D
DArtagnan
Guest
Except I think the definition IS widely applicable, but as HiddenX pointed out, it is an implication relationship rather than an equivalency.
I'm not talking about application. As we just witnessed - it can be applied to X-Com, but we don't really consider it an RPG - because character development and C&C are minor aspects of the game. A lot of people would agree with that.
That's a highly useful definition to you?
As for your implication nonsense, that has no bearing. HiddenX just established that, logically, when a game fulfills 1-6 - it's a CRPG and apparently we don't agree. If the definition is to be of ANY real use - the concept of logical implication and equivalence, in this case, is about the possibility of a CRPG being more than "just" 1-6.
So, if 1-6 = CRPG, then CRPG >= 1-6. As in, a CRPG could have a tetris mini-game in it, for instance - meaning it's more than what makes a CRPG.
It's true that many don't consider all those elements equally important and that games without some of them could still be a CRPG - again, demonstrating lack of equivalence. But that's exactly my point - and why it's of limited use.
People are different and so is their idea of what makes for an RPG.