Why'd I hafta choose a genre as simple as fighting? That's as simple as an objective.

I did mess up that sentence.

Comparing Street Fighter II Turbo for SNES, and DOA3 for XBox isn't so disimilar to comparing Final Fantasy to Final Fantasy X.. or Breath of Fire to XenoSaga.

Meaning, there's a huge difference between what genre's Breath of Fire (SNES) and XenoSaga (PS2) should belong in. It's not just the graphics. It's the whole style of game play. They really belong in completely different genres, but because of the way that games in those genres have evolved they're not.

Modern RPGs are nothing like the older 'CRPGs'. It's not just the graphics. The only similarities really are that there is story and battles..::)

The same could be said for fighting games, if you ask me. There's one where the 3rd dimension really changes game play and style. The idea is the same, but it's done completely differently, to the point where it almost needs a new genre. Not as big of a difference as in the RPG examples.. because fighting games are such a simple concept in comparison..

I dunno. I see your point.. but I can't deny the differences, it's just hard to lay them out without restricting certain games, or plugging others in. Needs it's own book.

I don't see much difference between newer and older FF's either. Same spells, same classes, same damn airship The world and characters are more fleshed out, but it just feels like FF 1.9. Final Fantasy Tactics, now that should have been a proper sequel in the series, rather than spawn its own. That was a big change in gameplay for the series.

*Calculator casts Holy on members divisible by 769 who posted on the 19th*

Shooters tend to be typified by lots of enemys. This combat is clearly 1-on-1. And, characters do have a single melee attack, it is almost never used. The Mecha are far too maneuverable for them to ever work.

Your summery of the Fighting Game Genre was, "A "fighting game" is a computer game giving the player the objective to beat one or more opponents using martial arts techniques."

Clearly, killing Ganondorf is the gameplay objective. Saving Zelda, however, is a story objective. The last gameplay task in Ocarina of Time is dealing the death-blow to Ganon; everything else is a cut-scene.

Since, clearly, the gameplay objective is to defeat Ganon, using various sword martial arts, it is a "fighting game" by your definition.

My memory of FF2e is quite sharp, as I am currently in the middle of my... 10th, maybe, replay of the game.

The point we're trying to make is that you can't define a genre without actually having games to refer to.

Why do you keep putting out Diablow (an accidental mis-spelling, but I'll leave it as it sums up my feelings about the game) as a console-RPG? It is clearly not:

#1: it has no story to speak of. Even less than Dragon Quest 1.

#2: it's combat takes place in the same world as the normal terrain. While Chrono Trigger gives the illusion that combat is happening in the same area as where it started, this is merely an illusion; the terrain is non-interactive, and meaningless (as evidenced by the fact that people can run across it at will). It's just a nice, convienient BITMAP to use for the actual battle.

Daiblo isn't even an RPG; it is an adventure game.

No moreso than you did above.

Hm... maybe I should have set "main gameplay element" instead. While I consider these term synonymous, others obviously don't.

Ok. That explains why you consider that game the only CRPG in existence...
What about a new try to explain what defines the CRPG genre?

Why?

What? It's full of them. I could tell you lots of stories how my group tried to kill the butcher... we were clearly less powerful than this brute, and it took epic fights before we actually managed to kill him.
Or the skeleton king? That guy was so tough, I had to switch bows in battle because my main bow was about to break because of the many arrows I shot at him.

Diablo is full of stories created by those playing the game.

If you prefer the "lean back and watch the plot develop" it has that stuff as well. But in that area DII is obviously better.

Now that is a good point
So, if you have battle transitions it's a CRPG, without them it's no CRPG?
Why are battle transitions (and pure-textual inventories) that important? I mean, if they can define a genre?

Point taken, and corrected.

Maybe it's not a fighter, but feels like one? Different genre, same interface method?
I don't know the game, but if you really just shoot another, it's a shooter.
If the shooting is part of the "fighting style" of the robot, you could argue it's a fighter.

Once again, this might be a game who is both in the set of "fighting game" and in the set of "shooters".

public class VirtualOn extends Fighter implements Shooter {
}

Hm... if I would add icons to the inventory of CT, would it still be a CRPG?

Please add details. Define "adventure game". Don't use other games as reference, or we need to discuss first if these games belong to the genre you propose.

FF2 is an adventure game as well. And IMO the same traits making FF2 to a CRPG are true for Diablo as well.

sto·ry: An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious

So, what's your point again?

[edit]
By the way, you realized that the story of FF2e doesn't influence the gamplay?
[/edit]

That's the definition of anime. The "anime style" you're referring to, is defined by the percieved attributes of these animations.
If the style of movies made in japan changes, the definition of anime has to change as well.

Another option would be to limit the definition to a certain point in time. If so, you can get a pretty good impresson of anime by checking some of the reference works on the subject, like
"The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917" or "Anime: From Akira to Princess Mononoke: Experiencing Contemporary Japanese Animation"

The point is that "anime" as a sytle does of course changes.

But you realize of course, that a genre is different from a style?

The style of an image defines how it was drawn. The genre describes what is drawn.

You can draw landscapes in cubism for example. You can also draw landscapes naive.

In order to describe the style, you need a reference. In order to describe the genre, you don't.

ding ding
Round 5!

http://www.emersonecologics.com/images/products/chill.jpg, people!

Seriously, the number of times I've seen people dodging questions, arguing over semantics and phrasing, and going off on überrants in this thread is alarmingly high. Especially considering how nice you all are usually.

If anyone says anything at all related to "he started it", I'll personally hunt you down and LART you through a large number of hedges (backwards, of course). With a giant inflatable banana.

My spell of True Sight didn't work very well on them I'm afraid Irrelevant. Hope your bananna works better!

Irrelevant, I just might have to do that