Crusader Kings III - Review @ Polygon - Page 3 - RPGWatch Forums
|
Your donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Crusader Kings III - Review @ Polygon

Default Crusader Kings III - Review @ Polygon

September 3rd, 2020, 23:12
Originally Posted by JFarrell71 View Post
And my favorite game is…what? Since you apparently seem to know and can't conceive of someone making a point not made from a partisan perspective?
Well you seem outraged that someone has implied Witcher and Ultima are not 'true RPGs'. Would you be as equally outraged if someone said a Zelda game was not a 'true RPG'? Because I've never seen you bemoan the lack of Zelda coverage on this site…?
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
SasqWatch

#41

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,513
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)

Default 

September 3rd, 2020, 23:14
Originally Posted by largh View Post
Kind of. @JFarrell71 is right that some of your arguments used logic that does not fly in that original post although he was unable to explain why. CRPGs do not amend only from tabletop RPGs, but also from the RPG books (remember those things from the 80s where you would read and choose your actions, then jump to a certain page). That kind of RPGs were in fact some of the first ones made to Amiga/Nintendo/PCs. In those, you were operating alone and therefore the argument that one would need a team does not fly.

Do not worry, however, I get your point and I did learn something. Let us try to keep this discussion free of off-topics and pointless blaming. They'll just spoil the discussion. Also, remember that it is about CK3 and we are drifting further and further…
Those books were called Choose Your Own Adventure books, and yes, I used to love those.

You may remember recent debates about whether Age of Decadence was more RPG or more Choose Your Own Adventure. The two genres became quite distinct very quickly in the early 80s and remain so to this day.
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
SasqWatch

#42

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,513
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)

Default 

September 3rd, 2020, 23:14
Originally Posted by largh View Post
Kind of. @JFarrell71 is right that some of your arguments used logic that does not fly in that original post although he was unable to explain why. CRPGs do not amend only from tabletop RPGs, but also from the RPG books (remember those things from the 80s where you would read and choose your actions, then jump to a certain page). That kind of RPGs were in fact some of the first ones made to Amiga/Nintendo/PCs. In those, you were operating alone and therefore the argument that one would need a team does not fly.
You don't have to go so far as to compare them to Choose Your Own Adventure books or gamebooks like the Lone Wolf or Fighting Fantasy series (which were more of an RPG than the former, with stats and dice based combat). There are plenty of solo player RPGs that took their inspiration directly from tabletop.

Elder Scrolls: Arena from 1994, for example. The developers of that game would be shocked and amused to be informed that the game is not a "true" RPG, lacking a party as it does. They have spoken at length directly about the fact that their desire in making the game was to replicate tabletop RPGs in a digital form.
JFarrell71 is offline

JFarrell71

Keeper of the Watch

#43

Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,169
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)

Default 

September 3rd, 2020, 23:18
Originally Posted by lackblogger View Post
Well you seem outraged that someone has implied Witcher and Ultima are not 'true RPGs'. Would you be as equally outraged if someone said a Zelda game was not a 'true RPG'? Because I've never seen you bemoan the lack of Zelda coverage on this site…?
Maybe you're projecting, but I can talk about ideas without being motivated by feeling a need to defend something I personally love. I can name plenty of other examples. I just did in Elder Scrolls: Arena, which I personally hated. Alternate Reality is another one, which I did like, but have never thought of as something I needed to start blood feuds over.

The reality is that your definition is not a universal definition that everyone has to agree with, and any ad hominem attacks I've leveled at you come from my distaste at the fact that you present them as such. There are many, many examples of games that are RPGs, true RPGs, whatever adjective you prefer to use RPGs, and have been considered to be so for decades, that do not fall within your own, personal, definition.

Just a few days ago, a friend (who's worked at Blizzard and literally helped make RPGs) told me he considers The Last of Us 2 an RPG. That game is not imo an RPG, not even close. But I discussed it with him. I didn't tell him I was an authority and if he disagreed with me, he was objectively wrong. I don't have that right. And neither do you.
JFarrell71 is offline

JFarrell71

Keeper of the Watch

#44

Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,169
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)

Default 

September 3rd, 2020, 23:24
Originally Posted by JFarrell71 View Post
You don't have to go so far as to compare them to Choose Your Own Adventure books or gamebooks like the Lone Wolf or Fighting Fantasy series (which were more of an RPG than the former, with stats and dice based combat). There are plenty of solo player RPGs that took their inspiration directly from tabletop.

Elder Scrolls: Arena from 1994, for example. The developers of that game would be shocked and amused to be informed that the game is not a "true" RPG, lacking a party as it does. They have spoken at length directly about the fact that their desire in making the game was to replicate tabletop RPGs in a digital form.
Their design goal was:

Design goals
Initially, Arena was not to be an RPG at all. The player and a team of his fighters would travel about a world fighting other teams in their arenas until the player became "grand champion" in the world's capital, the Imperial City.[6] Along the way, side quests of a more role-playing nature could be completed. As the process of development progressed, however, the tournaments became less important and the side quests more.[5] Role-playing elements were added to the game, as the game expanded to include the cities outside the arenas, and dungeons beyond the cities.[6] Eventually it was decided to drop the idea of tournaments altogether, and focus on quests and dungeons,[5] making the game a "full-blown RPG".[6]
And, yes, Bethesda and the army of fans the series generated, has been probably the biggest contributor to the idea that RPGs can be single character where that single character can be good at everything. @crpgnut , the site's arch Bethesda nut, even claims to hate party-based RPGs (though no-one knows if he's just trolling at this point).

And yes, single character games that have lots of classes for that single character and are otherwise pretty much exactly like an RPG are what is described as "Close Enough". However, if that was to be considered the de-facto RPGs template of what an RPG is, then, obviously, you lose the whole concept of Role, because your character will never have a Role.
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
SasqWatch

#45

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,513
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)

Default 

September 3rd, 2020, 23:24
Originally Posted by lackblogger View Post
loading…
Is that actually you and your son? That's awesome. Thanks for sharing that.
JFarrell71 is offline

JFarrell71

Keeper of the Watch

#46

Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,169
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)

Default 

September 3rd, 2020, 23:28
Originally Posted by JFarrell71 View Post
Maybe you're projecting, but I can talk about ideas without being motivated by feeling a need to defend something I personally love. I can name plenty of other examples. I just did in Elder Scrolls: Arena, which I personally hated. Alternate Reality is another one, which I did like, but have never thought of as something I needed to start blood feuds over.

The reality is that your definition is not a universal defintion that everyone has to agree with, and any ad hominem attacks I've leveled at you come from my distaste at the fact that you present them as such. There are many, many examples of games that are RPGs, true RPGs, whatever adjective you prefer to use RPGs, and have been considered to be so for decades, that do not fall within your own, personal, definition.

Just a few days ago, a friend (who's worked at Blizzard and literally helped make RPGs) told me he considers The Last of Us 2 an RPG. That game is not imo an RPG, not even close. But I discussed it with him. I didn't tell him I was an authority and if he disagreed with me, he was objectively wrong. I don't have that right. And neither do you.
So you're more unhappy that I'm presenting facts as facts than you are about the facts themselves?

You can't accept that I am an authority on the subject? And that is your only complaint? How is one supposed to present the facts in an authoritative manner without offending you then?

Without authority and confidence in that authority there is just chaos…
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
SasqWatch

#47

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,513
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)

Default 

September 3rd, 2020, 23:29
Originally Posted by JFarrell71 View Post
Is that actually you and your son? That's awesome. Thanks for sharing that.
No, but I have partaken in the activity hundreds of times, as have millions of others
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
SasqWatch

#48

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,513
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)

Default 

September 3rd, 2020, 23:35
Originally Posted by lackblogger View Post
So you're more unhappy that I'm presenting facts as facts than you are about the facts themselves?

You can't accept that I am an authority on the subject? And that is your only complaint? How is one supposed to present the facts in an authoritative manner without offending you then?

Without authority and confidence in that authority there is just chaos…
I can't put it more simply than this: you are not an authority on the subject. At least not more of an authority than many other people on this very site.

It's troubling that you can't think of any other way to present your opinions than to say things like "you can disagree, but it's an objective fact, so you're wrong." You can say that about things like the chemical composition of water if I claim it's magnesium and argon, but you cannot make that same claim about the definition of RPGs. You've been presented with plenty of evidence and examples that demonstrate your definition to be ill considered and/or incomplete, but you steam blindly on, unwilling to consider any viewpoint other than your own.

That's too bad. If I was talking with you at a party, I'd excuse myself and disappear into the crowd. I'm going to do the equivalent now.
JFarrell71 is offline

JFarrell71

Keeper of the Watch

#49

Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,169
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)

Default 

September 3rd, 2020, 23:37
Originally Posted by lackblogger View Post
People have been saying that since they came out, but they are extremely popular, and as you well know, and has been mentioned in this thread, words and their meanings are quite democratic and there's only so much the original meaning of something can withstand before the usurper prevails

The thing is, just because there's a rigid structure in place for what constitutes something it doesn't mean that 'close enough' isn't a thing. There are many games we call RPGs for no other reason than they are Close Enough and it gets tiresome having to write the proviso every time we talk about them. Those who were around at the time of release already know the deal, unfortunately, when new arrivals appear, they are not familiar with the 'unspoken knowing' and hence this contributes to the democratic loss of meaning.

Take Diablo, for example, the Codex don't even permit Diablo threads in their GRPG forum. Like-wise the RPGWatch does not traditionally view Diablo as GRPG material. The reason always was because it was a single character game and therefore not 'properly' RPG.

Take jRPGs, for example, why do they even have different sub-forums? Yu think it's just veiled racism or because they are 'foreign'? No, it's because jRPGs don't traditionally have character creation and, usually, enforce a static linear narrative, which is why you can't have character creation. This is why Planescape Torment is often referred to as, variably, more of an adventure game, more of a jRPG, and etc, and why people find it hard to describe PST as just a pure RPG.

What you seem to be getting upset about is not the definitions, but rather the idea that [insert your favourite game] is not considered a 'pure RPG'. As if it's some kind of shame that [favourite game] is somehow substandard because it's not 'pure RPG', when this has never been the case.

Someone says "yeah, great game, but it's not exactly RPG is it", and the army of fanboys of [favourite game] rush in to say how retarded XYZ is for 'slurring' their [favourite game], when that was never the intention nor purpose of the comment. It is merely an expression of fact. A communication tool that lets others know what kind of game it is.

Like the other guy said, because we like to categorise things. Because one-liners are more readable than walls of text. The short-hand always wins out. "This game that's a bit like an RPG is really great, try it out guys", get's shortened over the years to "Try out this great RPGs guys".

Divine Divinity is another classic example of when it was released it was one of those "wow, great nearly-RPG game guys, try it out", that is now written as just "Great old RPG". I myself highly praise DD & will always recommend it to other RPG fans, but if I ever wall of text about it, I'll always qualify it as "a nearly RPG", just as many others from that era would. But if someone just asks "recommend me a good old RPG", then I'll just type DD without any qualifiers, because that's just how it is.

The reaction of both you and @jfarrel is weird because you are not new people to the genre, and yet you both seem unaware of the unwritten knowledge that silently caveats all RPGs. So I'm wondering where you're coming from aside from [favourite game] historical arguments.
I don't see how you think I'm being upset ? I was asking a question. Don't read meaning where there isn't any.

From my perspective Gothic is certainly an RPG. If you don't see it that way, that's fine. I don't define RPGs like you do apparently.
Pladio is offline

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor
Original Sin Donor

#50

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,504
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

September 3rd, 2020, 23:42
Originally Posted by JFarrell71 View Post
I can't put this more simply than this: you are not an authority on the subject. At least not more of an authority than many other people on this very site.

It's troubling that you can think of any other way to present your opinions than to say things like "you can disagree, but it's an objective fact, so you're wrong." You can say that about things like the chemical composition of water if I claim it's magnesium and argon, but you cannot make that same claim about the definition of RPGs. You've been presented with plenty of evidence and examples that demonstrate your definition to be ill considered and/or incomplete, but you steam blindly on, unwilling to consider any viewpoint other than your own.

That's too bad. If I was talking with you at a party, I'd excuse myself and disappear into the crowd. I'm going to do the equivalent now.
I have not been provided with plenty of examples of anything, you've just repeated that you don't find my arguments convincing and that the only reasoning for that is that you don't believe I'm an authority on the topic. You haven't actually refuted anything I've said, at least not in any convincing way.

Let's start simple: In a Bethesda game, what Role are you playing within your party of one?

Ok, that's an unfair question because you don't have a party. Obviously.

Sooooo…. what is your Role without a party? Either one you make up in your head that has no gameplay relevance? Or… what?
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
SasqWatch

#51

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,513
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)

Default 

September 3rd, 2020, 23:43
Originally Posted by Pladio View Post
I don't define RPGs like you do apparently.
Do you think it's important to have an definition? A bedrock?
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
SasqWatch

#52

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,513
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)

Default 

September 4th, 2020, 00:13
Your method of argumentation:

You: All cars are blue.
Us: That isn't true. That is a car and it is yellow. And that one is green.
You: Prove to me how those cars are blue.
JFarrell71 is offline

JFarrell71

Keeper of the Watch

#53

Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,169
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)

Default 

September 4th, 2020, 00:24
Originally Posted by lackblogger View Post
Do you think it's important to have an definition? A bedrock?
I think it is, but I don't think your definition is correct. I also think some definitions can never be all-encompassing.

A quick example of this is the Google Definition of a "chair".

a separate seat for one person, typically with a back and four legs.
The definition states it typically has a back and four legs. However, if you showed me a picture of a chair with five legs, I wouldn't tell you it was not a chair. Additionally, if two people decide to sit on a chair because it is a relatively large chair, then I also would not say that it no longer fits the definition, and as such is not a chair.

In my mind your definition of RPGs is too narrow for what I consider to be an RPG.

Hope that makes sense.
Pladio is offline

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor
Original Sin Donor

#54

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,504
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

September 4th, 2020, 01:12
Originally Posted by JFarrell71 View Post
Your method of argumentation:

You: All cars are blue.
Us: That isn't true. That is a car and it is yellow. And that one is green.
You: Prove to me how those cars are blue.
Nope.

Me: Blue is blue.
You: No, red can be blue.
Me: Explain?

(I note you have quickly evaded the Bethesda angle… )
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
SasqWatch

#55

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,513
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)

Default 

September 4th, 2020, 01:27
Originally Posted by Pladio View Post
I think it is, but I don't think your definition is correct. I also think some definitions can never be all-encompassing.

A quick example of this is the Google Definition of a "chair".



The definition states it typically has a back and four legs. However, if you showed me a picture of a chair with five legs, I wouldn't tell you it was not a chair. Additionally, if two people decide to sit on a chair because it is a relatively large chair, then I also would not say that it no longer fits the definition, and as such is not a chair.

In my mind your definition of RPGs is too narrow for what I consider to be an RPG.

Hope that makes sense.
I don't think the true definition is at all all-encompassing. Other genres don't suffer from this level of denial from [favourite games] spokespeople.

Platformers - requires platforming - still has huge variety.
First Person Shooters - requires shooting in first person - still has huge variety.
Grand Strategy - requires a map and conquests over rivals on the map - still has huge variety.

RPG - requires your character to have (not just play) a role - still has huge variety.

Your chair might well have a billion legs and no back, but the defining feature of a chair is that it should be something one can sit on. That is a chair's defining feature, you can sit on it. It goes without saying, of course, that not everything you can sit on is a chair.

I see you are both now struggling to cope with staying on the topic of RPGs and are now desperately rushing towards the philosophical babble spectrum.

Pladio, it seems from what you have said that you struggle with the notion that Gothic is missing an element required for it to be a pure RPG and that Gothic represents to you a pure RPG. Instead of nonsense-babble, perhaps you could just elaborate on what Role your character plays in Gothic? What are the Roleplaying options like?
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
SasqWatch

#56

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,513
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)

Default 

September 4th, 2020, 02:04
Originally Posted by lackblogger View Post
Nope.

Me: Blue is blue.
You: No, red can be blue.
Me: Explain?

(I note you have quickly evaded the Bethesda angle… )
Once again, you miss the point because your starting point is always that you are already 100% correct. You refuse to reevaluate your starting point and instead require that everyone argue only within the narrow constraints that you yourself have provided, constraints that we are challenging. "No, that makes no sense", you say, "because the starting point is that my contraints are perfect."

You're like a scientist who postulates a hypothesis and immediately considers it proven. If someone does experiments that disprove your hypothesis you say those other things are clearly not this thing I have hypothesized about because they are not proven by my hypothesis.

I don't think it's possible for you to gain enough critical distance to understand that the very basis of your logic is critically flawed.
JFarrell71 is offline

JFarrell71

Keeper of the Watch

#57

Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,169
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)

Default 

September 4th, 2020, 02:09
Originally Posted by JFarrell71 View Post
Once again, you miss the point because your starting point is always that you are already 100% correct. You refuse to reevaluate your starting point and instead require that everyone argue only within the narrow constraints that you yourself have provided, constraints that we are challenging. "No, that makes no sense", you say, "because the starting point is that my contraints are perfect."

You're like a scientist who postulates a hypothesis and immediately considers it proven. If someone does experiments that disprove your hypothesis you say those other things are clearly not this thing I have hypothesized about because they do are not proven by my hypothesis.

I don't think it's possible for you to gain enough critical distance to understand that the very basis of your logic is critically flawed.
You've said this about 10 times now, but you haven't said what is supposedly flawed in the facts stated. The irony is palpable, in that I have detailed in great length the reasoning for what is, whereas you just say I'm wrong, reasonless and arrogantly, each time accusing me of the very things that are actually more your own traits.

Are you going to start talking about what role you played in your last Bethesda game or not?
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
SasqWatch

#58

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,513
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)

Default 

September 4th, 2020, 08:00
It seems that all commentors agree on that "a role-playing game is a game where you have a (kind of) free role…". @lackblogger means that the sentence should be continued as "…in a team", while others mean that "…in the game world" is enough.

With "free" above I mean that you are "free" to select a role you want.
largh is offline

largh

Watchdog

#59

Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)

Default 

September 4th, 2020, 08:06
Originally Posted by largh View Post
It seems that all commentors agree on that "a role-playing game is a game where you have a (kind of) free role…". @lackblogger means that the sentence should be continued as "…in a team", while others mean that "…in the game world" is enough.



With "free" above I mean that you are "free" to select a role you want.
I agree with your summary and fall in the camp of not requiring a team. I also think that the role needs to supported by game mechanics which lets one customize how the character or characters play.
SveNitoR is offline

SveNitoR

Keeper of the Watch

#60

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sweden
Posts: 631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Crusader Kings III - Review @ Polygon
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:25.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by DragonByte Security (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright by RPGWatch