Crosmando wrote:Modern trends don't change anything, what is a cRPG has been defined since ages now
Modern trends don't change anything, Earth has been defined as flat since ages ago. <==== this is literally the level of nonsense in your reasoning.
Gaming has changed, your definition isn't accurate anymore, therefore its useless and we need a new one.
And seeing as we're dealing with the SEQUEL to a 80's dungeon crawler series, all that matters is the original games.
And seeing as we're dealing with a sequel to Fellowship Of The Ring, all that matters is original book, and author should under no circumstanses attempt to improve his writing.
It isn't the time or the place for "innovation" or change, it's about making a loyal sequel to the classics.
Innovation and loyality to the classics aren't mutually exclusive.
The 80's dungeon crawler is itself it's own genre with it's own rules.
They're not making 80s dungeon crawler. They're making 2015 dungeon crawler.
The problem is that you don't seem to have any respect for the original BT series as games in their own right.
Right, I have no respect to original series, that's why I'm considering giving my money to production of the sequel to the originals series.
Master of logic, you are not.
What AAA blockbusters are doing nowadays? Who cares, I haven't played one of those in years and I don't intend to do so now.
What AAA blockbusters are doing is being a part of gaming medium. You can't define subgernes in gaming, while ignoring the larger context of distinctive features of other games. That'd be like defining trash metal without knowing what makes it different from speed-metal, black metal, folk metal and power-metal , or defining impressionist painting without knowing what makes it different from baroque painting.
Without knowing what sets these things appart you'd end up with "its a bunch of guys playing guitar". Which is a useless definition, and so is yours.
Two rite whiff care is quite a feet of witch won should be proud.