the guardian wrote:Your replies regularly follow along the lines of, "I am right, and you're the last person in the world who should be criticizing me on that", over and over again. It appears no one can criticize you unless they just signed in on the forum.
Oh, please. I may have sounded a bit peeved when I responded to Susan, but that's because I don't like people butting in and trashing a perfectly good conversation by calling it "useless". How very arrogant of me.
Sorry, but I call people on their shit. I don't think I'm above all of you, and I don't think I'm smarter than all of you. If someone criticizes me, I will defend myself. That's human nature, not arrogance. (And if someone has a
valid criticism of me instead of just knee-jerk "You're a moron" comments, which is usually the case, I will back off and shut my trap.)
the guardian wrote:Taking the term Role Playing Game as it is... That realy COULD apply to just about any game on the computer - I take the role of Sam, I take the role of Drizzt in a giant, gay cave, I take the role of Pacman with an eating disorder, ect ect.
Agreed, and let's face it: The term "role-playing game" isn't very descriptive anymore, for the reasons you just mentioned.
That's why RPGCodex's motto makes no sense - it's not as if modern RPGs don't involve playing roles, which is what the motto implies. Spazmo is saying that most new RPGs aren't as complex and choice-oriented as the older ones like D&D. Basically, the Codex's motto sounds smart without actually meaning anything. That was my original complaint.