So many people in this thread have the wrong idea/definition of role-playing. Assuming the role of a character with a personality and background already created for you is still role playing.

What you're all really arguing about is character creation.

Same. :celebration:

I've come to learn that the definition of RPG is different for everybody.

I play RPG videogames because I like videogames, I like making an interesting character and seeing how the sword gameplay is different from the axe gameplay is different from the magic gameplay.

You play RPG videogames because you want a platform that let's you be anything you want to be and do anything you want to do.

We are not compatible, you and I.

Its the same with the definitions of "fun", "improved", and "magic". :foodndrink:

It's not so much that RPG's are dying, it's that more and more game genres are introducing RPG elements into gameplay.

This puts more pressure on Beth to redefine what the term "RPG" really means. Madden has lots of "RPG" elements (character stats, upgrades, etc) for example, but it's not an "RPG" in the traditional sense of the term.

So now that so many games genres are merging, Beth has some soul searching to do. Is Beth making an "RPG"? Or is it something else?

Well, in old rpgs it basically was my numbers vs the npc's numbers, and a dice roll to make it so it wasn't exactly the same end result every single time. Now we can swing a sword in the game, cast the spell and see it do damage. Improved was probably the wrong word, but replacing numbers with in game mechanics to me is an improvement. Combat feels reaistic now. Maybe realistic was the word I should have used.

OP, you might want to start using more full stops in your sentences, those were a bunch of long sentences, without commas, giving new meaning to the phrase tl;dr
But I did.

I'm not sure about the RPG element slowly vanishing from today's "RPGs", however, I guess that it may appear to be so, as the computer games market is targeting a broader and broader audience every year. In the old times most players were what we call "hardcoe" nowadays, while the majority of the rapidly expanding market is today much more "casual". And the number of "true RPG fans" might've stayed the same or even increased a bit over the years, still, it's becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of the total pool of players.

Now about the RPG element. Take Mass Effect. It might be said that it's just a shoot-them-up hack&slash with 0/1 dialogue choices and a couple of stats (that the game could also do without) to maintain the RPG label. For me, RPG means great, epic, emotional stories from P&P RPGs played during the night when I was 17, with engaging battles, involving NPCs, great storytelling, etc. Does Mass Effect feel like a hack & slash in space for me? Yes. But does it also give me the epic feeling and emotional attachment I remember from my best RPG days? It does. So, what's the verdict, is Mass Effect a true RPG or not? Hard for me to say, maybe a new subgenre has emerged, or maybe it's RPG 2.0.

A similar scenario might (or might not) happen with Elder Scrolls. Will it be for the better? Time will tell, I guess.

On a side note - the element that draws me to the Elder Scrolls the most (Morrowind and Oblivion, I didn't play the first two) is the freedom of movement. The amount of free roaming you can do across the map, full of beautiful vistas, forests, hills, caves, rivers, etc. - it's just astonishing and before Morrowind I've never experienced it in another cRPG. So for me this is the "R" in "RPG" as far as ES are concerned: I'm less interesting in playing a role of a mage, thief, warrior, etc., even much less a world-saving hero. I'm playing the role of an adventurer who can go ANYWHERE he wants (and the world will interact with me accordingly when I get there and also during my journey). This is, IMHO, the single most outstanding, unique and precious feature of the Elder Scrolls franchise, I hope Beth realizes it as well and they'll never get rid of it.



BTW, calling a hack&slash an RPG is like calling McDonalds a restaurant - it happened for marketing reasons and we'll just have to live with that, won't we.

I'd say the word you are looking for is "believable". We don't necessarily want TES games to always be realistic, but we do want them to be believable. This is the same for movies, games, novels, etc. Believability is much more important than realism.

There we go. Believable. Much better. Thanks.

Just take a notice in the survey about more or less rpg elements, and how they related everything to "LIKE FABLE 3?" I personally was more likely to vote for those if they hadn't related them to fable. If Bethesda did add those elememts ie marriage etc. they would be done completly different since bethesda is completly different from lionhead. just saying

I'd say the word you are looking for is "believable". We don't necessarily want TES games to always be realistic, but we do want them to be believable. This is the same for movies, games, novels, etc. Believability is much more important than realism.

Like all games, their are people who will all be disappointed with a movie, a game, or book. But that doesn't mean its a bad game. All TES games have caught my eye and I can expect to play many hours into it.

That's why we need another http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/NewStandard.jpg. :laugh:

This sums up my thoughts nicely and in real life I'm a professional RPG designer/writer. In the early days of PnP RPGs stats, numbers and dice were everything, since D&D had its origin from wargaming - and quite frankly those halcyon days in the late 70's and early 80's were parties of PCs going down dungeons and killing everything in sight. It was wargaming, just with more imaginative freedom.

Since then tabletop RPGs at least have evolved radically. We still have 'crunchy' systems where there are masses of rules and complex character sheets, but we also have very light systems which emphasise story-telling and have little in the way of dice rolling or stats.

I've been playing roleplaying games for almost thirty years, but nowadays when I game I spend most of my time in verbal interaction or listening to the descriptions, rather than rolling dice or mini-maxing attributes - the latter holds far less enjoyment for me now, compared to when I was a teenager just starting out on my first D&D scenario. Does this mean younger players more interested in numbers? On reflection I think not, it was merely that for my generation there was no other way of playing available.

As a guy who writes RPGs, the thing I love about TES is that although I have to sacrifice a great deal of 'freedom of action' the game engine is effectively doing all the GMing and dice rolling for me. This allows me to experience the world and/or quest with a greater degree of immersion because I don't have to fumble around for a dice - its there in front of me playing out in a believable manner. When Todd said that they are heading away from juggling numbers I thought 'Wonderful, another distraction removed from my immersive experience!'.

Now what people are overlooking is that all those characteristics, statistics and skills are all still there. They are a fundamental part of the game engine. However, I/we no longer have to mess about with them directly as they grow and improve in the background. That to me is a very positive step forwards. It allows players to achieve a greater level of verisimilitude with the game world, avoiding unnecessary number juggling. Skyrim isn't shedding them entirely, you still get mechanistic choices as to where you wish to improve your character (stamina, health, mana and perks) but I imagine that by TES VI even that will fade into the background and such improvements will all come about indirectly/subtly by interacting with other personalities, by practice or via subtle extrapolation of your play style by the game AI.

Is that a bad thing? Not in my eyes. I dream that we'll get close to full virtual reality by the time I'm on my death bed, even if that means I end up writing plots and scenarios for videogame companies rather than PnP RPG publishers. In the meantime I hope that the developers continue to broaden the range of interaction one can have with the physical game world, improve the artificial intelligence of NPCs and ensure every choice I make in a game has consequences that affect later plots, quests and character dialogues. Each of which will improve the true roleplaying aspect of TES.

You mean the list in my sig?
It's not unrealistic, as most of it's done in TES before, OR they would have if they had enough resources back then. But YES, it's unrealistic to expect any game company to make such a game today. Just LOOK at today's games.

Can I blame Bethesda for not liking thier game? No I can't. It's thier vision, it's thier game. They do things that they like. If we don't like it, then well we either accpet it, keep playing, or we don't, stop playing.

In the most cases, I like what Bethesda does. There is a few things I wished they have done differently but over all, I trust them. I know Skyrim will have things, I love, they will have things I don't like. I may talk negatively about them, but that is to remind them on what they do wrong. Other words they can have a God complex and become like Activision and believe they can do no wrong.

So what ever they do, they do for themselves. It's just lucky enough, most of us like the changes they make. I found out that if I don't like the changes they made, I appreciate the changes they make after time passes.

Agreed. I think of TES games as like interactive fantasy novels. I like an interesting story, with an interesting setting, and an ability to make my own interesting character in that story. But it's a heroic fantasy. Would I want to read a heroic fantasy where all we hear about the main character is how his wife yells at him for not chopping wood for the fire, or about whether he is going broke because he couldn't sell his crops for enough gold? Probably not. Which is not to say that having those sorts of things in the game can't add to the richness of the setting. But, first and foremost, I'd prefer my character to be doing something which makes more of a difference to the story and the setting, and so I'd like the gameplay mechanics which support that to be fun and rewarding.



Exactly. The discussion of what "RPG" means is kinda interesting, but really only in autobiographical or historical or sociological respects. It's just "Ok, that's interesting that that's what you take the word to mean" or "It's interesting how there are such and such differences in what the term means to these different communities". As far as I can gather, what a lot of people are doing in this thread is just telling us what they like about games which have gone under the banner of "RPG". And that's fine. But, as you say, this shouldn't come with any implication about what sort of games (or what sorts of features they have) one should or should not like.

Don't be such a downer...seriously, why do people bash a game that hasn't even come out and that so far looks very promising? :stare:

As for the poll: I would be disappointed but woudl still buy it; Yes, although maybe not that much when in comparison to some people in the forums and Yes.

I also dream of a game like that. Where all the skill numbers and perks are hidden, and it feels like we really are getting better at something. That would be amazing. I always try my best to never open up a menu unless I need to look at a map, because that's the only way for me to not pay atention to the numbers. I hate numbers and menus, dispite me being a rpg fan. Even when a menu was designed perfectly and worked easy and never was taxing on me, I still tried my best to not use them. Hotkey hotkey hotkey.

I've never once said to actually get rid of skills. Like Mel said they should still be there, but we shouldn't have to see them to feel like we're getting better at something. There are ways to show this in game now, we don't need numbers. Let skills work behind the scenes, if it not only feels like but looks as if I'm getting stronger that would be perfect. If a game could pull that off, that would be great.

Lithary, you should really heed your Sig. stop bypassing the censor, friendly advice.



Yeah you can blame Beth if its not what you expected, they made it didnt they? they aren't mind readers it wont be exactly tailored to anyone so if you have an issue with it tough cookies. infact much of oblivion resulted in Beth listening to its fan base while trying to net an audience that isn't typical of the series, a ease of access if you will.

Do I like the "assumed" Direction they are taking? not really but then again I haven't seen anything and all my opinions would be based on my experience with the Trend that came after Morrowind, which really isnt a trend because its ONE game as well as what little information we have.

it could be so much worse, oh very much so. for instance it could have included all these ridiculous Fable requests + Multiplayer with Capture the flag etc etc, it could have ignore lore completely and shaft everyone who was dear and true to the series since its unknown days (mostly unkown) an instead cater all these what I presume are half assed bandwagon jumpers trying to do to the TES series as to what happened to the Fable series.

I hope dearly that a significant portion of Skyrim is what BETHESDA STUDIOS wanted it to be, not what screaming frothing new fans and old wanted it to be. Arena Battlespire Redgard Daggerfall and Morrowind were games to what I believe were made with personal vision in place with money coming in 2nd or so. I agree stats and numbers don't make RPG's but neither do hack and slashes or twitch fps style magic style castings .

I want to roleplay a hero. I do not want to roleplay tedious daily actvities. I can do that in real life and get paid for it.

The rule I go by: Bethesda does care what the fans want, but in the end, they will make the game that tells the story THEY want to tell. If you tried to make a game that appeased to everyone, you will find that you cannot make it. Everyone will disagree on something.

I have hopes that Bethesda gives out a decent RPG game, and I will not be disappointed if my Dragonborn can't do something like get married and have kids.

Didn't vote due question <>. I base my definition on how we played in dice days. First and frontmost we were all adventurers, even if we came out of the character creation with some sort of profession, be it a bard or a bartender or whatever. Never did we have a family to attend to, and never did we sit around the table to check how much our store brought in. Because after creation, that was just our background. Then we head out on adventure, either by sheer luck, or some major preplanned campaign. That is *my* definition on roleplay and what the game should be about. You can roleplay in bed if you want to with your mrs - a lot of people do this - but it doesn't belong in the game. Neither does the family stuff, or at least not for the sense of role playing. Someone mentioned atmospheric element, and I think that suits better. *Could* it be in the game? Yes, but it's not what I would waste resources on, as it requires so much to make gameplay from. Food, drink, sleep, and hypothermia management however, is pretty easy to add, and adds a consistent element of gameplay making it more feasible and immersive. Sorry, I just can't imagine family and love adding anything useful to gameplay. If we did love in dice games, it was more of an humoristic and exploitable manner, using your charm in a more advlt way to get hold of a key or whatever - no feelings .

to me a RPG is like sandbox/open-world

u can do whatever u like

There are so many RPG elements in Skyrim that even if some were removed, it wouldn't take away too terribly much of the RPG experience.