Talk:Role-playing video game/Archive 1

message: While following up that quote for some research, I think its been spun rather incorrectly. He means "no pure PC RPG developers" as in no companies left that only do PC RPG games, not as a qualitative measure of "purity" to the genre which is what I see implied strongly here. I'd like to see someone agree with this before an edit is submitted though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.66.32.238 (talk • contribs) 
:Argh, you're right. I feel particularly stupid since I hunted down the source of that quote, but I didn't follow up on it (it was a followup question to an interview I couldn't find, until now. I'll probably move it to the history article. --SevereTireDamage 22:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Josh Sawyer Quote Misrepresented 

message: The History of computer role-playing games should be discussed in much more in-depth. I created a stub page for it with the text from this article's second and third sections, along with some ideas in that page's discussion. Mikademus 11:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive history article requested 

message: I pushed this to "Computer role-playing game" because the name (and "CRPG" initials) is very common, it covers non-video RPG games (a strange concept to the under-30 crowd I suppose :-) ), plus that's what the industry award is called. Stan 19:13, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move reason 

message: I started formatting the "Chronology of Console RPG's" list so it better matched the computer list.  But I noticed something. Look at the Chronology of Computer RPG's list. Almost every game listed there has an active wikilink. That makes sense. Since it is a list of notable RPG's, it makes sense that an article exists on the game. Now look at corresponding console RPG list. Only about half of the games listed (for those that even have wikilinks) have articles. I suspect that this is because they are not notable.
:: or maybe computer users are more likely to be on the internet, and take an active roll, as opposed to console users, that might not have the same access/interest Xiag 19:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's Microsoft X-Box? Ausir 19:08, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I'd guess MS is Sega Master System. Nearly every list of "notable" or "popular" things in the Wikipedia becomes comprehensive given time. --Mrwojo 19:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we should limit the list to games that have Wikipedia articles. Ausir 19:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: It looks that way to me too. While it's difficult to define notable, it's easy to insert a game into a list. --Mrwojo 22:43, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, editors agree that "notable" means "notable enough to have an article". Of course, that doesn't stop fanboys obsessing over something obscure. You could try Stan's "rule of a thousand" - the game should have affected at least 1,000 people during its existence, counting all of customers/players/developers/publishers/reviewers etc. Stan 01:07, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Console list too extensive 

message: The oldest console role-playing game is not Dragon Warrior/Quest for the NES as previously claimed, but rather AD&D: Treasure of Tarmin for the Intellivision (1982).  There was another Intellivision AD&D game (originally just called AD&D, later titled "Cloudy Mountain) which was an action/adventure game rather than a true RPG.  Treasure of Tarmin might not be the oldest console RPG, but I'm reasonably sure it is. --Crunchy Frog 04:36, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest Console RPG 

message: How are we dealing with Action RPGs?  I can't seem to find any mention of them anywhere.  I think it should at least get a description, if not it's own article.  Also, why the absence of the Zelda games, not only here, but in the Chronology article?  I fail to see how Crystalis is more worthy of mention. Mole 16:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Action RPGs 

message: I play a lot of RPGs and I've never heard of them referred to as CRPGs until now. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a term coined for PC only RPGs. I have heard it a couple of times before. -- ReyBrujo 10:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen it outside of wikipedia.  Could you provide a reference? Percy Snoodle 22:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go. A Google search with 215,000 English language pages featuring either the term "computer role-playing game" or the abbreviation CRPG. It's the most commonly used term when it becomes necessary to differentiate computer RPGs from other kinds of RPGs. – Seancdaug 22:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CRPG? 

message: (1) Why is there such an extensive list of console games in the "Computer role-playing game" section?  Shouldn't this be moved elsewhere?  I could see the point of discussing (typical) differences between console/computer Japanese/Western RPGs here (and even then, these differences could perhaps be relegated to a side article), but why so much information on console RPGs in particular? I guess there is a computer inside a console, but...
(2) As someone already pointed out, action RPGs and RPGs are treated the same in this article. Games like Dungeon Siege, Diablo, Fate, etc fall more or less into the action RPG category whereas games like Fallout, Arcanum, Baldur's Gate, etc, fit more into the traditional RPG definition, at least as seen by purists. With how developed this article is now, and how many people perceive Diablo as an RPG in every sense of the term, maybe it is too late to split the article, but may I suggest that we add a section that details this very commonly argued distinction?  I'll probably do this on my own eventually if nobody does it, but I'm wondering if maybe there is a reason it hasn't been done already.    
(3) People confuse console RPGs with Japanese RPGs with a specific group of RPGs with no simple name.  Please, folks, not *all* RPGs Japan makes are the same.  Not *all* console RPGs are the same, like being linear, character-focused, etc.  Nor are all Western RPGs nonlinear, story-based, etc.
-- Solberg 10:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pressing issues 

message: The whole 'modern games' section is an exact copy of http://www.rpgstory.com/modern-rpg.html, without mentioning this page or its site..  The page contains the following notice: "Copyright © 2004 - RPG Story.  All Rights Reserved." -- Marnix Klooster (ln.noclos@retsoolk.xinram) 194.149.80.4 13:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reviewing this article's edit history, it seems more likely that the website you mentioned cut-and-pasted the "Modern games" section from this article. The modern games section evolved over more than a year with contributions from numerous editors, starting on 09:30, 26 January 2003. It was split off into a separate section on 08:52, 5 November 2003 and reached the form in which it appears on the rpgstory website on 06:48, 6 August 2004. If it were a copyvio, one would expect it to appear in one block in a single edit, instead of evolving incrementally over time. --Muchness 14:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So I guess you could say they are copyvio-ing Wikipedia. ;-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, looks that way :) --Muchness 04:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern games: copyright violation? 

message: For those of you who have an especially strong grasp on the semantics of what makes a game a CRPG vs simply a RPG, can you please help me clarify whether Oblivion is a CRPG (like some argue) or simply a RPG (like I think). It's a subject of small controversy at Oblivion's page. Thanks! JovBlackheart 17:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fighting/adventure hybrid, actually :). Well, it would better be called just RPG, it there's controversy. CP/M 23:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion 

message: Just because some heroes used to be silent doesn't mean it should be stated that many protagonists don't talk. Games used to be sprite-based but there's nothing saying that many RPGs are. And what Western RPGs have characters that don't talk? I can't think of any at the moment. Finally, what makes Suidoken V so important?
:It is true that this practice has been almost exclusive to Japanese RPGs and that few recent games have carried on the tradition. However, unlike the use of sprites in pre-PS1 consoles, the lack of protagonist dialogue was not due to technical limitations; it was a conscious design decision made by many developers. White Agent 14:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talking Protagonists 

message: I am going to add Jagex to the list of companies section. They are the creators of RuneScape, a game which millions of people play. Twipie 22:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jagex 

message: I've removed the following from the article: "Some players pronounce "CRPG", crappage, which they sarcastically note to be a comment on the perceived quality of the games." Google returns only ~60 hits for this usage (ref), all of them self-published. --Muchness 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a catchy expression used by hardcore (and usually older) gamers, but it's not widespread enough to make it into the article. It might fit into the "Criticisms" section eventually. White Agent 13:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Crappage"? 

message: I made a lot of changes on this page, console role-playing game page, and moved stuff here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_CRPG_and_cRPG
Agree/disagree with changes?  I think most of them are for the better.  The CRPG page is ridiculously long and waffles between two distinct subgenres way too much.  Note that I'm not finished with all the changes, this is pretty extensive already but there's much more to be done.  -- Solberg 04:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about the title - I think Comparison of computer and console role-playing games might fit WP:TITLE better; but that's not the problem.  The title suggests the divide is computer/console, while the article is about the eastern/western divide.  I'd  with the article over the title, since nowadays many eastern console RPGs also end up on computers.  Perhaps Cultural differences in computer and console role-playing games?  You could then replace "digital RPGs" with computer and console role-playing games, in order to wikilink those terms.  Percy Snoodle 11:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, never mind what I wrote here before; it's not readily apparent that you divided computer and console RPGs into separate articles by just looking at the page's history. I agree with the changes. White Agent 12:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point Percy, I will look into that.  Thanks White Agent.  -- Solberg 20:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I implemented your suggestions, looks good.  Anything else?  -- Solberg 20:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay I made some changes 

message: Anyone want to add a new section on the various dialogue systems?  Seems to be three major dialogue systems (maybe I'm forgetting something)-- noninteractive (Arx Fatalis), full dialogue tree type (BG2, PST, Fallout, etc), Wiki-type (Ultima 7 and many other games).  And no, these names aren't official, I made them up because I don't know their official names.  If I did, I'd have added the part myself, but I don't.  There are also some notable sub-types like the one where you get a box and enter a specific word, and get back some text, like in the old Exile series.  This is sort of like the Wiki-type one, except you don't get to see the choices and sort of have to guess what a character might know that is useful.  
Just in case I'm not being clear, this is sort of how stuff works in the three systems:
Noninteractive:
Dialogue in only the sense that the player and another character is communicating.  The player is given no choices (real or imaginary) during the conversation.  There is no interaction, no player input.  This is seen in Arx Fatalis and a couple others.
Full on dialogue tree:
The game developer created conversations with fixed (with respect to stats, race, etc) responses that, if chosen, can give rise to other possible new responses.
Example:
Bad Guy says:
I kill you with death!!!111
Player choices:
*Um, whatever, I'm leaving now.
*Try your best!!111
*[Truth] Look, let's settle this in a civilized way.  
*[Lie] Look, let's settle this in a civilized way.
*[Perception] Dude, you look drunk.  How about I help you home?
Example 2:
http://www.addventure.com/cgi-bin/read.pl/addventure/game2/game2.db3/page/2.html (it's deeper than this, but you get the idea)
Wiki-type:
Mr. Boring Totally Useless and Limp NPC says:
Good morning.  Are you here to see the Mayor?
Player choices:
*"Job"
*"Buy"
*"King"
*"Sin"
*"Mayor"
Player chooses "Mayor":
Mr. Boring says:
He's right up in that shiny tower over there.  Hey, he's waving to us right now.
Variation:
Player can type in anything, but choices are not visible.
Anyone who adds in a dialogue section should probably also mention that dialogue trees have gained popularity over the years while noninteractive (especially) and wiki-type have both waned dramatically.  -- Solberg 08:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not totally sure this should be extensively mentioned in the article, as this is generally more applicable to adventure games than RPGs. I also somewhat disagree with the dialogue types you mentioned - yes, there is non-interactive dialogue, but then I think the other kind is known as "branching" dialogue, since it uses a tree for all possible outcomes. Another possible type (usually seen in things like dating sims, but it's been used in games like Torment, Fallout, FF VII, etc.) is where as opposed to strict branching, point values are assigned so that you gain or lose favor with certain NPCs/groups. But even so, that's arguably still just dialogue branching. As far as I know, there haven't been any significant AI developments in this area. --SevereTireDamage 22:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you disagree with.  I did mention trees and branching (didn't call it branching though).  Regarding point values for reputation, etc, this is not really a distinct system of dialogue, this is a consequence of dialogue (sometimes not implemented in games).  In Torment, Fallout, True Love (a dating sim), and to a lesser extent FFVII, you have what I referred to as "full on dialogue trees," where there are multiple possible conversation options and actions and selecting one (eg "Give her flowers" or "Sell follower into slavery" or something) is presented and follows with certain effects-- more influence with a certain character or faction, perhaps less, etc.  These extra consequences that affect rep, characters, alignment, the world and so on are extra (albeit very nice) features tacked onto a regular dialogue system.  In any case I'm not sure what your objection is.  Is it that you don't like the division I drew up between the wikilinkish system (used in Ultima 7, Albion, Oblivion) and the "full on dialogue tree" used in PS: T, Fallout, Arcanum, so on?  There have been some significant AI developments in this area actually though I don't see why this is relevant.  Probably the most famous one is [| Facade].  Try it out, I highly recommend it.  It does require a fast computer though.  If the issue is that a dialogue section would be key to the adventure game too or perhaps more, we can create a video game dialogue page that the adventure gamers and others can also use.  -- Solberg 02:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember Facade wouldn't even let me install it, for the very reason you mentioned, so I don't know much about it. It does sound really interesting, and if it really is doing more complex sentence parsing, than that would still be some advancement. What I'm saying basically, is that more or less all RPG and adventure dialogue is still done the same way it's been done since the beginning - pre-programmed dialogue trees with conditional variables and if/then statements. The thing is I suspect Facade is "just" a really good implentation of this, since it still has a limited number of pre-recorded computer responses and it's still parsing typed sentences like back in the 80s, just on a more complex level. Of course I could be totally wrong, since I haven't played the game nor do I know much about what went into it. I'm not sure how much can be expanded upon this topic, but I suppose some mention in this article is warranted, and maybe having a separate article isn't a bad idea. I do have an issue with the way you've described these differences - if you want to go more into it, I would definitely advise looking up sources. --SevereTireDamage 02:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm still not too sure what your objection is with how I described the dialogue.  Admittedly I don't know the details or names for these systems but it's pretty much commonly agreed that there are at least two distinct systems represented by the Oblivion/Ultima/etc v.s. Fallout/PS:T/etc.  I don't know the names, if I have time I'll see if I can find consensus on the internet for what to call these systems.  I'll also check around to make sure nobody already invented such a page.  I don't have Facade's source code nor know how it really works but my impression from several plays is that it's on a whole new level.  Not really perfect, you can fool the AI but on the it's whole much more advanced than anything we see in commercial games right now.  -- Solberg 05:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialogue 

message: Removed the entire "criticisms" section.  If this site is to maintain even the illusion of NPOV, it does not need someone's long winded rant about how terrible it is.  The fact that the article itself was not at all clearly written, and relies heavily on niche-of-a-niche terminology like GNS only serves to cements its superfluousness.  This is an encyclopedia, not someone's personal soapbox, and I see nothing informative or useful in rambling negative diatribes. --72.35.146.211 09:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm adding the deleted section below so that interested parties can rework it, add sourcing and return salvageable material to the article. --Muchness 10:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to take issue wuth the sentiment of this - while it's true that criticism is NPOV, reporting of criticism is fine.  So, a referenced criticisms section would be perfectly encyclopedic.  However, the removed section wasn't at all referenced, so I'm not going to kick up a fuss. Percy Snoodle 13:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely, a criticism section that reports opinions from appropriate sources is within NPOV and would be a valuable addition to this article. Some of the points raised in the deleted section are worth making, in particular the divide between traditional pen & paper and crpg gamers. --Muchness 14:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why the Criticism section should be removed for simply being unreferenced.  By this argument almost the entire computer role-playing game article should be removed (and in theory, should if we were to conform strictly to policy.)  Criticism can be of course neutral point of view if it meets the criteria in WP:NPOV.  I don't see, besides the valid point about the section being unreferenced, in what other way the Criticisms section violates WP:NPOV.  The text as is looks pretty dispassionate to me.  In either case, I've re-added the section, if anybody has problems with specific sentences in the article, why don't they tag it with  so we can deal with specific contentions rather than just a general "I don't like this entire part."  -- Solberg 05:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Think logically for a second.  You claim was that the criticism section violated the NPOV policy which I pointed out wasn't true.  Now you're saying that there is nothing in NPOV which says that "we are somehow required..[etc]."  But nobody is arguing a criticism section is somehow required, but there is nothing that forbids it, which is why there's nothing wrong with it being here.  There is nothing ridiculous about the idea that criticism can be neutral.  See Criticisms of communism for example, which is an excellent, well maintained page that has been cleaned over and over again for NPOV.  This has nothing to do with editorializing.  It is simply reporting well known opinions in a neutral, fair tone.  Citation is a separate matter, but totally removing the section is just out of the question.  You will find plenty of other "criticism" pages and sections all over Wikipedia.  -- Solberg 01:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I don't approve of those sections either.  Wikipedia has become riddled with a lot of this very sort of rampant editorializing, and it has no place in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia.  An encyclopedia is a collection of facts, not opinions.  Leave the opinions to the fansites and the editorial pages.  Countless articles on Wikipedia have succumbed to this kind of bizarre soapboxing, in some cases turning whole articles into nothing but someone's little rant on the evils of X subject.  I'm sure you have very strong opinions re: CRPGs, but if you have such, they belong on a blog, not an encyclopedia. --72.35.146.211 05:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your assumptions about me are illogical and unfounded.  I don't have any "[bad] strong opinions" about CRPGs.  I put a lot of work into improving this article-- not as much as a few of my local heroes (they know who they are) but I do a reasonable amount.  If you're not convinced, go to the history page of this article as well as some related articles and "go back" in time and you'll see my contributions which are relatively substantial.  This isn't about editorializing the evils of CRPGs or whatever.  If I hated CRPGs I wouldn't have bothered to improve this article at all.  But just because I may enjoy CRPGs doesn't mean they're immune to criticism.  I may not agree with all the criticism but as Voltaire (well, actually Evelyn Beatrice Hall) said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  It is counter-intuitive at first, but you have to realize that true NPOV does not involve censoring criticism, because a truly neutral point of view cannot be one-sided.  -- Solberg 05:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticisms" have no place in NPOV 

message: Star Gem, I already told you before, 
(1) either put in a WP:NPOV summary of the Turn-based v.s. Real-time controversy, or no summary at all.  This is not a place to spread your views on what constitutes the best combat for RPGs.  Be fair to both sides even if you disagree.  See "Writing for the Enemy" in WP:NPOV policy.
(2) AFAIK, also, real-time with pause is a much more common term with respect to CRPGs than semi-turn-based.  If you disagree, discuss it right here and maybe we can reach a compromise.
(3) The arguments you list for the controversy don't make any sense i.e. Action-RPG "oxymoron" (what, RPGs involve no action?)
(4) Removing the section about the Infinity Engine and the underlying implementation is absurd.  It is by far the most famous RTwP or "semi-turn-based" engine out there.  There's no excuse for removing actual important content in the article and replacing it with a biased and unnecessary foray into CRPG politics.
-- Solberg 21:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CRPG Combat article changes 

message: Gamasutra has posted an exhaustive history of computer role playing games online, found two two parts. This would probably be very useful for fleshing out this article. -- Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 06:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exhaustive history at Gamasutra 

message: The discussion on this subject in the article seems incorrect to me. In fact there actually is a reward in experience points in Dungeon Siege for completing some quests and the points received will be redistributed according to active weapon at the time of completing the quest. In Dungeon Siege II there is a reward in skill points as well which may be spent by player as desired. 217.26.163.26 07:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, if I take you right (I didn't play DS), you're saying that in DS1, if I killed an ogre as part of a quest using an axe, I would gain points in sword if I approached the original questgiver with a sword and confirmed that I killed the ogre?  Or did I misunderstand you?  In either case, make the appropriate corrections to the article.  -- Solberg 00:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In theory that's correct. But in practice the quests I'm talking about were not involving any killing at all or at least are not the quest's primary goal. There are quests in DS1 where you should find and return some lost items and get a reward. 217.26.163.26 07:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  And if that wasn't clear I should reemphasize: there is no reward in experience for completing most quests in DS, only for few of them. 217.26.163.26 07:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you played the game, you should make the edit.  -- Solberg 03:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experience vs. skill 

message: :Image:Screen0026.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added fair use rationale. -- Solberg 01:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Screen0026.jpg 

message: Starting with the second paragraph.  It strikes me as very bad style to discuss two decidedly non-RPG games (Grand Theft Auto and Warcraft III) before discussing actual RPG computer game.  I do think the topic is worth while, but should be placed later in the article, possibly under the headline of "RPG Elements in other genres".  Then, I'd expand/edit the first paragraph as follows:
FROM:  A computer role-playing game (CRPG[1]) is a video game genre that has its origin rooted in personal computers (PCs) and other home computers, and includes< game mechanics and settings derived from those of traditional role-playing games.
TO:  A computer role-playing games (CRPG) is a widely encompassing video game genre originally developed for personal computers and other home computers.  The earliest CRPGs were inspired by Pen and Paper Role-Playing Games, especially Dungeons and Dragons, and attempted to provide  a similar play experience.  Today many games are considered CRPGs with out regard to degree of similarity to Pen and Paper RPGs.  Despite the large degree of differenes that exist among CRPGs, some common elements can be found in most CRPGs.  These include having at least one avatar with quantized characteristcs (such as having a strength value of 10) which both change over the course of the game in predictable ways and take the place of the gamer's own skill in determing in game outcomes and having a well developed fictional setting (overwhelmingly CRPGs occur in fantasy or science fiction settings).
Thoughts?
Greatatlantic 05:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your addition looks more or less fine and would be a reasonable thing to put in the article at the beginning to supplement the introduction.  I do think that the commentary on WC3 etc should stay at the beginning though.  It might seem like bad style at first, but I'd like to think of it as essentially a disambiguation, but in prose (since you are new here, this is an example of a disambiguation: Timothy Cain-- see the beginning).  Computer RPGs these days are partly defined in terms of how they are NOT other games-- console RPG or fantasy-based RTS for example.  It makes sense to make this distinction clear at the very onset.  It also assists us in not having to constantly revert edits made by people who mistakenly stumble onto this page and are shocked that The Sims or WC3 or Final Fantasy are not here.  But in either case your edit looks fine, though I'd fix the spelling and grammar first if I were you.  (There are users who would simply revert your edit on sight if it has bad spelling and grammar and not bother fixing it instead.)  PS The computer RPG talk page has been dead for months, expect a long time before you get any kind of a reply.  If you're going to make fairly small changes, just go ahead and do it (check your writing first of course).  WP:Be_Bold.  -- Solberg 23:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sort of figured I'd need to actually do the edits before a discussion would result, but I thought I'd post that first in case anybody has knee jerk reactions of restoring older versions in the case of any change.  Obviously, I will run it through a spell check.  As for the paragraph in question, you make a valid point.  Still, I don't believe the given paragraph as is does a very good job at that.  I read that and am left with the impression that GTA can be defined as an RPG.  I might try to create a compromise paragraph (shorter and more emphatically worded) and still move that down to its own section of "RPG elements in other genres".  Anyways, I don't have time to do the edits tonight, so hopefully I'll get that tomorrow or by the weekend.  P.S.  Why is Cliffy Blizinski listed as a prominent RPG developer?  Prominent Developer, sure.  But I can't find any RPGs even credited to the guy.  If no reason comes forth, I'll probably remove his name when I do my edits.Greatatlantic 03:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a valid point and admittedly it isn't quite clear why GTA doesn't count as an RPG.  Personally I chalk it up more to consensus than anything.  There are games which are labeled RPGs which have way less real roleplaying than GTA.  Still though, if you can find a way to improve the definition, be my guest.  Cliffy Blizinski -- no idea why he is in the list.  Recently I removed several developers who were mistakenly added to the list (eg Wright since Sims is not an RPG), I must have overlooked that entry.  I'll remove it.  -- Solberg 19:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for Improving the article 

message: Is so full of personal opinion and OR masquerading as "many gamers feel" etc it's incredible. Desperately in need of a thorough rewrite from the ground up, with reliable sources. I came to this article looking for information, and instead found speculation. Yeanold Viskersenn (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article 

message: The Criticism section was entirely unreferenced, and appeared to be someone's personal opinions and nothing more.  I've removed it.  --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed criticism section 

message: I don't really want to do this myself for fear of being looked as biased and self-promotional, but I would like to suggest my book "Dungeons and Desktops" as a possible source to address the alleged citation issue. It's published by A.K. Peters, a recognized publisher of science, math, and programming. Its basically a major expansion of the articles I wrote for Gamasutra that are currently listed as "External Links."  --Matt (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Reference 

message: Someone needs to provide one meaningful, universalizable distinction between computer and console RPGs besides the platform itself that applies to all games that are termed such. There are broad tendencies of one or the other and these should be noted, however, if we can't establish a descriptive sub-genre definition, I will merge these two articles. I know there are people that feel strongly that they are separate, but they are being counterproductive by inisting this without delivering a meaningful definition that we can actually use. Frogacuda (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What article are you suggesting to merge the two articles into, because the two articles need to be tagged with the appropriate merge templates pointing to this discussion. Also, I suggest bringing this up at WP:VG. --Silver Edge (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Doesn't Cultural differences in role-playing video games do a good job of describing the differences? A merge may be a viable option. There are more similarities than differences. Role-playing game (video games) already states a lot of the information in these two sub-articles. If we can't establish a consensus for a merge, I think the best thing to do is delete the redundant information from the two CRPG articles until we can pare them down to the defining qualities of the sub genres (if there are any). Randomran (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cultural differences in role-playing video games is actually about the differences between the "JRPG" genre and the "C(omputer)RPG" genre rather than strictly cultural differences (a problem with the article) but it does a reasonable job doing what you desire.  UncannyGarlic (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  We don't all agree, but here's how it is 

message: Hey, there's another article, called Role-playing game (video games). Isn't that a mistake? Both articles should be unified in a single unique article, don't you think so? Kintaro-san (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was planning to do that once the FAC & GAN i'm working on are completed and my computer is back up. If you want to start, feel free.陣内Jinnai 19:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little problem 

message: I don't have much experience editing in Wikipedia (especially article merges) so my apologies if this is started incorrectly.  I'm taking the Prominent Designers section of this article, restoring the two recently removed designers, and placing the same content into the Role-playing game (video games) article as a step to having them be a single article.  Its just a small step but I'll try to make some others soon.Caidh (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh - please contribute more 'prominent designers' for what is considered by some to be console games to both articles.  This should reflect prominent designers for all sort of Role Playing games (though I'm not sure we should include MMOs since that is separate and there is no need to merge that).Caidh (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The only stuff that should be moved is stuff that details information on what a Computer RPG is and how it differs from non-computer rpgs and has can be verified by at least one reliable source.陣内Jinnai 16:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress towards merging into [[Role-playing game (video games)]] 

message: Instead of having a disambiguation here, perphaps it would be better to create an article that covers this wide topic, there is plenty of material to do it, instead of a merge. On this topic I am an inclusionist. Best regards - Mads Angelbo Talk / Contribs 08:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Miqademus (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create article