Terminology Thread

[Scout]

Worst: Behaves exactly as they usually do, only pausing to engage in combat

Maybe, but I'd be quick to add that this is rarely bad for the game. It might get tired if you play with the same person a lot, granted, but someone actually exactly like they do usually works about as well as an actor who only ever plays one role.

Far more common in my experience is people latching onto dumb or obnoxious traits that they would ordinarily never exercise themselves, and basing their characters around those. And while there's nothing novel or intelligent-- and certainly not helpful for the game-- about that one guy who keeps insisting on trying to let every single thing on fire, he's playing a role, and he's certainly not just playing himself.

Well, I hope.

[monele]

Back to the original topic, do we want to include KNs in the group? As someone pointed out, "story games" would not work in that case. According to some, it might not even work with VNs actually ^^;...
What else might we not want in the group? Is it a problem if the group ends up including RPGs and p'n'c adventure games?

What we want, is to at least have VNs with choices and most of the hybrids we've created here that added something more (RPG fights, simulation, etc...) while still focusing on the story told.

Mmmm... what if a criteria was "incentive to play is strongly based on wanting to see more of the story" ? For example, if all you want in a game is to see the next weapon or the next environment or the next enemy and stuff like that (many platformers, FPSes, strategy games, etc...), then the story is clearly not the focus.

Or yet another way to look at it : games where removing the game part leaves a story that stands on its own. If we do that with Mario, there's not *much* of a story left... Go to various castles and save the princess. Well, um... meh? Remove all the playing and keep the parts that tell the story and you're left with a bunch of "sorry, the princess is not in this castle!" ^^;...
Take Elven Relations and Nettstadt Troll, on the other hand, and removing the game leaves you off with still quite a bit of non-interactive story. The same could be said with p'n'c adventure games and some FPSes (Half-Life and Bioshock I suppose? Duke Nukem, not very much). Also some strategy games (I thought the Warcraft and Starcraft games had stories that were actually pleasant to follow and that I wouldn't mind following outside the game environment). Star Control II was similar too with many dialogues and an evolving plot.

Also, to avoid too many "yeah but the story in that game sucked!", we could define that it's not about quality but proeminence, and also there could be story-heavy games and story-light games within the group.

Whaddya think?

[ficedula]

Do we even know what games should and shouldn't be included in any such category? Because if not, then trying to come up with a name for it is worse than useless, it's actively confusing.

Question: why do we need new terminology at all?

[monele]

ficedula : pretty much my question First we need to define what games we want, then we should be able to find a proper name.

As for "why", I suppose it'd be nice to be able to just have a simple one or two words descriptive for what we do. But I don't know why PyTom suggested it in the first place. Any insight, sir op?

[Alessio]

We have the terms Kinetic Novel for completely linear story, Visual Novel for story + menus without looping, and various types of Sim games.

To me, the term "Visual Novel" does not imply interactivity. Paper novels usually aren't interactive (although they can be). Therefore I've always assumed "Kinetic Novel" to be a sub-genre of "Visual Novel".

But I'm thinking that there needs to be a term that covers visual novels, sims, and all other forms of story-centric games.

Is it even possible to regroup VNs, RPGs and Sims under one term? The only thing they have in common is that they require some kind of computer platform, and that they usually come with some kind of storyline.

[delta]

Is it even possible to regroup VNs, RPGs and Sims under one term?

Yeah it is, "interactive fiction". Just too bad that that term already exists and the IF crowd does not think it includes Japanese-style storytelling games.

[monele]

The key, I think, is "story-centric". It might not be about finding a term that works for all VNs, all RPGs and all Sims, but about finding a term for all of those that focus on the story. Because while most VNs and RPGs should have a story focus, not all Sims (very few actually!) will.

Personally, I wouldn't mind to see racing games, sims, strategy games, card games, puzzle games and all sorts of genres under this term. As long as they sport a proeminent story. A poker game with VN scenes in-between would be totally fine to me, as long as it tells more than "who's next? ".

[LVUER]

(For me) original means what the creator wants (in this case, the one that creates RPG for the first time) or at least what the earliest RPGs do. I think earliest RPGs would be pen-and-paper RPG and video games one would be DnD (there are some precedes them but I never played it).

Of course there are no RPG that actually depicts you as the characters (completely models you as one of the characters), even now, it's very rare (or never exist). You, a brand new RPG. The character? It is you... You are a human in Earth, ordinary one among 6 trillion others, who works in small not-known office in a forgotten corner in Tokyo (or NY or whatever) street and you are paid so low that you decide to wield sword instead of pen and shield instead of paper. You are in a journey to fight against a non-existent evil king that resides only in your crazy imagination. Your stats is STR:2 (haven't done any sports for a long time), INT:3 (what do you expect from a smalltime office worker), CHAR:0.5 (don't have any girlfriend), VIT:1 (sick all the time, flu is a common one), MAG:0 (never learn any magic trick), LUCK:0 (never win any lottery).

Instead of truly YOU, it would be far easier to provide a template character that so vague that you could easily immerse into that character and think he/she as you. I could be wrong but...
RPG usually provides two kind of characters. One is designed to be you. Not really you. Usually just a wanderer, a knight from far east, a warrior with no past, etc, etc. This kind of characters has little to no background history and personality. You could choose his job, his race, his gender (or her), his weapon of choice, his skill/ability, his growth, etc. BTW, Usually MMORPG takes this approach.

Another one is a real character. One that really exist in said RPG world. One of the main charm of JRPG. I think I needn't to describe much about this one. Character of this kind usually very limiting and have extensive background, personality, growth, weapons and equipments, etc. Some even doesn't permit you to change their names! You hardly immerse yourself as you in this kind of RPG. Not that it is bad though since it has its own plus.

====================================================================
To back to the topic...
I think we could make a compile list of definitions of existing popular (though not necessarily right) terminology. And of course after that the right ones too.

[Jake]

One is designed to be you. Not really you. Usually just a wanderer, a knight from far east, a warrior with no past, etc, etc.

'Blank Slate' characters allow you to customise your appearance and traits, sure, but they also actively repel story. It's hard to write a character into a story without defining any aspects of their, uh, character, so a totally blank-slate hero is usually only any good for things like MMOROGAMAPOGs where the focus is more on action/combat than roleplaying, and any actual roleplay comes by way of the players generating their own story. The more you allow the player to control, the less suitable the character probably is for slotting into a story.

(This is where games like Fable try and go against the grain, which is why they're so significant if and when they work.)

On the other hand...

Another one is a real character. One that really exist in said RPG world. One of the main charm of JRPG. ... You hardly immerse yourself as you in this kind of RPG. Not that it is bad though since it has its own plus.

This seems kind of weird, to me. It's like suggesting that you couldn't get into a good book, or lose yourself in a movie, because you don't get to choose what happens or how the protagonist behaves.

It's called 'roleplaying' because you're supposed to 'play a role' - in the case of FFVII, for example, you play the role of Cloud. Much like you would if you were portraying Cloud on stage in a play, only you don't have to worry about forgetting your lines because they're all coded in for you, and there's no audience to boo and throw tomatoes because they're bored watching you run around in circles power-levelling.

[Adorya]

I beg to differ on this one, because this had an opposite effect on me as a player and a storyteller, but of course it might only be me :

In a mmorpg, customisation is important and because you start as a blank character, depending on what place with specific background made up by the game, you can already elaborate your own roleplay background or create one the further you advance in the game, or even both.

Exemple 1 : when I started Everquest, I made a char corresponding to one of my favorite of my stories physically and in term of class. I already had a background in my mind, and how to "roleplay" it if needed. I must say I had much luck at that time, because where I started, the people I met first were half gameplaying and half roleplaying. The time we spent traveling, questing or grinding were done in a way that I could cherish them and transcribe them as "romanced adventures" in paper.
At the end, I choose the way to finish the life of this character and I roleplayed it all by myself. All was done in context of the game, with the few interactions but this old 3d textures and scripting engine. Also I was not in a roleplay server, I was in a "blue" PvE classic server.
Getting in then out of the game filled a whole lot that was missing from this character in my own script, and I was able to link it with mine and advance further.

Exemple 2 : when I started Vanguard, I made a random blank char with a blank background but his name from another of my char but still in concept state. After getting into half of the game, I was able to discern his own personality and his own events from what I played and experimented. This time not from the background (which was kinda inexistent anyway) but with the gameplay and the (poor) player interactions.
In a way, it helped me advance in that case too even if it was through bad experiences.

About JRPG, they could be seen as reward-after-task-game encapsuled in a story : there is a story, but for you to know the following you need to roleplay the main character and win according to his gameplay/background.
In the case of FFVII, it was one of the first PS game with lot of CGI storyline cut-scenes considered as "reward", to see them you had to battle/advance a lot and by yourself.
I remember when I was younger, playing console jrpg/jgame was only for the few if not only CG at the end of the game, because at that time score was not really my objective, I just wanted to see the end of the "story with the pretty drawn image". Heck I played like that even on game like Megaman series (THE animated one on credit roll) because I considered it as a game with a story.

But this doesnt make them as a true complete RPG game in western term of course.

[sciencewarrior]

Names are used for historical reasons. Most action games involve a good deal of adventure, but adventure games are those that follow a formula of exploration and puzzle-solving popularized by the game ADVENTURE.

Likewise, RPGs aren't games in which you play a role. They are games in which you control one or a handful of characters with stats that determine their chance of success in a variety of activities. In fact, playing a role and telling a story were initially (and sometimes still are) secondary goals.

[Fox Lee]

Maybe "Narrative" would be an adequate title to emcompass the sorts of games you're talking about?

Pros:

• It's generic
• Though related, it's it's detached from "novel" to the point where interactivity doesn't seem wrong
• It implies that the story is the central element
• It's just obscure enough that it would be rare in everyday conversation (less chance of being confused with its normal meaning)
• It's intuitive; if you know the word at all, you have an idea about what sort of game/novel/whatever it implies (mainly an advantage over terms like "ren'ai" or "vn", which are virtually unknown outside the fandom)
• It sounds nice, and it's simple

Cons:

• While it doesn't imply a lack of interactivity, it doesn't imply the presence of interactivity either
• It's a real word, so there's always the chance of obscurity (in terms of meaning)
• It doesn't actually indicate that the thing in question is some kind of game/novel/movie/whatever - it's a bit vague
• It's generic

Are you trying to avoid using the word "game"? I've heard good arguments suggesting that most visual novels aren't games, and I tend to agree. However, how else do you describe an interactive digital story with any ease? It's a tricky question to make a call on...

[LVUER]

'Blank Slate' characters allow you to customise your appearance and traits, sure, but they also actively repel story. It's hard to write a character into a story without defining any aspects of their, uh, character, so a totally blank-slate hero is usually only any good for things like MMOROGAMAPOGs where the focus is more on action/combat than roleplaying, and any actual roleplay comes by way of the players generating their own story. The more you allow the player to control, the less suitable the character probably is for slotting into a story.

Yes, of course, that is the consequences. More immersion means less story/plot. Like Master Chief. You hardly know his face, his personality, etc. (At least in the game since there are bunch of novel out there that makes yuo know more of Master Chief)

On the other hand... This seems kind of weird, to me. It's like suggesting that you couldn't get into a good book, or lose yourself in a movie, because you don't get to choose what happens or how the protagonist behaves.

It's called 'roleplaying' because you're supposed to 'play a role' - in the case of FFVII, for example, you play the role of Cloud. Much like you would if you were portraying Cloud on stage in a play, only you don't have to worry about forgetting your lines because they're all coded in for you, and there's no audience to boo and throw tomatoes because they're bored watching you run around in circles power-levelling.

That's exactly why I said that current term of RPG is "bad" since it's not exactly role-playing as you anymore. And it still a role-playing (as Cloud or other characters), it's just branching from original RPG. I think early FF (NES JPN FF1) doesn't have real characters like modern FF.

[sciencewarrior]

Maybe "Narrative" would be an adequate title to emcompass the sorts of games you're talking about?

Just "narrative"? I think maybe "narrative software" would me more descriptive. "Narrative game" would exclude kinetic novels.

Back to the original topic, do we want to include KNs in the group? As someone pointed out, "story games" would not work in that case.

I think we do. For me, it's analogous to how publishers find it useful to lump SF and fantasy in the speculative fiction category, since so many writers cross over or write hybrids, and so many readers enjoy both.

[monele]

I like "Narrative game", as sad as it is for KNs. If not, well... "Narrative experience"? That's a bit too elite eh? ^^;...

== EDIT ==

I've come up with something else while in the bus : Virtual Narrative. Reading the definition of each word, it seems to fit... and it would include Kinetic Novels. The "virtual" replacing the technical "software/program".

And in lack of good global naming, I'm very tempted to go two ways (not exclusive) :
- Use "VN" to represent the VN narrative style (including text box and fullscreen/NVL modes), and appending any representative genre describing the main influence for a given game. This would give VN Sims, VN RPGs, VN Puzzles, VN Adventures, etc... or VN Games for the whole thing (VN != games, eh?). KNs can't have all these sub-genres, so it's still "KN".
- Define a specific genre for each game, just as the japanese did with some of their games, which ended up becoming official terms for the next games following the same or similar principles. So maybe we will have one Medieval Fantasy Management Simulator/Novel and people will categorize it as they please.