On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 02:35 PM, Jim Leonard wrote:
Edward Franks wrote:
[Snip]
I completely disagree. All RPGs are adventures, but not all adventures areYou have the cart before the horse. Adventure games descended from pen-n-paper RPGs, specifically, D&D. Adventure, the grandfather of adventure game has its roots in D&D. Computer RPGs are attempts at recreating the original pen-n-paper games RPGs. To reverse this is to seriously misunderstand where and how these game genres came about. You would have a better argument if you posited that adventures were a subset of RPGs. At least the histories of the games would give you that support. ;-)
RPGs; because of this, RPG is a subgenre in our system. Before you debate
further, here is our definition of Adventure (a main genre) and RPG (a
subgenre). Please read them over before responding.
Both computer RPGs (crpgs) and adventure games are twin genres coming from the same parent (D&D). They share many similarities (genetic code), but have taken different paths to the entertainment end. In the end they are distinct siblings. (Examples: Zork 1 had a complex combat system based on D&D, but that was removed in the later Infocom games because combat was really downplayed. Where as Wizardry and it sequels really focused on combat and action, not decision. And then there are the Rogue-likes such as Nethack. I can't see anyone seriously calling Nethack an adventure. It is a hack-n-slash crpg.)
[Snip]
Here's an example clarifying how important the main categories are: Think
about the materials we see around us. What's the common classification
expression -- Animal, Vegetable, or Mineral, right? That's a pretty good
example: I am animal, the taco I just ate was vegetable, and the toilet I will
no doubt be visiting shortly is mineral. Asking for the RPG genre to join the
main list is like asking for "rocks" to join the Animal, Vegetable, or Mineral
list when it's clearly already a mineral. It doesn't matter if the rock is in
the shape of, say, an animal; that doesn't change the fact that it is a rock.
[Snip]
The first thing that comes to mind is that your justification for your taxonomy isn't on solid ground. Any scientist will tell you that the real world is messier than what the taxonomies say 'should be'. For example, the duck-billed platypus or a virus. With some research I imagine I con find something that is either a plant or animal depending on your mood that day. :-DNow, if you see any problems in that logic, please let me know.
An accurate gaming taxonomy needs to include, even draw attention to, the messy nature of defining adventure games and crpgs. The two share a lot common features.
Believe me, I understand the desire to have a nice, clean, and tidy taxonomy. They are so very appealing, but to be ultimately useful the taxonomy simply must reflect the reality of the games. Then again, I wouldn't be the one making all the changes to the database. :-D
--
Edward Franks
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/swcollect@oldskool.org/
