Community Codex GOTY 2015 - Results

[Lurker King]

So different ways to the play the same role is to use different roles?

Umm, yes? Playing an archer and soldier is different even though the whole point of the game is killing things. Let us say you rolled a melee soldier.

So “Knights of the round” for SNES must be a RPG, since you can use an archer or a knight. What about any other game that allows you to kill things differently? So, “Call of Duty” is a cRPG? What about “Mario Bros”? The fact of the matter is that even the more convict combat-fag doesn’t think like this. Being different in this sense means very little, because you are just playing one role, that is, to kill things. Different ways to kill things is different ways to implement the same role. You aren’t role-playing anything.

And now you have just gone out of the topic of the discussion, that is C&C and its role in defining an RPG.

What constitutes a game to be an RPG is very board. You may see it in various codex threads, some of which you undoubtedly have read. If the game from my example has a fully realized inventory system, character progression system, etc2 (just look for the threads and read them), barring your very narrow definition of what role and C&C are, and in extension, what an RPG is, it would still qualify as an RPG in my opinion. Your argument "Then CoD is an RPG lol" could pretty well have been debunked in one of those threads, which I am too lazy to look for. The rebuttal of such argument might not appeal to you, but the same could be said for you argument being not appealing to me.

And now I rest my case, least this thread devolve into another what is an RPG thread.

EDIT: grammar correction, maybe? Dunno if I am making it worse or not

Look, in the history of role-playing you have some recurrent concepts, such as character levelling, stats, skills, SPs, inventories, etc. That is not a coincidence. These things will help establish laws and rules in the game world, track the player’s progression, etc. However, the defining feature of a RPG is the C&C. Of course, if you only have C&C, then you will not have a good RPG, but that is the core element. Do you think that I only care about C&C in games? I don’t. I enjoy the pleasure of learning a complex system. More than that, I enjoy playing other types of games too, from strategy games to platforms. In addition, I will probably play some of the pseudo-cRPGs that I’m calling adventure games, because it’s worth it. However, this discussion has nothing to do with my personal preferences, but with the nature of different types of games. I have the impression that most people use the past to conclude whatever they want because these discussions are too abstract and difficult.

 

[MrJohnson]

Undertale Lovers

 

[FeelTheRads]

No, the first cRPG was the first game with C&C.

lulz. retard alert.

You can yell whatever you want. Yelling will not change the facts

Facts only in your demented mind. Also, you are the one screaming here of butthurt that people see the actual FACT that AoD is barely even a game.

Combatfags are the reason why games such as FO4 are considered as cRPGs.

Well, storyfags are the reason Mass Effect and DA and AoD exist. I couldn't live with that shame.

But I suppose you're not a storyfag? Seems like you're something much worse... an ending-slide-fag.

RPG Codex game of the year is 40% off on Steam: http://store.steampowered.com/news/20988/

LARPers always LARPing.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

That it’s a different subject. Whatever are the limitations and strengths of the medium, the essence of role-playing games, by definition, is to role-play.

This is the crudest, most misleading definition of role-playing game possible, to think that because the genre's name is "role-playing games" it's all about games where you play a role. Next, you'll be telling us that adventure games are about having an adventure, that fighting games and beat-'em-ups are the same, that shoot-'em-ups, shooters, and shooting games are the same, and so on and so forth. As though a genre is defined purely by the words in its name without any external referents to how these games actually play. Some genres (e.g. sports, platform) are plainly descriptive, but many are not and can only be understood by referring to the game or games that created the genre. There are people who would claim that Super Mario Bros. is a role-playing game because they enjoy playing the role of a plumber traveling through the Mushroom Kingdom; the only difference between you and them is that they interpret role-playing in the broadest possible sense, and you interpret it in a narrow sense to refer to making choices in a story.

That is because you also have killing stuff and exploration in games from different genres, such as Super Mario Bros. No one in his right mind would say that killing stuff is not a choice, instead, what I would argue is that it’s just one role. If the game, by the very definition, is about choosing different roles, then you aren’t role-playing anything if you are stuck with one role.

To you, the first Super Marios Bros. only allows for one role and thus is not an RPG, but the fake Super Marios Bros. 2 released outside Japan allows the player to choose from four different roles so it must therefore be an RPG, not a platform game!

C&C is harder to implement, but being harder it’s not excuse to not implement any C&C in a game that should be about C&C, and doesn’t magically change an adventure game into a cRPG. That it’s like saying “Look, I know I was supposed to do a symphony, but that is too difficult. Instead, I will just use one tambourine, because using one percussion instrument it’s easier”. To insist on this analogy, it’s almost as if as the time passes, people would start labeling solos with tambourines as symphonies, and the idiots would be the ones who point the obvious: that is not a symphony, it’s a solo. I understand that it’s difficult to admit that we commit mistakes, especially when we are in the majority, but stop and think a little bit. Maybe, just maybe, you are wrong about this. I know that people on internet like to believe that they are epistemically infallible and dismiss every criticism without thinking, but think a little bit

RPGs have never been about story-line choices any more than they've been about descriptions of locations, or about dialogue, or about setting, or about backstory, or about music, or about graphics. All of these things can enhance the experience of playing an RPG and make it a better game overall, but they are all irrelevant to the defining factors of what constitutes an RPG. You're confusing a symphony with a ballet, and claiming the rest of us must follow you in referring to ballets are symphonies while calling symphonies something else. Or perhaps a more apt analogy would be confusing a symphony with the programmes distributed to concert-goers.

Why? Because you don’t have exploration? What it’s exploration? It’s using one character model on a map? But in a text-adventure you are using one character model the whole time. Every time you choose an option to enter into a room or open the chest in a text-adventure scenario you are exploring. I think this exploration thing is just a red herring to dismiss anything that doesn’t look like some types of adventure games. Or maybe it’s the lack of stats? But that it’s nothing in the definition of RPGs that make stats necessary. They are important to make the role-playing subject to limitations, but they are not a conceptual necessity in any sense.

I should have referred to Nine Princes in Amber as a work of interactive fiction rather than as a text-adventure game, as it's missing the critical components of the latter. Regardless, no-one in 1985 would have confused this semi-game with being an RPG or anything clos. It's latter-day new-schoolers like you who think that CYOA is the new RPG.

 

[Jasede]

You guys make me proud, just saying.

 

[Excidium II]

RPGs have never been about story-line choices any more than they've been about descriptions of locations, or about dialogue, or about setting, or about backstory, or about music, or about graphics. All of these things can enhance the experience of playing an RPG and make it a better game overall, but they are all irrelevant to the defining factors of what constitutes an RPG. You're confusing a symphony with a ballet, and claiming the rest of us must follow you in referring to ballets are symphonies while calling symphonies something else. Or perhaps a more apt analogy would be confusing a symphony with the programmes distributed to concert-goers.

Every time people try to define what is an RPG.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

It wouldn't be a Codex GOTY thread without the "define RPG" pages

 

[Goral]

I gotta say, particularly compared to lasts years award, there seems to be much less love put into this years GOTYs. No cool banner, no cool award banners, no write ups, no golden turd, no most anticipated, no editor's choice (no sticky). Makes them feel way less prestigious. A bit dissappointing to be honest.

We'll be doing more later.

Has any progress been made or has it been abandoned because nobody (that counts) cares?

 

[Konjad]

I gotta say, particularly compared to lasts years award, there seems to be much less love put into this years GOTYs. No cool banner, no cool award banners, no write ups, no golden turd, no most anticipated, no editor's choice (no sticky). Makes them feel way less prestigious. A bit dissappointing to be honest.

We'll be doing more later.

Has any progress been made or has it been abandoned because nobody (that counts) cares?

"Later" meant "somewhere around 2020".

 

[Fever]

Might & Magic Heroes VII
Sword Coast Legends
Fallout 4

I agree so much with this bottom 3. I despised those titles with all my heart, especially Heroes7 and SCL, which I blindly supported at first. I didn't try FO4, but who would ever play that shit anyway?

I'm just surprised The Witcher 3 was ranked so high, not really "prestigious", if you allow me.
Maybe it's too modern for my taste; also its camera gives me motion sickness.
Serpent or Shadowrun should have been there in its place, clearly.

 

[an Administrator]

who would ever play that shit anyway?

Codexers.

 

[Wayward Son]

Is there seriously still controversy over the ranking system?

 

[Konjad]

Is there seriously still controversy over the ranking system?

The butthurt train never derails.

 

[Fever]

who would ever play that shit anyway?

Codexers.

As a barely literate member, I'm baffled.
How come FO4 fans are allowed to post on the Codex?

Well, at least it's on the right position on the list, even though it should be tied with H7 for the "recidivism in raping once glorious series" spot.

 

[an Administrator]

who would ever play that shit anyway?

Codexers.

As a barely literate member, I'm baffled.
How come FO4 fans are allowed to post on the Codex?

Well, at least it's on the right position on the list, even though it should be tied with H7 for the "recidivism in raping once glorious series" spot.

There is a 204-pages thread about Fallout 4

 

[Jaedar]

How come FO4 fans are allowed to post on the Codex?

The codex follows the "give them rope and they'll hang themselves" approach. Better they let their degeneracy be known than hide it. Especially when its sequestered away from other stuff.

 

[Modron]

There is a 204-pages thread about Fallout 4

There are 2 200+ page threads about Fallout 4, you forgot they started a separate thread on release of the game (granted the pre-release thread was 150 pages before game was even announced).