Ter13 wrote:

Have you ever played Morrowind? Ultima 4-8? You'd know what are the good or bad kind if so, and a "bad" game, in my opinion is one that is not truly an RPG, you see, RPG stands for role-playing-game, hitting stuff and running around shouting "1 4m 4ll p0wrfl!!!!", that is far from roleplay, so what do you have left? A GAME. Not a roleplaying game, a game.

To tell you the truth, computer games cannot TRULY be roleplaying games, but they can come somewhat close. In my mind a TRUE roleplaying game is a pen and paper roleplay game, but since most people don't know how these work, many people don't know what roleplay is.

I have to disagree here with both points. Firstly, does a hack-and-slash rpg count as an rpg? Technically speaking, yes. You are playing the role of a psycho killer with nothing else to his personality. Really, in almost any game you are playing some role. Is a more combat based rpg still an rpg? Its an issue of semantics. RPG is just a word. The word RPG has evolved to include any game with character development, and character development has evolved to mean gaining experience and levels. Can you subdivide RPGS into "pure" rpgs, and "fantasy combat simulators", and "open-ended character development adventures" and so on and so forth? Of course, and for RPG connoisseurs it might be useful, but for standard conversation RPG is quite well suited for an all encompassing term. Since its only a word, it works fine for meaning both the in depth pretending to be someone else and the light, fun kill everyone else systems. Now, Is a combat-centric rpg innately inferior to a more developed one? Again I'd disagree and say that no, it isn't. Are there terrible examples of Combat-centric RPGS? Absolutely. There are lots of them. But there are also lots of examples of terrible character-centric rpgs. There are examples of terrible pnp systems. I've played in a terrible pnp gaming session or two, where the GM was, when it came down to it, an idiot. I've also played very fun pnp games. And I've played very fun combat-centered games without much else to them.
Rougelike games almost fit to the letter your description of a "bad kind of rpg", hitting stuff and running around shouting "1 4m 4ll p0wrfl!!!!". Yep. Thats pretty much it. You run around hitting stuff, and picking up Long Swords of Killing Everything (+90,+90) and Breastplates of Immortality until you can shout "1 4m 4ll p0wrfl!!!!" if you want. I can't say most do shout that, but its always an option. Yet they are essentially fun games. I have some games I've paid $50 for at the store, but its the free angband variants that I always go back to playing. I've gotten more hours of enjoyment out of Rouglike games than any other set of games (possibly the Civilization series...but I digress). The only thing I know about my character is that he looks like this: @, and yet I like the game. Its certainly not a bad kind of game. Now, can you argue that its not a true rpg? Well, again its just a matter of definitions. You can say that Nethack is a bad pure roleplaying game, but on the same token you can say chess is a bad action game. If you want to play a more classical pnp style rpg then you can certainly find those, but that doesn't mean that rpgs not in that vein are inherently "bad". Really, its all a matter of what you are looking for. Any game can be well executed and fun or poorly executed and bad, regardless of what sort of game it is. If a game isn't designed to cater to the fans of the "play pretend" school of roleplaying, that doesn't at all make the game bad.
As for whether a computer game can be a "true" rpg, I don't see why it can't. In fact, I have a program on my computer that if I should so choose I could use to roleplay to my hearts content. Its called Microsoft Word. While not strictly a game in and of itself, should I impose some rules upon myself I could have a roleplaying game of it. I could sit there and describe what my character thinks and does and says for hours. I could invite a friend over and we could take turns typing what our characters were doing. As for a more real game, there are definately some trade offs between computer and pnp. Pnp provides much greater freedom to your actions, but computer much more accurately simulates everything, and the world is often a big part of an rpg. Again, using a very specific definition of roleplaying that requires the player to be able to do whatever he wants, pnp is better than computers. However, thats one particular definition and not necessarily the best.
I guess my point is that there are many different types of games and different people prefer different ones, but you can still call them all rpgs and you can still have good and bad examples of each.

Roleplay. Playing a role. Playing meaning acting like, role meaning a character or the like. I assume you are not actualy a homocidal maniac, so if you play a game in which you run around killing everyone thats playing a role. Is it well developed? Is it intellectually stimulating? Is it imaginitive? Probably not. My point wasn't that killing everyone is good roleplaying, my point was just that it meets it the requirements set by the words that make up roleplay. It was more intended to demonstrate that roleplaying is an all encompassing term than to promote that genre of roleplaying games. I happen to like the other kind myself too.

the new testris might qualify... don't know about the old one.

But most people that play these killing games play as themselves, and that may be playing a role, but note how futile and pointless it is to arghue this point. It looks like you are trying to prove me wrong just for the principle. It gets down to common sense, nobody in their right mind would throw out the word role-playing game when describing doom, unless they said "Nothing like a" before it.

What i'm saying is, yes, you cannot label things, but if you argue that you can't label things, what are we going to call everything? We could run around naked for a while, gunting, but that wouldn't be very productive, could be very uncomfortable. Look, human speech isn't a perfect thing, and cannot express the intracacies of every single thing. If we were able to do that, we wouldn't have a language, it would just be unique words for EVERYTHING. No two carrots would be named the same, it would be confusing and futile. Labels are a neccessary thing, in the end all lables are just words, and you can put a peanut butter label on jelly, it still doesn't mean choosey moms will chose it.

Just to put it straight we need to introduce BYOND to Japan
Becuase American rpgs suck...Japanese are better they have a better storyline and so on..I dun wanna make you guys mad but I hate D&D type rpgs with stupid gnome and stuff..So with a touch of Japan or Korea BYOND would be much better.. well thats my 2 cents tata ;3

Yeah american rpg just bore me

Well in english of course :2

well, games are supposed to entertain, are they not?

I'm just saying that games should be fun, relating to your comment on how i'm taking the "mary poppins approach, it's been what I've been trying to say the entire time, at first I thought your comment was negative, but now I understand. I'm further agreeing with you.

Ter13 wrote:

Or for small animals, you set traps, after X ammount of time, there is an X% chance for the trap to be full. For larger animals, such as bucks, etc, they can try to attack the player if approached. Also, it would be kind of neat for there to be objects called dens, where if an animal was being chased, it would go into the den, and after X ammount of time, it would try to come out again. But, smart players could acutally trap the animal by waiting by the den, or by standing between it and the den, so that it would run away from it, not twoards it. A little harder to do, but not terribly so.

YES I TOTALLY AGREE thats perfect.

1. RUNESCAPE SUCKS, ter13 is exactly right about everything he has said.

2. We need Japanese people that know english.

3. RPG's have to have stats.

Becuase American rpgs suck

You're opinion but without anything to base this on most people will just take this as being close minded.

...Japanese are better they have a better storyline and so on..

If you have a story-line you've pretty much destroyed any chance of a storyline since you restrict how the player should act to fit within a static plot. The less story-line you have the less restrictive you have to be on the player leaving more room for roleplaying. This doesn't mean you shouldn't make a detailed background history as this will provide a lot for immersion and help out the roleplaying. Arcanum is the closest thing to an RPG that I've played.

I dun wanna make you guys mad but I hate D&D type rpgs with stupid gnome and stuff..

D&D is a pretty good set of rules for PnP RPGs but I'd rather have a game use a set of rules that makes more sense for a computer game like Acanum did. Though it does feel that 3rd edition DnD rules were tailored for easy conversion for computer games.

So with a touch of Japan or Korea BYOND would be much better..

Personally I can't stand most of the junk that comes from Asia especially the "RPGs" since I think the plots are just pointlessly convoluted and interupt the dismal gameplay every few minutes.