Actually, I was just thinking about that yesterday. VR could expand the limits of video game role-playing since you yourself would be able to act out your character's mannerisms and gestures, and voice recognition would probably be a given at that point . Then imagine other people in the simulation with you. It's basically be electronic LARPing at that point.
Well, if you play with other people, you can get a little bit closer to (non video game) form of role-play since you can verbally act out your interpretation of your character's archetype. Isn't that kind of what people do on RP servers in MMOs?
Well, I'd say some people have different misunderstandings of words. To be more clear: taken to a logical extreme, these kind of people would believe that classifying a prune as an aircaft is valid. There are a lot of terms with only one or two possible understandings. Otherwise, communication would be chaos and we would have never gotten this far if our ancestors let today's creeping degree of subjective thinking shape language. Fucking insane, indeed. I feel like I'm in another dimension reading some discussions online.
Yes, in practice that has been the case. It's intellectually lazy to me though (or outright dishonest, often times), unless that evolution happens through rigorous application of reason by honest and informed minds. Otherwise we're just doing things to serve selfish purpose, not to serve truth, understanding. and accuracy.
Narrative is also part of that "superiority complex" people have. I'm sure you've seen it before.Somewhere along the line, story became some kind of measure of intellectual substance, maturity or an artistic standard bearer (e.g. the notion that a story makes a game "art," not mechanics, systems, or anything actually unique to games...). How story came to this elevated position in their minds, I have no idea. But I like to poke them and say stuff like "No, more like you need electronic mommy to read you bedtime stories all day."
Video RPGs can only be a facsimile of the founding form, which is tabletop. It's the best we can do. The more extensive the facsimile, the more justified is the classification. This is why platitudes like "You play a role in every game" or "this game has hit points therefore it is..." are glib. One is pedantic (and incorrect), both are a reductive way of defining a genre made of many interrelated systems.
But people are entitled to engage in caste warfare based on false premises and egomania, if they wish.
Yes, some people believe that RPGs require more thought than action games. Sometimes that may be true, but not the kind of RPGs these people play which are very simplistic. But they want to elevate themselves in their own minds by associating themselves with the "higher" genre. That's what I mean by having an agenda.
Although I was/am a big fan of RPGs in all their forms, these days I don't look at video games that way. I look at the specific setting, content, and mechanics each game is offering and whether they are interesting to me. Like I'm not really interested in these CRPG revivals that are the rage in crowd-funding. Those are for the people who never played them before or only played a few of them. I've played a ton of them, I want new ideas. Still, I think respect for terminology and its origin and purpose is important.
Maybe I haven't seen enough of Knight then. Asylum was the most vivid across all areas of the game, with a lot ot teal, blues, orange, colored lighting.
You know what's missing in this game? The colors of Arkham City. Knight has a Tim Burton-ish blackness to it that looks good in its own way, but I miss the look of Asylum and City. The vivid secondary and tertiary colors were comic book perfect.
Yeah, I'll be playing this later today, and maybe some GQ2 or Dark Souls 2. I've watched a speedrun of this game before. The atmosphere looks perfect.
