Torillian said:
I am only talking of the distinction between Strategy game and SRPG. It's a definite distinction that separates the two, but just having that doesn't make a game an RPG. It's like I just told you that a definite distinction between a PS3 and a 360 is that the PS3 is black, and then you argue that if you painted a brick Black that under my system it would be a PS3. No, obviously there are other things that make up an SRPG, this is just the thing that defines it from being different from a strategy game. |
And I'm telling you that that is a false distinction. There is no such thing as an SRPG without role-playing, but all games you call "SRPGs" are turn-based strategy games with one specific implementation of the system. When I can draw up a system that has no story, no named characters, and no apparent reason for the combat going on, but you still call it an SRPG, you have to realize that your definition is wrong. There is no role-playing going on in this scenario, not even in the sense that Mario Bros. is role-playing.
They're all turn-based strategy games. Some have stories and some don't.







