The Energon Pub

Screamfleet wrote:Seems awfully selective to say "this matters, and this doesn't"
It's a game, not a story. It's meant to be played, not read.

Its a role playing game, not poker.

Role playing games have "roles" and because of that they have stories.

Stories that are intended to be followed just as any written story.

Screamfleet wrote:Seems awfully selective to say "this matters, and this doesn't"
It's a game, not a story. It's meant to be played, not read.

1. It's a game WITH a story. They obviously didn't write it with the intention of you ignoring it. It turns out game developers have a tendency to use games as a platform to tell a story.

2. If it doesn't matter, why were you arguing it a moment ago?

3. Stories featured in games are not tied directly to gameplay and vice versa. Read that link I posted.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Its a role playing game

As far as genre goes, that's actually not true. WfC is an action game, or third-person-shooter. Technically the term "role playing game" applies when used literally, but as far as genre goes, RPGs are games more like Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Elder Scrolls, etc.

Shadowman wrote:
As far as genre goes, that's actually not true. WfC is an action game, or third-person-shooter. Technically the term "role playing game" applies when used literally, but as far as genre goes, RPGs are games more like Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Elder Scrolls, etc.

The way I see it, she fits "loosely" in the genera of role playing game.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:
As far as genre goes, that's actually not true. WfC is an action game, or third-person-shooter. Technically the term "role playing game" applies when used literally, but as far as genre goes, RPGs are games more like Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Elder Scrolls, etc.

The way I see it, she fits "loosely" in the genera of role playing game.

Just because that's the way you see it, doesn't make it true, this isn't subjective.

Shadowman wrote:
Just because that's the way you see it, doesn't make it true, this isn't subjective.

According to what you said before it is indeed subjective.

You said "the term applies when used literally".

And this is from Wiki

"Role-playing video games (RPGs) form a loosely defined genre of computer and video games"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game

"loosely defined genre of games".......thats a very subjective definition.

So, just because you don't see it that way doesn't make it true, this is a very subjective term.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:According to what you said before it is indeed subjective.

You said "the term applies when used literally".

I did say that. And I never said that using it literally was correct. Most of the English language is incorrect when used literally.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:"Role-playing video games (RPGs) form a loosely defined genre of computer and video games"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game

"loosely defined genre of games".......thats a very subjective definition.

Funny you skipped the entire second half of that sentence. From the VERY SAME PAGE:

Role-playing video games (RPGs) form a loosely defined genre of computer and video games with origins in pen-and-paper role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons, borrowing much of their terminology, settings and game mechanics.

But here, have some TVtropes. I'd trust them over Wikipedia any day.

A type of Game in which the player controls a character or party of characters in a statistically abstracted way. Most are based around one or more quests, items, stats, Character Customization, and experience points, as characters grow in power over time.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:So, just because you don't see it that way doesn't make it true, this is a very subjective term.

No, it isn't. And posting only half of a quote doesn't make it true when the other half proves it wrong.

Never mind that you've also admitted to not being a gamer, so you're discussing a subject you have no experience in. While we're at it, you've also admitted to having not played WfC.

Shadowman wrote:I did say that. And I never said that using it literally was correct.

You really didnt have to.

Most of the English language is incorrect when used literally.

Thats not exactly true.

It would be right to say "Most of the English language is imprecise when used literally"

Which seems to be the case in this conversation.

Funny you skipped the entire second half of that sentence. From the VERY SAME PAGE:

I skipped nothing.

Nothing else on that pages changes the fact that its a "loosely defined genre of games"...which makes the term subjective.

But here, have some TVtropes. I'd trust them over Wikipedia any day.

A type of Game in which the player controls a character or party of characters in a statistically abstracted way. Most are based around one or more quests, items, stats, Character Customization, and experience points, as characters grow in power over time.

Thank you, but none of that changes anything.

Its still a subjective term.

No, it isn't. And posting only half of a quote doesn't make it true when the other half proves it wrong.

How did it prove anything wrong??

All it did was give an example, not every example.

Have you forgot how to debate in your quest to win an argument.

The rest of the info wasnt relevant.It didnt change the fact that the term "role playing game" is not a tightly defined genera.

Never mind that you've also admitted to not being a gamer, so you're discussing a subject you have no experience in.

Not really relevent to this debate.

Not to mention I said I'm not much of a gamer.

While we're at it, you've also admitted to having not played WfC.

Yep, also not relevent to this debate.

I should really start billing you for the damage my keyboard took when your post made me smash my head against it.

RPG is NOT a loosely defined term since everything I've posted gives it non-loose definition. You know, all that stuff you said was irrelevant? If you actually paid attention you'd have noticed it all actually defines what characteristics an RPG has.

You want to talk about debating? You posted one source, in fact, you only posted ONE PIECE of one source, and I was quick to point out that the full quote actually refutes your claim. Posting half a sentence doesn't prove anything. I've posted TWO FULL sources which actually prove your initial claim wrong, but you clearly didn't read them an instead called them "irrelevant." I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're going to refute half of this post as "irrelevant" huh? If it doesn't prove you right, it's "irrelevant." Seems to be a common theme in many of your posts.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:I did say that. And I never said that using it literally was correct.

You really didnt have to.

Obviously I did because you clearly didn't catch it.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Most of the English language is incorrect when used literally.

Thats not exactly true.

It would be right to say "Most of the English language is imprecise when used literally"

Which seems to be the case in this conversation.

I don't know if English isn't your first language or not, but believe me when I tell you that, while that is true to some extent, what I said before isn't any less true.

English 101, class is in session:

Case in point, let's say, The Dark Knight. At one point, the Joker is holding Rachel out of an open window, and Batman says "let her go." Joker says "Very poor choice of words" and drops her. Batman did not mean "let her go out of that open window" but when his words are taken literally, it takes on a different meaning.

Another example, the term "lady killer." Taken literally, the term would mean someone who actually kills women. The term actually means a man who is very attractive to women or very "successful," so to speak, with them.

Class dismissed. There may or may not be a pop quiz tomorrow. Sleep in fear.

Shadowman wrote:I should really start billing you for the damage my keyboard took when your post made me smash my head against it.

RPG is NOT a loosely defined term since everything I've posted gives it non-loose definition. You know, all that stuff you said was irrelevant? If you actually paid attention you'd have noticed it all actually defines what characteristics an RPG has.

Sorry to hear about your keyboard.

But nothing you have posted or the sites you linked refute that its a loosely defined term.

Heres the defintion from your pwn source...

"A type of Game in which the player controls a character or party of characters in a statistically abstracted way. "

Here is an example of some from your source...

"Most are based around one or more quests, items, stats, Character Customization, and experience points, as characters grow in power over time."

Most not all.

You want to talk about debating? You posted one source, in fact, you only posted ONE PIECE of one source, and I was quick to point out that the full quote actually refutes your claim.

Yes you poiunted that out, but you failed to demenstrate howe.

Posting half a sentence doesn't prove anything. [/quote]

The other 1/2 wasnt relevant and didnt disprove anything the first 1/2 had to say.

I've posted TWO FULL sources which actually prove your initial claim wrong,

How, by giving a few examples of what they feel is a role playing game.

Even your source says "Most", it doesnt say all or only.

Your source proved nothing other then that the term is subjective.

which means it proved my point not yours.

Obviously I did because you clearly didn't catch it.

Your not getting it.

If it fits in a literal fashion, then its not incorrect.

It may not be the most precise term to use, but its not incorrect.

I don't know if English isn't your first language or not, but believe me when I tell you that, while that is true to some extent, what I said before isn't any less true.

English 101, class is in session:

Case in point, let's say, The Dark Knight. At one point, the Joker is holding Rachel out of an open window, and Batman says "let her go." Joker says "Very poor choice of words" and drops her. Batman did not mean "let her go out of that open window" but when his words are taken literally, it takes on a different meaning.

Yes, English is my first and primary language.

And bearing your latest example, and what I said before, it does indeed suggest what you said "less true".

English 101, class is in session:
Its not the meaning of those words that change because its taken literally, its the context of the conversation they are spoken in that changes their definition.

Joker chose to take that meaning when its obvious that wasnt the intent of the one who spoke it.

Another example, the term "lady killer." Taken literally, the term would mean someone who actually kills women. The term actually means a man who is very attractive to women or very "successful," so to speak, with them.

Class dismissed. There may or may not be a pop quiz tomorrow. Sleep in fear.

Nice one there.

Do you know what's funny about this? Two things here:

1. This thread is about WfC not being canon with G1.

2. Despite everything you've posted, ignoring any evidence I've posted and claiming that it doesn't disprove it, you're still wrong. No matter how many words you twist, all you've shown as "proof" is a half of a quote from Wikipedia, which is such a shady source most schools won't allow it to be listed as one for an essay. You've given no other examples or sources. You've admitted you don't know much about video games while I'm someone who has devoted nearly two decades of my 21 years of life to them. I know more about this than you possibly could, so believe me when I tell you YOU ARE WRONG. I know that's hard for you to accept, but believe me, you are in this case. And nothing you possibly say could prove you otherwise. WfC is not an RPG, under ANY definition of the term using in the video game industry, no matter how "loosely" defined it is.

So are you going to pick this post apart, using more of your patented faulty logic, or can you finally accept that you made a mistake in calling WfC an RPG and get this thread back on track?

Shadowman wrote:Do you know what's funny about this? Two things here:

1. This thread is about WfC not being canon with G1.

2. Despite everything you've posted, ignoring any evidence I've posted and claiming that it doesn't disprove it, you're still wrong. No matter how many words you twist, all you've shown as "proof" is a half of a quote from Wikipedia, which is such a shady source most schools won't allow it to be listed as one for an essay. You've given no other examples or sources. You've admitted you don't know much about video games while I'm someone who has devoted nearly two decades of my 21 years of life to them. I know more about this than you possibly could, so believe me when I tell you YOU ARE WRONG. I know that's hard for you to accept, but believe me, you are in this case. And nothing you possibly say could prove you otherwise. WfC is not an RPG, under ANY definition of the term using in the video game industry, no matter how "loosely" defined it is.

So are you going to pick this post apart, using more of your patented faulty logic, or can you finally accept that you made a mistake in calling WfC an RPG and get this thread back on track?

I know wiki isint the best source, but your own source said pretty much the same thing.

Heres is the general, subjective definition your own source gave.

"Role Playing Game
A type of Game in which the player controls a character or party of characters in a statistically abstracted way."

Thats all the definition the site gave, it goes on to give examples and characteristics of "MOST" RPG's , but as for a definition.....thats it, a loose definition.

So, you can go on telling me I AM WRONG, and quote the last 20 something years of your life, but you have utterly failed at disproving what I said.

Your own words say that "literately" its a RPG.
Your own site gives a loose definition.

So, when are you going to accept that you just cant make your argument?

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Heres is the general, subjective definition your own source gave.

"Role Playing Game
A type of Game in which the player controls a character or party of characters in a statistically abstracted way."

That's not the full definition. TVTropes says they are "based around one or more quests, items, stats, Character Customization, and experience points, as characters grow in power over time."

Please, though, if you'd like to give me some examples of games that are widely considered to be RPGs, I'd be happy to look them over. As it stands now, you've given me nothing but proof you have no clue what the term even means.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:So, you can go on telling me I AM WRONG, and quote the last 20 something years of your life, but you have utterly failed at disproving what I said.

I have, actually. You keep ignoring all of it, or pretending it says something else, or claiming it doesn't disprove your point when it does. You just can't make an argument to save your life.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Your own words say that "literately" its a RPG.
Your own site gives a loose definition.

Thank you, for twisting my words. Remember how I just said that when certain phrases are used literally, they're wrong? This is one of those cases. When the words "role playing game" are used literally like you're using them, it's wrong.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:So, when are you going to accept that you just cant make your argument?

Because I'm not the one who's wrong. Plus, my argument doesn't rely entirely on twisting other people's words and using only half of a definition as "proof," as well as ignoring anything posted that proves me wrong, etc. etc. etc. You really do show off how terrible you are at debating.

this is a subject you, by admission, know very little about. Why can't you just accept you made a mistake and get the thread back on track?

Shadowman wrote:That's not the full definition.

Yes it was.

TVTropes says they are "based around one or more quests, items, stats, Character Customization, and experience points, as characters grow in power over time."

No, thats how they describe "MOST" of the games that fit the term, not all.

Please, though, if you'd like to give me some examples of games that are widely considered to be RPGs, I'd be happy to look them over. As it stands now, you've given me nothing but proof you have no clue what the term even means.

I dont see the point in giving examples of games that are "widely considered" RPG's.

I think it would be easy to agree on the most obvious ones.

Seems to me that this is more a debate about what kind of games shouldnt be considered a RPG.

Now, as per your and your source's definition, just about any game that features a character to control ,which features the science of the collection, organization, and interpretation of data and events, trew a narreitive that involves a quest of a trype would fit the term.

So, many of the Zelda and Final Fantasy games are obvious RPG's.

The less obvious, but still fit the term "loosely" would be Resident Evils,Tomb Raider.

I have,

Failed and have done so again.

I've ignored noting, your confusing the definition for the games with the examples of how most games to fit the term.

You just can't make an argument to save your life.

Which explains why you always fail to win an argument with me.

Keep dreaming.

Thank you, for twisting my words. Remember how I just said that when certain phrases are used literally, they're wrong? This is one of those cases. When the words "role playing game" are used literally like you're using them, it's wrong.

And yet, your source seems to support the idea.

At the very least your source claims that its a loose definition.

So, how bout you tell me how this particular game doesnt fit the term.

Because I'm not the one who's wrong. Plus, my argument doesn't rely entirely on twisting other people's words and using only half of a definition as "proof," as well as ignoring anything posted that proves me wrong, etc. etc. etc. You really do show off how terrible you are at debating.

Dude, you only win debates by siting solid evidence.

Your own source describes its as a loose definition.
So, what did you post that takes the debate???

this is a subject you, by admission, know very little about. Why can't you just accept you made a mistake and get the thread back on track?

[/quote]

Because I made no mistake.

I made no solid claim.

Your source describes the term as a loose definition, nothing solid.

You make it sound like your site clearly states whatr kind of game can be called a RPG, and nothing else, but thats so far from the truth.



The term is subjective.

Doesn't matter, you're still wrong. You can use as much faulty logic as you'd like to fuel your painfully misinformed beliefs. It doesn't make you right. Of course, you're still going to act like you "won" an argument on the internet, just because I'm tired of arguing with a brick wall that can't accept it made a mistake, then felt the need to derail an entire thread trying to prove, through heavy use of faulty logic, that it never made a mistake.

(Also, Zelda is, by and large, not considered an RPG. Though it's set in a fantasy setting like most RPGs, it's actually an action-adventure series)

Back on topic:

-The Ark happens to be designed very differently in WfC than in G1. Compare Exhibit A with Excibit B. Of course, differences with certain design elements don't constitute a continuity error, otherwise this thread wouldn't exists.

Shadowman wrote:Doesn't matter, you're still wrong. You can use as much faulty logic as you'd like to fuel your painfully misinformed beliefs.

So again, you cant make your argument.

Well, just saying your right doesn't make you right.

You need to be able to supported it with solid evidence.

You do this all the time, you claim your right, argue it for a few pages, and when you can't back it up, you claim your tired of arguing.

Well, continue useing that tactic if you like.

(Also, Zelda is, by and large, not considered an RPG. Though it's set in a fantasy setting like most RPGs, it's actually an action-adventure series)

Funny, your own site has at least one of the Zelda games listed as a "Eastern RPG",and a "Action RPG".

Now, while I agree, labeling the Zelda series a " action-adventure series" may be more precise, how is it not also a RPG??

What does any of that have to do with continuity differences between WfC and G1? What I'm sick of is derailing this topic trying to poke a hole in your massive ego, whether you believe that or not doesn't matter.

Shadowman wrote:What does any of that have to do with continuity differences between WfC and G1? What I'm sick of is derailing this topic trying to poke a hole in your massive ego, whether you believe that or not doesn't matter.

So, you cant answer that question either??

You could have just admitted it.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:What does any of that have to do with continuity differences between WfC and G1? What I'm sick of is derailing this topic trying to poke a hole in your massive ego, whether you believe that or not doesn't matter.

So, you cant answer that question either??

You could have just admitted it.

What question? What am I supposed to be admitting? Now I'm kind of confused.

EDIT: Moved this part to a new post.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:What does any of that have to do with continuity differences between WfC and G1? What I'm sick of is derailing this topic trying to poke a hole in your massive ego, whether you believe that or not doesn't matter.

So, you cant answer that question either??

You could have just admitted it.

Oh, for crying out loud. It simply doesn't matter who's right or who's wrong in this debate because this debate simply has nothing to to do with the "WFC vs. G1" topic.

Does there really have to be a winner and a loser to such a trivial matter?

Anyway,

Shadowman wrote:Back on topic:

-The Ark happens to be designed very differently in WfC than in G1. Compare Exhibit A with Excibit B. Of course, differences with certain design elements don't constitute a continuity error, otherwise this thread wouldn't exists.

While this is true, I know of some who would either argue that this would be a simple case of artistic licensing, or they'd argue that the WFC Ark was not completely finished and therefore its design in the game was not the final design, leaving just enough room to ease in the possibility of the G1 Ark's look representing the final product's appearance.

But me, I know they're not the same ship.

Sabrblade wrote:But me, I know they're not the same ship.

And that is why you aren't on The List.



And that question about Zelda being listed as an RPG on TVtropes: It isn't. At least, the series isn't, only Zelda II. From TVtropes page on Zelda II:

Compared to all of the Zelda games up to today, this game stands out like a sore thumb due its sidescrolling, platforming, and RPG elements.

Shadowman wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:What does any of that have to do with continuity differences between WfC and G1? What I'm sick of is derailing this topic trying to poke a hole in your massive ego, whether you believe that or not doesn't matter.

So, you cant answer that question either??

You could have just admitted it.

What question? What am I supposed to be admitting? Now I'm kind of confused.

ok, for the sake of not arguing I'm going to assume you missed the question unintentionally and I'll ask it again??

You claimed that "by and large" the Zelda games arent considered RPG's

Now, I agree, labeling the Zelda series a " action-adventure series" may be more precise, how is it not also a RPG??

And BTW, saying "by and large" comes off as subjective as well.

Sabrblade wrote:Does there really have to be a winner and a loser to such a trivial matter?

I really wasnt the one that took us down that route.

But no, it really doesn't matter.

Shadowman wrote:And that question about Zelda being listed as an RPG on TVtropes: It isn't. At least, the series isn't, only Zelda II. From TVtropes page on Zelda II:

Thanks for proving what I said.

I claimed 1 of the games was on the list of your site.

Now, if you'll just answer my question about the others.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Now, if you'll just answer my question about the others.

Only if it directly relates to the topic of the thread.

You two have gone on long enough.

WFC was CLEARLY written as a G1 prequel, regardless of whether or not Hasbro says it's a prequel to Prime. All contradictions, such as Aerialbots and Jetfire, were made for gameplay reasons.

Besides it's not like G1 continuity didn't have a ridiculous amount of plotholes, what with there being three different origins of the Constructicons!

Starscream GaGa wrote:WFC was CLEARLY written as a G1 prequel, regardless of whether or not Hasbro says it's a prequel to Prime. All contradictions, such as Aerialbots and Jetfire, were made for gameplay reasons.

Except none of the contradictions effect gameplay.