RPG's are not what they used to be

[simon]

If its going to be half as good as the Witcher 2 I'm sold

Then I presume you have played the first one?
I have no doubts number 3 will be as good as the 2nd one, probably better in fact since there was quite an improvement between 1 and 2.

 

[Avatar]

No, that's a very common misconception. Role-playing games are about more than roles. If playing a role was the criteria for being an RPG, then 90% of games are roleplaying games. CoD lets you play the role of a soldier. Halo lets you play the role of master chief. Saints Row lets you play the role of a mob boss. Far Cry 3 lets you play the role of a 20-something on a pirate-infested island. The Saboteur lets you play the role of a saboteur. Prince of Persia lets you play the role of an acrobatic prince. Yet none of those are RPG games.

CoD lets you play as Snow, you don't do the role-playing. Halo lets you play Master Chief, as you said yourself; the character is already cast. The role playing aspect is all about choosing all aspects of the character. This stems from the pen and paper RPG's, looooong before there were any of the problems you describe with Skyrim.

RPG games rely heavily on player agency for their classification. So far, the player agency in Skyrim is incredibly limited. You can change your character. That's the extent of player agency in Skyrim. Narrative agency is non-existent, because you have very little to no effect on the game's narrative. The instrumental agency (the way the world reacts to the player) is also very limited and also almost non-existent. There is no choice or consequence, no far-reaching, significant repercussions to actions and the player's actions don't alter the game world.

I'm sorry, no, this is all bs. The core element of RPGs is the development of your character into the character you want, where you make the decisions for the character, as the character. Again, I understand your criticism, (note: understand, not agree ), but your criticism is not a valid argument as the genre of the game, IMO.

If you added guns to Skyrim, you'd essentially have an open-world CoD game with character progression.

But if still play a CoD style defined role on rails, with choices made for you, it's not an RPG.

 

[Graal]

Btw I would consider Borderlands to be an action game with RPG elements in, Skyrim is certainly more RPG'ish than Borderlands.

Alright then. What does Skyrim have that Borderlands doesn't? Both allow you to choose a character and customize his skills throughout gameplay. Both have stories which the player has no influence over. Both have open worlds for you to explore. Both have a main story and side stories. Neither has choice and consequence. The player's don't directly affect the game world in either game. Neither presents the player with choices that lead to branching storylines.

Player agency is just as lacking in Borderlands as it is in Skyrim, so if Borderlands isn't an RPG, then Skyrim sure as hell isn't either.

Weren't all games created with the idea of playing a role of some sort. Thus yes all games, well most, are in fact RPG's.

Well then, I guess one of us should mail Steam and tell them they need to add the RPG tag to every game in their catalogue.

Title != genre. You can't read the title as roleplaying game and then just say 'oh, it has the world role in the title so I guess this entire genre is about playing a role. The RPG genre encompasses far more than just playing a role. If the only criteria for being labelled an RPG was 'play a role' then the term, 'roleplaying game' wouldn't have existed because all games would have been roleplaying games, therefore meaning there wouldn't have been a need to classify RPGs in the first place.

 

[Graal]

I'm sorry, no, this is all bs. The core element of RPGs is the development of your character into the character you want, where you make the decisions for the character, as the character. Again, I understand your criticism, (note: understand, not agree ), but your criticism is not a valid argument as the genre of the game, IMO.

And ironically, your criteria isn't applicable to Skyrim. You don't make the decisions as your character, because what decisions? You're told to go kill Alduin or the Emperor. You're not given the decision to do so. The only decision you have is do the quest or don't do it. What little decisions you do have in the game are mostly fluff. You can choose to join the Dawnguard or the vampires, which just unlocks two different quest chains. Or you can choose to join the Stormcloaks or Imperial guard, which unlocks two different quest chains. That's pretty much the extent of your decisions in Skyrim.

As for character development, many games give you the option to create your own character and develop him.her as you see fit. Saints Row the Third not only lets you create your own character, but also allows you to level your character and choose skills that suit your own gameplay. That doesn't make it an RPG, however.

I understand where you're coming from with the difference between playing a character and playing your character, but your criteria is not a valid argument as the genre of the game.

Skyrim is an action game with RPG elements, finies en kla. Water with a few drops of whiskey mixed in is not whiskey. As such, an action game with a few drops of RPG mixed in is not an RPG.

 

[Avatar]

And ironically, your criteria isn't applicable to Skyrim. You don't make the decisions as your character, because what decisions? You're told to go kill Alduin or the Emperor. You're not given the decision to do so.

Except that I didn't.. See, I could play the whole game without doing it. That's because my character didn't believe in the cause. She chose to only defend herself, and never attack first. She hunted regularly. That is roleplaying. In Baldur's Gate you could choose your alignment, and live out your character; that[/I ]is roleplaying.

As for character development, many games give you the option to create your own character and develop him.her as you see fit. Saints Row the Third not only lets you create your own character, but also allows you to level your character and choose skills that suit your own gameplay. That doesn't make it an RPG, however.

Character development != choosing skills. Please read my previous post with that in mind, I think you might see it a little differently if you consider that.

I understand where you're coming from with the difference between playing a character and playing your character, but your criteria is not a valid argument as the genre of the game.

If you consider that my criteria, you clearly didn't read my post properly. That's not what I said at all.

Skyrim is an action game with RPG elements, finies en kla. Water with a few drops of whiskey mixed in is not whiskey. As such, an action game with a few drops of RPG mixed in is not an RPG.

Oh, well, if you said it's so..


Let me ask this: Have you ever played a real RPG? As in, pen and paper? With character sheets? Where you had roleplaying to do?

 

[C-Bear]

Let me ask this: Have you ever played a real RPG? As in, pen and paper? With character sheets? Where you had roleplaying to do?

I did. Had a damn good dungeon master to boot. Good times.

...

Skyrim is nothing like that. In fact, no game is like that. I classify RPG as a game where the world responds to your choices - instead of the other way around where the player only has to respond to things in the world. You can play Skyrim any way you like, but it'll be pretty much the same every playthrough. The quests, the dialogue (no, just having a few words changed doesn't count), the ending.

Think of Fallout 1 & 2. The world there responded to your character. You could be a speaker or a sharp-shooter or a melee fighter and each time the world would respond to whatever you were and did.

Then again, no game is 100% any genre anyway. In my entirely subjective analysis - I'd say Skyrim is 50% action and 50% RPG - but that's enough for it to go under the RPG category in Steam. Fallout 1 was 80% RPG and 20% tactical strategy.

 

[MetalSoup]

 

[MalicE]

BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

It's funny cause it's true

 

[Graal]

Except that I didn't.. See, I could play the whole game without doing it. That's because my character didn't believe in the cause. She chose to only defend herself, and never attack first. She hunted regularly. That is roleplaying. In Baldur's Gate you could choose your alignment, and live out your character; that[/I ]is roleplaying.

As I said, your decisions in Skyrim basically amount to 'do this content or choose not to do this content.' Your roleplaying takes place in your head, not in your game. I can play CoD and roleplay a guy who runs into walls because of a birth defect. It doesn't mean CoD is now a roleplaying game.

Let me ask this: Have you ever played a real RPG? As in, pen and paper? With character sheets? Where you had roleplaying to do?

The roleplaying in PnP RPGs formed an integral part of the gameplay. The game reacts and adapts to your roleplaying. Skyrim is the exact polar opposite of a PnP RPG. Roleplaying in Skyrim, as you describe it, is entirely optional and takes place entirely in a player's head.

 

[hideinlight]

It isn't the graphics, it's leveling and so called RPG elements messing everything up. Like in Skyrim do 20/40/60/80/100 more damage with one handed weapons etc. And having everything in the world scale horribly with you.

 

[Avatar]

Roleplaying in Skyrim, as you describe it, is entirely optional and takes place entirely in a player's head.

As opposed to the PnP version where nothing happened in the players head?

As I said, your decisions in Skyrim basically amount to 'do this content or choose not to do this content.'

Explain to me how this differs from RPGs in the way you see it? Baldur's Gate was most definitely an RPG, but did you get a choice in chasing down Irenicus? You got the roleplaying in how you did it. Who you killed and kissed along the way, and who you didn't. Who you helped, how you helped them, and why you helped them.

And did the world change? No, save for a missing NPC or two, or some generic swooning text with a store discount.

The roleplaying in PnP RPGs formed an integral part of the gameplay.

Yes.

The game reacts and adapts to your roleplaying.

Not necessarily. Everything in a campaign was still governed by rules; either the ones in the Player Manual, DM guide, or the Monster Manual, or what was written in the campaign. These same rules govern our cRPGs.

Again, the genre is defined by what it's called. Role playing. In that regard I count Skyrim as and RPG. One with, like C-Bear said, 50% action, 50% RPG, but still RPG.

@C-Bear: I never did play Fallout 1 & 2 so I really can't comment about those. I'd argue, though, that given a campaign that you play through in PnP RPGs, a second and third playthrough would give you pretty similar results in terms of the main plot points and ending as the first playthrough. There is a reason D&D drew on dungeons so much. Besides the obvious fun factor and scare factor and a natural habitat for monsters and traps, it's a setting where there is less obvious way to go off script and ruin a DM's day. Our DM always got out party inside a dungeon in the first 5 minutes of play so that we didn't screw him into having to think up a whole new story on the spot! This is dealt with in most cRPGs by being forced to limit the players interaction with the world; there's no DM you can describe your actions to. However, once you've done what the game allows you to do in it's interface, it's got the same rule set that a DM is equipped with, save for creativity. (Except I remember in NWN, they tried to implement a DM system, where a DM could run an in game campaign with his party with a VOIP system. Horribly implemented, way ahead of its time.)
I do agree 100% with your assessment regarding the genres!

 

[C-Bear]

@C-Bear: I never did play Fallout 1 & 2 so I really can't comment about those. I'd argue, though, that given a campaign that you play through in PnP RPGs, a second and third playthrough would give you pretty similar results in terms of the main plot points and ending as the first playthrough. There is a reason D&D drew on dungeons so much. Besides the obvious fun factor and scare factor and a natural habitat for monsters and traps, it's a setting where there is less obvious way to go off script and ruin a DM's day. Our DM always got out party inside a dungeon in the first 5 minutes of play so that we didn't screw him into having to think up a whole new story on the spot! This is dealt with in most cRPGs by being forced to limit the players interaction with the world; there's no DM you can describe your actions to. However, once you've done what the game allows you to do in it's interface, it's got the same rule set that a DM is equipped with, save for creativity. (Except I remember in NWN, they tried to implement a DM system, where a DM could run an in game campaign with his party with a VOIP system. Horribly implemented, way ahead of its time.)
I do agree 100% with your assessment regarding the genres!

@playthrough's being the same: well, yeah, that's to do with the story-telling. The creator wants to tell a story. BG2: Bhaalspawn defeats Irenicus. That's not the point. The thing that gives a game it's RPG soul is how you get there. I never finished Skyrim, but let's look at Oblivion. It doesn't matter if you were good or bad, mage or thief, you'd eventually save the emperor and kill the dragon. Everytime the game world would present itself to you in the same way - regardless of your earlier actions. All other quests would also play out the same way again, again and again. Your only choice was do I shoot an arrow or lob a fireball. In Fallout, if you had high speechcraft skills you could talk your way out of a situation instead of fighting. In Baldur's Gate your party combination and previously completed quests would alter your experience of future quests.

Come to think of it, I can actually only think of one REAL 100% RPG video game: http://sleepisdeath.net/

 

[Edelweiss]

tl;dr thread

 

[Graal]

As opposed to the PnP version where nothing happened in the players head?

The difference being that in PnP RPGs, the rules were all part of the game. In Skyrim, the rules are all in your head. You're playing an imaginary game in your head, which isn't reflected in the actual game. The characters or world doesn't react to the fact that you're lawful evil, because the lawful evil is all in your head.

Explain to me how this differs from RPGs in the way you see it? Baldur's Gate was most definitely an RPG, but did you get a choice in chasing down Irenicus? You got the roleplaying in how you did it. Who you killed and kissed along the way, and who you didn't. Who you helped, how you helped them, and why you helped them.

Are you being serious here? The difference being that in Baldur's Gate individual situations had various ways of approaching them, most of which gave you different outcomes and had long-term repercussions that could possibly affect you in different parts of the game. There's a major difference between a game given you different choices in how you want to approach certain content (most of the Infinity engine RPGs) and a game giving you a choice about whether you want to do the content or not (content). In Skyrim you don't get any choices and you don't have to think about anything you do, because there are no long-term repercussions to your actions aside from those the game has scripted in as part of the story.

And did the world change? No, save for a missing NPC or two, or some generic swooning text with a store discount.

Once again we get back to player agency in the form of choice and consequence. In the Infinity engine RPGs, making certain choices could lead to different consequences. In Skyrim there isn't choice and consequence. You can choose to do a quest and the only consequence you end up getting is... you either kill a bunch of generic NPCs, or you don't.

Not necessarily. Everything in a campaign was still governed by rules; either the ones in the Player Manual, DM guide, or the Monster Manual, or what was written in the campaign. These same rules govern our cRPGs.

Yes, the backbone of the PnP campaign will still be predetermined and couldn't be changed (in most cases), but the meat within was where the the real roleplaying took place. You might encounter a dragon and manage to escape it, only to have it appear later in the campaign and demolish half of the orc army. Or you could try to kill it immediately and later you end up facing the brunt of the orc army. Or the way you interact with an NPC elf could lead to his enmity, where he later comes back and attempts to kill you, or you can win his friendship and have him help you out in the fight against the orc army. Or you can simply tell him you're not intent on harming him, part ways and not see him again in the campaign. Or he might simply start attacking you the moment he sees you, based on the fact that earlier in the campaign you slaughtered all the elven citizens in a town struck by the plague. Regardless of what you do in the game, you're going to face the evil wizard Aviosis and his orc army in the end, but the journey can change every time you play the campaign.

That's a pretty simplistic example, but it illustrates my point about player agency. In PnP RPGs, players directly influenced the narrative. The narrative could change based on what players did. Skyrim is absolutely devoid of this. There is no choices. There is no repercussions to your actions. There is no player agency aside from character creation. Skyrim is a straight-up action game with limited RPG elements. It's a hack 'n slash. Not an RPG.

It's this insistence on labeling everything and anything RPGs based on the silliest criteria available that's helped lead to the decline of the RPG genre as a whole. If a game like Skyrim, which isn't even an RPG, can win multiple RPG of the year awards, which publisher is going to spend the time and resources making a game as elaborate as Planescape Torment?

It's actually pretty sad when you think about it. In 1999 the RPG of the Year was Planescape Torment. In 2011 the RPG of the year was Skyrim. People today don't know what a real RPG even is and they likely never will know.