Where are all the science fiction-based RPGs?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:42:09 +0100, John Secker
<john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:


>>Alot of the other ones you mentioned (With the exceptions of
>>MegaTraveller, Omicron and Buck Rogers) are unfamiliar to me so I
>>can't comment on them, but I'm ssure most fall into other genres.
>>
>>
>Well if you are going to exclude such an obvious Sci-Fi RPG as Fallout,
>then I'm sure you will come up with a very small number. Personally I
>would add Eve to the above list, but no doubt you wouldn't.

What's science-fiction about a post-nuclear RPG? Sure the game has
laser weaponry, but does that make it science fiction in the classic
sense of the word? There are no space ships, no aliens (Well, there's
that spoof about a crashed UFO), no otherworld colonies, no advanced
technologies, blah blah blah, you get the picture.

I dunno, maybe I just have more defined genre definitions than most
people here. :-/

And even if you did include all of the games everyone mentions (Even
the ones that are over 10 years old) that still leaves an incredibly
small number of sci-fi-based RPGs compared to the usual fantasy types.

It would be nice if someone could commen on/answer my original
question instead of attacking my choice of definition and terminology,
i.e. Where are all the science fiction-based RPGs?. Or, 'Why are
there so few of them?'

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 17 Apr 2005 17:04:35 -0700, "Alex Mars" <alexmars@aol.com> wrote:

>>Gah!...has the definition of a RPG been corrupted/redefined or what?!
>>Back in the day everyone would have called those games FPS without a
>>second thought. Now anything with the most basic and simplistic
>>stats/ability progression is called a RPG.
>
>It's obvious you never played Deus Ex or the sequel. It is the
>character interaction, choices, and "quests" in these games that make
>them RPGs.

Sure, I've never played Deus Ex. Your powers of observation and
deduction are astounding.

But seriously, I *have* played Deus Ex and its a great game. I've
always considered it a FPS game though. It's not a RPG in the sense
of what I mean, i.e. a P&P derivative.

If you don't know what I mean when I say RPG in this newsgroup then
obviously you're trolling, bored, new to this newsgroup (i.e. less
than 6 years) or just plain dense.

I suggest you start another thread if you want to grather a concensus
about what makes a CRPG of today.

Adios!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <gqs561128g8rjpi73n1s0kr08d62cmuc4k@4ax.com>,
blabbus@talk.com says...

> 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.

There's a lot of cross-over where the magic is explained as, or half-
explained as, or suggested as possiblying being, the remnants of
ancient technology.

And some fantasies such as those of Jack Vance, have hinted at a
technology of magic.

You could also have a pure hybrid depending on the amount of fantasy.
For a non-sf example, 'Hamlet' is not a fantasy, despite having a ghost
as a character.

So, no clear blue water.

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:54:22 +0100, Gerry Quinn
<gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:

>In article <gqs561128g8rjpi73n1s0kr08d62cmuc4k@4ax.com>,
>blabbus@talk.com says...
>
>> 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.
>
>There's a lot of cross-over where the magic is explained as, or half-
>explained as, or suggested as possiblying being, the remnants of
>ancient technology.
>
>And some fantasies such as those of Jack Vance, have hinted at a
>technology of magic.
>
>You could also have a pure hybrid depending on the amount of fantasy.
>For a non-sf example, 'Hamlet' is not a fantasy, despite having a ghost
>as a character.

I disagree. Magic involves arcane and esoteric principles dealing
with the direct access of higher powers/forces by an individual. Your
description of magic as it operates in the Final Fantasy series (i.e.
It involving the remnants of ancient technology) means that it isn't
magic, but advanced technology.

I've played a few FF games and while there were some sci-fi elements
invovled, I always understood that the magic was 'magic' and not some
sort of advanced technology. I'm speaking of Final Fantasy 2 and 3
mainly, but there did seem to be a bit more crossover with FFVII.

But of course if taken seriously you could consider magic a science of
sorts I suppose. *shrug*

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:48:44 +0100, "Richard Wingrove"
<rich@privacy.net> wrote:

>
>"Blabbus Blabbibicus" <blabbus@talk.com> wrote in message
>news:qes561hevacph904793r2mku716b429nbc@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 13:53:58 -0500, khaight@lefDELETEtistME.org (Kyle
>> Haight) wrote:
>>
>> >Also (and leaving these off is a crime) System Shock and System Shock 2.
>> >One could make a case for Deus Ex and Deus Ex 2 as well.
>>
>> Gah!...has the definition of a RPG been corrupted/redefined or what?!
>> Back in the day everyone would have called those games FPS without a
>> second thought. Now anything with the most basic and simplistic
>> stats/ability progression is called a RPG.
>>
>> What's next, are we gonna start calling multiplayer FPS games
>> MMORPGs??
>
>Back in the day? System Shock was released about a year after the original
>Doom - the only FPS around at that time were Doom and its clones. Okay, SS was
>first-person, and you shot things, but relegating it to 'FPS' is just wrong. Are
>you discounting it just because it doesn't have stats?

It may be wrong, but that's the way I see it. I've never played SS1,
but its always been my impression that it was/is a FPS game. I think
many/most other people feel the same as I see more posts regarding SS1
in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action than in here.

You can call almost *any* FPS game a RPG, esp. today with them being
so detailed and complex, but why would you?? RPG and CRPG have
*always* or mostly meant P&P fantasy-based derivatives with detailed
stats of some sort beyond the usual health and ammo/equipment details.

I could go on with the details, but I'm sure you know what I mean.
And it would only give someone else the opportunity to say, "This game
has similiar feature so why isn't it a RPG and blah blah blah."

Every game is a RPG in general. But specifically RPG denotes a
defined set of characteristics or genre.

If System Shock is a RPG now, then Metroid Prime is a RPG and so is
Castlevania 4 on the SNES, and so is Super Mario 64 on the N64 and so
is Resident Evil on the PSX.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 02:38:32 GMT, no@email.ads (Ken Rice) wrote:

>In article <1113759585.591519.137210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>alexmars@aol.com says...
>
>>He forgot KOTOR 1 and 2.
>
>>Judging by the games he listed, it looks like the original poster
>>hasn't been out shopping for games since the mid-90s.
>
>Oh come on now. The two Fallouts are 1998 and 1999 games. Harbinger came out in
>2003.
>
>However, most of my game purchases since the mid-90s have been fantasy CRPGs,
>not SciFi games.

Wow..there are actually posters in this newsgroup who aren't dense or
willfully obtuse!!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:48:31 +0100, John Secker

>>Take away Morrowind's detailed character stats and quests and could it
>>still be called a RPG in the classic sense?
>>
>>
>No, but what an odd question. If you took away the detailed character
>stats and quests from Baldur's Gate, could it still be called an RPG in
>the classic sense?

What an odd response to a perfectly reaonable example. Or didn't you
get it?

From the example you gave it seems you didn't. Baldur's Gate *is* a
RPG in the classic sense of the word. So bad example on your part I
guess.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Okay, I'm giving up on responding to all the arguments about what
constitutes a science fiction-based RPG. Everyone has their opinions
I suppose and I have no interest in changing them whatever they may
be.

Whatever your definitions of Sci-Fi or a RPG, it would be interesting
if I'd get a respone as to why there are so few of them compared to
the usual fantasy-based variety.

Is it because RPGing started as a computer-based alternative to
fantasy-bassed P&P gaming or is it just that sci-fi isn't as popular
as fantasy?

-BB

"Hoping to get the thread back on track"

 

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-04-18, Blabbus Blabbibicus <blabbus@talk.com> wrote:

> What's science-fiction about a post-nuclear RPG? Sure the game has
> laser weaponry, but does that make it science fiction in the classic
> sense of the word? There are no space ships, no aliens (Well, there's
> that spoof about a crashed UFO), no otherworld colonies, no advanced
> technologies, blah blah blah, you get the picture.
>
> I dunno, maybe I just have more defined genre definitions than most
> people here. :-/

Not more "defined" but certainly more limited. Aliens, and
colonies on other planets don't necessarily make a fictional
setting sci-fi. In fact real sci-fi in the classic sense from
Jules Verne onwards would involve some speculation on the future
of science. Fantasy settings never have these elements.

A post nuclear war setting speculates on what would happen after
nuclear weapons are used.

> It would be nice if someone could commen on/answer my original
> question instead of attacking my choice of definition and terminology,
> i.e. Where are all the science fiction-based RPGs?. Or, 'Why are
> there so few of them?'

There are plenty of them. You're just not willing to accept the
definitions presented to you.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <CIj8e.18131$H_5.9172@trnddc01>, no@email.ads says...
[snipped list]

Xenomorph. Looks a bit like DungeonMaster, may even use the same engine
(slightly modified) and is one of the most exciting CRPG I have ever
played. Hard to find, But I managed to download a PC version off the
net some time the last couple of years.

-P.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Blabbus Blabbibicus <blabbus@talk.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:37:17 +0100, GSV Three Minds in a Can
><GSV@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Bitstring <1113759585.591519.137210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, from
>>the wonderful person Alex Mars <alexmars@aol.com> said
>>>He forgot KOTOR 1 and 2.
>>>
>>>Judging by the games he listed, it looks like the original poster
>>>hasn't been out shopping for games since the mid-90s.
>>
>>Does Deus-Ex count?
>
>Deus Ex is a FPS! And so is System Shock 2. Although honestly
>they're both kinda in the greyzone between genres.

Have you ever actually played System Shock 2?
3 "classes"
Stats (and development of them)
Skills (and development of them)
Quests
Inventory management
Even Spell like abilities (Psionics)

How in the hell do you claim this isn't an RPG?


>Take away Morrowind's detailed character stats and quests and could it
>still be called a RPG in the classic sense?

What? Are you trying to insinuate that it's only a "real" RPG if it's
top down or isometric or somesuch nonsense?

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Blabbus Blabbibicus <blabbus@talk.com> writes:

> Star Wars doesn't relate to Earth as we know it at all, so it isn't
> science fiction persay in my definition of the term.

How would you classify things like Iain Banks' "Culture" novels, then?

Perhaps you should come up with a new word to describe your
definition, rather than redefining a well-known term?

Nick

--
# sigmask (lambda deprecation version) 20041028 || feed this to a python
print ''.join([chr(ord(x)-1) for x in 'Ojdl!Wbshjti!=ojdlAwbshjti/psh?'])

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

no@email.ads (Ken Rice) wrote:
>In article <8pd361ljuv8lt14gpnlq5jkgulpluqni6p@4ax.com>, blabbus@talk.com
>says...
>
>>The only ones I remember ever seeing actually are the MegaTraveller
>>series and that old Buck Rogers SSI Gold box game.
>
>You haven't beenvery observant over the years. Below is a list of all the SciFi
>CRPGs I have.
>
>2400 A.D.
>Albion
>Autoduel
>Bad Blood
>Buck Rogers Countdown To Doomsday
>Buck Rogers Matrix Cubed
>Elite
>Fallout
>Fallout 2
>Fountain Of Dreams
>Harbinger
>Hard Nova
>Martian Dreams
>MegaTraveller I
>MegaTraveller II
>Mines Of Titan
>Omnicron Conspiracy
>Planet's Edge
>Sentinel Worlds
>Space 1889
>Space Rogue
>Spacewrecked
>Star Command
>Star Saga 2
>Starflight
>Starflight 2
>Tegel's Mercenaries
>Universe II
>Visions Of Aftermath The Boomtown
>Wasteland
>Xiphos

Good list. Off the top of my head you don't have "Neuromancer" or
"Circuit's Edge" on that list. Circuit's Edge was interesting; based
on the world of _When Gravity Fails_ by George Alec Effinger. Also
the KOTOR series, of course.

Actually would Neuromancer be considered an RPG or an adventure game,
today? I only recall it vaguely but it may have been a straight up
adventure game.

Sentinel Worlds: Future Magic rocked.

-David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Blabbus Blabbibicus wrote:

> It may be wrong, but that's the way I see it. I've never played SS1,
> but its always been my impression that it was/is a FPS game. I think
> many/most other people feel the same as I see more posts regarding SS1
> in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action than in here.

That is because it is pretty old. I consider it a hybrid RPG/Action game.

> You can call almost *any* FPS game a RPG, esp. today with them being
> so detailed and complex, but why would you?? RPG and CRPG have
> *always* or mostly meant P&P fantasy-based derivatives with detailed
> stats of some sort beyond the usual health and ammo/equipment details.

No. SS1 and SS2 had stats, but they were FPS. Is the MM series a FPS
game or RPG? What about Gothic? RPGs don't have to be isometric to be
an RPG

> Every game is a RPG in general. But specifically RPG denotes a
> defined set of characteristics or genre.

Oh god...not this AGAIN. No!
RPGs have stats that change and effect your character. The games that
have stats that have an effect on how well you shoot or how well you run
or whatever are RPGs. It doesn't matter that it is in first person, you
still have stats and character building.

Diablo is a prime example of an RPG that just as easly could have been
an FPS with stats like SS1 or SS2 or Deus Ex.

> If System Shock is a RPG now, then Metroid Prime is a RPG and so is
> Castlevania 4 on the SNES, and so is Super Mario 64 on the N64 and so
> is Resident Evil on the PSX.

No. They aren't. They don't have stats that change your character or
how your character interacts with the game world.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Blabbus Blabbibicus wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:48:31 +0100, John Secker
>
>
>>>Take away Morrowind's detailed character stats and quests and could it
>>>still be called a RPG in the classic sense?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>No, but what an odd question. If you took away the detailed character
>>stats and quests from Baldur's Gate, could it still be called an RPG in
>>the classic sense?
>
>
> What an odd response to a perfectly reaonable example. Or didn't you
> get it?
>
> From the example you gave it seems you didn't. Baldur's Gate *is* a
> RPG in the classic sense of the word. So bad example on your part I
> guess.

But if you took away the stats and character building what would it be?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Blabbus Blabbibicus <blabbus@talk.com> wrote in
news:qes561hevacph904793r2mku716b429nbc@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 13:53:58 -0500, khaight@lefDELETEtistME.org (Kyle
> Haight) wrote:
>
>
>>He also left off Star Control 2, a game which many people consider the
>>spiritual sequel to Starflight/Starflight 2. (Star Control 3 is harder
>>to claim as an RPG.)
>
> Star Control 2 wasn't a RPG at all. You could argue that Starflight
> was a RPG as it did have various crewmembers with stats that you could
> raise, but Star Control 2 was just about space exploration and ship
> upgrading.

But if you are upgrading the ships stats, weapons, defenses, etc, how is
that different from upgrading your character's stats, weapons, defences?

--
Marcel
http://mudbunny.blogspot.com/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Blabbus Blabbibicus <blabbus@talk.com> wrote:

>Okay, I'm giving up on responding to all the arguments about what
>constitutes a science fiction-based RPG. Everyone has their opinions
>I suppose and I have no interest in changing them whatever they may
>be.

>Whatever your definitions of Sci-Fi or a RPG, it would be interesting
>if I'd get a respone as to why there are so few of them compared to
>the usual fantasy-based variety.

Part of the reason is because you've defined science fiction
so narrowly. You asked for examples of sci-fi RPGs, you were
given a number of examples, you said, "Nope! Not sci-fi!"
But they are science fiction as defined by the vast majority
of people who use the term.

>Is it because RPGing started as a computer-based alternative to
>fantasy-bassed P&P gaming or is it just that sci-fi isn't as popular
>as fantasy?

Both, I'd say. Fantasy is definitely more popular than science
fiction, especially hard sci-fi. And the tradition of fantasy
CRPGs means that that's what people expect. The game companies
are in it to make money, and rightly or wrongly they see fantasy
games as the most profitable.

Pete

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Blabbus Blabbibicus <blabbus@talk.com> wrote:

>I have always defined Science Fiction as a futuristic view of
>humanity's (i.e. people on or from Earth) state of affairs as
>influenced by the realistic applications and consequences of science
>and technology as we may or may not know them today.

Fair enough, I suppose, but Star Trek's faster-than-light
travel and transporters aren't really all that realistic.
And if we hand-wave enough to say they are, then there's
really no way Fallout isn't science fiction by your own
definition. Nuclear war would certainly be a realistic
application of science and technology as we know it,
and a post-apocalyptic future setting would be a state
of affairs influenced by said application. There's
nothing in the Fallout games that's less realistic
than Star Trek, either.

I don't know why I'm still arguing this, actually.
Bored, I guess.

Pete

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Blabbus Blabbibicus" <blabbus@talk.com> wrote in message
news:h8l761p4em2nk96lh3rmqkc6cgj8ojc8t9@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:48:44 +0100, "Richard Wingrove"
> <rich@privacy.net> wrote:
> >"Blabbus Blabbibicus" <blabbus@talk.com> wrote in message
> >news:qes561hevacph904793r2mku716b429nbc@4ax.com...
> >> Gah!...has the definition of a RPG been corrupted/redefined or what?!
> >> Back in the day everyone would have called those games FPS without a
> >> second thought. Now anything with the most basic and simplistic
> >> stats/ability progression is called a RPG.
> >>
> >> What's next, are we gonna start calling multiplayer FPS games
> >> MMORPGs??
> >
> >Back in the day? System Shock was released about a year after the original
> >Doom - the only FPS around at that time were Doom and its clones. Okay, SS
was
> >first-person, and you shot things, but relegating it to 'FPS' is just wrong.
Are
> >you discounting it just because it doesn't have stats?
>
> It may be wrong, but that's the way I see it. I've never played SS1,
> but its always been my impression that it was/is a FPS game. I think
> many/most other people feel the same as I see more posts regarding SS1
> in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action than in here.
>
> You can call almost *any* FPS game a RPG, esp. today with them being
> so detailed and complex, but why would you?? RPG and CRPG have
> *always* or mostly meant P&P fantasy-based derivatives with detailed
> stats of some sort beyond the usual health and ammo/equipment details.
>
> I could go on with the details, but I'm sure you know what I mean.
> And it would only give someone else the opportunity to say, "This game
> has similiar feature so why isn't it a RPG and blah blah blah."

Yes, I can see where you're coming from, I just think our dividing lines are
drawn fairly far apart

Games like No One Lives Forever have equipment and increasable skills, but I
wouldn't call it an RPG, and neither would most of the people in here. Part of
it is to do with the freedom you have in your enviroment I think - FPS'ers are
linear - complete this level, move to the next one, no going back. In SS, you
can wander all over the space station, depending on which security systems
you've bypassed. You could store a load of items close to where you start the
game, and near the end of the game you could go all the way back to pick
something up. There's puzzles that you have to think your way round (not just
the connect-the-wires ones), and ways to improve your character beyond just
picking up bigger weapons.

To me, restricting RPGs to P&P based games with oodles of stats just seems
wrong.... that suggests that Icewind Dale is more an RPG than Gothic is.

Rich

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In message <ncm761l1nnj60a9s1vpao500inci6nh2m3@4ax.com>, Blabbus
Blabbibicus <blabbus@talk.com> writes
>On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:48:31 +0100, John Secker
>
>>>Take away Morrowind's detailed character stats and quests and could it
>>>still be called a RPG in the classic sense?
>>>
>>>
>>No, but what an odd question. If you took away the detailed character
>>stats and quests from Baldur's Gate, could it still be called an RPG in
>>the classic sense?
>
>What an odd response to a perfectly reaonable example. Or didn't you
>get it?
>
>From the example you gave it seems you didn't. Baldur's Gate *is* a
>RPG in the classic sense of the word. So bad example on your part I
>guess.
No, a good example, but it went over your head, it seems. Let me explain
it simply. I chose Baldur's Gate as an obvious example of a game which
IS a classic RPG, and pointed out that if you removed detailed stats and
quests, then it wouldn't be a classic RPG. This was in response to your
criticism of Morrowind in which you suggested that it was in some way
lacking because it wouldn't be a classic RPG if you took away the stats
and the quests. The point, if you still haven't grasped it, is that ANY
game, minus stats and quests, is not going to be a classic RPG. So your
comment about Morrowind was like saying "Take away Joe Frazier's punch
and could he be described as a boxer in the classic sense?"
--
John Secker

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

no@email.ads (Ken Rice) wrote:
>In article <8pd361ljuv8lt14gpnlq5jkgulpluqni6p@4ax.com>, blabbus@talk.com
>says...
>
>>The only ones I remember ever seeing actually are the MegaTraveller
>>series and that old Buck Rogers SSI Gold box game.
>
>You haven't beenvery observant over the years. Below is a list of all the SciFi
>CRPGs I have.
>
>2400 A.D.
>Albion
>Autoduel
>Bad Blood
>Buck Rogers Countdown To Doomsday
>Buck Rogers Matrix Cubed
>Elite
>Fallout
>Fallout 2
>Fountain Of Dreams
>Harbinger
>Hard Nova
>Martian Dreams
>MegaTraveller I
>MegaTraveller II
>Mines Of Titan
>Omnicron Conspiracy
>Planet's Edge
>Sentinel Worlds
>Space 1889
>Space Rogue
>Spacewrecked
>Star Command
>Star Saga 2
>Starflight
>Starflight 2
>Tegel's Mercenaries
>Universe II
>Visions Of Aftermath The Boomtown
>Wasteland
>Xiphos

A chunk of those are not RPGs. Elite? WTF?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In message <69k761du3qe4kje19982hfger8b3ehbs7d@4ax.com>, Blabbus
Blabbibicus <blabbus@talk.com> writes
>On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:42:09 +0100, John Secker
><john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>>Alot of the other ones you mentioned (With the exceptions of
>>>MegaTraveller, Omicron and Buck Rogers) are unfamiliar to me so I
>>>can't comment on them, but I'm ssure most fall into other genres.
>>>
>>>
>>Well if you are going to exclude such an obvious Sci-Fi RPG as Fallout,
>>then I'm sure you will come up with a very small number. Personally I
>>would add Eve to the above list, but no doubt you wouldn't.
>
>What's science-fiction about a post-nuclear RPG? Sure the game has
>laser weaponry, but does that make it science fiction in the classic
>sense of the word?
Yes, absolutely. There have been very many novels and short stories on
the theme of post-apocalypse existence, which would absolutely be called
science fiction by everyone, including their authors. Do you regard
Lucifer's Hammer (Niven & Pournelle) as "not sci-fi"?
> There are no space ships, no aliens (Well, there's
>that spoof about a crashed UFO), no otherworld colonies, no advanced
>technologies, blah blah blah, you get the picture.
>
Let's look at how you defined sci-fi in another post just now:

"I have always defined Science Fiction as a futuristic view of
humanity's (i.e. people on or from Earth) state of affairs as
influenced by the realistic applications and consequences of science and
technology as we may or may not know them today. "

No mention of spaceships, or aliens. A post-nuclear setting seems to fit
perfectly with this definition - the "consequences of science and
technology" could hardly be more stark.
Your definition is not a bad one, though not ideal, particularly the
narrow way you focus on "humanity" - so narrow that you exclude Star
Wars because it "doesn't relate to Earth as we know it". On those
grounds you would exclude Dune. The word "realistic" is also tricky,
because things like time travel and faster than light drives are not
realistic in any meaningful sense. Nor is pre-cognition, but would you
exclude Minority Report?
>I dunno, maybe I just have more defined genre definitions than most
>people here. :-/
>
>And even if you did include all of the games everyone mentions (Even
>the ones that are over 10 years old) that still leaves an incredibly
>small number of sci-fi-based RPGs compared to the usual fantasy types.
>
>It would be nice if someone could commen on/answer my original
>question instead of attacking my choice of definition and terminology,
>i.e. Where are all the science fiction-based RPGs?. Or, 'Why are
>there so few of them?'
We ARE answering your question. There are "so few" - in your opinion -
because you have drawn the definitions of both Sci-fi and RPG so
narrowly, so as to exclude things that everyone else regards as clearly
inside the boundaries.
--
John Secker

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In message <87y8bg5aj1.fsf@localhost.localdomain>, Nick Vargish
<nav+posts@bandersnatch.org> writes
>Blabbus Blabbibicus <blabbus@talk.com> writes:
>
>> Star Wars doesn't relate to Earth as we know it at all, so it isn't
>> science fiction persay in my definition of the term.
>
>How would you classify things like Iain Banks' "Culture" novels, then?
>
>Perhaps you should come up with a new word to describe your
>definition, rather than redefining a well-known term?
>
Indeed - if he excludes Star Wars (and Dune, on the same basis) from the
term Sci-Fi, then he is using it in a different way from every other
English speaker.
--
John Secker

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Marcel Beaudoin wrote:
>
> Blabbus Blabbibicus <blabbus@talk.com> wrote in
> news:qes561hevacph904793r2mku716b429nbc@4ax.com:
>
> > Star Control 2 wasn't a RPG at all. You could argue that Starflight
> > was a RPG as it did have various crewmembers with stats that you could
> > raise, but Star Control 2 was just about space exploration and ship
> > upgrading.
>
> But if you are upgrading the ships stats, weapons, defenses, etc, how is
> that different from upgrading your character's stats, weapons, defences?

You usually aren't allowed to sell character stats back.

And SC2 had more freedom, story, and dialogue than you would get in
a RPG.


--KG

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

John Secker wrote:
>
> But both are clearly, squarely inside the
> Sci-Fi boundary. To reject Star Wars because it has psionics (which do
> not violate any physical laws as we know them) but to allow Star Trek,
> which has FTL travel (which does violate our physical laws) is crazy.

Right. Star Wars doesn't include any of that mystic mumbo-jumbo like
FTL, telekenesis, or ghosts.


--KG