Talk:Role-playing video game/Archive 4

Software Variables and "Three different systems"

I'd like to address a shortcoming of this article which has little to do with proposed merger or failure to merge with other articles on RPGs. I guess I can best explain starting with the section of "Character Development"

Experience system (also known as the "level-based" system) the training system 
(also known as the "skill-based" system) and the skill-point system (also known as "level-free" system)

This is an interesting, (but uncited!) explanation of a player's perspective. It would be very helpful in describing a programmer's view. I imagine there are certain variables programmed relating to "skills", maybe sometimes used to influences percentages, like adding (or subtracting) from die rolls.(?) Maybe these "Skills" are expressed as variables that work in other ways to influence game play? For anyone who wants to preserve the separation between video games and pencil and paper RPGs, I think it would be essential to have some idea of what happens "under the hood." Rolling dice to come up with stats and then modifying these stats is pretty obvious and intuitive-- How does this work in video games? How do randomly generated numbers factor into video game software gameplay? The "three different systems" theory is clever, but I know there are mathematics operating underneath that could be addressed in a basic overview-- there are references to "game engines", but I think some really basic ideas can be presented before even approaching such advanced topics. So any game developers or aspiring game developers interested in helping out? Cuvtixo (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The subject picture?

I'm sorry, but the subject picture made me laugh out loud. It's so cluttered with the inclusion of dice, swords, and the gaming controller, it looks kind of poor. This is the only place I've seen that symbol. I think just the dice with the controller would do, and maybe a better placement of the dice. Voxamimae (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You have a point, but there shouldn't be any dice. Games that implement dice on video game consoles are Monopoly, on XBLA. The controller and the sword work well together, that is my opinion. Remember, not only is the picture cluttered, but the page is cluttered as well. (see my new section, 'Literally, role playing') 最後の最初のチップを提供する (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There's some talk here about fiddling with the images in these templates. It seems there's some consensus to move away from these kinds of icons, but not necessarily in the direction you guys are talking about. Randomran (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Literally, Role-Playing

Have you seen how cluttered the first paragraph is? It doesn't even define what role-playing is. It says that role-playing includes dice, leveling up, sword-fighting and spells! Role-playing is this: Taking the role of the game's character(s) in an unfamiliar setting. The character normally knows the setting, as can be observed in dialogues and cut scenes, but some role-playing games have a storyline where the protaganist is from a different setting, and isn't familiar with the surroundings, surroundings that may or may not be familiar to the player.

It literally goes on about D&D stuff, topics that hardly licked the edge of video games. Have there been any next-gen D&D games? No. Get it over with, it isn't going to happen. *holds sobbing nerd* Just let it go nerd, just let it go.

It barely references the fact that you assume the time and place the character does, whether you want to or not, and half of this is about leveling up and limit breaks. Fable is role-playing. The combat and leveling up system and point modifyers in Fable isn't role-playing. It is a sub-topic that is immaterial and barely relevant. If you really want to talk about the methods and things you do when you role-play, fine. But make the first section relevant, c'mon! Seriously... 最後の最初のチップを提供する (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead is meant to sum up the article. And the article is meant to summarize what is said by WP:reliable sources. And reliable sources say that role-playing video games, ironically enough, are not really about role-playing. That they don't allow as much role-play as traditional role-playing games, but inherit the name because they draw on traditional RPG stats, dice rolls, leveling up, magic, and so on. Not to suggest that what you're saying is wrong, but you need to find reliable sources that can verify what it is that you're talking about, or otherwise it's just original research. Randomran (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It does warrant some new sources, because the entire article is sourced from a single game design book, and presents role-playing as simply a game with numerically progressing attributes; a quality that any person reasonably experienced in this topic knows is not the single or even most signficant aspect of role-playing games. The Yar (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Numerical progression is the most significant aspect of the genre of games under discussion on this page. For games in which role-playing is the most significant aspect, we have the page on role-playing games. One thing that could be improved is that that page explains the distinction in its body, while this page only alludes to it in the disambiguation notice. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that's the problem here. Much of this article reads pretty clearly as if written by purists on traditional RPGs who know very little about video game RPGs but miss the old days where d20s ruled and have a bone to pick with anyone daring to call a video game an RPG. The role-playing games article you reference goes to great and unnecessary lengths to talk about how no way is a video game an RPG, despite many games, such as the Elder Scrolls or Knights of the Old Republic series, featuring role-playing even more prominently than numerical progression.

OK, before you descend into insults, explain how. How does the game know whether or not you're getting into character? If you genuinely think you're choosing who to hit with your light saber from the point-of-view of a Jedi character, rather than that of a person sat at a computer trying to beat a video game, you're deluded; otherwise, you've misunderstood what 'role-playing' means in the context of traditional RPGs. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's pathetic fanatic nerd-rage getting in the way of any good-faith treatment of the subject. Many video games feature numerical character statistics, even complex ones, but are clearly fighting games, adventures games, etc., and not RPGs. As in most genre classification, there is no single characteristic that acts as an in-or-out classifier. But if there were one for RPGs, video or otherwise, it is this: you have an understood role to play exclusive to other possible roles (usually warrior/thief/wizard/etc.) and make choices for the characters under your control in consideration of each respective role as opposed to decisions you could make that don't reflect that role. Every game we're talking about here features this characteristic to some degree. And since we're talking about computer-controlled worlds, yes, they depend heavily on math to make it work. But the reason "role-playing" applies to games in this genre and not to games such as River City Ransom, which features a heavy reliance on numerical statistics progression but is a simple beat-em-up and does not feature any choices based on role, is because of just that - you are playing a certain role.

Ah: you have misunderstood what 'role-playing' means. You're no more playing the role of a Jedi by thinking 'because I'm controlling a Jedi, I have a light saber option, therefore I will have the Jedi avatar hit something with a light saber' than you are playing a role in chess when you think 'because I'm controlling a Bishop, I have a move diagonally option, therefore I will move the Bishop piece diagonally'. The presence or absence of such an option is just another attribute, and contributes nothing towards role-playing. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't misunderstood, and your summary of my stance is incorrect. A game with everything you just describe would not merit the title of RPG, whether chess or a game with lightsabers. But a debate between you and me here or on other discussion pages about what really makes an RPG is not all that helpful. --The Yar (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

All that being said, the only real course of action here is to correct the misleading slant of this article by finding some good alternative sources. Next week I will address that. The Yar (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Have there been any next-gen D&D games? No."

OK -- Perhaps I don't understand the question here. But D&D keeps popping its head into the video RPG scene. There were a couple intellivision games before consoles really had their own RPG's. There were the highly popular gold box games. Eye of the Beholder. Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale for goodness sakes. Temple of Elemental Evil. Neverwinter Nights. Each generation, D&D keeps its face alive in the video game scene. Granted, I'm not aware of anything since NWN2, but that hasn't been *that* long ago.Dawynn (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons Tactics and Dungeons & Dragons Online are also fairly recent. SharkD  Talk  04:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the other discussion -- why you play video games is your own spin. And each person must decide that for themselves. But consider this -- If Video RPG's were really about you playing a role and getting into your character, there would not be a way to write a walkthrough. How could I write a walkthrough of how you should live your life? I might be able to publish a guide -- but not a walkthrough with all secret areas explained.

In the end, at least for me, it is about eventually beating the game. About finding the endgame. I enjoy console RPG's, I've liked computer RPG's, even sloughed through action RPG's. Single player RPG's are, in the end, about working your way to the top and beating the game. Now, there may be more to it, more "role-playing" involved in an MMORPG where you're actually getting involved with other people and interacting. But all single-player RPG's eventualy wind down to working toward the endgame. I may not have thought about it that way before I read this discussion, but being honest with myself -- that is absolutely true. Dawynn (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You can "get into" the characters in movies, too; yet, I wouldn't call watching them "role-playing". I think that what defines an RPG is that there is significant opportunity for the player to make choices that have an measurable (or recorded) effect upon the game's outcome. And by choices I don't mean "circlestrafing vs. rocketjumping". SharkD  Talk  04:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Dungeon Crawl

OK, I'm a bit curious as to why dungeon crawl is not given as a subgenre. It is a common theme, and has characteristics that separate it from other genres. I'd argue that the roguelike subgenre is actually a sub-subgenre of a dungeon crawl.

Wizardry, Bard's Tale, even Madou Monogatari are examples of this sub-genre. Dawynn (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Icewind Dale series is another example. I'm indifferent on calling it a subgenre. You could also argue that it is a setting, not a subgenre. I'm sure there are sources out there that call it a subgenre though. SharkD  Talk  04:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Monster Collection

Similar to my previous query. Have the monster collecting games earned themselves a sub-genre of their own? I believe this was started by the whole Pokémon franchise, but DQ Monsters plays in this realm now, as may a few other games. If these are not their own sub-genre, where would they best be classified?

I realize that these kind of games are typically found on console systems, usually handheld consoles. But I don't really see them as the same sub-genre as "Console RPG", since that term typically implies JRPG / Eastern RPG (whatever you want to call it) -- more along the lines of Final Fantasy / Dragon Quest and their clones. Dawynn (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea seems to be basically the same as collectible card games, a recognized genre (or type?) of non-video game, except that they've done away with the actual, physical cards. SharkD  Talk  04:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The genre has its roots in Megami Tensei which is a decade older than Pokemon and collectible card games. Crmartell (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Levelling up statement

I removed the following statement because it is a little vague and the date on this is uncertain.

Although, in some recent games, the character can "level up" more specific stats by merely performing actions that relate to them.

Perhaps somebody could clarify the meaning and give an example? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A recent(-ish) example is Earth & Beyond, where you could level up three stats independently: Exploration, Trade, and Combat. An earlier example is Jagged Alliance 2 (and maybe the first game in the series) where all skill levels (Marksmanship, Agility, Strength, etc.) were raised by character actions. I don't think it's a new thing. I'm sure the idea dates back many years — at least in wargaming if not in video games. SharkD  Talk  04:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Little problem

Hey, there's another article, called Computer role-playing game. Isn't that a mistake? Both articles should be unified in a single unique article, don't you think so? Kintaro-san (talk) 12:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, this is the parent article for both Computer role-playing game and Console role-playing game. However, some people think that those articles should be merged, in which case this is likely to become the only article on the topic. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am planning to merge those once things settle down on RL on my end and i get some articles i'm working on improved.陣内_Jinnai 00:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Progress towards merging with Computer role-playing game

I don't have much experience editing in Wikipedia (especially article merges) so my apologies if this is started incorrectly. I've taken the Prominent Designers section of the Computer role-playing game article and placed the same here as a step to having them be a single article. Its just a small step but I'll try to make some others soon. Please contribute those prominent designers that you know of from any sort of (non-MMO) computer/console/whatever RPG game.Caidh (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Computer role-playing game article is abysmally lacking in citations, so it's not clear that merging that article into Role-playing video game will improve matters. I think that bringing the latter article up to GA quality would be a nice achievement.—RJH (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it needs to be merged simply redirected. It cannot stay as it is. I'd say look over what source #2 says and merge any of that info. The rest can be ignored.陣内_Jinnai 06:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you link to the main place where this merger is being discussed again? I can't seem to find it anymore. SharkD  Talk  16:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Computer role-playing game.陣内_Jinnai 23:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. SharkD  Talk  04:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Japanese role-playing games

Here's an article about the "death" of JRPGs. SharkD  Talk  16:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Cultural differences merge

I finished merging relevant info. There were 3 sites I did not use:

• Sherrin English of NZGamer - as far as I can tell it does not meet our criteria for a SPS and I cannot verify that it would be a credible site for the industry for reviews like IGN.
• Andrew Vestal of Gamespot - the site previous article appeared to be using info on specific games as synthesis which is the same problem computer & console rpg articles had (and possibly this very article). There are only 3 pages that can be used from that site: Introduction, The First Console RPG and Future of RPGs. None of those pertain to cultural differences save a trivial mention that Dragon Quest was the catalyist for JRPGs, which I included.
• Patrick Joynt of 1UP - While I am not discrediting 1UP or Patrick Joynt's general expertise in video gaming, it has been shown, and can be shown again, that his understanding of role-playing video games is heavily screwed by systemic bias and many of his claims there are based largely on this premise which, again, has been shown to be faulty. As such I have to say that at least with regard to the differences in classification between role-playing video games he cannot be considered to be an expert.陣内_Jinnai 03:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. One question though: for #2 you say the site was using synthesis to formulate its views. Why is it not OK for a source to do synthesis? I thought the restriction on doing so was just meant for Wikipedians. SharkD  Talk  09:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The site doesn't use synthesis; the article used synthesis based on the site. Ie it used some examples of specific games to formulate the premise that because game X does this and it is an important example, then most games (of that era and culture) must also do X although not quite in those words.陣内_Jinnai 03:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. SharkD  Talk  04:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Cultural Differences

I deleted the cultural differences section due to extreme bias in the favor of WRPGs. There are a ton of biased opinions on the web and sourcing them is not okay, mmkay?

69.253.43.211 (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Your concerns were well founded. The section did have some non-neutral opinions that really didn't belong. But please don't delete entire sections that are well referenced. I've re-added the section, and tried to clean up some of the criticisms so they're framed in a more neutral way. (From one IP to another.) 99.231.248.190 (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• • A bunch of bias game journalist opinion pieces shouldn't be a reference at all.

• I disagree. If it meets WP:V with reliable sources that reflect the basic notions of the genres, then the section should stay. You can introduce competing statements to balance the section if there are reliable sources that contradict the notion of cultural differences. —Ost (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Cultural differences

Find video game sources: "Western RPG" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Find video game sources: "Western role-playing game" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Find video game sources: "Japanese RPG" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Find video game sources: "Japanese role-playing game" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Find video game sources: "JRPG" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

I re-added some info that was removed (i cannot find by whom nor why) which is sourced by RSes and is important to note how the linear/non-linear aspect affects things. Without this it the previous wording also borders on WP:NPOV violation as their it seems to indicate that non-linear is better. It's not crystal clear, but if you know a lot about the subject, then it could be read that way.陣内_Jinnai 05:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, BioWare is not the only "Western" company that makes computer rpgs. Not all Western computer rpgs are "non-linear"; the overwhelming majority of them would be considered linear. then we have games like EA's The Lord of the Rings: The Third Age which was purposely designed to be a console-style rpg. Also Japanese developers like Atlus has been making "non-linear" Megaten games since the early 90s and so have many other companies, including Square (Romancing SaGa: MS). The "cultural differences" only exist to those who are ignorant of computer rpgs in general or purposely ignoring certain games because it doesn't fit their bias perceptions. The "cultural differences" article should be deleted because it's just spreading more ignorance. I don't care if they are "professional game reviewers". The magazines have notoriously poor research and editing oversight. After all, the magazines profit off game ads, so they get their bills paid primarily by Western developers and therefore have bias toward Western developers. Anyone who does even a tiny amount of research into the subject can see this article is wrong.

Also, religious themes is not unique to Japanese rpgs either; for example, Diablo is a Western computer rpg with heavy Christian mythology themes.

I'm deleting it again for the same reasons it was originally deleted; it's biased and just plain wrong. You might find some rule you can bend to justify keeping it, but to do so goes against the spirit of Wikipedia which is to provide accurate information. When you look at the topic objectively, the "cultural divide" just doesn't exist. Crmartell (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There are always exceptions to every rule and I did not add info on Bioware so please don't accuse me of doing so when the edit logs clearly do not show it. I would not add something like that, especially with a quote, without a source.

If you want to dispute any of this, find sources. Just you saying so is not good enough. These are reliable sources saying this. If you cannot find anything to dispute them that is from a reliable source, then this stands. I will restore it and should you delete it again without such, I will report you for disruptive editing.陣内_Jinnai 06:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Like I said before, I am disputing the reliability of the sources because their statements defy common knowledge. None of the sources for the cultural differences section are peer-review journals; it's just opinion pieces by videogame magazine journalists, whose paychecks happen to come from profits generated primarily from ads placed by American video game developers. It's a questionable source therefore the information should be removed. I could very easily list dozens of American computer rpgs with religious themes in the plot (ex. Diablo, Ultima 4-7, Elder Scrolls, Fable, WoW, Heroes of Might and Magic 5, Dragon Age, Runescape, and just about every Dungeons and Dragon videogame ever made) and dozens of Japanese computer rpgs that have just as much open-ended gameplay as Western computer rpgs do (Megaten series, Chrono Trigger, Star Ocean, SaGa Frontier 1&2, Romancing SaGa 1-3, Live a Live, Suikoden 2, Phantasy Star 3, etc etc) . The "cultural divide" does not exist; it's a fabrication based on ignorance of the genre. Hell, the overwhelming majority of American created computer rpgs have linear narratives. --Crmartell (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone feels strongly about the topic itself. But the principle on Wikipedia is that we cover what reliable sources cover and the cultural divide has gotten a lot of coverage. Here are some more sources. [1] [2] That second article sparked a huge controversy here. [3] If this continues to be an issue we should take it to dispute resolution and settle it with more feedback from other editors. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think coverage from gaming blogs that have no editorial oversight and do little fact checking is what was intended when the Wikipedia reliable sources policy was created. Videogame journalists are not employed because they are experts on videogames, but because they are journalists who play videogames, because their primary role in the publications are to play test copies of the games and write a short paragraph about the game. Just because they have loud voices does not mean they are correct. Their statements need to be verified by facts. Also, the job of a game journalist involves playing a game submitted to them by a company and reporting on news in the industry. They are not all experts on the history of videogames or genre conventions. If a non-expert writes an opinion piece but that piece doesn't provide any evidence for the opinion (which their pieces do not), I don't understand how it can be considered a source. Especially when a little bit of research proves the claims are false. Most of the things mentioned happen to be tropes of the fantasy genre and not actually distinct to videogames. The predominant art directions of Japanese media and American media may be the only thing accurate in their assessments, but this has less to do with cultural differences in videogames and more to do with art aesthetics in Europe and the United States compared to Japan, along with the different target demographics for the specific game titles (American computer rpgs tend to be targeted at older audiences than many Japanese computer rpgs are). But as far as game mechanics are considered, the Japanese make the same kind of games American companies make. Most of the Japanese titles just don't see the light of day outside of Japan and "Final Fantasy"-ish titles get localized because more open-ended games (like Romancing SaGa: MS) haven't been very successful in the US market. --Crmartell (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Not everything in there is from some website. There is one book from a well respected publishing company for technology related areas which covers this topic. While I agree with some points, I have to say video game reviewers are largely chosen because of their knowledge in video games. Yes there is a chance of systemic bias, but unlike the computer/console divide, there is much clearer and more consistent evidence of a support among such sources for what is a Japanese RPG and what is a western RPG.

There will always be exceptions to the rule, on both sides, especially when you get into fan-made or low-budget niche products. But making an exception does not automatically invalidate the argument.

If you want to dispute the sources, then you'll have to bring it to wider consensus than here because, as i mentioned, unlike the console/computer rpg distinctions there is no synthesis here and the articles here share common points of analysis and there is at least on higher quality and respected publication backing up some of those claims. I would love for more, including from Japanese sources, but that's not as easy to come by. There are a few such on the Japanese page I will try to check out when I get a chance.陣内_Jinnai 17:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What is an encyclopedia if not a bunch of generalizations? The generalizations about JRPGs are commonly known in many reliable gaming sites and scholars, even if I disagree with them and have my own theories. But Wikipedia is not a place for me to insert my own original ideas. Hopefully there are sources out there that discuss the phenomenon from a different perspective. But it's not up to us to create that perspective. Only to find it in reliable sources and add it. Let's either find more sources, or do a request for comment. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I found a source for what Crmartell is talking about. I used google books to find "Dungeons and desktops: the history of computer role-playing games". On page 208, they cover JRPGs. And they say "JRPG fans often counter by claiming that such constraints are necessary for proper character development and narrative structure, and the best JRPGs are celebrated for precisely these reasons. Of course, we can find plenty of counterexamples for each of these claims..." That's how we should settle this issue: good research. We should avoid pulling out our own ideas or deleting cited facts. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding a paraphrase of that statement to the article since its from a RS I have no problem with.陣内_Jinnai 23:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's an IGN review stating that Dragon Quest is "one of the grandfathers of the Japanese role-playing game genre". Mentions the acronym JRPG as well. Also states that DQ9 is "too traditional" in its feature set with respect to its predecessors, which could be understood to mean that its features somehow exemplify are representative of (or overly representative of) the genre as a whole. SharkD  Talk  14:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Statements

Interesting interview at 1up.com. Some quotes:

1up.com

(...) Despite this, Shiokawa and Matsuzawa said they looked down on Western games. This attitude is still not uncommon in Japan, where until recently, the phrase "Western games are crap games" was taken as a self-evident truth by both fans and game makers. (...) Shiokawa began the presentation discussing the concept of "realism" in Western games. He said that in Square's experience, the Western developers don't strive so much for realism as believability. Players need to "suspend disbelief." Using various protagonists as an example, he said that saving the world is dangerous, so it's a man's job. He needs wisdom and experience, so he's older, and of course he has to be strong and macho. However, he went on to say that an unrealistic but believable character that allows players to suspend their disbelief is also OK. (...)

SharkD  Talk  06:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll reproduce here some stuff I posted in Talk:Cultural differences in role-playing video games before the article was merged into this one.

1up.com

East, meet West gaming is largely the purview of Western developers, and the PC RPG evolved from early classics like Hero's Quest (Quest for Glory) and Ultima. PC RPGs and Western RPGs have gone hand-in-hand to such a degree that the two are largely synonymous. The RPG can, at times, overlap a bit with the adventure genre, but the greatest defining characteristic of Western RPGs is "open-ended game design," or as The Elder Scrolls: Arena website puts it, "be who you want and do what you want." Which, perhaps ironically, is one of the biggest reasons for the genre's slow demise. (...) On the other hand, the Japanese RPG market has been always console focused, and has primarily aimed to keep players on a single path. By the time Final Fantasy VII for PlayStation came around, Japanese console RPGs were approaching the sheer complexity of their PC contemporaries, like The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall. But much of that complexity was based on exploring a world where events moved around the characters. Japanese RPGs rarely try to re-create the feeling for players of being one of the gang at a D&D game; they try to create the feeling of being the game master, guiding powerful characters and enjoying trying to figure out how the world they exist in will react to them. — Joynt, Patrick (2006-03-29). "The Oblivion of Western RPGs: Can Oblivion save a genre it helped bury?". 1up.com. Retrieved 2006-08-14. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

---

GameSpy

While the modern electronic role-playing game was created by Westerners, in the mid-80s the Japanese took the basic elements of the genre and began creating a very different beast. Today, Japanese RPGs tend to be linear and story-based, while Western games are often more non-linear and feature more character customization. Each approach has its merits ... and detriments. Benjamin Turner: Most JRPGs seemed to follow similar formulas and trot out predictable cliches, and I was no longer able to lose myself in their plots for hours on end. (...) In fact, I noticed that the games were starting to repeat themselves. (...) Some people enjoy the conventions of JRPGs, but I'm past the point where they can interest me. I want to create my own characters instead of playing someone else's; I want to explore a world at my own pace rather than being shuffled through a pre-planned, linear progression. Most of all, I want to be able to replay a favorite game and have a very different experience. Thanks to an emphasis on player freedom above plot, this is where many CRPGs excel. (...) I would later find that some of these traits, like greater freedom and player-developed characters, were common to many CRPGs, just as long, linear plots were endemic to Japanese games. Christian Nutt: It's often suggested that Japanese RPGs' battle systems all boil down to hitting the same button until all of the enemies are dead, and often games come up with nothing more imaginative than that. However, the best games offer systems that emphasize strategy and timing. (...) I could list tons more console RPG's with a variety of great battle systems, but I'll stop here. Conversely, it seems that many Western RPGs (KOTOR, I'm looking at you) are more concerned with the rules underlying the battle system rather than the experience of battle itself, and I don't find that nearly as engaging. (...) The character building system in Japanese RPGs is [also] typically much less flexible, but it's also much more focused. (...) As far as story goes, dialogue is vastly important to these games, and while it's interesting to have choices and explore different paths, the narrative of Western RPGs is often less than focused. (...) That sums it up: every aspect of a great console RPG is impressively fine-tuned. While there are entertaining elements to Western RPGs, such as dialogue trees, that I'd like to see Japanese developers experiment with, the way that all of the design elements of a great Japanese RPG work in concert to offer a truly engaging experience as a whole is what really excites me the most. — Turner, Benjamin and Nutt, Christian (2003-07-29). "Spy/Counterspy Case File 07: RPGs - East vs. West". GameSpy. Retrieved 2006-08-14. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

---

NZGamer

The biggest and most notable difference is, of course, colour. (...) There is no doubt that realistic-looking Western RPGs backgrounds can, and do, look breathtakingly gorgeous, but the Japanese have it in spades as their spectacular mythical landscapes seem to spring out at us and come to life before our eyes. (...) Character creation is another area where the East/West gap is wider than a sword span. Western faces are created on computers and based on real life, yet Japanese artists are masters at portraying a character's meaning and intent with just a few lines. (...) Western RPG game developers strive for male characters that are manly and strong, well muscled and toned beneath their flashing armour. (...) [The Japanese male character] seems more inclined towards being a fashion model than a fighting man. (...) Japanese female characters are usually portrayed as innocent girls who participate in combat almost unwillingly. (...) Western women are more likely to be bold and brash, almost mannish, in their behavior ... [and] look more like they belong on the pages of Playboy. (...) A fixed camera gives the Japanese developer the opportunity to give the player the exact view and experience that he envisioned when he created the game. (...) Having said that, the Western idea of a free-ranging camera does allow the player much more flexibility and freedom. (...) The story line and its accompanying side quests are secondary to the free-roaming adventure that can be had on their own. The personal freedom to go anywhere, do anything and cope with challenges as they arrive appeals to the Western mind. The Japanese RPGer, however, likes to know what's coming next so they can lay plans, and a linear game caters to that need. The Japanese player actually feels uncomfortable with the unknown and would much rather have clearly defined goals by which to progress. (...) Combat is approached and treated differently in Western and Eastern RPGs. The Japanese view it as a means to an end, while Western developers tend to use it as a focus point. The defeat of a final boss in a Western RPG marks the climax of the game and is a signal for the credits to roll. But because a Japanese RPG is more story-driven, after the end game boss has been beaten to a bloody pulp the game continues and the story's final scenes play out to reach a gentle, sometimes tearful, close. — Sherrin English (07/01/2008). "Japanese and Western RPGs - The Differences". NZGamer. Retrieved 2009-09-09. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

---

Armchair Arcade

I'll shy away from trying to define what I mean by "Western" and "Eastern." It's obviously be stupid to try to generalize about such huge, diverse groups of people. Still, just looking at the games, I think we can notice a few very obvious differences. (...) Kawaisa is a term Kohler uses to describe Japan's obsession with "cuteness," which Kohler believes began with the Hello Kitty phenomenon of the 70s. A quick glance through any collection of anime, manga, or Japanese videogames will reveal the prevalence there of kawaisa. For instance, let's consider this cover shot of Final Fantasy XI Online. (...) On the one hand, you have three characters that would look at home in any Western fantasy game. Then you have a...what is that? Some kind of teddy bear? At least for folks like me, this character seems out of place against the other ones. (...) Let's look at another example. (...) Let's compare the cover art for the original Japanese version [of Dragon Quest] compared to the "Westernized" version exported to the US. [The US version is] a scene straight from any of the popular AD&D books of the time--a heroic looking European slashing a sword in the face of a menacing-looking dragon. (...) [The Japanese version is] a bit hard for an American to parse. It looks distinctly cartoony, and I'd probably guess it was intended for young kids. (...) What we're confronting here, essentially, is the realism of the Western style vs. the highly stylized art of Japan. (...) As Kohler points out in his book, the Japanese have a much different attitude towards religion and Christian imagery than we do. In a word, it's not held as sacred, and often used in surprising ways that could easily be misconstrued as "blasphemous" by American audiences. For this reason, Nintendo made every effort to "cleanse" the religious stuff from its American imports. A quick example is the game Devil World by the famous Shigeru Miyamoto. The game was considered simply too Japanese and was never released in America. (...) In short, what I see when I compare games like Pool of Radiance and Dragon Quest, or Neverwinter Nights and Final Fantasy, is a great cultural rift. It seems to me that folks who grew up playing Japanese games on their NES and later SNES systems probably developed an affinity for Japanese style art and themes that have created a sort of "East/West divide" right here in the US. — Barton, Matt (2006-08-10). "Kawaisa! A Naive Glance at Western and Eastern RPGs". Armchair Arcade. Retrieved 2006-08-14.

The fourth source only examines a few superficial aspects that aren't necessarily limited to RPGs, alone. There's a fifth source I don't have access to. And, the third source doesn't strike me as particularly reliable. SharkD  Talk  07:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

NZGamer is listed as an unreliable sources therefore that cannot be used.陣内_Jinnai 00:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, the comments making the site being unreliable seem to be coming from you! SharkD  Talk  06:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's an article at Destructoid:

Destructoid

Many pundits like to wax philosophical about the decline of the Japanese game market, especially noting how JRPGs just aren't as popular as they used to be. Resident Evil creator Shinji Mikami, however, offers a more radical suggestion -- Japanese RPGs were never that hot to begin with! — Jim Sterling (06/10/2010). "Mikami: Japanese RPGs were never really popular'". Destructoid.com. Retrieved 2010-09-11. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

SharkD  Talk  04:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Before this is used, the author needs to be vetted as Destuctoid is like Kotaku where anyone can submit posts.陣内_Jinnai 00:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Try this:

Find video game sources: "Jim Sterling" Kotaku – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Find video game sources: "Jim Sterling" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

SharkD  Talk  06:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing about that Jim Sterling with RS search.陣内_Jinnai 17:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Cultural differences: examples please?

I realize the "Cultural differences" section may be troublesome to get right, but a short list of examples of games fitting each category, WRPGs and JRPGs, is very much needed to clear up doubts.

Currently, the article gives very generic descriptions, but no examples:

"In contrast, most WRPGs have more non-linear exploration and story development as well as greater control of the player characters' development, both of which come at the price of more generic dialogue and less focus on essential gameplay, specifically the battle system." (which games?)

"Another difference prominent in JRPGs is kawaisa. While WRPGs tend to be more serious and gritty in tone, JRPGs tend to feature cute (and even comic-relief type) characters often juxtaposed (or clashing) with more mature themes and situations. Finally, the characters are usually depicted in anime-style in JRPGs." (examples of each, please!)

---189.250.207.203 (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If any of those are listed by the sources as such they can be, otherwise as it is a contriversial area it would be considered WP:OR. I think the few that are mentioned are linked in the prose.陣内_Jinnai 02:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sports RPGs

Find video game sources: "sports RPG" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Find video game sources: "sports role-playing game" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Might want to mention "sports RPGs" where you role-play a team owner/manager and do things like hire/fire players based on their statistics and manage team assets, but leave the "playing" of the games themselves to the AI. I know the demographic/target audience isn't exactly the same. A good example is the Football Manager series. They're mentioned briefly in Sports game#Sports RPG. SharkD  Talk  22:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Those aren't RPGs. Those are business simulation games.陣内_Jinnai 01:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe... but the importance placed on individual player stats (not to mention stat development) is pretty significant. SharkD  Talk  00:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As those games have traditionally been cited as simulation games, you'd have to find a few independent RSes to claim those type of games are Sports RPGs陣内_Jinnai 04:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's tough to categorize some games. But I think you need more than stats to be an RPG. You probably need combat and quests too. Sports management probably borrow more from business games like drug wars than from D&D. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I would think that sports games pre-date Drug Wars by a good deal. Anyway, there's quite a few sources which make use of the term, as can be seen by following the links I provided above. SharkD  Talk  06:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright so the term is used. I'll accept that. Now just because its used doesn't mean its not simply a marketing tag or had a clearly defined description of what it is. Saying its and "RPG centered around sports" isn't going to cut it especially as many of those use business simulation mechanics which does have a clear definition. If you don't have a clear definition by at least one, and preferably more than one RS (especially if its not an academic level source) then it shouldn't be in. Console and computer RPGs were merged because of the inability to nail down a clear definition. The reason I think more sources would be warranted if it isn't an academic level one is simple: anyone can come up with a definition after something is marketed as such and it doesn't necessarily reflect what many would consider an actual sub-genre of RPG.陣内_Jinnai 17:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing disagreement

User:Jinnai has raised some complaints regarding the sourcing of the "Cultural split" section of History of role-playing video games. Here's the article in its current state, and I don't see any significant issues with it, other than those parts already marked with {{fact}} tags:

Further information: [[:Cultural differences in role-playing video games]]

After the success of console role-playing games such as Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy, the role-playing genre eventually diverged into two distinct sub-genres, Western role-playing games and Japanese role-playing games, due to cultural differences. Though sharing fundamental premises, Western games also tend to feature darker graphics, older characters, and focus more on roaming freedom and realism; whereas Eastern games tend to feature brighter graphics, younger characters, and focus more on scripted linear storylines and suspension of disbelief. Traditionally, console RPGs also feature turn-based battles, though a number of series feature real-time combat (such as Square Enix's Mana series and Namco's Tales series).

Because the vast majority of console RPGs originate in Eastern Asia, particularly Japan, they are often referred to as Japanese role-playing games or JRPGs. There are also non-Japanese console role-playing games in existence, however, as well as Japanese RPGs for personal computers; and in more recent years, Western RPGs have consistently been released on consoles such as the Xbox and Xbox 360. However, these systems have not shown as much market dominance in Japan, and only a few Western RPG titles have been localized to Japanese for them. Further, it is not uncommon for Western RPGs to be looked upon with disdain in Japan, where they have sometimes derogatorily been labeled "crap games" by players; and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is the only Western RPG to have been awarded a near-perfect score by Japanese gaming magazine Famitsu.

SharkD  Talk  08:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Broken reference

The article references some source by the name "Natt", but I see no reference with that name in the footnotes. Which source is this referring to? It must have gotten broken somehow in the intervening months since it was added. SharkD  Talk  04:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's because its 2 different people giving 2 distinct opinions from the same source. Core doesn't have a way to deal with this. Listing the same source twice would be removed and continually adding "Smith says..." and then "Jones says..." "...but Smith says..." i thought would be in the way of clear and consise prose.陣内_Jinnai 05:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Archival

I'd like to configure automated MiszaBot archival for this talk page, using the same settings as at Talk:Talker. Any objections or other thoughts? —chaos5023 (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan.陣内_Jinnai 03:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Auto-archiving is now set up. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Propose move over redirect to Role-playing game (video games)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article's title is out of compliance with WP:TITLE, as it is an artificial construction that is not the WP:COMMONNAME of the topic. This incoherence is visible in the article's lead itself, when it somewhat nonsensically indicates the "role-playing video game" has "RPG" as an acronym. In actuality, the basic RPG term is used for role-playing video/computer games. A separate article is called for, though, rather than a merge, because the usage of "RPG" in video games is so radically disjunct from the general usage (what the video game industry means by "RPG" would be properly termed something like "stat-building game"). So, since we have two articles whose topics have the same WP:COMMONNAME, WP:TITLE calls for disambiguation using parentheticals, hence Role-playing game (video games) (which is presently a redirect to this article). Thoughts? —chaos5023 (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it was moved here after a long discussion to try and find a way to remove the paratheticals in a way that made sense since WP:TITLE that Role-playing game (video games) probably doesn't fit all the basic criteria of the 5 basic principles laid out and more specifically WP:PRECISION because Role-playing video game gets to the point in a simpler, more precise manner. Of course this title isn't without problems, notably the ones you point out.陣内_Jinnai 04:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

All of the articles for the types of RPGs referenced in the general RPG article are titled by their common name. The Tabletop RPG article is called Role-playing Games (pen and paper). This is because they are usually referred to as RPGs and only as PnP or TRPGs when specification is necessary. LARP, on the other hand, is commonly called LARP. The former is the case here. RPGs played on computers or game consoles are commonly called RPGs. Role-playing games (video games) make more sense. --The Yar (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There has been more, especially in the academic and video game fields, usage of the term role-playing video game simiply because its easy to write than role playing game for video game or something like that. RPGs. This is especially true when its not clear that the topic is video games.陣内_Jinnai 23:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't suppose you could point at some sources for that? —chaos5023 (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Simple google scholar search.陣内_Jinnai 23:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And a search for "role-playing game" lists almost exclusively roleplay simulation and MMORPGs, while there are even more Google Scholar results for "tabletop role-playing game" than there are for "role-playing video game." And yet the TTRPG article retains a name that doesn't seem to reflect any of that and opts for the seemingly least common "pen-and-paper" distinction.

Perhaps even more telling, a regular Google Search for "role-playing game" lists the WP Role-playing Video Game article as the first WP sub-article result. The only one, actually, unless you request more in the results. Which means that people searching for the term "role-playing game" are significantly more often indicating that they meant role-playing video games than they are any other specific RPG genre. Which is why it still would seem that we are only contributing to confusion when we reserve the title "Role-playing game" for the fourth one in the list of what Google searchers are looking for: PnP. The Yar (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The evidence isn't there to support that most people searching for "role-playing game" are really searching for role-playing video games and since their is a common term, "role-playing video game" that meets the critieria of WP:COMMONNAME as a better alternative based on criteria:

1. Recognizability - Role-playing video game is the more commonly used term to describe this by reliable sources.
2. Naturalness - its debatable whether role-playing game or role-playing video game is the more likely term most people will use to find this article. There just hasn't been enough research here.
3. Precision - Role-playing video game clearly is more precise than role-playing game because the latter duplicates Role-playing game title and thus needs the (video game) attribute after it.
4. Conciseness - because the role-playing game needs the (video game) attribute after it, role-playing video game is the shorter of the two titles.
5. Consistency - if anything this would go for changing Role-playing game (pen and paper) to Tabletop role-playing game as that is the only title to use parenthetical to distinguish it.

Therefore at most Role-playing game (video game) gets one out of the 5 points in WP:Article names and even that one is debatable.陣内_Jinnai 17:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really agree. You've demonstrated that "role-playing video game" has actually started showing up, which is something, but you haven't demonstrated at all that it's more common than "role-playing game", despite that you're claiming that, and you aren't going to be able to, since it isn't. (If it were, the acronym in the lead would be RPVG, not RPG.) —chaos5023 (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, your arguments about precision and conciseness are invalid because WP:COMMONNAME determinations are made about the base name of the article, and parentheticals are then used for disambiguation if necessary given other articles with the same common name. The name to be considered for common name purposes is "Role-playing game", not "Role-playing game (video games)". "Role-playing game" only wins on conciseness, of course, not precision. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with chaos5023. You have not demonstrated recognizability or that it is the more common term, only that you've found the term being used. "Role-playing game" is the more recognizable and concise name for this. However I am willing to admit that because of the relative popularity of various media, "tabletop role-playing game" may have become the more recongizable term for that subject.

To continue the use of Google Scholar to make a point, look at it this way - if you search for "role-playing" and "video game" as a single search string, you will get four pages of links to scholarly publications that deal with the same topic as this WP article (i.e., MUDs, MMORPGs, and single-player offlines), including numerous references calling them specifically "role-playing games," before you encounter the very first instance of the the two phrases together - "role-playing video game" - at the bottom of the fourth page. After that, six more pages of this subject again being referred to as "role-playing games" before you find the first instance of "role-playing computer game" on page 10. I stopped after twelve pages, having not yet found even a second mention of a "role-playing video game" within the top 120 results of articles on the very subject in question. If a search for "role-playing" "video game" returns 120+ links to articles about this topic but only one single mention anywhere of a "role-playing video game," I'd say we've clearly chose a very uncommon title; one that nearly doesn't exist. The Yar (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The name "role-playing video game" is a convenient shorthand to avoid "role-playing game (video game genre)". As per Wikipedia:Disambiguation, we invent all kinds of short hand to help avoid confusion where there is ambiguity. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nor have you shown any evidence to contradict what I've stated claiming I don't think role-playing video game is the appropriate article title. I've shown RSes that use it, multiple ones. In addition per WPCOMMONNAME's Precision, Role-playing video game is still more precise than role-playing game, if it uses only the base text.陣内_Jinnai 14:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer keeping the current title as it is less ambiguous. SharkD  Talk  05:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That said, I don't really care all that much. SharkD  Talk  17:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me try to re-summarize, because I feel like we're missing the forest for the trees here. Referring to Article Titles: "Most generally, titles are based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article..."

As shown in my link above, the first 120 results in an English Google Scholar search for role-playing video games yields the following: referring to this subject as "role-playing games" 118 times, "role-playing video games" 1 time, and "computer role-playing games" 1 time. It is practically unanimous. --The Yar (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"... The principal criteria used by editors when deciding on a title for an article include:"

• Recognizability – an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. One important aspect of this is the use of common English names as used in reliable sources on the subject.

See above. --The Yar (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Naturalness – titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). As part of this, a good title should convey what English, in an encyclopedic register, actually calls the subject (this does not mean Wikipedia must follow other encyclopedias' titles).

As noted in another link above, a Google Web search for "Role-playing game" lists this WP article as the most popular sub-result (other than the main article). Readers looking for "role-playing game" are therefore most likely looking for either the parent or this child article. The popularity is significant enough that no other child article is even listed in the results unless more are requested. --The Yar (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Precision – titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously....

If there is a choice between using a short phrase and word with context, such as Mathematical analysis and Analysis (mathematics), there is no hard rule about which is preferred. Both may be created, with one redirecting to the other.

ok, but... --The Yar (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• If the topic of the article is the primary topic (or only topic) for a desired title, then the article can take that title without modification.
• Otherwise that title cannot be used for the article without disambiguation. This is often done by adding a disambiguating tag in parentheses (or sometimes after a comma); however in certain cases it may be done by choosing a different form of the title in order to achieve uniqueness. If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, as with Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger, use that instead.

We have invoked a "certain case" here, but by virtue of arguments already expressed, not a natural one in standard English. And... --The Yar (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains (as listed in the box at the top of this page). Sometimes these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for flora and medicine). This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names; when it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia.

As it turns out, there is an applicable convention listed for video games, which repeatedly recommends the use of (video game) in parentheses to specify the video game format of a topic that spans various formats. And... --The Yar (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.

Looks like we've invented one here. The current article title pre-dates any of the rare and unusual references that have been later provided to justify it. --The Yar (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Conciseness – shorter titles are often preferred to longer ones.

Not sure if the disambiguation tag counts in evaluating the length of a title, so I guess this could go either way. --The Yar (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Consistency – titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are often preferred. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic guidelines box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principal criteria above.

I mentioned above that an applicable guideline exists and recommends the tag in parentheses. --The Yar (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the argument is pretty one-sided. But beyond all the rule-lawyering above, the bottom line here is that we are currently using a title that, it seems to me, supports an implicit judmental title used to differentiate the subject from a "real" role-playing game. This might be ok if it was a common name for the subject, but it isn't. --The Yar (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC) One final note. General Principles in the Manual of Style suggest that a title should not be changed from a guideline-defined style (which this was), and that resulting controversy over a title should default to the first major non-stub contribution. There have been many confusing redirects and disams and such concerning things like "RPG video games" or "computer role-playing games," but this article was largely very stable as "role-playing game (video game)" or "role-playing game (video games)" for at least 6 years before recently inventing the phrase "role-playing video game." --The Yar (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Yar, I still agree with you. :) This having been quiet for a good while now with no result, I'll see if I can get an uninvolved admin in to close it. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My findings with google scholar clearly dispute that "role-playing video game" is not common and thus everything that is based on "role-playing game" not being the most common. There are 72 hits and while that isn't the 118 that Yar seems to have gotten with "role-playing game", imo those articles would need to be looked at more closesly to see if they are doing a comparison of tabletop and video games or talking about role playing video games specifically.陣内_Jinnai 18:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.