Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (
More info?)
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:58:18 +0100, John Secker
<john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <gqs561128g8rjpi73n1s0kr08d62cmuc4k@4ax.com>, Blabbus
>Blabbibicus <blabbus@talk.com> writes
>>
>>Okay, I did forget Battlecruiser 3000. If you can call Starflight 1 &
>>2 sci-fi RPGs, then this might as well be thrown in as well.
>>
>>Though it does have alot of space exploration features.
>>
>So what? Why should that stop it being an RPG? You seem to have
>astonishingly narrow definitions both of Sci-Fi and of the RPG genre.
A definition is a definition. To sway something that's meant to be a
precise description of a certain category to fit it to another
category by including or detracting other points of that definition
changes its meaning.
'Role-playing', is a extremely general descrtiptive term. When I say
RPG, I'm pretty sure (If you've been playing computer games for more
than a few years) you know what I mean, esp. in this newsgroup.
You however seem to have an incredibly dense and unfocused view of
what a RPG is IMO. Of couse, you could just be trolling. In either
case I don't feel like entering a debate with *you* about what *you*
think constitutes a true and proper RPG.
>>P.S. Final Fantasy isn't science fiction *AT ALL*. Where in science
>>fiction can magic apply? The second you mix sci-fi with magic it
>>defaults to fantasy. :-D
>Have you never heard of Clarke's Law? What is the difference between
>"magic" and sufficiently advanced technology?
Bleh, I'm not going to get into a debate with you on the definitions
of magic as commonly accepted in role-playing games either. I know
what I mean, everyone who reads my post knows what I mean and I'm
pretty sure *you* know what I mean.
So long!