Reading through your thin veneer of condescension? Yeah, not so much. Understanding where you stand here or what your argument is? So very much.JesterRaiin said:Ah flexibility, the lost muse of discussions.
Like almost everything also "realism" has some degrees. I'm strongly against 100% hardcore realism in videogames, since it would change whole experience into, you know, actual life. Then again, you no doubtly know some critically acclaimed fantasy movies like Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones tv series or even Star Wars (space fantasy, but still), right ? It's exactly the kind of realism i'm interested in. Heroes with shiny armors and powerful swords, magic and epic tales. Then again, you never see them taking a dump, or making angry commentaries about being on period or stuff.
RPG and cRPG ? Same roots, different branches, still it's the same tree, so i don't know what's your point is. Purpose of cRPGs is to recreate one day full RPG experience. Skyrim is (debatable) currently as close to fullfiling this purpose as possible and that's the bottom line.
Now, was that difficult ?
My point is that your argument is horrendously off track. You're claiming that Skyrim isn't a cRPG, but (I'm no sure about this) that it is only approaching being a cRPG. You're claiming this on the definition that a cRPG only exists to emulate a tabletop RPG, if I'm interpreting this correctly. However, using this definition invalidates the entirety of cRPG's, simply on the basis that even cRPG's based on tabletop rules will never, and can never, be as open as an RPG with a human at the ready to create appropriate responses to all the shit players get up to. Well, it's possible, but not feasible.
Next up. That incomprehensible realism stance. You don't want pure realism, but would prefer more of it. But then you've listed one series with idealized fantasy, one with uber realism (we do have characters shitting in A Song of Ice and Fire), and Star Wars, which doesn't justify anything. I haven't played Skyrim (hence why I'm more attempting to figure out what you're getting at rather than attacking your point ? whatever it is), but my understanding is that it plays closer to Lord of the Rings in terms of world and simulation (going on some reading and Daggerfall here). It has shiny armour, magic, and some sort of epic plot (not sure about enchanted swords, but I wouldn't be surprised). It also doesn't force you to stop and crap every day, or whatever. So, you want, what, exactly?
And now for some petty jabs, because I'm growing to hate you more and more. But you're a tough guy/girl. You can take it. Flexibility, in terms of a discussion, is the ability to adapt your argument to a variety of circumstances. It is not a combination of poor communication and contradictory stances. What you have is a series of statements, which, taken together, give the impression that two people are using your account to argue different points with different arguments. And then swapping who to respond to. Flexibility makes for an interesting argument. I'm not even arguing with you (except for this bit here, which is ridiculously tangential). I'm merely trying to figure out what this abortion of an argument is about. Which brings me to the second point. I should not have to do this. You are using text, the purest, simplest form of communication we have. I should not have to write paragraphs explaining what I think you're talking about, then get feedback on them, simply to understand what is going on here. This is an unacceptable mess of contradictions, held together with condescension and arrogance, and I can't believe that I'm reading it. Feel shame, learn to communicate, then get back to me and tell me how close I was this time.
