Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan
I always felt that the editors have shown a good hand in what to cover and what not to cover (at the dot as at the watch), so I can just say: keep going!
Indeed. And, to me, even more so since coming here from the Dot. That doesn't mean everything covered here is of interest to me, for example I don't care one bit for any blending of RTS with RPG, but I do enjoy blending of first-person action with RPG, and I could care less about JRPGs and console RPGs. All of that is personal preference. And thank heavens MMORPGs have their own site where I can happily ignore them! (I'm also glad that multiplayer cRPGs such as NWN are covered here and not as MMOs.)
And in cases where the editors are particularly ambivalent about what qualifies, they have requested comments from us, like they did with Dark Messiah, which is a great way to do things that are borderline.
There is really no need to define what a cRPG is. People have been arguing that for so long now, and even the most like-minded of us tend to differ to some degree on this point. I have a strong opinion on that matter but I won't state it because it would defeat my argument that it just doesn't matter. The best solution, to me, is to have a group of people, the editors, gauge the interests of the community as best they can, and I believe that is what is being done. And if they go far astray, we should do exactly what Brother None (and ~10% of voters so far) did and speak up. While I disagree with him on this one game it's, again, just a matter of opinion.
When I boil it down in my head, if there were so much RPG info out there that the news page was being overwhelmed and true RPGs (whatever they are) were getting insufficiently covered, there might be a point to tighten the guidelines, but I don't see that happening. I easily skip over the coverage of no interest to me.