Duck and Cover

multiple DIFFERENT races, not just multiple races. Warcraft had two races that differed quite radically concerning their appearance, but effectively the dissimilarity between two equivalent units of both races was very marginal, if not non-existant. A human foot soldier had the exact same endurance as did its orc counterpart, the grunt. This equality extended to the entire spectrum of abilities of two analogous creatures of the two races.

multiple different rapes? fair enough

a- The key aspect of StarCraft and indeed most Blizzard RTSes is not so much the multiple races aspect as the intense micromanagement aspect.

b- In Warcraft and the sequel, the units were mirror images, yes, but both sides had different spells with their spellcaster units, which did lead to some serious differences in play. For instance, ogremagi using the bloodlust spell were a very popular tactic among Horde players that was just not availible to the Alliance.

c- To return to the ACTUAL THREAD TOPIC, Koki's three part definition is entirely lovable.

Back to topic:

Wikikikikikipedia wrote:A steadily increasing number of non-RPG video games have adopted aspects traditionally seen in RPGs, such as experience point systems, equipment management, and choices in dialogue. The blending of these elements with a number of different game engines and gameplay styles have created a myriad of hybrid game categories. These hybrid games are commonly formed by mixing popular gameplay elements featured in other genres, such as first-person shooters, platformers, and real-time strategy games.

Many PnP gamers also feel that it is inaccurate to use the term "role-playing game" to describe games in which the player cannot always act on their desired intentions or influence the setting in many important ways. In CRPGs, players are mostly limited to making tactical decisions for a relatively small variety of situations.

The definition of "RPG elements" in games has been blurred over time, and many gamers debate on whether some games should be labeled as RPGs or not. Some say that only games that provide a true freedom of choice and actions can be considered as RPGs. Although current technical limitations may not allow CRPGs to be as open-ended and free as PnP games, numerous games allow for considerable variation in their content delivery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_role-playing_game

WIKIPEDIA IS SO SMART

And with that, the thread dies. Hopefully.

No.

I love Wikipedia like nothing on the Internet, but I don't agree with it in this case. I am this hardcore.

YOU CANNOT DISAGREE WITH WIKIPEDIA.

THAT IS NOT NPOV.

YOU WILL BE VISITED SHORTLY.

Guns

Hey, I'm the one that says that.

GUNS

LlamaGod wrote:YOU CANNOT DISAGREE WITH WIKIPEDIA.

THAT IS NOT NPOV.

YOU WILL BE VISITED SHORTLY.

LlamaGod wrote:YOU CANNOT DISAGREE WITH WIKIPEDIA.

THAT IS NOT NPOV.

YOU WILL BE VISITED SHORTLY.

I noticed how the rts genre came up, without any mention of Settlers. That, if anything, must be the greatest improvement over the likes of Dune 2? ( meaning Drag&Click bullcrap games )

You will bite me, but Settlers sucked.

Populous was first.

I thought I was controlling the little dudes in populous? I even have this vague brain-image of eskimo's on a grid on the SNES in turn based being populous, but that's got to be too much drinking and 30 years in the shit, drinking.

I won't bite you Koki, you're Polish. I wouldn't even want to touch you. And had you not been Polish, you'd be entitled to your opinion. But Settlers did at least provide my favourite strategy setting, mainly the automated one (combat and managment), with that realistic approach to leadership -- as in not being able to tell every Joe what I want him to do. Majesty did it pretty well too, with the whole leveling and reward and banana system, but Settlers up until Settlers 3 is what defined "playable rts" for me.

The C&C games I played through only for the videos in between. I mean, it's just cumbersome gameplay controlling every aspect of a battle, and hardly something you'd get to do as the top honcho general guy were it for real. We have the human factor, and there's also alot of weight on how reliable the system of governing is. In Settlers you have that -- depending on my society's reliability I get thing's done in different speeds, and at the most I'm controlling outposts.

They did give me full military control in S3 ( while having it automated as well ) and it sort of worked, or at least it wasn't a major pain in the ass. Had they just given me the option to compile my armies somewhat, under a commanding officer, and then controlling him only, on what orders to issue, then it'd be near perfection. Oh what the hell, I'm drunk (oh gosh) and requesting thing's that'll never happen, so -- I'd also like to see Settlers done in a steam-punk enviroment, perhaps a somewhat flexible timeline ranging from 16'th to 18th century. Imagine all those little dudes laying railroad tracks, man. It just get's me, right here, to see social evolution -- but when you get to create it, it's something even more special.

Polish guys are hot. Why is that?

Because you have severe psychological disorder.

I didn't like Settlers because it was too boring. I never actually managed to win a single level becaue it was taking AGES. The idyllic setting did not help. At all.

Image