Starmaker: Wut. He had me at "timeless stories". Then I looked up his article in Salon. That guy is a joke.
Elmofongo: Explain than.
Article 1, What gives role-playing games their longevity?
He proposes the bullshit term "fluency" as something contributing to RPG longevity. He never defines it, but one component is apparently similarity of mechanics. However, he suggests that a factor contributing to FF's success as a series is mechanical dissimilarity, "so that fans can argue which is better".
>This is, of course, a manifestation of their roots in tabletop games where everything had to be simple and fast enough to be utilized by people.
Hell no. Tabletop games were insanely complicated and proud of it. Accessible tabletop games appeared as a reaction to CRPG popularity, to attract people who were tired of the stupid or never interested in the first place. Mechanical transparency was a rarity.
> Role-playing games can deal with this fluency both better and worse than most other genres.
Zero bit statement.
> Thanks to relative consistency of mechanics, it's possible to grasp core aspects of RPGs across different eras.
Relative to what? RPGs are the most mechanically-
inconsistent genre.
> My statistics in Torchlight 2 are recognizably similar to those in Curse Of The Azure Bonds.
And guns in one FPP are recognizably similar to guns in another FPP. And every adventure game has a wrench. So what?
> On the other hand, RPGs are hurt because there have been so many, across almost the entire history of popular video games.
There have been many games of ANY genre across the entire history blah blah.
> That means a lot of different interfaces and technologies, which get in the way of fluency. So I may be able to recognize how The Bard's Tale works mechanically, but after decades of user interface improvements, I'm going to get annoyed quickly at having to use a game-external reference sheet to cast spells.
It's not the
difference that gets in the way. Consulting a paper manual to cast spells is annoying by itself.
> But thanks to the RPG genre's combination of timeless stories and mechanics, two of the blocks to fluency are largely removed.
What? Mechanics are dissimilar. This *is* a block to accessibility. And "timeless stories" as a factor contributing to accessibility - cliches?
Article 2: What makes a classic RPG? Everything!
The
spreadsheet says it all. The Setting column is particularly awesome.
DKK is linear?
Diablo is post-apocalyptic?
Story is of medium importance in Arcanum? I'm not sperging/fangirling, this is just bullshit. Arcanum doesn't have anything to go for it
except the story.
And Skyrim, seriously? Say what you will about Skyrim, but rating the importance of story in Diablo 2 above that of Skyrim is bullshit.
What's the difference between "hero created, NPC party chosen" and "hero created, companions" (according to his examples, of course)?
"Progression complexity" makes no sense, given the examples of varying "complexities".
Cutscenes are a criterion for story importance since when?
Dafuq is "puzzles", if Arcanum has them but Krondor doesn't?
The Gold Box article: dude doesn't know shit about how Gold Box games actually play. Also, dude finished college in 2005, and I don't believe for a second he researched the critical reception of old games (neither did I, but wikipedia contradicts everything he says).
Voice acting in RPGs: voice acting can be bad! unless it's good! and there has to be an early lock on writing, which can be bad! No shit, Sherlock.
General impression: derivative hack. No opinions and thoughts of his own beyond "I liked it", feeble attempts at profundity.