No, I'm specifically pointing out that it's subjective as opposed to objective, meaning it makes no sense to claim Prey shouldn't be an RPG. If people understand it's subjective, then I find it a strange criticism.
It's like saying someone shouldn't consider burgers food because he happens to think it's not food.
As if he never met another human being in his life and wanted to suppress differing opinions in general.
So, you don't consider games like Witcher 3, Gothic, Daggerfall and so on RPGs?
The people who're not disabled and who actually enjoy these things shouldn't be considered - and they shouldn't be entertained?
You honestly think the tiny minority who're physically unable to apply personal skill in this way should dictate an entire genre?
Thank you for your answer. A very interesting and exceedingly limited point of view on the genre.
You're welcome.
Of course my definition may seem narrow to you but the alternative is to embrace a broad definition and then a serious case could be make for any game featuring RPG elements to actually be considered an RPG and that's just another can of worms.
I disagree with you on your insistence that what you're saying is objective when it's just your opinion (which is totally fine by the way), what I've been doing is explaining MY opinion and that's pretty much it. I never claimed that it was superior but I will stand by my assertion that to me a game like Prey is certainly not an RPG (plus Chris Avellone seems to be surprised that Prey made the RPG Codex list so I'm not too bothered about having to justify myself regarding that particular game).
If I consider burgers to be junk food that's my prerogative and it's not up for discussion (although my opinion regarding some homemade burger would be radically different) so I'm not sure that's the best analogy.
So if what we're discussing is a matter of taste then we will have to agree to disagree -which is perfectly fine.
Me saying that I disagree with you doesn't make you wrong nor does it make you right either, it's just pointing at the fact that we have different perspectives and that your criteria are a lot less specific than mine when it comes to CRPGs.
For the record I do consider that The Witcher is not an RPG and has never been an RPG. You may look at it and see an RPG but to me that's completely inaccurate. At best I would agree to call it an Action RPG or preferably an Action Adventure game. It's pretty much like a gamebook and that's the closest it gets to being an RPG. It's based on the player's skill and not the character's, it's also about playing the part of Geralt and following a given script (despite the choices you have to make, akin to the choices you could make in a choose your own adventure game book) and that's not exactly the same thing as roleplaying. I could elaborate but that would be a bit pointless as I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right (because in the end that's just my opinion).
What I'm NOT saying is that the Witcher is not a good game (although I do believe it does have a number of flaws especially when it comes to combat and levelling). I may be saying that the game is not an RPG it doesn't mean that I'm saying it's a bad game, I personally play many games that are not RPGs or that I don't consider to be RPGs and that never prevented me from enjoying them for what they are and that includes the Witcher series.
There is a reason why so many games come out with an RPG tag and that's the simple fact that calling a game an RPG will boost sales. It's not about being true to some exacting principles that hark back to some pen and paper roots shrouded in mystery, it's just about money plain and simple.
That's why I'm slightly annoyed (or amused depending on my mood) when I see yet another game being passed as an RPG when it does have pretty little in common with actual roleplaying.
Let's face it, RPG is now trendy and despite everything I've said that's a good thing. I'm old enough to remember a time when people had no idea what RPGs were and what it meant and now RPGs have become mainstream. But that doesn't mean most people actually know what a real pen and paper RPG session is all about. They may have seen actors pretending to be playing D&D in shows like Community or the Big Bang Theory unfortunately that doesn't mean that they're getting it.
Also I don't really like what you're saying about my point that a real RPG won't penalise someone for being disabled. You're twisting my words to make it sound like I'm saying RPGs should be discriminating against people who are not disabled which is just nonsense!
The simple fact is that pen and paper RPG (not talking about LARPG here) does NOT discriminate people on the basis of their physical abilities (or lack thereof) because it's the character's abilities that are put to the test and not the player's (you're supposed to be playing the character and not yourself).
Computer RPGs are supposed to originate from pen and paper RPGs and that's why I've brought up this point. Many computer games with the RPG tag focus on a player's ability to click and aim instead of considering the character's ability and it means that the player is playing the game instead of playing a character (which is what roleplaying should be about).
And for the record I'm not saying that such games can't be entertaining or that they shouldn't exist, I'm just saying that if like me you abide by a certain definition of the genre that is true to the pen and paper roots then these games can't qualify as RPGs.
If you dismiss the pen and paper origins of the roleplaying genre then you may as well embrace a broad definition and include a multitude of games as RPGs.
Of course taking such an extreme viewpoint will make the RPG tag meaningless and that's exactly what's been happening for quite some time now.
Do you consider the recent Tomb Raider games to be RPGs? Because they tick most of the boxes when it comes to RPG elements. Or Assassin's Creed since they've been putting levels everywhere lately? Batman? Mad Max? Super Mario? Call of Duty? The Adventures of Tintin?
I'm being sarcastic but that's the current state of affairs and something that the results of the RPG Codex poll illustrate rather eloquently.
Feel free to disagree, my point is that nowadays saying that a game comes with an RPG tag won't tell you anything about the game in question except that maybe it has a few "RPG elements" and even then you won't know for sure if that's just some marketing sugar coating or if there is anything remotely similar to actual roleplaying to be found anywhere in that game.