Gah, lost whatever description I wrote here.

Tentative Name:

Description:


Limitations

• Gah

Examples

• Gah

So would FF8's crappy magic system count here?

Most likely. Unless there's a good reason not to.

Maybe a game featuring X-Men's Rogue?

X-Men vs. Street Fighter indeed, at least in the arcade version: http://www.mobygames.com/game/x-men-vs-street-fighter

Well that's one limitation worth mentioning then. That skill theft is only temporary, no?

It is.

Permanent "theft" I have trouble thinking of any example.

Perhaps the soul system in Castlevania Aria of Sorrown and Dawn of Sorrow, but that is not really stealing per se.

There was also a Playstation game in which I think you could steal elements body parts (I think the protagonists were robots) from opponents if you won and therefore earn new moves. But it is a bit of a stretch from your proposal.

Now that I think of it (because of Cavalary's post) Gau's ability in Final Fantasy III/VI could probably fit, although I don't remember if it can fail or always succeed (not a character that I was fond of).

Kloonigames' "Humpsters" also has a mechanism whereby you gain abilities of slain opponents, as does... MegaMan? But no chance of failure...

My feelings are that this group currently has one or two limitations too many. If the group proponent can't think of a single example, perhaps that's because its scope is just too narrow.

What about Soul Reaver and the whole "consume your brothers' souls to gain their powers"?

Nope. Updated description to exclude automatic story-fixed instances where consuming skills isn't optional.

Kirby?

Final Fantasy VII had the Enemy Skill materia. If you had it equipped, and a certain skill was used on you, you gained that skill. Not exactly 'stealing', but copying. Didn't FFX have something like that, too?

Some Pokemon game had an ability that let you copy (or maybe it was actually steal--can't remember if it removed the ability from the target) a skill.

Kirby's copy ability might fit.

I think we need to be a little clearer about what 'stealing' means.

Yeah, is it record-store stealing or Napster stealing?

Done. Please recheck original description for any other possible interpretations.

Oooh, now it says "learning"... In that case I do recall some games where the magic system had "% chance to learn a spell when cast by the enemy". Betrayal in Antara used this to introduce new magic disciplines?

Anyway, I still find this group fairly confusing and obscure. And my question about "pay-to-win games" group got ignored...

Yup. Basically permanently getting an ability/skill/technique/spell from the opponent.

It seems that using the word stealing may be a tad problematic. I guess it's clear what I'm talking about...so how should the title wording be for permanently optionally obtaining abilities from random enemies?

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Aging

Description:
Games where the player controlled avatar/unit has an identifiable age or time signifier which will gradually increase while playing (or in some instances decrease). Aging will result in changes to the player controlled avatar/unit such as physical changes (e.g. gray hair), attribute changes (e.g. lower or higher attributes), or other specified age-related changes (e.g. constantly whining). In some cases, aging may result in permanent death due to natural causes.

Limitations

• Only applies to games where the player has control over an avatar or unit(s). Games where an age is identifiable however they are controlled by Artificial Intelligence (AI) without any form of direct player control should be excluded from this game group.
  
  Note: Ordering a character to act without actually controlling it directly is considered eligible for this game group.
  
  
• Games where the age of a player controlled avatar/unit is identifiable, however no immediate consequence of an age increase/decrease is noticeable, should be excluded from this game group.
  
  
• Games where the age of a player controlled avatar/unit is identifiable, may increase naturally/unnaturally, however without any apparent consequence other than the age itself, should be excluded from this game group.

Game Examples:

• Darklands
• The Guild series
• Sid Meier's Pirates! series (currently under debate)

In Pirates it's health, which gradually declines with time (decline can be slowed with some items), so it's age-like, but not actual age.

I gather this is the new game group thread then?

Yeah, I have a few trillion game group ideas that need to put to writing, not including past suggestions. I may never reach to have as many points as Sciere or Oleg, but gawddang I will out-game-group-create and out-game-group-description them! :p

Do I get points for this? Nooooooo.

Er. Where was I? *gathers composure*

So should Pirates be included? I'm inclined to go either way.

What about age in the AD&D Gold Box games? I think you could only age through the Haste spell, but could you actually get so far that your attributes were lowered or you even died?

Oh, yeah. Forgot about them. Dunno if your attributes change after reaching 80 years old. Never really tried (kept using that potion where you get younger). Though for argument sake, aging without permanent consequence shouldn't be included.

Something to put in the description at least.

How about Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord - sleeping at the Adventurer's Inn or changing classes will age a character.

Now that's new to me, I admit.

To be clear, the scenario is: Aging --> Something happens.

Not included:
Something happens --> Aging
Aging --> Nothing happens.
Nothing happens --> Aging. Wonder what this one means? :p

The Sims, Fable I.

P.S.: Are there any games about vine?

Der Winzer.

Darkstone had age, in an annoying way.

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Games with Military Rank. Though it probably should be Games with Military Rank Promotion Ladder...though that sounds a bit weird. Follow-up on this game group: Games with nobility titles

Proposed Description:
Games where the player may attain military ranks by climbing up a promotion ladder through completing quests, deeds, or similar services. Acquiring such may allow the player to gain access to additional military units, sub-ordinates, or that really big water gun at the military depot. Attaining a military rank will greatly depend on the player's performance on a specified mission, campaign, or equivalent events and other considerations.

A clear 'career' ladder must be available for the player to climb. For example, the lowest rank in some military systems is cadet, while the highest may be marshal (air force), general (army), and admiral (navy). Fiction-based military ranks are also applicable.

Limitations:

• Games where the player is simply identified as having a military rank or its equivalent without the option to gain a promotion to a higher title should be excluded from this game group.
  
  
• Games where a clear and explicit career ladder is not available should be excluded from this game group. Some strategy games may offer increase in influence, land, or power, however are unclear in terms of military promotions.
  
  
• Games where a military career ladder or similar equivalent exists, but to units not controllable by the player should be excluded from this game group. The player's character should be the person subject to military titles. [Discuss]
  
  
• Games where military ranks is only identified as a scoring rank (usually at the end of a scenario or end game) without any additional benefits throughout the game nor does it effect gameplay in any way (usually just informational) should be excluded from this game group.
  
  
• Games where military ranks only represent an in-game difficulty setting should be excluded from this game group.
  
  
• Games where military ranks are only obtainable through the completion of a story-oriented plot should be excluded from this game group.

Examples:

• Starfleet: Battle Begins
• Gunship 2000

I forget, are approvers the only ones that can create a game group? If so...mind pushing those previous proposed game groups along?

Brace yourself. Every single combat flight simulator with campaigns & pilot stats features this. Even in space :] (X-Wing and its sequels)

Almost all. Automatic promotions don't count.

What do you mean? I'm talking about games such as your example, Gunship 2000.

Just that there are some military-themed games where you automatically get a promotion at the end of every scenario or at the end of a particular plot.

Which reminds me, I haven't created a medal-based game group yet.

I know what you mean: you want ranks/medals given for exceptional performance. And not "finish the level under 3:00 to get silver star".

Stuff like this: http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/wing-commander/screenshots/gameShotId,53272/
http://www.mobygames.com/game/genesis/f-15-strike-eagle-ii/screenshots/gameShotId,153474/

Sadly, the "achievement" trend in game design would make it more difficult to differentiate between genuine medals and these new rewards...

I assume you don't want sport trophies either?

The best example is Duty Calls.

I believe the PC version of Dragonstrike had this.

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: House Ownership (this title kinda sucks)

Proposed Description: Games where the player's character may optionally purchase, obtain, inherit, or otherwise own one or more houses.

Ownership of a house may be marked with a bill of sale, proof of purchase, or equivalent items or events that identifies the house as property of the player. The house may be built (from scratch) or made readily available, providing the player with options to refurnish or upgrade the house and/or it's contents.

Acquiring a house also means that the house and its contents/surroundings may be manipulated someway by the player. This includes storing items, resting or sleeping, and other functions that previously made not be made available to the player.

Limitations:

• A house or similar function building must be identified. Acquiring a stable, a port, an entire town, or a toilet does not comply with the purposes of this game group.
  
  
• Games where ownership of a house occurs without player consent, should be excluded from this game group. This includes story-based events where the player acquires a house, the plot where the player starts with a house, or other events where the player has no choice in the matter. That the player may optionally acquire a house must be emphasized.
  
  
• Games where the house cannot be manipulated or used in anyway by the player (e.g. just an accessory without benefits) should be excluded from this game group.
  
  
• This is not a real estate themed game group. Games where gameplay included the buying and selling of real estate including houses, is not the intention of this game group. Unless it fulfills the aforementioned requirements, should be excluded from this game group.

Examples:
The Sims series, the Elder Scroll series.

"Games where the player character may...." <-- as in RPGs, right?

To exclude games where buying/developing land/houses is part of the gameplay.

Fixed and added new limitation. Creating game group descriptions feels like contract drafting. :p

Not just Fable, but also the Fabled Lands games...

Dude, you wanna copy paste these game groups into the queue? I'll fix the html later if it's too much of a hassle.

Not until we workshop them extensively here! LORD 2 also had home ownership.

Two-three days without additional input/opposition is considered extensive anyways. Don't want them to end up in the forgotten limbo.

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Marriage

Related to the I wanna date and I wanna have kids game groups.

Description: Games where the player may optionally tie the knot in matrimony as a sign of mutual love or a blurry night in Vegas.

Marriages occur between a player with an Non-Player Character (NPC) or between two players (usually in online games), usually preludes with a ceremony and other related events or requirements.

Limitations:

• Note that marrying is an optional choice, thus the player(s) must actively decide whether or not to have they wish to proceed with matrimony or not. Games where player(s) by story line or plot are automatically married or are about to be married should be excluded from this game group.
  
  
• For purposes of this game group, marriage in the game should have an active effect on gameplay, either in the form of a controllable spouse, a spouse which offers certain bonuses to the player, or having a spouse will prompt the player to adapt an additional form of gameplay (e.g. maintaining the marriage romance).
  
  Games where spouses merely represent a graphical feature without any effect on the gameplay, consequence of story/ending, or other alternatives that do not effect the overall gameplay should be excluded from this game group.
  
  This requirement however may be excluded for multiplayer marriages between two online players.

Notes

• An official marital status or some form of recognition during gameplay is required.
  
  
• Applies to all genders and life forms. Doesn't matter if it is heterosexual, same-sex marriage, or marrying a flower pot if all the aforementioned requirements are fulfilled.

Examples: The Sims and a lotta other games.

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Games with civil titles.

Proposed Description:
Games where the player may civil titles (civilian or politically based) by climbing up a promotion ladder through completing quests, deeds, or similar services.

A clear 'career' ladder must be available for the player to climb. For example, the title citizen is the lowest title and mayor or governor (depending on the scope of the game) as the highest.

Limitations:

• Games where the player is simply identified as having a civil title or its equivalent without the option to gain a promotion to a higher title should be excluded from this game group.
  
  
• Games where a clear and explicit career ladder is not available should be excluded from this game group.
  
  
• Games where a civil career ladder or similar equivalent exists, but to units not controllable by the player should be excluded from this game group. The player's character should be the person subject to political titles. [Discuss]
  
  
• Games where civil titles is only identified as a scoring rank (usually at the end of a scenario or end game) without any additional benefits throughout the game nor does it effect gameplay in any way (usually just informational) should be excluded from this game group.
  
  
• Games where political titles only represent an in-game difficulty setting should be excluded from this game group.
  
  
• Games where political titles are only obtainable through the completion of a story-oriented plot should be excluded from this game group.

Examples:

• The Guild series
• Romance of the Three Kingdoms XI

I think the term "civil titles" is more correct, as most of them are supposed to be outside of politics.

Inclined to go either way since I'm not entirely sure if there's such a term a political titles. Though I suspect your definition of politics resembles more of modern politics while mine is simply licking ass. :)

That'd make it even less likely to be political then, as the player character tends to kick far more ass that s/he kisses.

Licking ass is more hardcore than kissing ass. Just sayin'. *runs away*

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Head shot or Headshot(?)

Description: Games that feature head shots as a gameplay feature, where attacking or shooting an enemy's head results in instant death, high damage, graphical animation of head popping like a bubble, a sudden world wide demand increase for aspirin, or other similar head-specific features.

The head shot feature is primarily found in first-person shooter (FPS) games. Usually, a head shot feature is indicated by an in-game text indicating a successful head shot by the player. Other variations include graphical animations or chances of killing an enemy to be easier if the head is targeted and attacked.

Limitations
Can't think of any.

Examples
Counterstrike and almost every other FPS in existence.

MDK's an early one.

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Anatomical Targeting

Description: Games where a feature allows the player to optionally target and damage a specific anatomical part of an opponent.

This feature usually consists of the player activating a unique action, usually followed by a targeting interface which allows the player to select through various body parts of an opponent (e.g. head, arms, leg, torso, tail, etc.). In other games, the player only needs to move the targeting cursor to a specified body part. The specified body part usually has a health bar or percentage rate, which when damaged decreases until it is disabled or destroyed.

In some games, only certain weapons have the option of this feature (e.g. sniper rifle, high powered rubber band with scope, etc.).

If for whatever reason the description above doesn't make sense *cough*, follow this example:
[1] Player equips weapons.
[2] Player target enemy.
[3] A feature allows the player to target a specific body part.
[4] Player attempts to attack specified body part.
[5] If attack successful, specified body part is injured, disabled, or blown off.

Limitations:

• Games where specific body parts maybe injured, disabled, or blown off without any form of targeting (e.g. shooting blindly) should be excluded from this game group.

Example Games:

• Jagged Alliance: Back in Action
• Series: Fallout
• Series: Jagged Alliance 2

I believe you are mistaken about the X-com series.

Perhaps you are thinking about the different armours and their level of protection varying between front/back/left/right/under. But that would be out of the scope of your definition.

Ditto regarding the original Jagged Alliance titles (precise aiming was featured indeed, but you don't select the body part).

Your recent group proposals are a bit messy. What about Fallout, where you'd get all "headshots, anatomical & electronic targeting"?

What you wanted to say is "games with enemies featuring sectioned damage model". Which means you can shoot off its head or shield generator first, not just inflict damage points until it dies.

What about those arcadish games which feature bosses that have those turrets, parts etc.? What about later combat flight simulators, which take into account which part are you shooting at?

You guys sure about X-Com? My memory seems to be failing then. Pretty sure about Jagged Alliance though. Pretty sure you could sharp shoot and attack specific body parts.

[edit] Googled. JA has the ability to target body parts. Appears this a game series called Silent Storm has this function also.

Anyway, updating. Keyword: targeting menu.

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Electronic Targeting (note: title sucks)

Description:
Games where a feature allows the player may optionally select, target, and damage a specific part/section of a vehicle, structure, or equivalent non-biological object. This feature usually consists of the player activating a unique action, usually followed by a targeting menu which allows the player to select through various sections/parts of a vehicle, structure, or equivalent object (e.g. antenna, turrets, shield, orbital nude beach, etc.).

Originally found in simulation games with sci-fi elements, the player in most instances controls a futuristic vehicle, targets a specified section of an enemy vehicle, structure, or equivalent non-biological object, and focuses fire power to that specified section. The specified section usually has a health bar or percentage rate, which when damaged decreases until it is disabled or destroyed.

In some games, only guided missiles or equivalent weapons have this feature.

Limitations:

• This game group emphasizes a targeting menu that allows a the player to select and target a specified section/part of a non-biological object.
  
  Games where the player can shoot at different sections of an enemy vehicle, structure, or its equivalent, whereas those sections may be damaged, disabled, or destroyed separately, without a targeting menu option (usually found in arcade type games) should be excluded from this game group.

Example Games:

• Arctic Fox
• Series: Tie Fighter

Freespace 2: http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/freespace-2

Probably the first opus too.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean with this game group.

1. Player-controlled vehicle.
2. Player targets enemy vehicle/structure.
3. Targeting menu shows up.
4. Targeting menu scans various parts/sections of the vehicle/structure.
5. Player chooses section e.g. antenna of a tank.
6. Player fires missile.
7. Missile hits and destroys antenna.
8. Enemy tank loses radar ability due to loss of antenna.

Compared to other games where targeting is limited the entire tank, not specific parts of the tank.

So it's (gameplay wise) 100% identical to anatomical targeting, with the superficial difference that the player must control a vehicle instead of it being optional?

Yep. Though emphasis for the electronic targeting (note: may require better name), is that its targets are usually non-biological in nature.

Not entirely sure that player-controlled vehicle needs to be included though. Basically the first game group is blowing an arm off a terrorist, the other game group is blowing the wheels off of the terrorist's car.

Not sure if anybody noticed: I said above, lump the anatomical..., electronic... and headshot... groups together under "complex damage model" or something these lines.

Oh, and show me a screenshot where you can select limbs in first Jagged Alliance.

Well, dunno if anyone has issues with separating them or lumping them all together. Personally, I'd like a separation but I'm weird that way.

Didn't find a screenshot for JA. Just google "Jagged Alliance body parts". Either that's true or they're all lying. Oh, the drama. :p

Your guys really sure about XCOM? Could've sworn with certain weapons you could target individual body parts.

A weapon powered by Indrarium-115 maybe?

Perhaps you think about some alien units such as the cyberdisc that occupy several (4) tiles? Not body parts stricly speaking.

As for JA1, I am not 100% sure because I only really played it via the DS remake (I don't think so but there is a possibility that they had simplified the gameplay compared tothe DOS original), but I am pretty confident that Rola is correct. In JA2 you can aim at various body sections.

Besides screenshots, you can double check via the manuals.

Better safe then sorry then *shakes fist at Rola*.
In the mean time, more I've spammed more game groups for your leisure.

I'd rather waste time on research after a group gets approved, but because I like you:

As I said already, the first "Jagged Alliance" (and "Deadly Games") only gives you option to spend more action points on accurate aim.
Games using "Jagged Alliance 2" engine do use head/torso/legs targeting.
It appears true also for the latest game "Jagged Alliance: Back in Action" (missing in our database!)

Both "X-COM: UFO Defense" and "Terror from the Deep" are like JA1: http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/x-com-ufo-defense/screenshots/gameShotId,421336/
Apparently also true for "Apocalypse", but I haven't played this one in ages...

I haven't finished JA series yet, last time touched them 6 years ago, but I once wanted to develop a game like this, so consider me a fan.
If anybody thinks I sound too picky...

Whenever I complain about group ideas, it has to do with future classification issues people will stumble upon (and not my nitpicking personality :D ). What if our enemy is a cyborg: anatomic or electronic targeting? Both? What are the arguments against making things simple and going for 1 group instead of 3?

Jagged Alliance: Back in Action

Ooh, a new JA game! Downloading. Yay!

By the way, is this a licensed game?

http://www.kongregate.com/games/CliffhangerDev/jagged-alliance-online

http://www.cliffhanger-productions.com/content/text/read/id/8

One of the publishers is the same with JA: Back in Action. So I suspect, not really.

Official link: http://jaggedalliance.gamigo.com/de/

Thanks, no wonder I missed it - it's not listed in the series group (fixed).

No character creation in this version. Whoever made that call deserves to be shot, strung up, and run over by a buick (quote from JA2).

Another proof confirming the trend that new games/remakes may have better graphics, yet the higher cost of hi-res content, testing and whatnot, means that features have to be removed or simplified. Same for the XCOM remake.

Currently playing it...takes awhile to warm up too. The pause/real time mechanics is a bit confusing.

Also remembered that you can actually target body parts in JA 2 --> just move the targeting cursor to any body part: head, torso, legs.

Need to tweak that game group description a bit.

Then we form a consensus to decide whether they should be included in both, or only one of them. :)

Though the main reasoning I've separated them is that both of these seem to fall under two different gameplay styles. One usually in tactical RPGs, the other in simulation games. Undoubtedly one day, there will be a game hybrid than includes both...and it would be nice to see the difference in specific gameplay features.

Fixed Jagged Alliance series to Jagged Alliance 2 series in anatomical targeting.

Battlezone 1 and 2 feature this if you snipe on foot.

Removed the player controlled vehicle requirement to include this then.

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Monster Capture

Description: Games where forcefully capturing monsters (usually through combat or other violent means) is a major or minor gameplay element.

A successfully captured monster may be later viewed in the player's inventory, bestiary, or equivalent interface. These captured monsters may optionally be further be manipulated for other purposes, such as training it become a pet, converting it to become a minion or a companion, to be processed for alchemy purposes, or simply for display purposes.

Note:
Until further notice, the term 'monster' should be limited to creatures resembling fantasy-type or sci-fi manipulated creatures. Up to this point it is still unclear if 'monsters' is just a place holder name that may one day include any variation of life form, including people, domesticated animals, or even cybernetic entities. Until that line has been established, use popular use of the term 'monster' in gaming.

Example Games: Anything with a -mon behind the title. :p
More specifically:

• Last Revenant
• Monster Galaxy - Note: Not in database.
• Wanderland Online
• Zanzarah
• Series: Digital Devil/Megami Tensei
• Series: Dungeon Keeper
• Series: Final Fantasy (not all of them though)
• Series: Pokémon
• Series: Monster Hunter

Oops.

Many of the Megami Tensei games fall under this, specifically the mainline and Devil Summoner games.

Monster capture / training group submitted. Feel free to approve and add more games.

I hope those are two different groups BTW.

No, I combined them, otherwise they would heavily overlap. In almost all games you mentioned and I could think of capture also involves training, at least to some degree.

Whatever works. Don't even know why I bother to provide detailed descriptions to avoid possible confusion really.

Is there some kind of line drawn here, or does merely talking to monsters also fit in? Like, the player "captures" a monster with his natural charm. And then it joins the party/troops.

E.g. with a net. Like fishing. Literally. Using your vocabulary, forced recruitment would be one relevant premise. Usage for games that introduce (1) capturing or recruiting monsters (2) training them and (3) breeding them. Many games have only one or two of the features of the above. Having all three of them is somewhat rare.

And people wonder why I create (too) detailed game group descriptions. The differential amount of possible subjective misinterpretation is astounding.

I'm not entirely sure how to interpret the above either :D.

Looking at what's currently in the group and in the queue to be added (Shin Megami Tensei, Dragon Warrior Monsters), it seems the distinction between "forced recruitment" and "unforced" is supposed to be meaningless, that's how I understand it. That would mean the games I had thought of adding, but not exactly remember the mechanics of (Final Fantasy Tactics, Ogre Battle) fit in no matter what.

Again, like fishing. Fish don't come up and want to join your dinner plate. :) You have to manually attempt to capture them by force.

In fact, ignore the word recruit all together. Units/monsters/innocent school girls that want to join up willingly don't count. I would say you'd have to defeat them in combat first, as as the requirement, but I don't really want to leave out other feasible options.

...in that case you can send them to me?

Gameplay feature: Monster capture / training is now online.

No idea where to put Black & White now.

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Monster Trainer

Description:
Games where the training monsters is a major or minor gameplay element. Monsters in this regard may be included in the player's party or in other cases, the player acts as a monster tamer leading a party of monsters.

Monster trainer games focuses on training a monster, through combat or non-combat training to make the monster more powerful. This includes learning new and more skills, spells, or abilities. Combating other monsters is also a common feature in monster trainer games.

Note:
Until further notice, the term 'monster' should be limited to creatures resembling fantasy-type or sci-fi manipulated creatures. Up to this point it is still unclear if 'monsters' is just a place holder name that may one day include any variation of life form, including people, domesticated animals, or even cybernetic entities. Until that line has been established, use popular use of the term 'monster' in gaming.

Example Games: Anything with a -mon behind the title. :p
More specifically:

• Azure Dreams
• Monster Galaxy - Note: Not in database.
• Zanzarah
• Series: Dungeon Keeper
• Series: Digital Devil/Megami Tensei
• Series: Black & White
• Series: Monster Rancher
• Series: Pokémon

Again, what's the difference between raising a norn, baby dragon, a monster, or your prostitute daughter? I'd say the defining factor is raising/training, not what is being trained.

I understand the sentiment. However, capturing-raising-training something is an extremely wide and abstract universe. A lot of military games have capturing enemy units and interrogating them and many games have units that can be trained. Every RPG in existence could be interpreted as Monster Training if there's more than one party member.

Where to draw the line?

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Monster Farming

Description:
Games where the breeding and nurturing of two or more monsters is a major or minor gameplay element. This included purchasing monsters, nurturing monster eggs until it hatches, nurturing monster babies until they become of age, or any process of acquiring monsters in a non-violent manner.

Limitations:

• This is not a tamagochi game group where the player only focuses on one monster/pet. Multiple monsters or its equivalent being nurtured by the player should be stressed in this game group.

Note:
Until further notice, the term 'monster' should be limited to creatures resembling fantasy-type or sci-fi manipulated creatures. Up to this point it is still unclear if 'monsters' is just a place holder name that may one day include any variation of life form, including people, domesticated animals, or even cybernetic entities. Until that line has been established, use popular use of the term 'monster' in gaming.

Example Games: Anything with a -mon behind the title. :p
More specifically:

• Azure Dreams
• Dungeon Lord
• Secret of the Magic Crystals - Note: Not in database.
• Series: Creatures
• Series: Monster Rancer
• Series: Viva Piñata

For all those monster groups, I think you should define what can be considered a monster or not.

For example, would (supposing it exists, which I don't doubt) a game dealing with capturing/breeding horses fit in the category.

Similarily, I think that in FF7 there is some stuff to do with Chocobo breeding (only know that from reading/hearing about it so someone need to confirm). Are they considered monsters or are monsters only creatures that are antagonists at first?

I actually have no idea whether or not this should be limited or not. If suddenly a game hybrid identified capturing Russian prisoners of war then they are transformed into fiendish monster supersoldiers that can be trained by a Nazi mad scientist, we're screwed. :p

There's actually a whole subgenre of horse breeding games, Derby Stallion series being the main representative. And oddly enough, there's a Final Fantasy crossover with that series called Chocobo Stallion.

I guess this horse is drowning: http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/derby-stallion/screenshots/gameShotId,485252/

It would probably never have gone into a situation where its nostrils are underwater and I don't think a horse has the reflex to exhale in such a case.

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Monster Splicing

Description:
Games which feature the combining of two or more monsters to introduce a new species of monster is a major or minor gameplay element.

Note:
Until further notice, the term 'monster' should be limited to creatures resembling fantasy-type or sci-fi manipulated creatures. Up to this point it is still unclear if 'monsters' is just a place holder name that may one day include any variation of life form, including people, domesticated animals, or even cybernetic entities. Until that line has been established, use popular use of the term 'monster' in gaming.

Example Games: Not every -mon game has this feature apparently.
More specifically:

• Series: Digital Devil/Megami Tensei
• Series: Monster Rancher

Again, Megami Tensei games.

The "Monster" subseries of the Dragon Quest games has a large focus of on monster breeding and merging.

Found better alternative for previous Monster Combination title. Monster Splicing.

Also, I think browsing game groups should be made MUCH easier, accessible and convenient for everyone. To start with that, every "series" game group should be renamed in the format of other game groups, ie so that you don't have "Fallout series" but "Series: Fallout".

Seconded.
*presses imaginary Like button*

I don't see advantage. The result would be that 90% of the game groups start with S and make the game group browser impossible to navigate. It makes sense to order groups which deal with special subjects, so we can list all "gameplay feature" groups to see what is missing. The game group browser is practically an alphabetical listing of all series game groups anway (with a few other groups sprinkled in).

It's an OCD thing. :p

I don't see the point of browsing series groups anyway. If I want to do that, I can easily search for a particular game in the series. However, stuff such as blacksmithing, alchemy or games with dating etc are much more important for browsing, since I might not find them otherwise.

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Monster Evolution

Description:
Games where player-owned or player-controllable monsters, after fulfilling certain requirements (e.g. level or experience) evolve into a different or more powerful version of themselves (i.e. new species).

Note:
Until further notice, the term 'monster' should be limited to creatures resembling fantasy-type or sci-fi manipulated creatures. Up to this point it is still unclear if 'monsters' is just a place holder name that may one day include any variation of life form, including people, domesticated animals, or even cybernetic entities. Until that line has been established, use popular use of the term 'monster' in gaming.

Example Games:

• Lufia II: Rise of the Sinistrals
• Zanzarah
• Series: Spore

The Capsule Monsters in Lufia II: http://www.mobygames.com/game/snes/lufia-ii-rise-of-the-sinistrals

I guess it is time to give this thread a proper title.

And just for the record, I'm just posting suggestions for game groups that will stay in the forum for weeks and will no doubt not end up being a game group and will eventually be lost in the forum limbo of ignoring stuff...and you wonder why anyone bothers to do stuff anymore. *sarcasm implied*

Moving on.

There's has been a few things that has been bugging me ever since I've played RPGs. Most obvious, different gaming background results in different RPG fans. Though more specifically, those disillusioned adventure lovers who play RPGs for the story, not for its statistical character development.

*throws digital feces at disillusioned adventure gamers and runs away*
Moving on.

So I've noticed that having a character development feature does not necessarily make the game an RPG...and more importantly, hence this post, there are different methods of character development that should be identified, for character development fanbois such as myself.

Thus far, I've identified some variations...all of which I sincerely hope will be made into game groups or equivalent categories (approver mood depending), and put those other RPG websites to shame:

1. Game Feature: Character Development - Experience/Level Based
The oldest form of character development. Whack enough monsters, gain experience, and level up. Skills are increased automatically. Standard feature in rogue games and usually most early RPGs and many JRPGs.

Other RPG examples include:

• Series: Bard's Tale
• Series: Final Fantasy
• Early Dungeons & Dragons games

Only stat increase is health and damage. How sad.

Non-RPG examples include:

• N/A. Not applicable. Er. I think.

2. Game Feature: Character Development - Skill Development Based
Skill based character development focuses on continuous repetition of any mentioned skill, resulting in the skill of the character to increase and thus a more powerful character.

Earliest example I can recall of this is Hero's Quest: So You Want To Be A Hero (1989): climb a tree, successful or not, there is a chance the climb skill increases. Recently increased stats turn green

Other examples include:

• Darklands (1992)
• Betrayal at Krondor (1993)
• Lands of Lore: The Throne of Chaos (1993)
• Series: Elder Scrolls

Non-RPG examples include:

• Series: The Sims

3. Game Feature: Character Development - Skill Distribution Based
Still level up and whack monsters, however when the character levels up, points may be distributed by the player to his/her liking. Earliest example I can recall is Dragon Wars (1990). Seems to have gained popularity in most modern games.

Other RPG examples include:

• Series: Diablo
• Series: Mass Effect. Er, I think.
• Universe: Dark Eye / Das Schwarze Auge

Non-RPG examples include:

4. Game Feature: Character Development - Training Based
Not entirely sure if this should be mentioned, but what the they. This is somewhat a hybrid and usually an additional feature to an already pre-existing character development feature in the game. This feature introduces an increase in stats, attributes, experience via training.

A somewhat hybrid of the skill development/repetition feature. The most dedicated game to this form of character development I know of is Monster Rancher without being an RPG game itself.

Other RPG examples include:

• Jagged Alliance 2 (Mercs can train other mercs)
• Series: Elder Scrolls (find a trainer to level up skill)

Non-RPG examples include:

• Nobunaga's Ambition II
• Series: Championship Manager

Yeah. Want these to be game groups.

I don't recall Lands of Lore having skills at all. The Elder Scrolls series is a good example though.

Indra is right here

As vedder said, true for Daggerfall, Morrowind (famous for "put a paperweight on the run key to hone your skill"), however there *are* general PC levels. Less known Anvil of Dawn also splits exp gained between weapon or magic (but then you assign levels to various weapon types / magic schools... it's complicated).

Yeah, Lands of Lore barely qualifies with only three different stats to increase. AD&D is still the worse, where there are only two stats that change per level up: health and damage/hit dice.

Ah yes, I remember now. Indeed it qualifies.

I like those groups. I'll add them if you populate them afterwards.

OCD ready on standby.

What about games in which you can buy skills with points after leveling up? Most games with this mechanic I can think of have a mix between skill distribution and skill buying (Gothic, Divinity 2, Drakensang), so those are comfortable in #3, but for example Deus Ex: Human Revolution has skill buying without skill improving. Still dump them under #3?

What about games in which the character improvement is not based on experience points and level ups, but on objects found in the game? For example, System Shock 2 or Dead Space. Similar to experience points in #3, but no level up. Bioshock's ADAM is also similar.

What about games in which the player buys upgrades with money, but has no underlying experience points system? For example, the augmentations in Deus Ex: Invisible War.

What about games in which you can buy skills with points after leveling up? Most games with this mechanic I can think of have a mix between skill distribution and skill buying (Gothic, Divinity 2, Drakensang), so those are comfortable in #3, but for example Deus Ex: Human Revolution has skill buying without skill improving. Still dump them under #3?

I intentionally left those one out. Remember a few RPGs where skills may be acquired through non-traditional means (bonuses, finish a quest get free skill, etc.). For the most part, it's an exception to the rule and not yet a primary means of character development.

What about games in which the character improvement is not based on experience points and level ups, but on objects found in the game? For example, System Shock 2 or Dead Space. Similar to experience points in #3, but no level up.

I'm not brave enough to enter the realm of non-RPG character development. This may well act as a catalyst in that direction for all those action games with diverse forms of character upgrading.

Gameplay Feature: Character Development - Skill Distribution Based and Gameplay Feature: Character Development - Skill Development Based is now online.

And I have no idea what Patrick is talking about in the Skill Distribution Based game group. :p

Tentative Name: Game Feature: Gender Selection

Tentative Description:
Games that feature the choice of gender during character creation of one or more characters, usually during character creation; opting the player to choose between a female, male, or an alternate gender (don't ask). Any game that offers the player a choice between two or more genders (including predefined/predesignated characters) qualifies for this game group. The choice of gender should be permanent in effect for the most part of the game.

Limitations:

• The optional choice of gender selection must be expressed during character creation or during the early stages of the game. Any predefined/story based selection during later stages of gameplay should be excluded from this game group.
  
  
• No, this game group is not about switching between different characters with different genders.

Now this is something we really need (in addition to Protagonist: Female group), evident even without thinking of the recent #1reasonwhy campaign etc.

My only question is: if the game offers us a choice between 2 or more predefined male&female characters (see: Kingdom O'Magic), would it qualify?

I'd say yes. The group should focus on the ability to select a gender, not on a sub-feature of a character generator.

Limitations should be games where you control more than one character I guess?

Added Rola's pre-defined characters thingy. Not entirely sure I understand your suggestion?

Let me rephrase:

Does StarCraft count, because some of the units you control are female?

Er. No, because units aren't protagonists? *scratches head*
Check the revised description, just in case.

If we agree on the limitations, this group could be approved quickly. My thoughts:

YES: When you start the game, you *create* a player character, be it male/female/other. Example: NetHack

YES: When you start the game, you *create* a *team* of player characters, be they male/female/other. Example: Icewind Dale

YES: When you start the game, you have a choice between *predefined* male/female/other characters. Example: Anvil of Dawn, Diablo II

NO: You only collect a team of *predefined* male/female characters *during the story*, protagonist is *given*. Example: Planescape: Torment, Anachronox

NO: The game features *both* female and male protagonist, but your control of either one is defined by the *story*, not player's choice.

NO?: Your *predefined* character may *change gender* (or become own alter ego) at player's discretion. Example: The Devil Inside.

NO: Your character's gender changes at some point of the *story*. Example: Rex Nebular and the Cosmic Gender Bender.

Done. I think.

What about if you have two player characters, one of each gender, that you can freely switch between at any time? Examples: Summon Night Ex-thèse, Summon Night Granthese, Zwei!!

Additional complicating factor for the Summon Night games: The story changes slightly depending on which character the player has chosen as their main protagonist.

Note it's gender selection through character creation, not selecting characters with different genders.

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Divorce

Description: Games that offer that optionally offer the divorce as an alternate dispute resolution for a wholly or partially player controlled married couple. The player must at least directly control one character in the marriage and apply for divorce. Applying for divorce will result in a non-martial status or similar status, removal of benefits/vices of a marriage, and sometimes inhuman levels of hatred by the divorced character.

Limitations:

• A previous martial status must be expressed for a divorce to occur. Breaking up with a boyfriend/girlfriend does not qualify for the purposes of this game group.
  
  
• The player must must control at least one of the disputing married couples. Games where the option of divorce exists, however the player is not in control of either couple should be excluded from this game group.

Examples:

• King's Bounty: The Legend
• Series: The Guild
• Series: The Sims

Now for something not so serious.

Tentative Name: Protagonist: Electronic / Household appliance

Description:
Games where the main protagonist is an electronic, household, or similar appliance. Yes, because game developers are really that bored.

Example Games:

• A Kitchen Sink War
• Floppy Frenzy
• Rollo and the Brush Brothers

Games where you get to play a spoon. Life doesn't get duller than that. :p

...to think that I refrained from asking for Russo-Japanese War group because we have only 3 games...

Two is the official minimal requirement, so go ahead.

I know that, but our skeleton crew staff is so busy that I have reservations before I bother them with some low-priority requests.

*ahem*

I think I'll take a break from proposing new game groups until I reach 50 or so.

*ahem*

Don't act like a primadonna. I supported some of your proposals above. I just don't want to waste precious time of our few approvers left on "protagonists with mullets".

Compare: it was already proposed we add sound engine groups (like iMUSE I asked about half year ago), I think these are more important.

Different people, different priorities and interests. This is a mood based gig with no professional responsibilities from our part. One of the disadvantages of community based projects that rely on OCD infested contributors for the wheel to turn.

Thank God we already have that one!

In relation to the Gameplay feature: Importable characters game group.

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Exportable characters

Games that allow the player to optionally export a character, to be used for another game, sometimes not limited or related to its direct sequel. This feature is usually expressed with the option: Export character.

To avoid possible confusion, games that are included in this game group should be subject to the following example:

Character(s) created in game A. Game A has feature: Export character. Character from Game A can be used in Game B. Game A (not Game B) is the one that goes in this game group.

Note
Games what have the option to self-import, meaning to export a character, only to be used in the same game (usually for a restarting new game with an developed character), may be included in this game group.

Limitations

• Games that do not have an export feature expressed, however other games can import characters from that game regardless, should be excluded from this game group.
  
  The feature export character must be expressed to be included in this game group.

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: In-Game Password Protection

Description:
Offline games where an in-game password protection or similar feature is provided to the player to protect his/her character, profile, saved games from use of other people without the players' consent.

Limitations

• Online games should be excluded as this usually is a default feature of online gaming.

Examples

• Age of Wonders

This group name could possibly be confused with the use of passwords for starting at a certain game level, found in some old arcade/platform games, maybe more common on consoles. The latter use is already a selection in the game specs form.

Password protection of player data?

Will fix these later. Jakarta is experiencing a mega flood. Photo details on meine Facebook page.

I'm still drying off.

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Achievements

Description:
Games that record practically a lot of information of what the player is doing throughout the game, from convincing mutated chickens into fighting crime to the number of g-strings stolen from a Swedish embassy. Any game what records information for fun's sake not really essential to completing the game should qualify for this game group.

Some games several pages of information in plain text regarding a players' accomplishments, while others provide introduce this feature as a challenge to be optionally achieved, hence achievement. If there is still confusion as to what this may refer to, see view contribution rating on your MobyGames personal account information as a similar template.

For some strange reason, contributors insist on not providing screenshots of this type of information to MobyGames.

Limitations

• Games where achievement information are not provided within in-game (provided externally (e.g. online: Steam, Xbox Live, etc.) should be excluded from this game group.
  
  
• Completing a scenario is not considered an achievement if the only information offered is completing scenarios.

Examples

• Series: Elder Scrolls (some of them)
• Series: Fable
• Series: Grand Theft Auto (some of them)

This is already a tech spec on some platforms.

Yeah, I found that a bit weird. Anyway, that's somewhat interpreted as an online thing.

Exclude achievements which are counted outside the game (Steam, Xbox Live, etc.)

Fixed. Danke.

What about add-ons, usually DLC, which add additional achievements to the game? (For example the Mass Effects ones). Do the DLC go into the group or are the new achievements only counted towards the main game?

I've always had a problem with this.

The way I see it, specifically for game groups, add-ons, DLCs, expansions, etc., should only have game groups attached to them that are unique to that DLC/add-on.

Example:

Elder Scrolls: Skyrim has a lot of game group features. Those features should not be added any DLC, add-on, or expansion of Skyrim.

One of its DLCs, Hearthfire however has a 'Games in which you can have children' feature, which should not be added to the main game.

My approver asked:

No limitations on sports games? A lot of them record statistical achievements.

Rarely play sports games, so I may need to be enlightened as to why sports games may require an additional limitation.

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Bestiary

Description:
Games that feature a compendium of units, including however not limited to animals, plants, birds, aliens, creatures, or anything remotely resembling a non-player character (NPC), also vehicles, structures, and other units; while providing a detailed description of the mentioned subject, which may or may not include habits, strengths and weakness, which may be used for gameplay purposes or strictly as an informational feature.

Note
Bestiary by definition is traditionally only used to identify lifeforms. However, for the purposes of this game group, non-living subjects should also be included.

[enter screenshot example here]

Limitations

• To be limited to a bestiary available in-game. Bestiaries provided via manual or non-digital version should be excluded from this game group.
  
  
• To be limited from games that have a encyclopedia feature within the game, which offer additional information other than in-game units and creatures. Games with an encyclopedia feature should go into that game group instead.

Example Games:

• Series: Dungeon Siege - Excluding that last terrible version by Square Enix.
• Series: Monster Rancher

Perfect example for a bestiary: http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/warhammer-shadow-of-the-horned-rat/screenshots/gameShotId,23064/

I really like #23 & #24. Problem is, sometimes it's hard to differentiate between them. Would it be bad to combine these groups?

What are the limitations? Is this enough:

http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/battle-isle-2200/screenshots/gameShotId,333440/
http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/aces-of-the-pacific/screenshots/gameShotId,9869/
http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/panzer-corps/screenshots/gameShotId,601920/

I guess Windows Help format doesn't count as in-game? (see: Age of Empires)

Sheeid. Forgot about vehicle compendiums. Dunno what to call that game group. Vehicle compendium? Is that a real term?

Heavens no, I considered them under #24 (Encyclopedia).

One of the limitations should be that mere stats isn't enough. It also has to be accessible anytime, so not "only stats for stuff you're carrying". It's OK if it's expanding gradually (the more beast you encounter...).

Not entirely sure if we should either. Encyclopedias should not limit itself only to unit information.

Don't suppose you've got screenshots in English. Trying to add screenshots to these proposals and the gazilion game groups already on file.

People usually submit screenshots depicting game action, not interface. I have difficulty finding screens on that damned Internet of pilot kill record for popular flightsims.

http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/star-wars-galactic-battlegrounds/screenshots/gameShotId,21216/

I've been noticing that lately. You'd think we'd attach every bit of information just for free points. Anyway, keep a look out and let me know. Just browsing through these screenshots is giving me tons of ideas.

At least our game groups don't looks as crappy as the ones on GB with one-two liner descriptions. :p

Need ideas? Go to uvlist.net

This must happen. Now.

Another example: Beyond Good & Evil, where making the bestiary by taking photos is the job of the protagonist.

X-com series could also be considered one, where you capture aliens to make progress.

"X-Com" is a fine example of why I wanted to merge Bestiary & Encyclopedia, because its Ufopaedia can be seen as both.

I'm beginning to wonder if this should be merged.

I'm guessing one should be an encyclopedia (information other than units also available) and the other a compendium. Throw away the bestiary term.

Now I'm even more confused :)

As I said: I like the idea, it's useful. I'm just not certain where one group ends and where starts another.

If we were to include everything (everything referring to 'games that have detailed unit description not to be confused with an encyclopedia') then there's a matter of the titling.

Unless of course we'd just use Bestiary and I'd tinker with the description a bit so it includes 'everything'.

[note] Description updated. Review at your leisure.

Indra, please do something about this issue. I keep recalling game titles, I want to add them, but I'm still confused.

For me, given the current descriptions, a bestiary is a subset of encyclopedia. Where's the line? Also, should a game added to encyclopedia group be also in bestiary group?

If you still insist on two groups, I understand them this way:

Bestiary: an in-game compendium on featured NPCs, enemies/units, objects/items or locations

Encyclopedia: extends beyond a bestiary, as it also covers other aspects, real life references (for example historical or military background)

Both must be accessible at any point of gameplay (if a game only displays item/monster descriptions when you're in possession/contact with them, it shouldn't count).

So WH40K Final Liberation features only a bestiary? And the city-sim Pharaoh has encyclopedia (because it has entries on real Egyptian buildings etc.)?

How would you categorize this one then? http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/fall-wei-1939/screenshots/gameShotId,485500/

Don't really insist on either way at the moment. Former discussions may suggest that it may be prudent to merge this, though I prefer to examine further input before giving my personal judgement on this matter.

So far we have three alternatives:

• Three Game Group alternative
  This was my initial suggestion. The three game groups would be:
  1. Bestiary for biological life forms or variant life forms.
  2. Bestiary for non-biological life forms or variant non-life forms.
  3. Encyclopedia which may or may not include a bestiary.
  
  NOTE: Some games put their bestiary information in the journal section e.g. Witcher. Basically a bestiary usually has a separate section that compiles this information for easy access, may it be called a bestiary, part of a journal, or part of the encyclopedia.
  
  Not entirely sure if objects/items are to be considered, should/should not be part of the bestiary/compendium.
  
  Argument:
  Significant amount of games that follow this three different approach pattern. Some games only identify a biological creature bestiary, some games only identify a non-biological creature bestiary, some games have an encyclopedia explaining everything except a bestiary (this last example, Alpha Centauri because units are player-made.
  
  
• Two Game Group alternative
  #1 and #2 of the three game group alternative to be merged.
  
  Argument:
  Significant amount games have bestiaries regardless of whether or not it is a biological life form.
  
  
• One Game Group alternative
  Merge them all.
  
  Argument:
  Merge bestiaries and encyclopedias as some games with encyclopedias have bestiaries incorporated in its contents.

---

Tentative Personal Opinion:
For now, I'm leaning towards the two group alternative. Simply because the bestiary game group focuses only on NPCs/enemies/friendlies. The encyclopedia focuses on various game concepts, including NPCs/enemies/friendlies.

---

For that WWII game example, if it only describes NPCs/enemies/friendlies, I'd put that in the bestiary game group.

If it has additional information, such as non-NPC/enemies/friendlies information (e.g. game concepts, history, something you'd expect from a Sid Meier encyclopedia) then it goes to the encyclopedia game group.

Looks like it goes to the bestiary only game group.

Lemme know if I'm confusing you. :p

It would be more easier if more users provide input on what they expect such game groups would include and not include, so we can identify what users consider to be interesting.

For me, an in-game encyclopedia includes many things, such as concepts used in game, real-life elements that are (or, who knows, may not necessarily be) also used in game, technologies/upgrades, buildings... A bestiary would imply, at least to my mind, just a list of creatures that can be found in game, whether it's all available from the beginning or gets filled in as you encounter (or become able to create/train/use) creatures. I have issues with including games with lists of largely fully (or even primarily) mechanical units in the bestiary group, as the term to me refers to biological, hybrid (cyborgs), magical or incorporeal creatures. Maybe if you insist on adding those, such as for wargames that have unit lists, too, it should be something like "unit encyclopedia"... Which'll only confuse it with the proper encyclopedia group more...

As for games with encyclopedia always including bestiary, not necessarily. Fate of the World has encyclopedia without bestiary because it doesn't have units.

So I gather your vote is for the three game group alternative? One mechanical bestiary, one mechanical 'bestiary', and one encyclopedia.

Maybe we really should have a voting system of sorts, so no one person gets a dictatorship vote on this. Hell, users should vote and show support for any game group if we want this stuff to be implemented, rather than constant debates until it gets ignored.

Current Vote:
For three group alternative - (One biological, one mechanical, one encyclopedia)
0 vote(s)-

For two group alternative - (One merged bestiary, one encyclopedia)
1 vote(s) - Cavalary, Indra

For one group alternative - (Merge bestiary and encyclopedia)
0 vote(s)

Current Result
Two group alternative. Lead by 2 vote(s).

If this isn't a community based decision, I don't know what is.
Please vote.

Ironic, since I don't even believe in democracy.

Without a forum voting system, could just put up several site polls at once and if they can't be active on front page at once too then link to them on here so at least the... handful of people who check the forums will go there (or know to look for them under past polls, even if they never showed up on front page) and vote.

As for what my vote is... not entirely sure, but I'll say I'm going for two groups too, just with another name for the units one. Encyclopedia is handy to list as a feature, and definitely separate, and if you also want to add the unit listing one... There's no logical reason to separate a listing of biological and magical units from one of mechanical ones, but if you want to lump them together I think another name would be more appropriate for the group.

I still haven't found an appropriate name for it. Best I could think of was Bestiary / Compendium.

No idea how that translates into the heads of people reading that title.

Note: Fixed your vote and creating a new voting post.

[See first post and other posts for additional information]

Motion:
Which of the three alternatives would you like to see implemented?

Current Vote:

• For the three separate group alternative.
  1. One group containing a biological / life form only bestiary.
  2. One group containing a mechanical / non-life form only compendium.
  3. One group containing an encyclopedia, which may or may not include the two above.
  
  0 vote(s)
  
  
• For the two separate group alternative.
  1. One group containing a biological / life form and a mechanical / non-life form bestiary / compendium (note: title for this group undecided).
  2. One group containing an encyclopedia, which may or may not include the above.
  
  2 vote(s) - Cavalary, Indra.
  
  
• For the one merged group alternative.
  1. One group containing an encyclopedia, which may or may not include a biological / life form and a mechanical / non-life form bestiary / compendium.
  
  4 vote(s) - GTramps, Rola, Rwolf, TotalAnarchy

Current Result
One merged group lead by 2 vote(s).

I understand the difference between the two, have seen both pure bestiary (just units) and pure encyclopedia (no units), but usually it's something in between, so I opt for a single group. Less doubts when adding games to the group ("oh, should it go to this one or that one?").

I'd go for simplicity, using one group for all forms. (They're all pixels anyway. :-P)

I vote for a single group to bind them all.

I vote for one merged group as well.

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Encyclopedia

Description:
Games which provide an in-game encyclopedia providing detailed information regarding the various concepts within the game, including non-gameplay related material.

Example Games:

• Sid Meier's Civilization
• Actually, practically all strategy games by Sid Meier. :p

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Kill List

Description:
Games that provide detailed information of successful kills a player has successfully...er...killed. Detailed information refers to different types of targets the player has incapacitated, including if available, a non-lethal incapacitations.

Target kills may also include vehicles, structures, or anything specific enough to be killed, destroyed, or incapacitated.

Example Kill List

• Pikachu look-alike: 146,779,323 killed. My spelling autocorrect suggests that "Pikachu" be replaced with spinach. o_O
  
• German contributors: 25 killed. 5 self-imploded.
  
• Swedish strippers: 11 killed. 2 reserved for house calls.
  
• Endonesian pirates: 2 killed. 3 bribed.

Limitations

• Games that only provide information regarding a total number of enemies killed without providing additional information to the different types of enemies that are killed as aforementioned in the example above, should be excluded from this game group.
  
  
• If the game has only one type of enemy to be vanquished and provides information regarding kills in that regard, should also be excluded from this game group. Various and detailed accounts of kills should be expressed in this regard.
  
  
• Games where the kill list is only provided at the end of a scenario or end game, should be excluded from this game group. Information regarding the kill list must be accessible to the player throughout the game or optionally accessible during gameplay (e.g. viewed at the town center).

Example Games:

• Crusader: No Remorse (later version got lazy)
• S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl (later versions got lazy)

Fallout 1 & 2
Many combat flight simulators.

Nethack, probably many other roguelikes

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Boss Key

Description:
Games which provide disgruntled slagging employees an extremely small chance to fool their German-descendant bosses while playing video games during working hours by activating a boss key or similar panic program, which displays a screenshot or small utility mimicking a business-related program.

Made obsolete by multitasking operating systems, in which the player need only to minimize the game window or switch to another application.


The boss key from Tetris (1987) when pressing the Esc key.

Example Games:

• Google Search

just googling site:mobygames.com "boss key" turns up dozens

Fixed. Now how to make that screenshot resolution smaller. Hmm.

Or perhaps using three screenshots with smaller resolutions? Currently obsessed with adding screenshots to game groups.

Better fix the description to something serious and this group should be approved right away. Or let me do it for you:

Games which provide a keyboard shortcut (or menu option), which displays a screenshot or small utility mimicking a business-related program or operating system, in order to hide player's activity (playing the game) from their real life boss / parent / teacher / spouse. Sometimes called panic button.

Made obsolete by multitasking operating systems, in which you can simply minimize game window or switch to another application.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boss_key

Sent to Sciere.

EDIT: it's online! Big thanks to lightning-fast Sciere!

http://www.mobygames.com/game-group/games-with-boss-key/

Don't forget to mention the Germans. Must make fun of Germans. :p

Everyone knows that Rola_hates_Germans. Why would I still play Wolfenstein 3D after 20 years? (added the free browser port!)

Hey, I'm the only racist here in MG. Personally I prefer the term equal opportunity offender, but the left wing liberals sure like their jargons. Everyone should get poked at once in awhile and get over it.

*shakes fist at left wing nuts*

Is that supposed to have no games in there?

I've submitted a dozen already (go on, add more). Remember there's the need of approval? Don't complain, Sciere does that instantly-online thing, it saves his time if the requester adds the titles.

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Crime

Description: Games where breaking the law is a minor or major gameplay feature, forcing the player to act accordingly or suffer the consequences if the player is caught engaging in a criminal act. Criminal actions may range from picking your nose in public to murdering a refrigerator.

Example
To qualify for this game group the game must recognize the following elements:

• The player may optionally commit what may deemed to be a crime by the game.
• The player if caught in action of a crime will result in law enforcement officers attempting to arrest the player.
• The player if caught by law enforcement officers may attempt to run or submit with consequence of jail time, fine, or other similar consequences.
• Attempting to run or avoid capture will result in law enforcement officers to act violently towards the player and may (when available) result a bounty on the player.

Games where all actions available to the player are crime-based actions may be included in this game group.

Limitations

• Games where criminal actions are forced upon the player to take (i.e. story) should be excluded from this game group, unless the player may still optionally participate in non-plot criminal activities.
  
  
• This is not a crime themed or law enforcement themed game group. Emphasis of games in this game group is limited to actions that the player may optionally engage in. Games where the player criminal by plot without any additional criminal actions to participate in should be excluded from this game group.

Example Games:

• Series: Elder Scrolls
• Series: Grand Theft Auto
• Series: Ultima

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Mounted Combat

Description:
Games which optionally allow the player to participate in mounted combat; a combat alternative where the player controlled avatar mounts a horse, beast, or equivalent creature into combat. Mounted combat may introduce additional combat features or benefits unique only when mounted (e.g. lance damage, charge, etc.) not available when unmounted.

Mounts may not be available in the beginning of the game and must be purchased or obtained as the game progresses. Mounted units are sometimes designated as cavalry.

To qualify for this game group, the player controlled character must:

• 1. Be able to mount and dismount at will or at least not be restricted for the majority of the game to do so.
• 2. Participate in combat while mounted.

Limitations

• Games where mounting or riding a horse or creature is a feature, however does not include any distinguishable form of mounted-type combat or cannot attack while mounted should be excluded from this game group. Thus, games such as Series: Elder Scrolls should be excluded from this game group.
  
  
• Games that do not feature a dismount option or the player controlled character loses the ability to dismount and engage in non-mounted combat should be excluded from this game group.
  
  
• Games where the player controlled character starts already mounted without the option to dismount should be excluded from this game group.
  
  
• Mounting a machine-based vehicle or anything non-living is not the intention of this game group and should be excluded from this game group.

Example Games:

• Series: Mount&Blade
• Ultima VI: The False Prophet

Cool idea (in-game; I steer clear from horses in real life! :D), description looks ready for approval.

Rarer examples: http://www.mobygames.com/game/amiga/golden-axe/screenshots/gameShotId,50554/

I take that shooting from the saddle counts? http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/outcast/screenshots/gameShotId,1622/

Many Koei's Warriors game. At least Dynasty Warriors 4, 5 and 6, Warriors Orochi 1 and 2, Samurai Warriors 2. Probably most of the others but I cannot guarantee.

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Decapitation

Description: Games which feature separating the body and the head of an enemy via neck in a satisfying blow with a melee weapon or similar close combat object, leading to an unsurprising death. Unless the head starts talking and the body goes off shopping.

Limitations

• Not to be confused with head shots or severe cases of migraine.

Example Games

• Elder Scrolls: Skyrim
• Can't think of anything else actually.

#29: Decapitation, #6 headshot, #7 dismemberment... as I said already, I'd make a single group for complex damage models.

How many groups would this game belong to? Die by the Sword

I usually categorize game groups if there are enough games and more importantly interest to warrant distinction. The more you know about any given subject, the more noticeable the person is to the differences. That's how any category is born: different platforms, different genres, different gender groups, different airplane and car type game groups, etc.

In this case, I judge headshots, decapitations, to be unique enough to be separated from any anatomical dismemberment. I figure any personal fetish that a MobyGamer has, regardless if it is not shared by others, should be recognized. I used this reasoning when approving those airplane, car game groups, or practically any unpopular game group proposed throughout the years by only one user.

If someone's interested, it's reason enough.

Time Killers goes in the wash here somewhere also...

Tentative Name: Gameplay Feature: Finishing Move

Description:
Versus fighting games which feature the player controllable character executing a unique killing blow to the opponent, ranging from unzipping his/her fly or a booking a one way ticket to Somalia. Opponents must first be critically weakened (usually rendering the opponent incapacitated) before the coup de grâce can be executed.

First popularized into mainstream gaming by Mortal Kombat with the introduction of an optional finishing move called a fatality.

Example Games:

• Anything featuring Jean-Claude Van Damme. :p

^^ a.k.a. "fatality"

Examples: Mortal Kombat series was famous for its over-the-top gory finishes

Tentative Name: Configurable Multi-Window Interface

Description:
Games which feature the game interface consisting of multiple windows, most of which (usually including the main game interface) may be moved, rearranged, and re-sized to the player's leisure.

Limitations

• This is not a windowed-mode game group. Games which only have one window, fixed windows, or only have pop-up message windows should be excluded from this game group.

Examples

• Age of Wonders
• Outpost

^^better name

Limitations: pop-up message windows don't count. Fixed multi-window interface (like: Deadlock: Planetary Conquest) doesn't count.

Another fine example would be The Legacy: Realm of Terror

Split-screen multiplayer games should not be included I assume?

Sim City would fit I guess.

Would Space Hulk and Hired Guns count?

That's why I added limitations and changed the name to "configurable...". Can you open/close/resize/move windows in Space Hulk? No.

That's how I understand Indra's intention. Because if we start to list games which feature few windows, most strategy games would fit and we'd have to add thousands of titles.

Amiga version of Colonization

Dare to Dream, Civ 2, from the looks of things some of Icom's MacVentures on some platforms, 1991 Magnetic Scrolls games... I know some early Atari ST games boasted this also.

What makes it harder for us here, is that interface is platform-specific.

Indeed. And you just reminded me that the Windows 3.x version of Metal Marines qualify (but not the SNES version) :-)

The Windows-versions of MS Flight Simulator have movable/resizable/multiple-instances of windows in the cockpit view. (Much to my chagrin, I like fixed pit views more.)

Morrowind of course.

Tentative Name: Game Feature: Day / Night Cycle.

Description:
Games that feature a day and night cycle, including more specific time signifiers such as dawn, afternoon, midnight, etc., usually indicated by an in-game clock, graphical background, or any equivalent feature indicating the passing of time. Games that have this feature may also introduce time specific events, such as different monsters, sub-quests, or equivalent events which may only be accessible at a specified time period.

Games in this game group must also introduce a direct gameplay consequence

Example
[For adventure and role-playing games]
Character A receives a sub-quest to hunt down vampires. Shops selling wooden stakes are only open during the day. Vampires do not roam during the day. Hence, character A must buy relevant equipment during the day and wait until nightfall to perform the quest.

[For strategy and simulation games]
Units are harder to detect, travel less frequently, and gain movement penalties at night. However, they are easier to make camouflage checks and can also commence ambush attacks at night more successfully.

Limitations

• Games that feature a day and night cycle, however do not additionally feature unique events related to the differences of time (e.g. only a graphical feature) should be excluded from this game group. This also includes games where time is only presented as a deadline reminder.
  
  
• Games where a day and night feature is only due a trigger effect from a plot-driven quest (e.g. time only advances when finishing a quest) or due to entering a specific location, should be excluded from this game group. A day and night cycle must always be in effect regardless of the player's actions, unless the game in mention is turned based.

Examples

• Series: Bard's Tale - different monsters roam at night.
• Any game where shops close (or only open) at night.
• Any game where certain events, NPCs, appear only during the day or during the night, etc.

- Seiken Densetsu 3: different enemies at day and atnight and some time-specific events.

- Dune: The kissing scene with Chani need to happen at night (and is mandatory for the game progression).

Would UFO:EU/X-com count, especially regarding the 1st limitation? There aren't any specific events per se as far as I remember However the battlescape sequences are rather different when playing at night (reduced vision and electro-flares become useful): http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Night_Missions

Could be worth mentioning KQ4 in association with the limitation. It was one of the earliest to make a big stink about its day/night cycle.

I kinda skipped KQ4, so not entirely sure what you're specifically referring to.

I believe it illustrates the case of your second limitation.

Castlevania II, and all Quest for Glory's. Also, of course, Terraria

Again, would MS Flight Simulator fit here?

Updated.

Gothic series / Risen (for NPC behavior), Battle for Wesnoth (damage modifications), Two Worlds (the first one, ghosts only appearing at night)... Did Arcanum have any effects? Might and Magic games? Know they had day and night (day of week had effects in M&M, remember that, the transports), but not sure if anything happened specifically during the day/night anymore... Betrayal at Krondor? Even less memories here...

So far, four game groups hath been approved. Currently trying to fix the messy DC and Marvel universe game groups, found out that there isn't a Werewolf protagonist game group, Michael Jackson is in the black protagonist game group (oooh, so sensitive you people), and while revising game groups, the dang wizard doesn't mention which game group I'm revising.

Will attempt to standardize game groups without overriding the unique description rule if possible.

Example of nice and tidy: Marvel universe.

*OCD goes on rampage.*

Note to approvers: send me back or just reject that submission I have with that oversized screenshot. Probably best if I just find a smaller one. Can't do it from my end.

Tentative Name: Game Feature: Upgradeable Anatomy

Description:
Games where the player may opt to upgrade a specified anatomy of a player-controlled character, either by replacement or enhance mentioned anatomy (e.g. legs, torso, arms, etc.) through biological, magical, mechanical, or equivalent methods. Upgrading a specified anatomy will effect the skills or abilities of the player-controlled character, usually in a beneficial way.

Example
Upgrading eyes with x-ray vision allows the player-controlled character access to abilities not suitable for children.

Examples

• Series: Deus Ex
• Series: Syndicate

Deus Ex

Played an RPG where there's a rare chance one of your limbs could get cut off and be replaced by a surgeon. In the character sheet it says: Left arm (Goblin). I found that a bit amusing.

Crusaders of Khazan

Evolva maybe? I don't think you specifically select limbs to upgrade, but splicing your DNA did cause limbs to start looking differently.

Hmmm, Space Siege?

E. V. O.: Search for Eden perhaps. Not sure if the method (magical?) would fit the definition.

vs. something like Neuromancer, where you can /downgrade/ your anatomy for cheap bionic parts if you need cash?

Modifiable anatomy?

Was this proposed before?

Games featuring a journal, which is automatically updated with plot advances. Useful to recall your adventures when you get back to old savegames.

Limitations:

* A mere quest list/tracker doesn't qualify, a journal should be more verbose and chronological by default.

Examples: Planescape Torment, Anvil of Dawn, Morrowind, many more

Judging from the current response from the bestiary thread, this might likely be merged into the encyclopedia group also. :p

Wouldn't be surprised.

Radiant Historia might fit.

As the game deals with time travel, it feature a timed list of nodes (sort of key events), with some accompanying text).

The list is like this (although horizontal): http://radianthistoria.wikia.com/wiki/Node

and here is an example of accompanying text: http://radianthistoria.wikia.com/wiki/Specint_Assignment

Not a full journal, but far from a simple quest list/tracker.

I would like to propose a new Game Series Group called "Triple Action Series"

These two (in the Mobygames database existing) compilations are candidates to get included in this Series:

• Triple Action Volume 4
• Triple Action Volume 5

Group is pending.

If this applies to my post: thanx.

A series group, Desktop Toys, which all use the same framework and developer.

- Desktop Toys Volume 1 (1995, not on MobyGames yet)
- Desktop Toys Volume 2: Revenge of the Toys (1996)
- Dilbert's Desktop Games (1997)
- Beavis & Butthead Screen Wreckers (1997)

Tentative name: PlayStation Essentials Range
Description: Games available for PlayStation hardware which have been re-released with the 'Essentials' label (Is this just PAL regions or is it in every region?)
Limitations: Unknown.
Examples: Any game on Sony's website (specifically this list for PS3 and this list for PSP) which appears in the 'Other features: Essentials' criteria, though those lists appear to be incomplete. Also known: Heavy Rain: Move Edition, Monster Hunter Freedom Unite, Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection.

For all those global strategy DEFCON games, but I'd also allow ones where nuclear attack is an option (Shadow President).

If somehow this ambiguous-yet-restrictive "World War III" group got approved...

I keep telling you it's called Theatre of War. :p

Yes, you keep to misinterpret the term...

Whatever will be the group's name (I'm not saying "nuclear exchange" is the best choice), do you agree it's useful? I'd say it's a distinct and recurring theme.

I'd go for Gameplay Feature: Nuclear Option. It's more of a game feature than a theme, me thinks. Nuclear option also has a nice sounding ring to it. Though I guess the Yankees would prefer to use the term 'WMD', since they're so good at finding them. :p

http://mobygroups.wikia.com/wiki/Gameplay_Feature:_Minigames

Games featuring games within themselves. Usually these are played by the protagonist (not the player) and available as (hidden) collectibles/unlockables.

Limitations

• Some games are a collection of minigames themselves, sometimes called stages (e.g. various olympics games), these don't qualify here.
• Some games launch a minigame (i.e. distinctively different from standard gameplay) for special activities, such as picking an electronic lock, these don't qualify here.
• Special levels (e.g. beer collecting in Tyrian) don't count here.
• For games that let your protagonist to gamble within the game universe, see Gameplay Feature: Gambling or more specific Gameplay Feature: Poker.
• There is a separate group for games which include previously released full games (hidden/unlockable): Games with hidden / unlockable full games

Examples

System Shock 1 & 2 has games that can be collected in cyberspace and later played. I vaguely recall some jRPG which had whole mini-RPG inside. Anachronox.

I'd use a different name for the group. As it stands it would cause to much confusion as the most common use of the term minigame is for point 2 of your limitations.

Not sure what best describes it. Something like "Game within a game" or something.

Yeah, when I see that name I'm thinking of stuff like lockpicking minigames and such.

Anachronox has some games you can grab for the console in your office, on top of the ones you can play elsewhere. And I'm sure I heard of some that have Zork included... Do those count?

As in Maniac Mansion is playable in Day of the Tentacle or is this something else entirely?

I assume it counts as well.

As do the casino games in Leisure Suit Larry and Fallout New Vegas.

Edit: ALAKA clarified it.

This

Added to wiki under Uncategorized groups.

Thanks. I've updated the description according to your suggestions.

Theme: Mail Delivery

Description: Games where the delivery of mail or packages is a central part of the gameplay.

Examples: Postman Pat, Postman Pot, Honō no Takuhaibin

Indra, want to work your magic on this one?

Paperboy (and sequels I guess, although never played those)

Edit: Well, now that I think of it, I guess it will depend on the detailed description and if it is exclusively mail or packages (excluding newspapers/magazine packages)

I'd say Paperboy fits with the spirit of what I'm suggesting. Thus why I've put the suggestion forward for peer revision. :)

Sorry. I'm currently sulking on game groups. But I'll help a bit:

Games where the delivery of mail or packages is an integral part of the gameplay, either in its entirely or in a noticeable proportion of the game. Its variation may include a child's paper route from a summer dream to the more official manic depressive postal driver chasing a chihuahua through the neighbood whilst knocking grandmothers over like bowling pins. Mail delivery is not for the faint of heart.

Limitations
This is not a postal themed game group. The delivery of mail, packages, or equivalent objects must be explicitly expressed in gameplay. So games where the player dresses up as a UPS delivery man beating up a FedEx delivery man on top of a high speed mail delivery van whilst juggling chihuahuas and grandmothers, despite being a somewhat remarkable feat should still regrettably be excluded from this game group, if no actual mail delivery gameplay is expressed.

No chihuahuas were injured during the course of this description. Grandmothers however...

Also, not entirely sure how to represent this one, but I've come across a few games (namely Kishi Densetsu and Advanced Daisenryaku) where the player controls the German Nazi army during WWII. I'm not a wargamer, so I don't know if there are many (any?) other games like this, but seems worthy of a group to me. "Protagonist: German Nazi" seems a little tacky, though... Thoughts?

The Panzer General series, the Panzer Elite series, the Panzer Corps series for instance.

The entry for Panzer General uses the word Nazis: http://www.mobygames.com/game/panzer-general so why not continue with the trend.

You can use 3rd Reich if you prefer but I don't really see why it would be an issue (I guess us Europeans are less bothered by the word).

I know some games are letting you play *any* side in various historical conflicts, 'Hearts of Iron' series etc. though maybe not so many focusing on only playing the (historically) losing side.

I can think of e.g. 'Luftwaffe Commander', 'Silent Hunter 3' (and 5) being a few of those where you *only* can play on the Nazi side. Not that there is any revisionism possible in those, you still lose in the end ;-)

But why make a group of such few?

A half-dozen disparate games connected by a shared theme seems like perfect group material to me. Besides, I think it's rather fascinating to see how different cultures' impressions of history is reflected in what they create.

Advanced Daisenryaku for example actually lets you win WW2 as the Nazis. It's just really, really, REALLY hard to do.

Just for the sake of experimentation:

Playable Faction: Nazi Germany / Third Reich

To give an idea of the category being used here. Not necessarily under the protagonist category since you used the term player controls the German Nazi army compared to player controls an SS officer with an impeccable fashion sense.

Some might view this problematic, category-wise, but to be informed of playable factions (optional or otherwise) is a nice-to-know feature for strategy gamers like myself, as not all strategy games mention this explicitly. How many games that allow you to play the 'bad guy' i.e. the Nazi's for example is an additional curious trivia that should be worth noting.

Example games I'm aware of: Hearts of Iron series: play any country in the world during WWII.

Doesn't most wargames allow you to play both sides?

Not really. The usual scenario is: you play good guy and defeat bad guy or whichever predetermined opponent. That's about it. Unless it's for multi-player purposes. Options where you can actually play any faction (presented) in the game is pretty rare to my recollection.

While for some people playing for the III Reich sounds new (and I have yet to see FPS with German side, that is, campaign/storyline, not just multiplayer shootfest), it's actually quite common for strategy/wargame and combat simulator (flight, submarine, tank too) genres.

I don't see a need for such group. Unless we start adding all playable factions. If you want a rare one, then to quote GWB "you forgot Poland" ;]

Oh, and before someone starts imagining things: last year I was conquering America in Panzer General. My first sub sim was Wolfpack.

I guess that goes to show how big the gaps are in my experience when I've only focused on console games. I had no idea this was so common!

That said, my original intent was more toward games where the scenario specifically casts the player as Axis, not that it's simply one option among many. Of course, I also forgot that a lot of these wargames don't really focus on a single continuous scenario!

Not really. I suspect the Third Reich is interesting enough to warrant attention. Don't have to necessarily mean you have to add them all, it would depend on user interest on any particular faction. Though I'd find Playable Faction - United States to lacking in interest. It would be neat to include them all one day, but only if there were an hierarchy of importance e.g. Genres - Heading 1; Game Groups - Heading 2; other tags - Heading 3,4,5, etc.

I'm all for such hierarchy. Even today some entries have multiple groups and important ones need highlighting.

I'm surprised we do not have a "Create-a-fighter" group yet, for features in certain fighting (and most wrestling) games, and it often goes beyond cosmetics.

It'd have to exclude those fighters that only do cosmetics (like 'original character' in some CAPCOM releases, which only allows color changes)

Hmm...the 'seeing your feet' thing - sometimes it's dependent on the vehicles used.

When I took screenshots in Ship Simulator, I noticed that in most ships you hover as a ghost wherever you are, even in 3rd person view, without a body, but the Jetski had a driver whose feet were visible in 1st person view. I guess the Jetski would look silly driving around on its own.

Games featuring Bob Morane, a fictional character who first appeared in adventure novels (1953) and later also in comics, TV series and animation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Morane

I'm on it. Very cut and dried.

There you go, pending approval. There's my approverly good deed for the year.

Here you go. And thanks to Oleg for approving the group submission.

Not sure if it is worth to add to the group description, but Bob Morane was also adapted in a musical way. There is a very famous 80's French song, called l'Aventurier, by the band Indochine, which lyrics revolve around Bob Morane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il1S4WP6DlY

REQUEST: Hi, just finished one of the Mysterious City games and noticed there's no specific group for the series. It should be:

The Mysterious City: Cairo

The Mysterious City: Golden Prague

The Mysterious City: Vegas

Not sure if this is the right thread to post this but if it could be added that would be most helpful.

Just wanted to ask is this okay for approval?

That's a much better tribute than any of those games (there's another one from me pending approval, btw) - they're all rather horrible knockoffs of other titles. :)