It's very hard trying to explain artistic theory and concepts like this, but suffice it to say I'm not trying to be a douche-bag, trust me. I might sound snobbish, but it isn't my intention, I just stem from my somewhat extensive knowledge of literature, art in general and, of course, video games. My intention is to have a debate, but it's very frustrating when people don't understand the basic premises of the discussion, but start accusing me of all kinds of stuff when I try to explain. Yes, my writing style is a bit blunt, but I don't mean to offend or insult anyone.
well well don't really sound like this, as for me, I am more into cinema and video games than literature (I only read fantasy and sci-fi). Please, please, be my guest state clearly your so-called basics
Third - *I* don't regard them as anything. What constitutes good art is determined by consensus of informed in all aspects of it people and is backed by arguments based on philosophy, technical skill, context and previous art. It isn't by personal preference or narcissistic leanings. Just like science is taken into consideration and circulation only after peer reviews, which you, being a scientist, should know. Subjectivity has *nothing* to do with either.
come on, art can hardly be "rationalised". Neuroscience has started to work only few years ago about brain perception. Of course there are "rules" as I stated before but, and you said it yourself, rules evolved based on some games that pushed the limits and based on the technological evolution. One cannot define a general rule set in the stone !
so art IS subjective, we all have our own opinion about art.
3. Mostly party-based. This is a tough one to sell, I know, but bear with me. I can't think of a single RPG which has the above-mentioned points but isn't party-based. Even NWN had at least 1 slot for a party member. Those that aren't are MMOs (even though they, too, are party-based to some extent) and they have wildly different logic and systems than single-player RPGs. It, too, is a borrowed concept from pen and paper gaming. Party members not only serve the plot, but also contrast or complement your character with their personalities and abilities. This is the most wobbly point, I admit, but 3 sounds like a well rounded number :p
so you're saying Fable is NOT a RPG... well well
and calling TES "hiking simulator" seriously dude, this is a personnal opinion, most of today's RPGs are open worlds... it is "almost" a standard for today's RPGs. Even for Larian's games, I mean have a look at the forum, people asked if they are open worlds, if there will be some area where we cannot go back later in the game and so on so on...
Last but not least, indeed if you really want to go back to the core definition of an RPG, we have to consider the paper old fashion RPGs which can be splited in many "kind" but the two main kind will be the RP oriented ones (Call of Cthulhu) based on scenarios where the narration is really important and the Game oriented ones (D&D) where the mecanics are somehow more important than the scenario.
The first computer RPGs where text based RPGs but this was only du to the limitation of the computers. some kind of "you are the hero" books but then it evolved. The first graphical RPG's were based on the RPG system and definitely not on the scenario, they were what we call "door, monster, loot" (which will become the Rogue-like system). Ever since the media has evolved and so has the RPG. We cannot today make a clear and unique definition of the RPG, every publisher/gamer/website has its own. Of course we will find recurrent elements but definitions will be different.
