Again, that's what I don't understand, HOW is an RPG, or any game with action, also classified as an action game? Doesn't it all have action?

The only way for a game to be 100% roleplaying is to dress up as someone else and pretend you are in another world.

I wasn't sure if this topic was going to gain traction, but here are some perspectives:

In Arena and DF the characters had far more depth. There were puzzles and intricate things to figure out. There were options to craft your character and build that character as you would.

MW-Birthsigns were introduced and still your character had attributes and skills to select from to define them. You had to explore in order to find certain objects and quest locations.

O-Never had to worry about quest locations, since markers showed you the way. Never had a challenge, since level scaling allowed you to keep pace with your world.

Skyrim-At first blush, it seems that Beth is marketing to a larger market, which is good for business. Again, I'm not being critical, just trying to be objective. But when a co. works for 5 years and they add things like finishing moves, more lines of dialogue and flying dragons, at the expense of attributes, stats and depth of characters.....it's just going the same way of most games now a days.

Again, I'm not saying Beth shouldn't make all the money they can....I'm just saying, this isn't Bard's Tale, Wizardy or even Ultima which Todd loves to say is inspiration.

There is a certain point where money means more than gameplay. IMHO, we've finally reached it.

It's no wonder Ken left.

The "it's not an RPG" logic is flawed. Arena and Daggerfall were as they were because having traditional RPG style mechanics was easier to do than giving the player direct control over every aspect of their character (which still isnt possible, ergo the skills)

It's an open ended world. A player's character does not share the same skills and abilities as the player. You can play strong character roles. its a non-linear and open ending game and story. It's a role playing game.



No there aren't. Easily 75% of the game is dungeon crawling and "fetch ____ at _____ for me" quests. Don't kid yourself. Arena, and to a greater extent Daggerfall are both excellent games, but they are not the absolute epitome of roleplaying.

Sounds like the Sims to me, so wouldn't that make it RPG?

Not to sound like a smart-ass, tbh

If it was what you are suggesting, then it would be like so many other games out there and I'd be buying all of the other ones and I just don't because they aren't RPGs. Bethesda has games with action but I can play my character however I wish, in any direction I wish and do the main quest or don't do the main quest. To me, they are making worlds, not just games and it's role-playing to be whatever I wish in that world.

And I don't fault Bethesda one bit for including other kinds of play in the game to appeal to a broad audience. I'm old enough to know and have experienced that nothing ever stays the same. It all changes and evolves...or it would be a pretty boring world. I hope you still like what they are making no matter what you want to call it.

:tes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdkAgP_nDg4 :mohawk: :chaos:

I hereby declare The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim to be an RPG. I've used the exact same logic as you. I think everyone should accept Skyrim as the RPG it is.

Face it, ALL videogames have aspects from other genres. It's really classified by which genre it's representing the most.

if the combat feels more viceral like M&B, I'm fine with an Action/rpg light.

-Character costumization?
-Free roaming and exploring?
-Player is given choices that eventually change the story of the adventure?

It′s a RPG in my book. With lots of action in it.

Agree, there are FAR too many games now that were inspired by a totally different game.

The way I see it, Skyrim has made combat a much more central part of the game than it has in the past, but it's not an action game. I mean, seriously, we still have thousands of choices. That's pretty RPG-ish.

By this logic, Rage must be a racing game.

From Bolded;
1) Puzzles confirmed in Skyrim/In any game you craft the character to what you want.
2) Birthsigns are out, but a similar Guardian stone system is in taking their place. Attributes are technically out, but it has been said they are all still being represented through other aspects. We don't know one way or another that we will need certain spells, abilities or perks for unique exploration, but you can't rule it out.
3) The new clairvoyance spells seems to suggest that there will be a toggle for quest markers.

I assume that I'll get a reply to my above post, so I'll jsut say it now.

You like the game mechanics of Arena and Daggerfall. That is fine. They are complex and require some degree of intelligence to figure outbut complicated =/= deep. Many of the skills in Daggerfall are shallow at best, much of the game is pourely combat oriented. By no means does that make it a good roleplaying game. By all extents, arena and daggerfall in their gameplay were bloody terrible from an RP standpoint.

That said I have to completely shower Daggerfall's character creation in praise. It was ingenious; incredibly easy to create even the most specific character, and I was dreadfully disappointed when there was no confirmation of such a system for skyrim, especially since birthsigns were removed (I had assumed they'd go back to "advantages and disadvantages")

In conclusion, Daggerfall and Arena were likely the RPGs of your childhood They are what you know as an RPG, and because that is what you know as an RPG, doesn't make skyrim any less of a true RPG. Though I do agree that taking out in-depth character creation was a poor design choice for Skyrim, but in general in it's gameplay Skyrim will be a proper RPG.

PS. Read my signature.

Firstly, it isn't at the expense of anything, the things they took out they took out because they felt that it limited your character. The fact that they add things to make it more interesting and realistic (besides the flying dragons, but in that world, it is realistic) means that it less of an RPG? You know, I could've sworn that more lines of dialogue was better for role playing. But who am I?

Brahhhhh..........................thats deep it's like we're here one minute and the next we're not. you just blew my mind man.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbkQ4EMYfww
on a more serious note your right nothing stays the same for ever just go with the flow.

Okay, let's do this:

Define "depth". What do you mean by depth? Skyrim has perks, which add more depth than we've had in Morrowind or Oblivion, if by depth you mean level of customization.

How are "more lines of dialogue" not welcome in an RPG?

How are "flying dragons" not welcome in an RPG? Dragons have been pretty much mainstays of RPG worlds since the beginning. After all, it's called "Dungeons and Dragons", not "Dungeons".

Are attributes the definitive aspect of an RPG? Because that's what you seem to be implying. I'm not going to get into it here because I hate hate hate attribute discussions, but I will say that attributes are only a framework by which you can define a character. It is not the end-all framework, in fact it was pretty much the first one.

Yea you have to have awful combat and dice rolls to be an RPG

There were no puzzles in Arena and Daggerfall and Daggerfall barely had any character customization, at all. Arena had no factions, no customizable classes, no houses, no horses, and not even a single book. The game was a hack-and-slash dungeon crawl. The action elements couldn't have been more visible. Daggerfall had more customization, but was still a largely action-based experienced. It also had less lore than both Morrowind and Oblivion, as did Arena. Exploration is practically non-existant in Daggerfall and Arena's was ENTIRELY randomly-generated.

Morrowind lost Daggerfall's class creation system in favor of those pathetic birthsigns and changed the series completely. Exploration was practically non-existant in the first two Elder Scrolls games, and the game still had death by combat as a huge part of its world.

Oblivion had just as much killing as previous games. All it did to the combat was improve it, not make it more action-based. The quest markers and the "difficulty" you propose they eliminated (wandering across a barren ashland is not a challenge) have nothing to do with being an RPG and the problem with level-scaling was not that it kept the player caught up with the gameworld, but that it made the gameworld outrun the player. On the topic of difficulty in combat, my Morrowind character is a demi-god by level 15 and I still struggle with certain enemies in Oblivion at level 40 because of the level-scaling. If anything, level-scaling made Oblivion more difficult as far as combat went and that was its problem... that it made the game more difficult as the player character progressed. In any case, this "difficulty" has nothing to do with being an RPG or not. I've played brutal RPGs and I've played easy ones. I've played brutal action games and I've played easy ones. There is no correlation between "difficulty" and RPG elements, period. Also note that Oblivion was the first core Elder Scrolls game with any puzzles.

They lost a whooping three redundant skills and some stats in favor of perks that are limited to a certain number and make Skyrim THE MOST SPECIALIZATION-INDUCING GAME OF THE SERIES, apart from possibly Arena (due to its rigid class restrictions). We'll still have lore, can now do things such as blacksmithing and messing with economies, and merely have better action elements. Action IS and always has been a primary action of the series. The series has always been a dungeon-crawling, hack-and-slash series. These improved action elements are just that... improved action elements. The action is just as frequent as it always was, but now it's actually going to be fun. If you think an RPG is about intentionally holding back the combat elements that are already there and plentiful, but boring, than you just must not know good game design. :shrug: Also note that Skyrim will have plenty more puzzles than Oblivion and, therefore, will have plenty more puzzles than previous Bethesda games, as well.

And the MQ of DF....would you not say that was far more engrossing than MW or O? My point wasn't to start a battle, it was to point out that we are still calling games RPG's that don't fit the true defintion of an RPG. Again, MHO, I could be completely wrong. But money talks and these guys are marketing to a much wider audience than true RPG fans....I don't think anyone can deny that and I dont' think anyone can fault in Beth for doing that. I just ask that folks call it what it is.

P&P RPGs must be board games, it has dice, cards, boards, player pieces, etc..

I implore you to read my post.

In fact, I'd like to hear your definition of RPG Pisa50.