Talk:Role-playing video game/Archive 1

Josh Sawyer Quote Misrepresented

While following up that quote for some research, I think its been spun rather incorrectly. He means "no pure PC RPG developers" as in no companies left that only do PC RPG games, not as a qualitative measure of "purity" to the genre which is what I see implied strongly here. I'd like to see someone agree with this before an edit is submitted though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.66.32.238 (talk • contribs)

Argh, you're right. I feel particularly stupid since I hunted down the source of that quote, but I didn't follow up on it (it was a followup question to an interview I couldn't find, until now.[1] I'll probably move it to the history article. --SevereTireDamage 22:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Extensive history article requested

The History of computer role-playing games should be discussed in much more in-depth. I created a stub page for it with the text from this article's second and third sections, along with some ideas in that page's discussion. Mikademus 11:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Move reason

I pushed this to "Computer role-playing game" because the name (and "CRPG" initials) is very common, it covers non-video RPG games (a strange concept to the under-30 crowd I suppose :-) ), plus that's what the industry award is called. Stan 19:13, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Too focused on consoles

This article looks too focused on console games to me... Ausir 15:27, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps we should create a new article called Console role-playing game and move all that junk to there (it exists, but is just a redirect to this article)? Then we open up the whole can of worms: Is a role-playing game played on a console still a computer role-playing game? Or is a different beast? Why? (Personally I think they are different, for the same reason that computer game is not a video game and vice versa). —Frecklefoot 16:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My estimate is that there's not enough useful content to support a distinct console RPG article. What would you say, beyond listing publishers and games (which are better in a separate list anyway)? Better to have the few sentences of console-specific information embedded in the more general article. Unlike computer game/video game, the RPG restriction considerably shrinks the amount of stuff there is to talk about. Stan 17:33, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Um, okay. I do see a big difference between the two (namely, console RPG use the gamepad for movement/actions; CRPG's use the mouse and various keyboard shortcuts), but you are probably right that there is not enough difference (beyond the mentioned) to warrant a seperate article.

It would be nice to have a list for computer RPG's as well, however. Since I am not a big CRPG player, I can't generate the whole list myself. It might be nice to have just one list with notable games from both console and personal computer in one timeline. Just a thought... —Frecklefoot 18:00, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I started a list of computer RPG's, but it is far from complete. Any die-hard fans of the genre, please add to! —Frecklefoot 20:22, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sad case is, most RPGs simply are released for consoles. Don't get me wrong, there are numerous great PC RPGs available ( Hello Baldur's Gate addiction... ) but the majority come from various Japanese companies. And even then I'm just talking about the ones we hear about. Eris knows how many are released in Japan and never make it to the US/Europe. It's a bad thing, I would LOVE to get my hands on a properly ported, translated and voiced version of Lunar: SSSC for the PC in Europe. Not to mention any recent FF or La Puchelle Tactics for the PC. :( --DarkLordSeth 00:42, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Console list too extensive

I started formatting the "Chronology of Console RPG's" list so it better matched the computer list. But I noticed something. Look at the Chronology of Computer RPG's list. Almost every game listed there has an active wikilink. That makes sense. Since it is a list of notable RPG's, it makes sense that an article exists on the game. Now look at corresponding console RPG list. Only about half of the games listed (for those that even have wikilinks) have articles. I suspect that this is because they are not notable.

or maybe computer users are more likely to be on the internet, and take an active roll, as opposed to console users, that might not have the same access/interest Xiag 19:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the list includes almost every Console RPG ever produced, which is contrary to the note at the bottom of the list. These entries would be fine for List of Console RPG's or some such thing, but not for the article. I'm not up on console RPG's, so I'd appreciate it if someone who is could trim out the more obscure titles. Otherwise, in a few days, I'll just take out all the games that don't have active wikilinks, assuming they are not actually notable. Then I'd be more than happy to continue formatting the list. :) —Frecklefoot 18:21, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oops, also, what console is "MS"? That was listed as the console for a few of the games in the console list. That's not an abbreviation I'm familiar with. —Frecklefoot 18:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it's Microsoft X-Box? Ausir 19:08, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I had thought of that. But since it appears in 1987, it can't be. :S —Frecklefoot 19:14, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd guess MS is Sega Master System. Nearly every list of "notable" or "popular" things in the Wikipedia becomes comprehensive given time. --Mrwojo 19:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that we should limit the list to games that have Wikipedia articles. Ausir 19:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To Mrwojo, I don't mind having a list of games that are actually notable. But it looks to me that the list includes way more than just notable Console RPG's. If someone wants a comprehensive list of all Console RPG's, that's fine. But that's a seperate article and not appropriate for this article. —Frecklefoot 19:59, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It looks that way to me too. While it's difficult to define notable, it's easy to insert a game into a list. --Mrwojo 22:43, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In general, editors agree that "notable" means "notable enough to have an article". Of course, that doesn't stop fanboys obsessing over something obscure. You could try Stan's "rule of a thousand" - the game should have affected at least 1,000 people during its existence, counting all of customers/players/developers/publishers/reviewers etc. Stan 01:07, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sound good to me. :-) I'll append that with "...publishers/reviewers etc. who actually use Wikipedia." If the list doesn't get trimmed within a few days. I'll just remove the games that don't have articles since, as I said, I'm not up on the console scene. Anyone object? —Frecklefoot 16:48, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removed POV addition

DarkLordSeth added a paragraph to the end of the Modern games section. It is highly POV and, thus, against Wikipedia standards. It has some valuable insights, but unsuitable in its current state. If someone wants to take a crack at NPOV'ing it and putting it back in, it is below. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:56, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

It should be noted, however, that the RPG genre in computer games is already a watered down version of the non-electronic genre. For example, quite a number of recent CRPGs follow a single linear storyline ( sometimes with minor sidequests ) without real interaction. For example, conversations in CRPGs are mostly scripted where one can choose between several preselected replies. With a pen-and-paper RPG, one interacts with the gamemaster who is ( usually ) not limited to predefined answers to predefined questions. CRPGs are also inflexible compared to pen-and-paper RPGs. For example, in a CRPG the player might be required to shut down and illegal mining operation by entering the mines and dealing with the person in charge. While there are sometimes multiple predefined options available, most of the time the storyline will expect the player to descend into the mine and take of things. In an pen-and-paper RPG, the options are far more diverse. The player(s) might divert a small river to flood the mine, cast spells that would cause the mine to collapse in a massive earthquake or call upon fire support from artillery, bombers or orbital weapons. ( Depending upon game setting. ) Inventive players can even solve it differently, playing upon the greed of the person in charge of the mine and simply buying it, sending down a group of mercenaries to deal with the mine or informing the local authorities and letting them deal with the situation at hand. This kind of flexibility, along with dynamic storylines, is usually not found in CRPGs.

How about this? (Needs wikifying)

A common complaint regarding CRPGs is the apparent linearity of the scenario. For example, quite a number of CRPGs follow a single linear storyline ( sometimes with minor sidequests ) without real opportunity to chose the ultimate path of the narrative. For example, conversations in CRPGs are mostly scripted where one can choose between several preselected replies, or enter one of several predefined keywords. It can be claimed that a gamemaster based paper and pen RPG is more adaptive, and lends greater unpredictability to a game. CRPGs are also inflexible compared to pen-and-paper RPGs. For example, in a CRPG the player might be required to shut down and illegal mining operation by entering the mines and dealing with the person in charge. While there are sometimes multiple predefined options available, most of the time the storyline will expect the player to descend into the mine and take of things. In an pen-and-paper RPG, the options are in argueably more diverse. The player(s) might divert a small river to flood the mine, cast spells that would cause the mine to collapse in a massive earthquake or call upon fire support from artillery, bombers or orbital weapons. ( Depending upon game setting. ) Inventive players can even solve it differently, playing upon the greed of the person in charge of the mine and simply buying it, sending down a group of mercenaries to deal with the mine or informing the local authorities and letting them deal with the situation at hand.

However, this is not neccessarily true. With a gamemaster led RPG, much depends on the personality of the gamemaster himself. An unsuitable gamemaster can force far greater linearity than the programming restraints of a CRPG. Further, while an extensive series of solution may exist in paper and pen RPG, usually they are not taken - use of orbital weapons for example would usually be disallowed, purely for the purpose of balance, or maintaining a consistent game world. The degree of nonlinearity also varies between CRPGs. Fallout for example has multiple ways of defending its end boss, including a pacifist approach. Many MMORPGs, such as Everquest have also allowed player interactions to remove any linearity, and create a much more dynamic game world.--Fangz 19:04, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think, now, that it all boils down to wether or not some of the linear CRPGs should be regarded as RPGs to start with. For example, a typical linear CRPG would be Final Fantasy VII. The player doesn't actually "play a role" as much as "guide a character through a predetermined script". The statistics are defined by the game at the start and at best the roleplaying will consist of a minigame or making a minor selection that doesn't affect the global storyline at all. It would seem to me that games like that can hardly be considered a role playing game, but more an interactive story. The same can be said about PnP RPGs and GMs, depending on the playing style used by the GM ( and the experience of said GM ) along with the players. I think that if we for a second forget about "interactvie stories" then the whole deal becomes a bit clearer. However, I don't think this is the place for discussions wether some games actually are RPGs or not, but if anyone is interested in discussing this in more detail, please let me know. As for the article, I agree with the improvements, even though I would like to add a fe bits to the second para you've added. Mind if I have a go at it? Critique, comments, flames, all are welcome! :)

However, this is not necessarily true. It is arguable that with a gamemaster led RPG, much depends on the personality, experience and imagination of the gamemaster himself. An unsuitable gamemaster can force far greater linearity than the programming restraints of a CRPG. Further, while an extensive series of solutions may exist in paper and pen RPG, usually they are not taken by the players for various reasons such as time constraints ( both in game as in real life ) and enjoyment. It is reasonable to assume that players usually pick the most interesting and potentially most fun solution. The degree of nonlinearity also varies between CRPGs. Fallout for example has multiple ways of defending its end boss, including a pacifist approach. Another example would be Star_Wars:_Knights_of_the_Old_Republic, where the player's choices carry consequences throughout the entire game and affect both the storyline and the eventual ending. In contrast, it might be argued that the Final Fantasy series in general sports a very linear storyline, where the player is limited in affecting the flow of the story. Many MMORPGs and MUDs, such as Everquest have also allowed player interactions to remove any linearity, and create a much more dynamic game world. Usually, storylines aren't part of the gameplay in either MMORPGs or MUDs though. Instead, these online RPGs generally focus more around occasional unrelated quests ( both prescripted as well as improvised ) created by the gamemasters. DarkLordSeth 00:21, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oldest Console RPG

The oldest console role-playing game is not Dragon Warrior/Quest for the NES as previously claimed, but rather AD&D: Treasure of Tarmin for the Intellivision (1982). There was another Intellivision AD&D game (originally just called AD&D, later titled "Cloudy Mountain) which was an action/adventure game rather than a true RPG. Treasure of Tarmin might not be the oldest console RPG, but I'm reasonably sure it is. --Crunchy Frog 04:36, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm having a debate with a friend whether Treasure of Tarmin is actually the oldest console RPG for the console vs. Dragonstomper for the Atari 2600. Both were released in 1982. Anyone have any release dates on these two? WillDarlock 15:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Temple of Apshai?

Someone who knows more about it than me should add the 1979/1980? game Temple of Apshai (and its sequels) to the discussion of early computer RPGS. While you're at it, someone make a page for Temple of Apshai -- that was a few years before I started playing with computers, and I'd really like to read about it. :)

Pictures: http://www.thelegacy.de/Museum/3110/ --Crunchy Frog 05:04, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I used to love that game. I should really get off my butt and write the article one of these days. Really lame compared to today's standards, but just about the best CRPG in its heyday. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:12, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

There, how's that? :-) It should be added to the article somewhere, since it was so popular. MobyGames says it was a 1980 game, but someone may want to check on that. Anyway, it should be added to the article under the correct date. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:59, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Screenshots

You know, this article is fairly complete now. All it needs is some nice screenshots to dress it up. Anyone actually have any of these games and can grab some frames? I think game screenshots are covered under fair use. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:12, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I added some from other articles, but it could use more. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:41, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Action RPGs

How are we dealing with Action RPGs? I can't seem to find any mention of them anywhere. I think it should at least get a description, if not it's own article. Also, why the absence of the Zelda games, not only here, but in the Chronology article? I fail to see how Crystalis is more worthy of mention. Mole 16:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Squad-based TBS w/ RPG elements?

Is it possible to mention these games these games that have many RPG elements, but are also considered squad turn based strategies like X-Com: UFO Defense and Jagged Alliance? --67.123.74.233

I've played both (both are excellent), but I wouldn't consider either an RPG. But, sure, if you want to mention them, go ahead. Be bold! Next time, please sign your post. You can do this with either 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The latter is preferred, as it also leaves a timestamp. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:01, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Don't really consider them RPGs either, mainly because you don't play a character yourself in either of those games. You assume a commanding function over a group of soldiers, but you don't actually go in detail about the characters or their personal storylines as is common with RPGs. Also, the focus on those two games is action, more so then storyline or character development. I'm not for sure about X-COM: UFO Defense though... It is the same game as UFO: Enemy Unknown, aye? Ps, Frecklefoot, could you please give your comments again on the addition I made a while ago that has been moved to this talk page? ( Item nr 4 ) Ta!  :: DarkLordSeth 20:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Jagged Alliance 2 does have some character-insight voice-overs. For example, you can tell Fox is attracted to Grizzly by what she says about him. You can really tell Buns hates Fox and the interaction between the two really hinders any missions you try to undertake with both of them. That's role-playing. :-) But you're right--you don't really assume the identity of any one of the characters--except maybe the leader--but that is common with all RPG's. Perhaps X-COM doesn't really fit because the player doesn't assume the ID of any of the soldiers--he just orders them around.

Also, the focus of those games isn't action. It is combat, but it is turn-based, so it is very strategic like many P&P RPG games tend to be. As for story, the originator of D&D, Gary Gygax says that scripted storylines for RPGs are BS--he said the characters should create the story, not the other way around. That is very much what the player does in X-COM and Jagged Alliance.

As for your addition, I haven't been keeping up with the thread. I trust your jusgement and the judgement of the others participating in that thread. The only thing I found POV was the "watered-down" comment. If that was gracefully removed, it could be put back in. Like I said, it had some good, useful information. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:02, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

I have to admit I don't have too much experience with any Jagged Alliance games, especially the story lines because I kept getting my butt handed to me by the computer. Hence why I never got very far into the storyline. Regardless, it might be open for interpretation as to wether on not JA can be considered an RPG. I don't recall the player actually roleplaying a certain character or getting involved into character development to start with. But the whole definition of CRPGs is vague at best; Any recent Final Fantasy can easily be seen as an anime movie with savepoints, lately. Due to the inherent single-player nature of CRPGs and the inability of computers to improvise a game setting, CRPGs remain a vague point, to me, at least. My views on this can be read at the item nr 4 in this talk page. :)

Besides, a lot of games feature voice-overs and the player assuming the role of the hero or an unnamed leader type character that affects the outcome of the game and the development of the story. We could add nearly ANY game to the list of CRPGs then, ranging from Commander Keen, Command & Conquer up to Doom 3. Maybe we're confusing a storyline with actual roleplaying here? But that would lead back to CRPGs not being actual RPGs... Argh! I'm going in circles... :(

Anyways, the definition of CRPG might be expanded to include games like the Jagged Alliance series; I'm not the sole authority that decides on this matter. However, those games already fit nicely in their own genre, tactical squad based games. Still, not up to me to make the final decision on this matter. Would be interesting to hear what others think of this matter... :: DarkLordSeth 01:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Most computer and video games today do not fit nicely into one genre. The reason I think Jagged Alliance fits (and I didn't see the connection until 67.123.74.233 brought it up) is that in Jagged Alliance, the player (a) assumes the role of one main character (and controls others) and (b) the characters change over time (as they gain experience, etc.). Commander Keen, for example, doesn't change at all except maybe getting better weapons. The squadees in JA do change over time as they gain experience.

That being said, the squadees in X-COM also gain experience and get better with time. But the player doesn't really assume the role of any one of them. So the X-COM games (at least the first two) would only half-fit into the CRPG genre. Just my $.02... :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:58, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I'll have to admit that Jagged Alliance does come over as a game with some particular RPG-like influences. Pretty much in the same way Deus Ex and Warcraft III have a few very RPG-like influences But all three aforementioned games have a different focus regarding gameplay. JA is a squad based tactical simulator, Deus Ex is a first person shooter and Warcraft 3 is a real-time strategy game. Still, it would be hard to deny the fact that they are partly RPGs, or at least incorporate some rather obvious RPG-like elements in them. The RPG elements are reduced to storyline enhancement, not the actual main gameplay element, so calling them full RPGs would be kind of silly in my humble opinion.

Maybe worthy of a section on this page referring to the fact quite a few games these days use a number of CRPG characteristics? I don't know, might be a good idea though. Not by me today though, got a birfday, woot! Anyways, my € 0,02 :P :: DarkLordSeth 17:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fine, just remember that being an "RPG" and "having RPG elements" are two different things. --The Yar 20:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Not too many example RPGs, thank you!

Pleas please PLEASE keep the list of example RPGs nice and shiny and most importantly SMALL. I'd prefer having a list of 10 to 15 of the most influential RPGs on a PC and console basis. No more, no less. I mean, adding all sequels to an mildly important RPG series would be pointless. Just put up a "somethingsomethingyaddayadda series debuts" at the appropriate year and no more.

Or maybe something like this to cough up a nice and detailed list of PC CRPGs, while only putting truly great and/or original CRPGs on the main CRPG page? :: DarkLordSeth 02:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, let's just include the really notable ones (e.g. Wizardry, Bard's Tale, Baldur's Gate, etc.). The sequels and such should be omitted unless truly groundbreaking in some sense (e.g. Ultima III). The just "good" RPGs that weren't too notable or whatnot can go in that list you linked. Let's start widdling away! — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:13, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Coll7

I reverted all the edits by Coll7. Not only did he get a lot of facts wrong (D&D was first published in '74, not '75), he turned the article into a gush on how Dungeon was the first dungeon crawl. There were like 5 paragraphs on it! Other additions he made were highly POV. Since he wrote a whole article on Dungeon, I included it in the Chronology (most of what he added to this article was just a restating of the article), but I'm, not convinced it was widely used or recognized. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:31, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Response:

1. Year error -- yes, you're right, and boy is that embarrassing for me. I received my D&D 30-year anniversary book in 2005 and had one of those "Wikipedia warns you not to do this" brain gaps by not checking my dates.

2. This also means that Dungeon probably first hit in 1975 rather than 1976, since it trailed D&D by about a year and I had used the D&D year for my estimate.

3. "Gush" comment. This may in part have been chauvinism on my part (I'll reread now that a week has passed), but I also think this relates back to whether someone was on a DEC system or on a PLATO system. Those on PLATO know little and have no personal history with the games distributed by DECUS, and vice versa. As a DEC person I have read about the PLATO games and recognize they were important to a lot of people, but our "alumni" group has no personal link. I'm sure that to PLATO veterans the DEC games seem equally out of left field as "I don't know who was playing those games, but I sure know what I was playing!"

I have encountered a lot of people from each "family line" over the years, but I think the PLATO system lasted longer and supported more users per system and thus very well may have touched more people.

I think the solution is to (without getting too long) create two strands, one for PLATO and one for DEC, and acknowledge that there was little interchange between the two. I'd be happy to take another crack at the DEC strand with a "watch for overenthusiasm" bent. If the DEC stuff I added was a gush, then the dnd article as written is even more-so, and perhaps it would be worth someone from the PLATO alumni looking it over for tone as well.

Thanks, and please accept my apology for screwing up on my fact checking on the year issue. --Coll7

I don't think an in-depth look into which game was the first is really appropriate here. Rogue is generally recognized as the first CRPG and touched an enormous number of people and still does today. Since it was distributed with the Berkeley Software Distribution of Unix, thousands of people played it as soon as it was completed.

I think mentioning those others is fine, but they really didn't shape the genre of CRPG the way Rogue did. You might want to look at the Rogue or Roguelikes article for an appropriate addition. But please don't go on and on about the games—that's what your article is for. Just mention enough to give it context.

Next, please sign your posts. I added your sig to the comment above, but you can add your signature by typing 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The latter is usually preferred since it also adds a timestamp. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:51, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

CRPG?

I play a lot of RPGs and I've never heard of them referred to as CRPGs until now. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

That is a term coined for PC only RPGs. I have heard it a couple of times before. -- ReyBrujo 10:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen it outside of wikipedia. Could you provide a reference? Percy Snoodle 22:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Here you go. A Google search with 215,000 English language pages featuring either the term "computer role-playing game" or the abbreviation CRPG. It's the most commonly used term when it becomes necessary to differentiate computer RPGs from other kinds of RPGs. – Seancdaug 22:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Elements/Shared Characteristcs

I reverted the elements blurb for the following reasons: 1. "Air" and "Wind" is not the same - they sound similar, but they are different (see below). Note that in the bagua there is also "Heaven", but this also means "Sky." So which would "air" be? (Not quite the same.) 2. The Chinese wuxing (五行) theory is often translated as the "five elements," but in actuality are closer to something like the "five phases." Unlike the Western four element theory (air is strong against and weak against earth, water is strong against and weak against fire), the Chinese phase strengths and weaknesses are not mutual: wood beats earth beats water beats fire beats metal beats wood. In addition, wood bears fire bears earth bears metal bears water (this is why it is the five phases, as one begets the other, while the four elements of the West is more a theory stating that all is made of four most simple things). 3. The Chinese bagua theory is more complicated, as there are various orderings of the eight trigrams, and besides "elements" we also have corresponding animals, and so on (the "elements" are by no means primary). Again, this is not "elements" persay, but rather something more like the result of various groupings of the two elements of negative (yin) and positive (yang). In that sense, we only have two elements - yin and yang. Since each trigram has three bars each of either yin or yang, we can have various results, from pure yin (three yin bars = earth) to pure yang (three yang bars = heaven (i.e. sky)). Everything else is just a different mixture of yin and yang. In addition, we also have the 64 hexagrams, which is six bars each, making everything more complicated again...

Anyway, in a nutshell, I would say that influence of the wuxing or bagua is slight at best in Japanese CRPGs (and obviously Western CRPGs); if they DO use the wuxing at all, it is often a rather muddled mix of the four element and five phase ideas without really understanding either, often using the five phase beasts (a favorite motif of the Japanese): wood (seiryu), fire (suzaku), earth (ouryu), metal (byakko), water (genbu) - but 99% of the time forgetting about the earth beast, and often mixing with Western ideas and messing everything up (Suzaku becomes a Phoenix, Seiryu may be given wind powers while Byakko give earth powers, etc.) - in this way defaulting again back to the typical Western four element theory anyway.

Edededed 04:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Having been the one to originally include the Shared Characteristics category, I feel an odd sense of honor and education to see it accepted and so interestingly expanded on. :) -- James26 16:26, 22 November 22 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Shared Characteristics bit, while it has some good points, also has some rather awful points. Allow me to have a go at 'em. The first point mentioned, death, is a pretty solid bit. Also might be worth noting that the antagonist usually dies in close-combat with the protagonist. We never see standing armies take down the bad guy or see the protagonist arresting or otherwise detaining the bad guy. Death is the usual solution. Good point for the rest though.

Second point is a bit more sketchy. What is meant with silent? No audio at all? Or that the character is mute throughout the game? The example CRPGs named all have protagonists with text. And audio voice-overs are not that uncommon either, especially in Japanese CRPGs. Might be interesting to take a look into this though.

The female character bit is wonky. I highlights differences in a section dedicated to highlighting similiarities. The point is valid though, if misplaced. Move it to the section above it maybe?

The elements bit is the main pet peeve I have. Elements are common in Japanese CRPGs, but very uncommon in western CRPGs. I think people are confusing the whole ideas behind what can be seen in CRPGs; Japanese CRPGs usually focus heavily on their elements, even so much that the majority (if not all) magical attacks in a specific game are based on any combination of those elements. In western CRPGs, elements simply don't exist in most of the cases and attacks are considered to do regular damage. Damage might vary per monster fought but it usually has more to do with the monster itself rather than being tied into some elements.

Lead characters falling in love is something that I think mainly happens in Japanese CRPGs. Western ones focus more on the fighting and tactical part, less on the storyline, anyways.

And last but not least, the sequels bit. Which I dont have anything to say about because it's pretty damned true. :) :: DarkLordSeth 12:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting and helpful input for all of us who've contributed to this section. Regarding the "his or her goals" part of the first point, are there any CRPGs that even have a villainess as the main antagonist anymore? Only one I can think of, though it barely qualifies since it's more of a strategy-RPG, is the great Ogre Battle: March of the Black Queen. --James26 15:22, 22 November 23 2005 (UTC)

Maybe if you make your main character in Baldur's Gate 1 or 2 a female character...? Would be stretching the definition a bit but while we're at it, how about Lufia? It might be a bit of a long shot here, though... But those are some rather specific characteristics you're looking for, in the first place. ;) :: DarkLordSeth 22:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Pressing issues

(1) Why is there such an extensive list of console games in the "Computer role-playing game" section? Shouldn't this be moved elsewhere? I could see the point of discussing (typical) differences between console/computer Japanese/Western RPGs here (and even then, these differences could perhaps be relegated to a side article), but why so much information on console RPGs in particular? I guess there is a computer inside a console, but...

(2) As someone already pointed out, action RPGs and RPGs are treated the same in this article. Games like Dungeon Siege, Diablo, Fate, etc fall more or less into the action RPG category whereas games like Fallout, Arcanum, Baldur's Gate, etc, fit more into the traditional RPG definition, at least as seen by purists. With how developed this article is now, and how many people perceive Diablo as an RPG in every sense of the term, maybe it is too late to split the article, but may I suggest that we add a section that details this very commonly argued distinction? I'll probably do this on my own eventually if nobody does it, but I'm wondering if maybe there is a reason it hasn't been done already.

(3) People confuse console RPGs with Japanese RPGs with a specific group of RPGs with no simple name. Please, folks, not *all* RPGs Japan makes are the same. Not *all* console RPGs are the same, like being linear, character-focused, etc. Nor are all Western RPGs nonlinear, story-based, etc.

-- Solberg 10:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Solberg

Modern games: copyright violation?

The whole 'modern games' section is an exact copy of http://www.rpgstory.com/modern-rpg.html, without mentioning this page or its site.. The page contains the following notice: "Copyright © 2004 - RPG Story. All Rights Reserved." -- Marnix Klooster (ln.noclos@retsoolk.xinram) 194.149.80.4 13:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing this article's edit history, it seems more likely that the website you mentioned cut-and-pasted the "Modern games" section from this article. The modern games section evolved over more than a year with contributions from numerous editors, starting on 09:30, 26 January 2003. It was split off into a separate section on 08:52, 5 November 2003 and reached the form in which it appears on the rpgstory website on 06:48, 6 August 2004. If it were a copyvio, one would expect it to appear in one block in a single edit, instead of evolving incrementally over time. --Muchness 14:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

So I guess you could say they are copyvio-ing Wikipedia. ;-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, looks that way :) --Muchness 04:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking for a game

I`ve heard of a game whose title had something to do with 'Stone Prophet'. It took place in a desert, with an eastern influence. You could recruit rangers, a troll, etc. Anybody know about a game like this? It also featured a tough monster known as Semmet.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.134 (talk • contribs) .

Hi, the game you're looking for is Ravenloft: Stone Prophet. For future reference, questions like this should be asked at Wikipedia:Reference desk rather than on talk pages. --Muchness 06:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Unfortunately, this site doesn`t list the game, so if anyone has played or at least watched it, I`ll thank them for putting up a page. Once more, thanx, Muchness! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.134 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 20 February 2006.

You're welcome. --Muchness 08:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Need Sources

Just noticing, I cannot seem to find any sources on this article. That is all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sokarma (talk • contribs) 15:30, 21 February 2006.

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

For those of you who have an especially strong grasp on the semantics of what makes a game a CRPG vs simply a RPG, can you please help me clarify whether Oblivion is a CRPG (like some argue) or simply a RPG (like I think). It's a subject of small controversy at Oblivion's page. Thanks! JovBlackheart 17:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a fighting/adventure hybrid, actually :). Well, it would better be called just RPG, it there's controversy. CP/M 23:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Talking Protagonists

Just because some heroes used to be silent doesn't mean it should be stated that many protagonists don't talk. Games used to be sprite-based but there's nothing saying that many RPGs are. And what Western RPGs have characters that don't talk? I can't think of any at the moment. Finally, what makes Suidoken V so important?

It is true that this practice has been almost exclusive to Japanese RPGs and that few recent games have carried on the tradition. However, unlike the use of sprites in pre-PS1 consoles, the lack of protagonist dialogue was not due to technical limitations; it was a conscious design decision made by many developers. White Agent 14:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Jagex

I am going to add Jagex to the list of companies section. They are the creators of RuneScape, a game which millions of people play. Twipie 22:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A few changes.

The article seemed somewhat slanted towards Western RPGs in parts; I tried to even it out somewhat, but not lean things the other way. The original article went on a bit too much about level differences, which is frankly pretty irrelevant IMHO even if it's generally true. I shortened that up a bit. I also tried to make it clearer that the Japanese RPGs were basically telling a story that you got to hop along the ride for; in the Western RPGs, you were more likely making the story yourself, at least to a degree. One other thing I got rid of:

Western RPGs rarely incorporate these elemental systems as an important part of their setting; instead, they focus on systems that classify weapons by damage type, such as "piercing", "slashing", "bludgeoning", and "magical". In these games, a weapon's effectiveness depends heavily on the target that it is used on; piercing weapons may work well against fleshy targets, but not against a gelatinous cube, for example.

How many have actually done this? Sure, it was in the old AD&D book, but I got the impression nobody ever implemented it. Even in games that did- generally very strict D&D clones (I wasn't a huge Gold Box fan, so it escapes me if they did it there)- it's not like you were changing up your swords to flails all the time. Feel free to put it back in if it really was done, but I can't recall any good examples where this was anywhere near as large a part of the game as knowing elemental weaknessess in Japanese RPGs. SnowFire 21:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

From the top of my head, not including D&D games: Diablo (1 & 2), Fallout (1 & 2), Knights of the Old Republic (1 & 2), Champions of Norrath (and Return to Arms), Guild Wars, Vampire: The Masquerade (Redemption and Bloodlines) and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion all feature several non-elemental damage types and enemies more vulnerable or more resistant to them. I believe all D&D games for the PC since Baldur's Gate have implemented damage reduction rules using non-elemental damage types, but I'm not sure about the previous ones. I agree that finding and exploiting these non-elemental weaknesses is usually not as necessary and crucial to survival as in Japanese RPGs. This is due to the skill-based systems used in these games that encourage you to focus on one weapon type for each character; specializing in more than one type or wielding weapons you're not skilled with is usually not worth the trouble. White Agent 14:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Good changes, by the way, I mostly agree with them. That said... it was in Diablo? And KOTOR, and V:tM Redemption? I played through all of those games without ever noticing nor caring too much, if that's true. Diablo II defintely had elemental weaknesses (Fire/Ice/Lightning/Poison/Phsyical), but I seem to recall all weapons being lumped under physical damage- no difference betwene a Flail & a Bow when fighting Skeletons. KOTOR had blasters vs. melee, with blasters able to be deflected by Jedi... but was there much difference within melee aside from the big lightsabre / standard sword divide (which would be setting-specific, not a general rule)? And it's been too long for me to recall V:tM Redemption, but if it had it, I played it like Baldur's Gate and the like, basically ignoring it even if it was causing damage adjustments in the background.

Maybe it's just a personal blindspot, but I can be a bit of a system-wonk and this was something I found it was almost never worthwhile to pay attention to. The best example I can think of for weapon types mattering is the Fire Emblem series, which falls squarely under the Eastern banner (but it's also a tactical RPG). Maybe I just missed all the games where it made a big difference. SnowFire 16:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In the Diablo series, all undead are more vulnerable to blunt weapons and less vulnerable to blades; I think Diablo only hinted at this with a tip from Griswold, but in Diablo 2, all blunt weapons are clearly labeled with "+100% damage vs undead". In KOTOR, "physical" and "energy" are the two main weapon damage types, but the explosives show a variety of other types such as "piercing" and "sonic". The Vampire games have bashing, lethal, and aggravated damage types. I think most of the D&D games list a weapon's damage type, but they rarely say anything explicit about the effects of weapon damage types in-game. If there's one of them I'm sure it was implemented, it would have to be in Temple of Elemental Evil; pretty much every combat-related rule and detail from the D&D 3.5 books was faithfully implemented into the game. In any case, switching weapons in mid-battle in all these games would probably not make a great deal of a difference, unless you're equally skilled them. Most of the time you'd just have built your character around a single weapon, and switching to another would mean you'd miss constantly or deal practically the same amount of damage over time. White Agent 17:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Diablo isn't a CRPG (strictly speaking), but, anyway, there are games which include different melee damage types. So it should be retained. CP/M 18:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Can Zelda really be considered a part of the genre?

The Legend of Zelda series are often included into the RPG genre of video games because of the games' striking similarities to other console RPGs. The fantasy setting, story structure, world exploration, and NPC chatter makes them seem closer to games like Final Fantasy instead of Mega Man. However, there is one element that all other traditional RPGs have that the Zelda series lack: character improvement through training. All traditional RPGs allow you to gain levels or improve your skills/attributes (through in-game mechanics, not player skill) by fighting continually or practicing a skill repeatedly. In Zelda games, Link's improvement happens only by reaching certain locations, triggering story events, or acquiring specific items. This is, in fact, a gameplay style much more akin to games in the adventure genre such as Kid Icarus, Metroid, and Metal Gear. Because of the same reason, one could also say that Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, considered by most as a platformer/adventure game, is much closer to the RPG genre than the Zelda series.

I know that these things are mostly a matter of opinion, but I would like to encourage others to speak their mind here about the "truer" elements of video game RPGs in order to reach a consensus. Why would you classify a game as an RPG, or why would you say that a game has only RPG elements but belongs to another genre? From my point of view, these are the elements that are necessary for a game to fit into the RPG genre:

-The ability to guide or adjust your character's performance by the numbers, through equipment and/or by contolling the way they improve their attributes/skills as they gain experience (or equivalent points). This includes being able to at least see your hit points/health in a clear and precise numerical form, not in abstract ways or through percentage only. I believe this is the most important characteristic when it comes to defining an RPG.

-The ability to improve your character's performance through in-game training mechanics such as fighting random encounters or continuously performing a certain action without limits other than level/skill "caps" or "ceilings", as opposed to character improvement that is guided only by pre-defined and limited items, locations, or scripted story-related events. Games that have every other RPG element except this one would belong to the adventure genre.

-A continuous and coherent world/environment that allows you to return to some of the locations you have previously traveled to. This is in contrast to games divided by stages/levels that never allow you to turn back or travel in more than one general direction. Games that have other RPG elements save for this one would belong to the strategy or simulation genres.

Dialog and quest story structures might not be entirely necessary; rogue-likes and other old CRPGs had none of that and can still be considered "true" to the genre. The visual perspective of the game (overhead, isometric, platformer side-view, first person, etc.) should not be a factor, either. That's all I can think of for now. White Agent 14:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to forget role-playing element, which is the very reason for the genre's name. Characters improvement is a common feature among the genre, but it's mostly for historic reasons (from P'n'P games), and some feature being common doesn't make it essential (in fact, in PnP RPGs there's sometimes no characters improvement). Exposing the game mechanics to the player (like HP number, levels, etc) was required for PnP, but it's unimportant for a computer game, and it's as well a feature of many other games, including Doom. For exposing game mechanics and stats see Morrowind, which is obviously a CRPG, but doesn't expose a lot of mechanics and doesn't allow one to directly control his character's development except for levelup adjustments, which are anyway usually chosen by multipliers. Deus Ex has exp assigned only for prescripted actions, not repeated shooting or killing. On the other hand, many pure strategy or RTS games have characters improvement for kills, sometimes with points assignment player-controlled.

However, as for today, more role-playing-related elements, like dialogues and quests might be considered more important. While many old CRPGs didn't have them, these games would hardly look like CRPGs today, being more of an action with charsheet, and are called so more for historic reasons, connections with PnP RPGs, and, the main reason, being marked as RPGs by their publishers.

Speaking about Zelda - does it have player-controlled dialogues, quests (except main), and other elements? I haven't played it, and its article suggests it hasn't. If so, combined with lack of CRPG common features and not being named a RPG by publisher, it seems there's no reason to call this game a CRPG.

CP/M 16:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Most Zelda games have side quests and dialogue is limited to yes/no answers to questions that don't affect the outcome of the story (example: refusing to help someone means nothing happens and they will ask the same thing again when approached). And yes, that's true; Nintendo has never associated the series with the RPG genre.

Role-playing in the sense of making plot-altering choices and having complex dialogue structures (like story branching) is an attractive part of newer RPGs, but it's not something exclusive to the genre. Text adventure games offer great role-immersing experiences and many games from other genres offer moral choices (be the good guy or the bad guy) and class-based gameplay styles (like the Hexen series). I think a true RPG results from the combination of all the previously mentioned elements, not just having some of them. Still, there are plenty of games out there that lack some of them, yet they associate best with the RPG genre than any other. White Agent 20:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Plot altering choices isn't exactly that... even if you combine them with stats and char development, you might get just a strategy game. I rather see psychological element in dialogue (of course, moral choices are close to it) as more defining feature of RPG. An example may be when you can convince someone in a dialogue, while being able fail as well. It doesn't applies to all of CRPGs, only to relatively good ones, but would be a reason to qualify a game as CRPG. Another distinctive feature is close association player with his character, though in party-type CRPGs it isn't present.

You've mentioned text adventures, and, really, some of them could be called CRPGs, or at least are on the edge. CRPG genre itself is mostly artificial, being a subgenre of adventure, and the name was probably given just to attract PnP RPG players. It seems to be the very reason which doesn't allow strict and simple criteria, as any set of criterias either omits some well-known CRPGs, adds games from other genres, or, usually, both.

So I think meeting all criteria isn't essential, most games formally classed as CRPGs miss something (even Planescape: Torment, despite being closest to RPG, lacks non-linearity). For articles, the developers and publishers decision is generally primary. If we decide to class a game as RPG while it is formally classed different, I think it should in the first place meet criterias closely related to the role-playing itself, as the other ones are merely common practices.

CP/M 23:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I guess in the end, it is up to the people who make the game to decide what the genre of their game is, if they would want to classify it at all. Considering the amount of hybrid elements of games today, no wonder it's so difficult to try to sort them into genres by their characteristics. Yet I'm still inclined to think that a game like Crystalis is more of an RPG than The Legend of Zelda just because it has an experience point system... oh well. White Agent 14:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Even Panzer General and other strategy games have exp system - it's not a reason. I'll ask people at Zelda talk page whether they consider it a RPG. If not, it clearly doesn't belong here, so I'll remove it from the list (otherwise it might be a consideration).CP/M 16:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like another debate about Zelda in the RPG genre has taken place here. White Agent 21:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added my two cents to the Zelda article discussion. In summary: though it has RPG elements, it is not an RPG.--The Yar 06:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

So, can we remove Zelda games? I don't want to anger anyone who really wants Zelda to be called an RPG, but Nintendo has always correctly classified it as an Adventure and never an RPG. Genre classification becomes meaningless if we broaden all genres to include everything. --The Yar 16:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There has been no recent opposition on page there, and we here also have a consensus, so I guess it's time. Done. Probably some more games should be checked so the list stays more clean. And I guess some games are missing. CP/M 21:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Checking the list, many well-known RPGs are missing. I'll add a few. CP/M 21:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"Crappage"?

I've removed the following from the article: "Some players pronounce "CRPG", crappage, which they sarcastically note to be a comment on the perceived quality of the games." Google returns only ~60 hits for this usage (ref), all of them self-published. --Muchness 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a catchy expression used by hardcore (and usually older) gamers, but it's not widespread enough to make it into the article. It might fit into the "Criticisms" section eventually. White Agent 13:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The Elder Scrolls

This breaks the "neuturality" of Wikipedia, but I think that there should be an increased part on behalf of the Elder Scrolls. They have practically defined CRPGs and RPGs today! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.56.61 (talk • contribs) .

Okay I made some changes

I made a lot of changes on this page, console role-playing game page, and moved stuff here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_CRPG_and_cRPG

Agree/disagree with changes? I think most of them are for the better. The CRPG page is ridiculously long and waffles between two distinct subgenres way too much. Note that I'm not finished with all the changes, this is pretty extensive already but there's much more to be done. -- Solberg 04:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

I'm not sure about the title - I think Comparison of computer and console role-playing games might fit WP:TITLE better; but that's not the problem. The title suggests the divide is computer/console, while the article is about the eastern/western divide. I'd with the article over the title, since nowadays many eastern console RPGs also end up on computers. Perhaps Cultural differences in computer and console role-playing games? You could then replace "digital RPGs" with computer and console role-playing games, in order to wikilink those terms. Percy Snoodle 11:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, never mind what I wrote here before; it's not readily apparent that you divided computer and console RPGs into separate articles by just looking at the page's history. I agree with the changes. White Agent 12:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point Percy, I will look into that. Thanks White Agent. -- Solberg 20:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Okay, I implemented your suggestions, looks good. Anything else? -- Solberg 20:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

"Character development" or "Character advancement"?

I'd quite like to rename the "Character development" section "Character advancement"; to me, character development means the development of characterization, but character advancement means that which the section is talking about. I have seen character development used in the CRPG sense, but no more than character advancement. Would that change be controversial, or should I go ahead? Percy Snoodle 16:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

But it's not always advancement. At least, in the Planescape: Torment and Fallout games, character changes, both in the practical statistics sense (Strength, Perception, etc) and the characterization (Child Killer reputations, quests/dialogue choices that changed your standing in the world, good, evil, junkie, NPC reactions, etc) sense, could be affected both positively and negatively on a permanent level, so it wasn't always advancement. (Though what I've just said isn't in the paragraph now. Maybe this should be mentioned.) Usually the correlations between stats, experience points, and characterization changes were inextricably linked, as quests and rewards changed due to alignment. Surely there were other earlier CRPGs that did this, but I don't know, myself. Also, is there a better example than Final Fantasy II for the "skill up by use" system? The Final Fantasy mentions in the article are remnants from when the console and CRPG articles were still one. --SevereTireDamage 22:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's possible that neither term is the best choice. These terms might be common among CRPG players, but the stats increase usually (PS:T and Fallout are good, but rare exceptions) has nothing to do with character in the actual sense of word; and especially nothing with character development. Maybe some other term can be used. It's progression, training, etc, or maybe just Experience System would fit. CP/M 23:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I left the Final Fantasy II reference in because it seems that the article says (rightly or wrongly, I don't know) that Final Fantasy II was the first digital RPG to feature such a system, so console RPG or not, it seems like it belongs there if only for a brief but comprehensive look at the roots of both character advancement/progression/development systems. Or are you suggesting it is better to get a "first example" from the CRPG genre instead? -- Solberg 23:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

I added some material on characterization, feel free to add or change as you see fit. As for FFII, I don't mind the mention, but I do think the the earliest, or an earlier example of a CRPG using the system would be appropriate to mention here. Also when I read this before, I somehow didn't notice that Dungeon Siege and Elder Scrolls were already mentioned, that's why I was saying there should be a computer example. --SevereTireDamage 01:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good although some of it seems redundant with the Quest Structure section (which probably needs expansion), I changed some typos and tried to get the first sentence to make a bit more sense. Were you in a rush when you typed it up? Anyway, anyone feel free to improve on my improvement too. :D Addendum: Any other prominent CRPG designers I missed in my list? I caught Gaider from Bioware, Avellone for PS: T, Fallout 2, etc, the Troika and some Fallout guys, the main Wizardry guy, and the man responsible mainly for the Ultima series and so on. Anybody else I miss? Also, what kind of pic do you propose for the beginning of the CRPG article? Something from way back like Wizardry or Ultima I? Or something during the Interplay/Black Isle age, like Fallout or PS: T? Something more recent and identifiable like from Troika or neo-Bethsheba? -- Solberg 07:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Looking back at my edit, man, I must have been out of it... thanks for fixing it up. For the picture in front, I would recommend a CRPG not ported to console, that is also not a MMORPG or action-RPG, perhaps a game like Neverwinter Nights, or newer. Yes, it's harder to find one nowadays... so maybe an older one. (Because those pages/genres have their own topics.) But I guess it's not that important, any CRPG image will do in the end.

P.S. If anyone wants to start a new talk topic, I'd recommend archiving this page by move, as it's over 61kB now. I'll do it myself if there aren't any new discussions within a day or two. --SevereTireDamage 23:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Would it be alright if I uploaded an image from Arcanum? I'm currently replaying it so I can just take a few snapshots from in-game. Right now I'm looking at several different images. I'm guessing pictures with dialogue is a no-no since the picture is probably going to be pretty small? -- Solberg 03:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Sounds fine to me. --SevereTireDamage 22:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I added a leading pic. Problem is that it's kind of blurry (I blame jpg) and somewhat dark from the thubmnail effect. I can try to increase the brightness/contrast of the image more but then if someone clicks on the thumbnail, they'll find that the main image is rather exaggerated. If anyone can find a better leading pic, by any means, replace the one I put in. This will probably do for now. -- Solberg 01:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

RPG vs CPRG

Seeing as the term rpg is used universally and cprg is a little known technical term rarely used should not this article rather refer to the genre as role playing games and simply put a reference at the top that sprg is also a technical term used for this. Also should the name of the article be changed to Role playing games (For computers). 203.59.148.128 06:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Console RPG page claims rights to the term CRPG as well, and you're correct that neither are widely used in any mainsteam media or marketing materials. Also, since a genre CANNOT be defined by the platform, these two entries are NOT different genres. A meger is the only appropriate solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.188.212 (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd support a move to Role-playing game (computer and video games). Not only would it better match the way the words are used, but it have the added benefit that would make it clearer that it's the same term used to describe two different things, rather than a subcategory. Percy Snoodle 09:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish we can move this to Role-playing game and move Role-playing game to Role-playing game (board game). A lot of people who grew up during the Internet era have never heard of PnP RPG. --Voidvector 02:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be... inaccurate, to say the least. At best it would be an example of one of wikipedia's systemic biases, namely that since WP's users are all computer-savvy, they tend to promote computer versions of things over the originals. To put up a genre of computer games as "role-playing games" and leave role-playing games as some disambiguated afterthought would be a pro-CVG historical revision which I would certainly oppose to the best of my ability.

Note: This isn't meant to be criticism of Wikipedia; there's a great effort goes into countering systemic bias which I strongly support, and which I hope would argue against such a move for exactly these reasons. Percy Snoodle 10:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also oppose such a switch for reasons analogous to those described in WP:Recentism. Also, not all role playing games are board games... CRPG is not a little known technical term. It's used relatively frequently, especially in "hardcore" CRPG sites or sites that cater to a high percentage of traditional role players. There are more such sites than you may think. See http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=crpg&btnG=Google+Search for example. -- Solberg 09:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Thanks for pointing WP:Recentism out - it's a much better way of putting what I'm trying to say. I'm still not sure where this identification with board games comes from - I can't think of any role-playing games which are board games, at all; though I suppose there are a few starter sets available which could be seen as both. Percy Snoodle 10:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I said "not all" instead of "no" because I didn't feel like explaining (in the case an exception was found) "Dude the real point is that there aren't many RP board games." --Solberg 04:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Well, the computer and video game genre is named after the pen and paper genre, and defining it is very difficult without bearing that in mind.67.85.188.212 (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the original proposal of moving to Role-playing game (computer and video games), there is already an article for Console role-playing game. Moving to the proposed name might cause some problem. I would still support a move for 2 reasons.

1. there are significant overlap with computer and video game (RPGs are being constantly ported between the two), there is little reason to separate them.
2. in CVG context, no one calls RPG a CRPG.

--Voidvector 14:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Voidvector. To the first of your statements, I'd say that this is a fairly recent phenomenon and that previously there were not many PC to console and vice versa ports. (I can ony recall Ultima Underworld and FF7 as notable PC->Console and Console->PC ports in the past; neither sold particularly well on the other system.) Fallout (computer game), Planescape: Torment, Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura, Ultima VII (full feature version), Baldur's Gate (Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance is not the same btw) -- none of these ever appeared on console despite being commonly regarded as among the best computer role-playing games of all time. In fact there still are not really that many ports. NWN2 and Dragon Age for instance (two major computer RPGs in development by Obsidian Entertainment and Bioware) have been confirmed PC-exclusive. To the second of your statements, many people do still refer to these separately. I take it you have not met a community of P&P on the internet or in real life before? Again, the google link is relevant. In contrast, consider this link. Notice how many of the top entries are to P&P, not digital RPG. -- Solberg 04:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Solberg

This is incredibly misinformed. Your "recall" is bad. Ultima and Wizardry were very popular on NES, and were the primary influences for Dragon Quest. Dragon Quest itself was released on the MSX computer as well as the Famicom. Megami Tensei likewise began on MSX, and then moved over to the Famicom. The Might and Magic games were popular on consoles as well as computers for YEARS, and The history of computer and console RPGs is tightly and inexctricably interwoven and to not accept this is to condemn this wiki entry to be confusing and misleading. 67.85.188.212 (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the google link, I would also like to point out this google link =). There are a number of other things we can compare, like Alexa or even eBay auctions. Anyway, I will leave that to you guys to figure out.

You are mostly correct about my background. I have a friend who was in a LARP community back in college; however, not participated in it myself. I see my lack of perspective cause biasness, I will abstain from giving anymore opinion. --Voidvector 05:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Dialogue

Anyone want to add a new section on the various dialogue systems? Seems to be three major dialogue systems (maybe I'm forgetting something)-- noninteractive (Arx Fatalis), full dialogue tree type (BG2, PST, Fallout, etc), Wiki-type (Ultima 7 and many other games). And no, these names aren't official, I made them up because I don't know their official names. If I did, I'd have added the part myself, but I don't. There are also some notable sub-types like the one where you get a box and enter a specific word, and get back some text, like in the old Exile series. This is sort of like the Wiki-type one, except you don't get to see the choices and sort of have to guess what a character might know that is useful.

Just in case I'm not being clear, this is sort of how stuff works in the three systems:

Noninteractive:

Dialogue in only the sense that the player and another character is communicating. The player is given no choices (real or imaginary) during the conversation. There is no interaction, no player input. This is seen in Arx Fatalis and a couple others.

Full on dialogue tree:

The game developer created conversations with fixed (with respect to stats, race, etc) responses that, if chosen, can give rise to other possible new responses.

Example:

Bad Guy says: I kill you with death!!!111

Player choices:

• Um, whatever, I'm leaving now.
• Try your best!!111
• [Truth] Look, let's settle this in a civilized way.
• [Lie] Look, let's settle this in a civilized way.
• [Perception] Dude, you look drunk. How about I help you home?

Example 2: http://www.addventure.com/cgi-bin/read.pl/addventure/game2/game2.db3/page/2.html (it's deeper than this, but you get the idea)

Wiki-type:

Mr. Boring Totally Useless and Limp NPC says: Good morning. Are you here to see the Mayor?

Player choices:

• "Job"
• "Buy"
• "King"
• "Sin"
• "Mayor"

Player chooses "Mayor":

Mr. Boring says: He's right up in that shiny tower over there. Hey, he's waving to us right now.

Variation: Player can type in anything, but choices are not visible.

Anyone who adds in a dialogue section should probably also mention that dialogue trees have gained popularity over the years while noninteractive (especially) and wiki-type have both waned dramatically. -- Solberg 08:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg

I'm not totally sure this should be extensively mentioned in the article, as this is generally more applicable to adventure games than RPGs. I also somewhat disagree with the dialogue types you mentioned - yes, there is non-interactive dialogue, but then I think the other kind is known as "branching" dialogue, since it uses a tree for all possible outcomes. Another possible type (usually seen in things like dating sims, but it's been used in games like Torment, Fallout, FF VII, etc.) is where as opposed to strict branching, point values are assigned so that you gain or lose favor with certain NPCs/groups. But even so, that's arguably still just dialogue branching. As far as I know, there haven't been any significant AI developments in this area. --SevereTireDamage 22:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you disagree with. I did mention trees and branching (didn't call it branching though). Regarding point values for reputation, etc, this is not really a distinct system of dialogue, this is a consequence of dialogue (sometimes not implemented in games). In Torment, Fallout, True Love (a dating sim), and to a lesser extent FFVII, you have what I referred to as "full on dialogue trees," where there are multiple possible conversation options and actions and selecting one (eg "Give her flowers" or "Sell follower into slavery" or something) is presented and follows with certain effects-- more influence with a certain character or faction, perhaps less, etc. These extra consequences that affect rep, characters, alignment, the world and so on are extra (albeit very nice) features tacked onto a regular dialogue system. In any case I'm not sure what your objection is. Is it that you don't like the division I drew up between the wikilinkish system (used in Ultima 7, Albion, Oblivion) and the "full on dialogue tree" used in PS: T, Fallout, Arcanum, so on? There have been some significant AI developments in this area actually though I don't see why this is relevant. Probably the most famous one is [| Facade]. Try it out, I highly recommend it. It does require a fast computer though. If the issue is that a dialogue section would be key to the adventure game too or perhaps more, we can create a video game dialogue page that the adventure gamers and others can also use. -- Solberg 02:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg

I remember Facade wouldn't even let me install it, for the very reason you mentioned, so I don't know much about it. It does sound really interesting, and if it really is doing more complex sentence parsing, than that would still be some advancement. What I'm saying basically, is that more or less all RPG and adventure dialogue is still done the same way it's been done since the beginning - pre-programmed dialogue trees with conditional variables and if/then statements. The thing is I suspect Facade is "just" a really good implentation of this, since it still has a limited number of pre-recorded computer responses and it's still parsing typed sentences like back in the 80s, just on a more complex level. Of course I could be totally wrong, since I haven't played the game nor do I know much about what went into it. I'm not sure how much can be expanded upon this topic, but I suppose some mention in this article is warranted, and maybe having a separate article isn't a bad idea. I do have an issue with the way you've described these differences - if you want to go more into it, I would definitely advise looking up sources. --SevereTireDamage 02:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm still not too sure what your objection is with how I described the dialogue. Admittedly I don't know the details or names for these systems but it's pretty much commonly agreed that there are at least two distinct systems represented by the Oblivion/Ultima/etc v.s. Fallout/PS:T/etc. I don't know the names, if I have time I'll see if I can find consensus on the internet for what to call these systems. I'll also check around to make sure nobody already invented such a page. I don't have Facade's source code nor know how it really works but my impression from several plays is that it's on a whole new level. Not really perfect, you can fool the AI but on the it's whole much more advanced than anything we see in commercial games right now. -- Solberg 05:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg

"Criticisms" have no place in NPOV

Removed the entire "criticisms" section. If this site is to maintain even the illusion of NPOV, it does not need someone's long winded rant about how terrible it is. The fact that the article itself was not at all clearly written, and relies heavily on niche-of-a-niche terminology like GNS only serves to cements its superfluousness. This is an encyclopedia, not someone's personal soapbox, and I see nothing informative or useful in rambling negative diatribes. --72.35.146.211 09:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding the deleted section below so that interested parties can rework it, add sourcing and return salvageable material to the article. --Muchness 10:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to take issue wuth the sentiment of this - while it's true that criticism is NPOV, reporting of criticism is fine. So, a referenced criticisms section would be perfectly encyclopedic. However, the removed section wasn't at all referenced, so I'm not going to kick up a fuss. Percy Snoodle 13:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely, a criticism section that reports opinions from appropriate sources is within NPOV and would be a valuable addition to this article. Some of the points raised in the deleted section are worth making, in particular the divide between traditional pen & paper and crpg gamers. --Muchness 14:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the Criticism section should be removed for simply being unreferenced. By this argument almost the entire computer role-playing game article should be removed (and in theory, should if we were to conform strictly to policy.) Criticism can be of course neutral point of view if it meets the criteria in WP:NPOV. I don't see, besides the valid point about the section being unreferenced, in what other way the Criticisms section violates WP:NPOV. The text as is looks pretty dispassionate to me. In either case, I've re-added the section, if anybody has problems with specific sentences in the article, why don't they tag it with so we can deal with specific contentions rather than just a general "I don't like this entire part." -- Solberg 05:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Solberg

And removed again. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, as I understand it. If I open an encyclopedia, I expect to see facts, not opinions. Your statement is absurd. "Criticism can be of course neutral point of view"? Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds? And I see nothing in the NPOV policy that suggests that we are somehow required to let people use the Wikipedia as a soapbox for their personal gripes. --72.35.146.211 19:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Think logically for a second. You claim was that the criticism section violated the NPOV policy which I pointed out wasn't true. Now you're saying that there is nothing in NPOV which says that "we are somehow required..[etc]." But nobody is arguing a criticism section is somehow required, but there is nothing that forbids it, which is why there's nothing wrong with it being here. There is nothing ridiculous about the idea that criticism can be neutral. See Criticisms of communism for example, which is an excellent, well maintained page that has been cleaned over and over again for NPOV. This has nothing to do with editorializing. It is simply reporting well known opinions in a neutral, fair tone. Citation is a separate matter, but totally removing the section is just out of the question. You will find plenty of other "criticism" pages and sections all over Wikipedia. -- Solberg 01:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Solberg

And I don't approve of those sections either. Wikipedia has become riddled with a lot of this very sort of rampant editorializing, and it has no place in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a collection of facts, not opinions. Leave the opinions to the fansites and the editorial pages. Countless articles on Wikipedia have succumbed to this kind of bizarre soapboxing, in some cases turning whole articles into nothing but someone's little rant on the evils of X subject. I'm sure you have very strong opinions re: CRPGs, but if you have such, they belong on a blog, not an encyclopedia. --72.35.146.211 05:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Your assumptions about me are illogical and unfounded. I don't have any "[bad] strong opinions" about CRPGs. I put a lot of work into improving this article-- not as much as a few of my local heroes (they know who they are) but I do a reasonable amount. If you're not convinced, go to the history page of this article as well as some related articles and "go back" in time and you'll see my contributions which are relatively substantial. This isn't about editorializing the evils of CRPGs or whatever. If I hated CRPGs I wouldn't have bothered to improve this article at all. But just because I may enjoy CRPGs doesn't mean they're immune to criticism. I may not agree with all the criticism but as Voltaire (well, actually Evelyn Beatrice Hall) said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." It is counter-intuitive at first, but you have to realize that true NPOV does not involve censoring criticism, because a truly neutral point of view cannot be one-sided. -- Solberg 05:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Update: Reverted your new change. There is a lot that could be improved in that section but the removal of the paragraph about roll playing isn't one of them. @ other anon: I agree that the GNS descriptions are not too amazing but do you have alternate suggestions for designating the people who find certain elements lacking in CRPGs? We want to avoid vague selections whenever possible (i.e Some people criticize CRPGs because of ... etc instead of mentioning who those people might be) because they often devolve into weasel words. Btw, the powergaming criticism is too major to edit out. -- Solberg 03:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Update2: Reverted yet another change. We already have an unreferenced tag. Adding a new one is clearly redundant. You're making it very difficult to assume good faith right now. Removed the abstract/tautology/obvious/buzzword general tag because the GNS descriptions do not fit the definition of buzzword as defined in Wikipedia. The GNS terms are not idioms, they mean what they look like they mean, and they do not obscure meaning. The section is not written abstractly, and several concrete examples are provided. The section is not obvious in any sense and I do not see any abuse of tautology (rhetoric). If you see any tautologies, feel free to point them out right here. -- Solberg 05:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Solberg

• It shouldn't be this difficult to find sources for a simple criticism paragraph. Either reference it, or delete it. It's that damn simple. --Agamemnon2 20:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

CRPG Combat article changes

Star Gem, I already told you before, (1) either put in a WP:NPOV summary of the Turn-based v.s. Real-time controversy, or no summary at all. This is not a place to spread your views on what constitutes the best combat for RPGs. Be fair to both sides even if you disagree. See "Writing for the Enemy" in WP:NPOV policy. (2) AFAIK, also, real-time with pause is a much more common term with respect to CRPGs than semi-turn-based. If you disagree, discuss it right here and maybe we can reach a compromise. (3) The arguments you list for the controversy don't make any sense i.e. Action-RPG "oxymoron" (what, RPGs involve no action?) (4) Removing the section about the Infinity Engine and the underlying implementation is absurd. It is by far the most famous RTwP or "semi-turn-based" engine out there. There's no excuse for removing actual important content in the article and replacing it with a biased and unnecessary foray into CRPG politics.

-- Solberg 21:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Exhaustive history at Gamasutra

Gamasutra has posted an exhaustive history of computer role playing games online, found two two parts. This would probably be very useful for fleshing out this article. -- Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 06:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Experience vs. skill

The discussion on this subject in the article seems incorrect to me. In fact there actually is a reward in experience points in Dungeon Siege for completing some quests and the points received will be redistributed according to active weapon at the time of completing the quest. In Dungeon Siege II there is a reward in skill points as well which may be spent by player as desired. 217.26.163.26 07:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, if I take you right (I didn't play DS), you're saying that in DS1, if I killed an ogre as part of a quest using an axe, I would gain points in sword if I approached the original questgiver with a sword and confirmed that I killed the ogre? Or did I misunderstand you? In either case, make the appropriate corrections to the article. -- Solberg 00:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Solberg

In theory that's correct. But in practice the quests I'm talking about were not involving any killing at all or at least are not the quest's primary goal. There are quests in DS1 where you should find and return some lost items and get a reward. 217.26.163.26 07:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And if that wasn't clear I should reemphasize: there is no reward in experience for completing most quests in DS, only for few of them. 217.26.163.26 07:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you played the game, you should make the edit. -- Solberg 03:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Solberg

Fair use rationale for Image:Screen0026.jpg

Image:Screen0026.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Added fair use rationale. -- Solberg 01:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Solberg

As if you obsessed with copyrights and licenses would be able to acquire Akalabeth and make a "rationalized" screenshot yourselves. This is ridiculous. You pay so little attention on how hard it might be to posess the specific piece of media. -- J7n

Suggestions for Improving the article

Starting with the second paragraph. It strikes me as very bad style to discuss two decidedly non-RPG games (Grand Theft Auto and Warcraft III) before discussing actual RPG computer game. I do think the topic is worth while, but should be placed later in the article, possibly under the headline of "RPG Elements in other genres". Then, I'd expand/edit the first paragraph as follows:

FROM: A computer role-playing game (CRPG[1]) is a video game genre that has its origin rooted in personal computers (PCs) and other home computers, and includes< game mechanics and settings derived from those of traditional role-playing games.

TO: A computer role-playing games (CRPG) is a widely encompassing video game genre originally developed for personal computers and other home computers. The earliest CRPGs were inspired by Pen and Paper Role-Playing Games, especially Dungeons and Dragons, and attempted to provide a similar play experience. Today many games are considered CRPGs with out regard to degree of similarity to Pen and Paper RPGs. Despite the large degree of differenes that exist among CRPGs, some common elements can be found in most CRPGs. These include having at least one avatar with quantized characteristcs (such as having a strength value of 10) which both change over the course of the game in predictable ways and take the place of the gamer's own skill in determing in game outcomes and having a well developed fictional setting (overwhelmingly CRPGs occur in fantasy or science fiction settings).

Thoughts?

Greatatlantic 05:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your addition looks more or less fine and would be a reasonable thing to put in the article at the beginning to supplement the introduction. I do think that the commentary on WC3 etc should stay at the beginning though. It might seem like bad style at first, but I'd like to think of it as essentially a disambiguation, but in prose (since you are new here, this is an example of a disambiguation: Timothy Cain-- see the beginning). Computer RPGs these days are partly defined in terms of how they are NOT other games-- console RPG or fantasy-based RTS for example. It makes sense to make this distinction clear at the very onset. It also assists us in not having to constantly revert edits made by people who mistakenly stumble onto this page and are shocked that The Sims or WC3 or Final Fantasy are not here. But in either case your edit looks fine, though I'd fix the spelling and grammar first if I were you. (There are users who would simply revert your edit on sight if it has bad spelling and grammar and not bother fixing it instead.) PS The computer RPG talk page has been dead for months, expect a long time before you get any kind of a reply. If you're going to make fairly small changes, just go ahead and do it (check your writing first of course). WP:Be_Bold. -- Solberg 23:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Solberg

I sort of figured I'd need to actually do the edits before a discussion would result, but I thought I'd post that first in case anybody has knee jerk reactions of restoring older versions in the case of any change. Obviously, I will run it through a spell check. As for the paragraph in question, you make a valid point. Still, I don't believe the given paragraph as is does a very good job at that. I read that and am left with the impression that GTA can be defined as an RPG. I might try to create a compromise paragraph (shorter and more emphatically worded) and still move that down to its own section of "RPG elements in other genres". Anyways, I don't have time to do the edits tonight, so hopefully I'll get that tomorrow or by the weekend. P.S. Why is Cliffy Blizinski listed as a prominent RPG developer? Prominent Developer, sure. But I can't find any RPGs even credited to the guy. If no reason comes forth, I'll probably remove his name when I do my edits.Greatatlantic 03:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You make a valid point and admittedly it isn't quite clear why GTA doesn't count as an RPG. Personally I chalk it up more to consensus than anything. There are games which are labeled RPGs which have way less real roleplaying than GTA. Still though, if you can find a way to improve the definition, be my guest. Cliffy Blizinski -- no idea why he is in the list. Recently I removed several developers who were mistakenly added to the list (eg Wright since Sims is not an RPG), I must have overlooked that entry. I'll remove it. -- Solberg 19:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Solberg

This article

Is so full of personal opinion and OR masquerading as "many gamers feel" etc it's incredible. Desperately in need of a thorough rewrite from the ground up, with reliable sources. I came to this article looking for information, and instead found speculation. Yeanold Viskersenn (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed criticism section

The Criticism section was entirely unreferenced, and appeared to be someone's personal opinions and nothing more. I've removed it. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Reference

I don't really want to do this myself for fear of being looked as biased and self-promotional, but I would like to suggest my book "Dungeons and Desktops" as a possible source to address the alleged citation issue. It's published by A.K. Peters, a recognized publisher of science, math, and programming. Its basically a major expansion of the articles I wrote for Gamasutra that are currently listed as "External Links." --Matt (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't all agree, but here's how it is

Someone needs to provide one meaningful, universalizable distinction between computer and console RPGs besides the platform itself that applies to all games that are termed such. There are broad tendencies of one or the other and these should be noted, however, if we can't establish a descriptive sub-genre definition, I will merge these two articles. I know there are people that feel strongly that they are separate, but they are being counterproductive by inisting this without delivering a meaningful definition that we can actually use. Frogacuda (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What article are you suggesting to merge the two articles into, because the two articles need to be tagged with the appropriate merge templates pointing to this discussion. Also, I suggest bringing this up at WP:VG. --Silver Edge (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't Cultural differences in role-playing video games do a good job of describing the differences? A merge may be a viable option. There are more similarities than differences. Role-playing game (video games) already states a lot of the information in these two sub-articles. If we can't establish a consensus for a merge, I think the best thing to do is delete the redundant information from the two CRPG articles until we can pare them down to the defining qualities of the sub genres (if there are any). Randomran (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Cultural differences in role-playing video games is actually about the differences between the "JRPG" genre and the "C(omputer)RPG" genre rather than strictly cultural differences (a problem with the article) but it does a reasonable job doing what you desire. UncannyGarlic (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Little problem

Hey, there's another article, called Role-playing game (video games). Isn't that a mistake? Both articles should be unified in a single unique article, don't you think so? Kintaro-san (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I was planning to do that once the FAC & GAN i'm working on are completed and my computer is back up. If you want to start, feel free.陣内_Jinnai 19:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Progress towards merging into Role-playing game (video games)

I don't have much experience editing in Wikipedia (especially article merges) so my apologies if this is started incorrectly. I'm taking the Prominent Designers section of this article, restoring the two recently removed designers, and placing the same content into the Role-playing game (video games) article as a step to having them be a single article. Its just a small step but I'll try to make some others soon.Caidh (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh - please contribute more 'prominent designers' for what is considered by some to be console games to both articles. This should reflect prominent designers for all sort of Role Playing games (though I'm not sure we should include MMOs since that is separate and there is no need to merge that).Caidh (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The only stuff that should be moved is stuff that details information on what a Computer RPG is and how it differs from non-computer rpgs and has can be verified by at least one reliable source.陣内_Jinnai 16:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Create article

Instead of having a disambiguation here, perphaps it would be better to create an article that covers this wide topic, there is plenty of material to do it, instead of a merge. On this topic I am an inclusionist.
Best regards - Mads Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 08:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Miqademus (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)