Edit History

20 hours ago, Riamus said:

the clothing/armor or armor alone is about looks

Split hairs, but the important bit is "part," i.e. writing and playing a character in a story much like a writer and an actor would, which is not all about looks. Try to see the nuance in play. A RPG's lore, story and characterizations are of ultimate importance to roleplayers because that's what they're playing off of. The "costume" is merely a finisher -- the tip of the imaginative iceberg -- and I can completely understand, if no one else can, why some players of 7DTD are lamenting the loss of clothing in the game. There are armor sets, but no "costumes" to wear that reflect the character they've written for themselves.

I understand completely from whence the confusion comes. Proper RPGs are an endangered species and highly likely to go extinct altogether because publishers balk at the idea of studios developing content players, if not roleplayers, may never see in a RPG, despite that roleplayers most certainly would because they'll want to see how actual, meaningful choices and consequences unfold and play out in a RPG game world and exhaust every possible permutation of them. That's precisely what accounted for the replayability of traditional RPGs, e.g. Fallouts 1 & 2 and New Vegas, but publishers think it's too expensive to produce such a game today.

Now, Rick swears 7DTD is a RPG. It is not. It's a sandbox game with "RPG elements," a term I despise, but that's beside the point. Sandbox games are pretty much all that's left for traditional roleplayers to play. Proper RPGs very simply are rarely made anymore and when they are, they're generally superficial to a fault, if not at all RPGs. Some are calling playing around in such sandboxes "true RPG" because it's up to the player's imagination to create everything about it story and characterization-wise, but I'm afraid I'll never fall for that. It was the "Interplay" between developer and player that defined RPGs in the past. Now, we're expected to just sit back and passively "consume" the media presented to us. No imagination on our part either required or desired. And that's a death sentence for truly interactive media.

Can you see where they're coming from now?

 

9 hours ago, Riamus said:

the clothing/armor or armor alone is about looks

Split hairs, but the important bit is "part," i.e. writing and playing a character in a story much like a writer and an actor would, which is not all about looks. Try to see the nuance in play. A RPG's lore, story and characterizations are of ultimate importance to roleplayers because that's what they're playing off of. The "costume" is merely a finisher -- the tip of the imaginative iceberg -- and I can completely understand, if no one else can, why some players of 7DTD are lamenting the loss of clothing in the game. There are armor sets, but no "costumes" to wear that reflect the character they've written for themselves.

I understand completely from whence the confusion comes. Proper RPGs are an endangered species and highly likely to go extinct altogether because publishers balk at the idea of studios developing content players, if not roleplayers, may never see in a RPG, despite that roleplayers most certainly would because they'll want to see how actual, meaningful choices and consequences unfold and play out in a RPG game world and exhaust every possible permutation of them. That's precisely what accounted for the replayability of traditional RPGs, e.g. Fallouts 1 & 2 and New Vegas, but publishers think it's too expensive to produce such a game today.

Now, Rick swears 7DTD is a RPG. It is not. It's a sandbox game with "RPG elements," a term I despise, but that's beside the point. Sandbox games are pretty much all that's left for traditional roleplayers to play. Proper RPGs very simply are rarely made anymore and when they are, they're generally superficial to a fault, if not at all RPGs. Some are calling playing around in such sandboxes "true RPG" because it's up to the player's imagination to create everything about it story and characterization-wise, but I'm afraid I'll never fall for that. It was the "Interplay" between developer and player that defined RPGs in the past. Now, we're expected to just sit back and passively "consume" the media presented to us. No imagination on our part required. And that's a death sentence for truly interactive media.

Can you see where they're coming from now?

 

9 hours ago, Riamus said:

the clothing/armor or armor alone is about looks

Split hairs, but the important bit is "part," i.e. writing and playing a character in a story much like a writer and an actor would, which is not all about looks. Try to see the nuance in play. A RPG's lore, story and characterizations are of ultimate importance to roleplayers because that's what they're playing off of. The "costume" is merely a finisher -- the tip of the imaginative iceberg -- and I can completely understand, if no one else can, why some players of 7DTD are lamenting the loss of clothing in the game. There are armor sets, but no "costumes" to wear that reflect the character they've written for themselves.

I understand completely from whence the confusion comes. Proper RPGs are an endangered species and highly likely to go extinct altogether because publishers balk at the idea of studios developing content players, if not roleplayers, may never see in a RPG, despite that roleplayers most certainly would because they'll want to see how actual, meaningful choices and consequences unfold and play out in a RPG game world and exhaust every possible permutation of them. That's precisely what accounted for the replayability of traditional RPGs, e.g. Fallouts 1 & 2 and New Vegas, but publishers think it's too expensive to produce such a game today.

Now, Rick swears 7DTD is a RPG. It is not. It's a sandbox game with "RPG elements," a term I despise, but that's beside the point. Sandbox games are pretty much all that's left for traditional roleplayers to play. Proper RPGs very simply are rarely made anymore and when they are, they're generally superficial to a fault, if not at all RPGs. Some are calling playing around in such sandboxes "true RPG" because it's up to the player's imagination to create everything about it, but I'm afraid I'll never fall for that. It was the "Interplay" between developer and player that defined RPGs in the past. Now, we're expected to just sit back and passively "consume" the media presented to us. No imagination on our part required. And that's a death sentence for truly interactive media.

Can you see where they're coming from now?

 

9 hours ago, Riamus said:

the clothing/armor or armor alone is about looks

Split hairs, but the important bit is "part," i.e. writing and playing a character in a story much like a writer and an actor would, which is not all about looks. Try to see the nuance in play. A RPG's lore, story and characterizations are of ultimate importance to roleplayers because that's what they're playing off of. The "costume" is merely a finisher -- the tip of the imaginative iceberg -- and I can completely understand, if no one else can, why some players of 7DTD are lamenting the loss of clothing in the game. There are armor sets, but no "costumes" to wear that reflect the character they've written for themselves.

I understand completely from whence the confusion comes. Proper RPGs are an endangered species and highly likely to go extinct altogether because publishers balk at the idea of studios developing content players, if not roleplayers, may never see in a RPG, despite that roleplayers most certainly would because they'll want to see how actual, meaningful choices and consequences unfold and play out in a RPG game world and exhaust every possible permutation of them. That's precisely what accounted for the replayability of traditional RPGs, e.g. Fallouts 1 & 2 and New Vegas, but publishers think it's too expensive to produce such a game today.

Now, Rick swears 7DTD is a RPG. It is not. It's a sandbox game with "RPG elements," a term I despise, but that's beside the point. Sandbox games are pretty much all that's left for traditional roleplayers to play. Proper RPGs very simply are rarely made anymore and when they are, they're generally superficial and not good, if not at all RPGs. Some are calling playing around in such sandboxes "true RPG" because it's up to the player's imagination to create everything about it, but I'm afraid I'll never fall for that. It was the "Interplay" between developer and player that defined RPGs in the past. Now, we're expected to just sit back and passively "consume" the media presented to us. No imagination on our part required. And that's a death sentence for truly interactive media.

Can you see where they're coming from now?