It's really quite simple. In Star Wars games, any story or action accepted by Lucas Arts is called canon, while any gameplay mechanic is non-canon. If you can play through the game achieving different outcomes than the canon, you are making choices with consequences. If you simply affect the gameplay, you're not.
As an example: Playing through Knights of the Old Republic (either one) as a character that primarily picks the dark side when doing quests.
Edit: I'm not saying Master of Magic is not an RPG, as I haven't played it. Civilization is definetly not an RPG though - it lacks any kind of character development. Also, it has no story or narrative to affect with C&C, the goal is simply to win.
No, I brought up Civilization because I assumed you'd played it. Unfortunately, I still don't see the point about canon.
I guess you also require a somewhat linear story, then?
It sounds like the personal decision has to do with a written story, that can change based on your choices within that limitaton. "Emergent" gameplay apparently doesn't qualify.
Fair enough, but such things need to be said before anyone could ever have a chance at understanding your definition.
Like I've pointed out several times: That doesn't mean I'd consider either one a bad game, simply a game of a different genre. Whether or not I label something an RPG has nothing to do with whether or not I enjoy the game.
No, I'm not talking about quality at all - so we agree about that.
Genres and terminologies are strict. They have to be in order to be of any use. There will always be grey areas of course, where there will be a certain amount of discussion, but most things should be easy to identify.
They're strict indeed, and that's the problem I'm talking about.
On the contrary - the more advanced something gets, the more important it is to use standard definitions, or you'll be stuck in an eternal loop of discussion. When Stephen Hawking discusses astrophysics, you can be certain he's not going "you know the thing, the thing with the thing, that's in the sky? You know, out in space, there's this.. THING, and it's like glowing and stuff" - "the sun?" - "yes, but I refer to it as The Glowing Ball, but to each his own I suppose".
Did you read what I said?
If someone comes up with a definition that works, I'll accept it. They can't, though, because it certainly seems to be impossible.
The sun? That's a pretty basic concept, though, isn't it?
Anyone at a sufficiently advanced level will use exceptionally advanced terminology to define and identify even the smallest items or objects. Whether you're talking to experts of music, arts or science, there will be terminology deciding what you're actually talking about.
You seem to be forgetting my point. Every small detail can be defined relatively easily. You just call it a name. Like with the Sun. It doesn't really matter what it consists of, because for each solar system, we have a sun - and that's enough, I guess. In any case, there's nothing subjective about it - because nature tells us what we need to know.
An RPG is man-made, which is why we all need to agree. Nature doesn't help us. We can't gather together and point at a game and say "that's an RPG, ok?" and agree. Because each game is different, where as the Sun is pretty unique to our earth (forgetting the rest of the universe). That said, I wouldn't be suprised if they one day figure out our Sun isn't really a star.
But that analogy is kinda like pointing at a random RPG and saying "that's a game, ok?" - so you get my meaning.
However, once you have something like what makes an RPG - it becomes near-impossible - because no one can agree what it means. It's because it's not about math or strongly defined rules. It's about subjective opinion.
There's a reason why doctors, medical scientists and so on all have to learn Latin terminology; it enables them to discuss the exact same thing regardless of where they are on the planet.
Again with the simplistic. Yeah, let's give a plant a name - but that's hardly what we're talking about.
Do you honestly believe I'm challenging whether we should have definitions at all? Please give me some credit. I'm talking about those things that can't BE defined. Like what makes an RPG.
Other examples of things that can be challenging:
What is required for an adventure game?
Is Se7en a thriller or a horror film?
Like I said though, there will always be grey areas, but most things should be easy to identify.
They should be, but they're not.
Diablo is such an example. And no, I have never referred to it as an RPG. I never will. Still a good game though, especially Diablo 2.
Yeah, they're good games. The gist of my point, really, is that it MATTERS to you, whether we refer to them as RPGs or not. It doesn't matter to me, because I realise how subjective that is.
So, basically, I just don't know if they're RPGs or not. All I know is that I can't exclude them from the genre, because they have enough RPG elements to be contenders.
Hopefully, my explanation above will make it a bit more clear. As long as I don't make exceptions to my rigid way of thinking, it's a lot easier to know exactly what is an RPG and what is not. There is no point in even asking me how I feel about the topic - anyone will instantly be able to know what games I consider an RPG.
I feel I'm getting closer to understanding your requirements, but I wonder if you realise that your simple "Character development and C&C" definition is anything but simple, because you've had to explain it in detail. That has been my point from the start, but ok
It could be I'm a moron, but I honestly think your definition of C&C is pretty strict and rigid. Not only do the choices HAVE to be of a personal nature, but now they also have to affect "Canon" - and you even say that it's a SIMPLE concept. To you, maybe
I've spared you the trouble of getting a clear definition of what constitutes character development, but let's see about that
I have to re-iterate though that calling something an RPG is not a "label of quality" to me; it merely describes what kind of game it is. I enjoy games across most genres, just as I do with music or movies. I always maintain my rigid terminology, however, making it easy to identify what I'm talking about.
Example: Many people identify Miley Cyrus as a rock star. I don't. My definition of rock is slightly more narrow and rigid than that.
Oh, I get this
It's not about quality. To me, it's about needless borders.