both be traditional role-playing games. -- Solberg 10:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Solberg
  • I agree that a D&D-derived role-playing video game is very like a combat-focused D&D game. I'm not trying to argue that. I'm just trying to say that CRPGs and cRPGs belong to a genre, and that that genre deserves more coverage than just a dab page. Percy Snoodle
  • I don't think so. I think you're a programmer so let me see if I can make an analogy. The way I think of it, "role-playing videogame" is a (Java) interface or an abstract class with almost no methods. Only the actual implementations (computer and console RPG) can be concretely described without making overgeneralizing judgments. What would go into the interface? Perhaps slots for storytelling, styles of character advancement, types of combat, etc. But the keypoint is that none of this is similar among computer and console RPGs, which is why the parent, rather than being a class, is an interface. In computer and console RPGs, the styles of combat are different usually. Ask a computer and a console RPG what "turn based" means and you'll usually get very different answers. Character advancement in computer RPGs are much more likely to follow some kind of P&P inspired tradition (ex: Fallout). In terms of storytelling, console RPGs are rarely simulationist in nature, vice versa for computer RPGs. These are just some differences, I can talk about more later if you want. -- Solberg 20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Solberg
  • I think we're only really disagreeing about scope here. There would be plenty to say about the role-playing videogame interface; just not that couldn't be said in a parent videogame interface. I think you're looking at it from a videogame perspective, so you don't see the stuff they share through being videogames as significant, and I can see that that's a sensible POV given that the article would start "RPVGs are a genre of video game". Percy Snoodle 13:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. As I am busy, it may be a while for me to get back to your next reply. [continues below]
  • Thanks, I've just been so busy lately, as you can tell by my contribs (lack thereof) for the last few months. I'll probably be replying about once a day or so. -- Solberg 20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Solberg
P.S. Part 2 I forgot to mention this but I think your nomenclature is outdated-- the CRPG and cRPG distinction has been ruled as neologisms per [3] If this ruling was incorrect, feel free to start up a new discussion to possibly revert the changes (it's not going to be easy, though). Note that, unfortunately, some sites have taken Wikipedia as gospel so they have borrowed the distinction. [continues below]
P.S. Part 3 Yes I understand that you're not suggesting a direct merge, but a 'parent article' would have more or less the same result. People will pull content from the main articles and try to tie them together in the parent article. And the result would lead to confusion, rather than serving as a hierarchical organization, which seems to be your intention. [continues below]
All in all, they are sufficiently different to not need a parent article. The only thing they share are statistical character advancement, which they also have in common with action/adventure and a growing number of FPS. -- Solberg 10:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Solberg
  • If it's your contention that all they share - ignoring the things they share by virtue of being video games - is statistical character advancement, then I can certainly see where you're coming from. Even the other things I'd point out could certainly be found in the other genres you mention. Perhaps the common article shouldn't be role-playing game (video games) but roleplaying (video games), about the (IMO misnamed) game mechanic rather than a genre. Percy Snoodle 11:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, that would be misnamed indeed. I'm not suggesting that statistical advancement alone is enough for something to have a "roleplaying" mechanic, whether video or P&P. I think an article with that implicit notion would lead to an ugly path, like saying Zelda and Halo or perhaps JK:DF2 have 'roleplaying' because, liek, they havE numbers man and you play a role, ya know, the role of Zelda and Master Chief!!11oneone. Overall my contention is that there would be nothing worth putting into the parent article, since, as you guessed, my belief is that stats aside they don't have much in common. Again if you can compare some specific games maybe we can get to the evidence. As for myself, when I look at RPG games from the same eras, they are clearly different in most aspects. (See below). -- Solberg 20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Solberg

Short Timeline Comparison: Here are some of the major titles. (More comprehensive chronologies can be found at their respective articles.) I decided to note Ultima 3 and 4 separately from the 'series' since they were so key to the future development of both genres. I also noted Final Fantasy 6 and 7 separately since the FF series is so longlived-- the games serve as useful 'landmarks' of how console RPGs have developed during a given timeframe. -- Solberg 20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Solberg

Computer

  • 1981: Ultima series
  • 1983: Ultima 3 (great great... grandparent of computer and console RPG)
  • 1985: Ultima 4
  • 1987: Nethack
  • 1990: Wizardry 6
  • 1992: Darklands
  • 1993: Realms of Arkania series
  • 1996: Diablo, Daggerfall
  • 1997: Fallout
  • 1999: PS:T
  • 2000: Baldur's Gate 2
  • 2001: Arcanum
  • 2002: Gothic series, NWN

Console

  • 1986: Dragon Quest
  • 1987: Final Fantasy, Megami Tensei
  • 1992: Lunar series
  • 1993: Breath of Fire series, Secret of Mana
  • 1994: Final Fantasy 6
  • 1995: Chrono Trigger, Suikoden, Tales of Phantasia
  • 1996: Star Ocean series
  • 1997: Final Fantasy 7
  • 1998: Pokemon, Xenogears
  • 2000: Skies of Arcadia, Vagrant Story
  • 2002: Kingdom Hearts

Looking at these games, I don't see anything similar other than that they purportedly share a same ancestor and have stats. Since the late 80s they've diverged enormously. Maybe you can point out where they are similar other than having stats. -- Solberg 20:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Solberg

I guess that's where we differ - I don't see big differences between or within those lists. Within the field of Role-playing video games, in which I'm happy to accept your expertise, I'm sure they're very different. From a broader perspective, comparing them with (say) puzzle video games, board games and role-playing games, they've a lot in common; but I'm happy to accept that most of that comes from their shared heritage as video games. Percy Snoodle 13:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
From the perspective of someone who hasn't played any of those games: except Ultima 2&3, and then on a Commadore 64, not an x86 PC. Most of my experience is with The Bard's Tale (1985 video game) on an Apple IIe. To call Ultima III: Exodus a "great, great grandparent" of anything is really quite laughable to me. I was born even before Dungeons and Dragons RPG came out, so I guess I was playing in "the primordial ooze of RPGs?" haha. I do think computer RPGs and especially internet-enabled RPGs, have become an important part of global culture. The money generated by global sales in this field bears this out. In this article I'd like to have a better idea of how the software replaces the functions of a human referee or "gamemaster." Also basic info on underlying software would provide an objective measure how different or similar such games are, instead of just naming a bunch of games or subtypes or genre. Cuvtixo (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
They may have split apart in the late '80s and for the majority of the '90s, but they're merging again now, for better or worse. SharkD  Talk  22:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There definitely is a convergence with games like Dragon Age: Origin, Oblivion, and Fallout 3, but JRPGs are still much more popular on consoles while MMORPGs are much more popular on the PC. Then factor in lengthy periods where e.g. PC RPGs were almost considered dead until Fallout and Baldur's Gate resurrected the genre and I do not see how you can avoid a confusing article. I would bet a lot of money that if they were merged that we'd be voting on split a year or two later. With that said, it might be useful to create an article that discusses the diffrerences and where they are converging that link to the individual articles. Argel1200 (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re-open merge discussion

I think a failure to merge the console and computer RPG articles has set back this group of articles back substantially. Especially this main RPG video games article. This article should be one of the most important video game articles by far. People who come to wikipedia to learn about RPG video games will come to this article, but they'll leave without any real understanding of the genre. The article has very little information. Incidentally, this failure to merge has also set the console and computer RPG articles back, as they're full of WP:OR violations.

We have an article called cultural differences in role-playing video games. I think that's a far better way to discuss the different variations on RPGs than to have two separate articles. (And as a side note, the console / computer distinction breaks down anyway: Final Fantasy, Ultima, and Fable have all been developed for both platforms. It really is about cultural differences, rather than console versus computer.)

In other words, it's better to organize the role-playing game articles as "similarities vs differences" rather than "console vs computer" (let alone east vs west). The similarities should be addressed in this article, with a healthy link to the "differences" article. Randomran (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose, as a start, a merge of the history sections in computer and console role-playing games. It is absolutely impossible to describe the history of one without the other because the influences are profound, direct, and cannot be ignored. So let's start with that. Anyone opposed?Frogacuda (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the gameplay would actually be easier to merge. The aspects of the game are what's similar. Maybe we should start a discussion at WT:VG? Randomran (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, THANK YOU for opening a new section. It is extremely crowded. I vote Wikipedia discussion pages get cleaned up by erasing all topics posted ten days old. 最後の最初のチップを提供する (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Role-playing_video_game/Archive_3&oldid=1211539800"