Scoobes said:
neerdowell said:
I'm not disputing the original classification which most people base their opinions off of. I'm saying the original classification was wrong and that is where all the confusion arises from. The original D & D and other early WRPGS should not have been considered RPG's. Due to people's relation to these games that are more about controlling the role rather than playing it, they have formed this perception that JRPG's which are drastically different from this mold should not be classified as RPG's. This has also led to other features that are not necessary to be associated with RPG's such as stats, leveling, and luck.
I think people should keep their description witin reasonable bounds, as long as the emphasis of a game is on playing the role of the lead character, whether one has control over their direction or not, this should be classified as an RPG.
|
That's pretty broad. By that definition, Halo would count as an RPG as you're playing the role of Master Chief.
|
Except with Halo the emphasis is only on one portion of Master Chief's life (mainly the battles). In typical RPG's you may find yourself doing multiple tasks associated with some aspect of the character's role (roaming towns, training). In Halo, I would say that Master Chief and the story is secondary to the shooter / multiplayer aspects.
Even so, I admit, it is a crappy definition and that is why there is a great deal of confusion. The genre is too broad because the idea of playing a role is too vague. There are too many different ways and degrees to play a role.
