Talk:List of role-playing video games/Archive 2

message: This section was formatted and moved from the computer role-playing games section for length reasons.  If possible from any fellow users, add short comments next to games explaining why they are famous, well-regarded, or influential.  I already expanded on some of this before the creation of the new page.  -- Solberg 02:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Space (computer game) was removed from the chronology for not being notable.  I would argue that it was, for several reasons.  First, it was one of the first (if not the first) role-playing games to appear on personal computers (1979).  Second, it was one of the few science-fiction based CRPG's.  Third, its publication lead to a lawsuit by Game Designer's Workshop for copyright infringement. The problem behind its removal seems to be the lack of information on the internet about it, but that's the case with pre-1980 games and a reason why effort should be made to preserve whatever information we have about them before it is lost forever. Applegamer 20:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edu-Ware's Space

message: I think that MMORPGs should be removed from this list and moved to their own article. SharkD 03:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MMORPGs

message: I suggest that this page be merged with list of computer role-playing games, as there now exists a table on that page that can be sorted chronologically, thereby eliminating the need for this article. SharkD 05:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  You should also merge the pieces of this page (that are cited or you can find citations for) with the History of CRPGs page, since there are a lot of useful notes regarding the historical development of CRPGs.  -- Solberg (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, you can directly merge the notes regarding the CRPGs.  I didn't realize that the tables had a "notes" section already.  -- Solberg (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I completed the merger. How does it look? SharkD (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: I've noticed several games which I believe are questionable additions to this list. I'll list them here:
* Starflight
* Starflight 2
* Space Rangers
* Space Rangers 2
* Jagged Alliance series (reason: tactical RPGs have their own list and virtually no other tactical RPGs are listed)
* Freedom Force (reason: same as above)
SharkD 03:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were role-playing aspects to this game series, as both involved the player characters' involvement within a larger storyline. Though there was a great deal of exploration, resource hunting, and trading, both were more than just exercises in grinding. Both compare favorably to Star Control on these terms. D. Brodale 04:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify my above remarks (as I see the list is being edited in place), I'm referring to the Starflight series of games. D. Brodale 04:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Most sites I've been to list Starflight and Freedom Force as an RPG.  You might have a point about Space Rangers 2 and Jagged Alliance, which are usually labeled as Strategy, at least on the places I've been to.  Perhaps you could look up what the developers of these corresponding games labeled their products and then respect their categorizations.  -- Solberg (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Space Rangers is the one I'd most likely want to keep on the list. You only control one ship, so I'm not sure how much of a strategy game it is. Freedom Force was pitched by its developers as a tactical RPG. The focus is on party-based combat; the game is made up of a series of linear missions (it's not a sandbox game); there are no non-combat solutions (i.e., you can't talk your way out of it). SharkD (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, Freedom Force is a tactical RPG then.  Space Rangers 2 though IIRC is classified as a strategy game by the developers.  I assume you've played the game, if you look at the box, I'm pretty sure on one of the sides it is labeled as such.  I personally think it's pretty much an RPG with a heavy trading sim component and text adventure, FPS, RTS, SHMUPs, whatever minigames but the developers apparently think otherwise. -- Solberg (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the box says "Action & Strategy". The game is turn-based, so I'm not sure where all the action can be found. SharkD (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woops. Forgot about the RTS portions. That would qualify as "Action". SharkD (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable additions

message: IMO, there are WAY too many titles that were added in here just for the sake of being in there when they do not represent any important or even minimally noteworthy innovations, adaptation, or any such achievements.  I think these titles should be either:
a) removed altogether. For example, there are countless Diablo clones, and while some are noteworthy, if we list all of them this list would explode.  A complete list of lesser clones are probably better off placed in the wikipage of the original game.
b) condenced. Expansions, modifications, modules, etc. should just be in the same line as the original game.  Expansions should be in the name section, and mods should be in the description.
If this list is cleaned up enough, maybe tactical RPGS can be put back here for a more complete overview of CRPG's broad influences (granted that new such additions would follow the same limitations).  Tag aye or nay to this idea.  State reasons if necessary (keep in mind to keep things short).  Ssh83 (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This would necessitate repurposing the list, as the stated definition of it is: "This is a comprehensive index of commercial computer role-playing games (CRPGs), sorted chronologically." D. Brodale (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that your comments are would be applicable to a "History of role-playing games" article, where only games that have made a contribution should be listed. However, this is a chronological list; therefore, all games should be listed. Much of this article's content was merged from List of computer role-playing games. SharkD (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-Up Proposal

message: Drakensang: The Dark Eye is just as much a sequel to Realms of Arkania: Shadows over Riva as Might and Magic VI: The Mandate of Heaven is to Might and Magic V: Darkside of Xeen. It's the same (German) series, Das Schwarze Auge, the English language trademark changed to The Dark Eye in 2003:
German title                           	English title
Das Schwarze Auge: Die Schicksalsklinge	Realms of Arkania: Blade of Destiny
Das Schwarze Auge: Sternenschweif      	Realms of Arkania: Star Trail
Das Schwarze Auge: Schatten über Riva  	Realms of Arkania: Shadows over Riva
Das Schwarze Auge: Drakensang          	Drakensang: The Dark Eye
:I still disagree - Drakensang is just set in the same world; it'd be like saying Neverwinter Nights is a sequel of Baldur's Gate just because they both use the DnD system and have the same setting. MM VI is a sequel because the developers considered it as such. --VPeric (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Realms of Arkania/The Dark Eye

message: Chronology of console role-playing games has a legend at the top for abbreviations of platforms. I propose adding one to this list as well. This will cut down on the file size, as the platform articles will only need to be linked to once. Some of the early platforms are already abbreviations or codes of a sort. Should they be shortened further? Some of the abbreviations I suggest: WIN, DOS, MAC, AMI. Others? SharkD (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, in Chronology of console role-playing games, ports are listed individually if they were released in a different year. Only the PC ports of games should be listed in this article, not the console versions (such as the NES version of Dragon Quest). SharkD (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Legend for platforms

message: I recently overhauled Chronology of console role-playing games. I am in the process of doing the same for this list. This mainly involves splitting each game into its composite ports/rerelease/remakes/etc. Roguelikes and tactical RPGs will be added to the list. SharkD (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the list is pretty huge now (160KB). Probably time to split it into decades, like the console RPG list. SharkD (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: Some games have been listed several times. For example Baldur's Gate. There is an entry when it was first released and additional entries when the game was released in a game bundle or "aniversary/low budget" box. Dunno if there is a specific reason for that. Wouldn't it suffice to just have an entry when the game was first released?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.132.227.164 (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Game Listings 

message: I'm thinking of adding a "Review scores" column to list (aggregated) review scores from sites like GameRankings.com and MetaCritic (and maybe MobyGames for old games from the 80s). Good idea, or excessive? SharkD  Talk  03:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Review scores" column