The 'what makes an RPG' is something that's been fought out on videogame forums the world over, and I don't foresee any resolution any time ever. I get the same thing when I play TF2 though, at least for the scout. Normally, I play as the sniper, and though I very quickly get delusions of grandeur (the ability to send someone back to the spawn point with a single mouseclick, to the sound of their swearing over the microphone is intoxicating) but with the scout, I get hyperaggressive, and very childish. I'll giggle with glee as I bat a heavy to death, and trash talk wildly as I dance about dodging bullets. The scout makes me insufferable.Brendan Main said:
Back to that kind of point though, RPG seems to mean different things to different people. Under some definitions, Duke Nukem is an RPG. You play as the Duke, after all, and that's a role. Then some people confuse it by saying that, if we want to give the genre a concrete definition that isn't so vague as to be useless, what is 'essential' to the genre? Stats? Levels? The ability to wander wherever you want? Side Quests? Character Creation, as opposed to a fixed character? The JRPG/WRPG mix complicates things further, as JRPGs are undeniably RPGs but are typically considerably more 'linear' than WRPGs, which can themselves be argued, through not forcing a role on you, aren't RPGs at all, because you can arguably play as -yourself- and that most certainly isn't a role. Personally I've always been a little bit of a WRPG superioritist, but that's only because I like to fling spells as a dwarf, and the default 'RPG' character tends to be 'the sword guy' that is, human, mediocre but capable of producing magical effects, and using a two handed sword. See Geralt and cloud for examples of 'the sword guy' from W and JRPG.
Certainly, the debates that spring from the fact that our language is adapting or becoming inadequate are fascinating. Sorry for the brief threadjack to make that point.
