I don't have the luxury of saying I was ever much of a PC player.
I played basically only Unreal Tournament on the computer. Otherwise it was always more of my brothers domain.
Console gaming has been my domain.
Now here's my opinion and you probably won't agree with me.
I feel that RPGs are evolving to be a more user-friendly type of thing, taking away all the tedious things in a RPG, but those tedious things are what define the genre.
I feel taking the user friendly approach is a bad thing to the core RPGers, but to everyone else who didn't always play RPGs the way they are supposed to be played, it's a good thing. I never really was into RPGs, so I like the change. It's called mainstream for a reason.. more people will like it so more people will buy the product. This is not a GOOD thing, but it isn't a BAD thing either. At the end of the article I voted I'm not sure because I don't know what to think of RPGs right now. All I can really ask for is a good game and I'll be happy.

Good Article although I got my own opinions on this matter. RPG's aren't dying by any means, In fact in my opinion they are the best games in the industry. Shooters will get more money but they get old after a while and don't have as much replay value as RPG's do. Here's why I think that RPG's will get better over time, What Developers should do with their games, etc.

1. 3 years minimum for Development. This point can't be argued under any circumstances. RPG's need 3 years development minimum for it to be good. The Mass Effects are the exception but still the extra year can't hurt it. Also look at Bethesda Game Studios, 5 and a half years of development for Skyrim including 2 years on the Dragons. Hello what other Developer has the patience to make one part of their game for 2 years. Starcraft 2 is another example although that's not an RPG and is disqualified from discussion.

2. Don't Screw your Fans over espcially your hardcoe Fans. This is something that EA is probably regretting and definitely Bioware. You don't screw over your hardcoe fan base or your fan base period. Did Morrowind Fans throw Oblivion in the garbage because of the changes to the game, no they didn't throw it away they liked the game. Will Oblivion Fans throw their Skyrim copies into the garbage, no they won't either because all 3 games keep the same hardcoe elements of the game. Character Customization, The ability to do what you want, Great Gameplay, etc. Bioware and EA could've did something similar for Dragon Age 2 like they did with Origins but they didn't and the legacy of that company will be damaged in the long run because they screwed over their fans. Skyrim will be a sure lock for GOTY for this year and a definite contender for GOAT (Greatest Of All Time if your wondering).

3. If the Game needs to be delayed then do it. This point is simple if the game has Bugs, Glitches, or Gamebreaking Bugs/Glitches then you don't turn the game gold you fix the Bugs/Glitches that way the Developers won't need to worry about a patch and can focus on that vacation in South Beach or where ever they go on vacation. Deadline for Games needs to go. Also if it takes 3 to 6 months to fix the Bugs/Glitches then you do it and delay the game no matter what. That is also directed at BGS if you have bugs/Glitches including Gamebreaking ones in Skyrim then you delay it. The product and the company will be better in the long run if that is done but only if that situation occurs which I've got a gut feeling that Skyrim will come out on time 11-11-11.

4. Don't take shortcuts when making the game. If a game is made you don't take shortcuts. If it takes you an extra couple of hours or days to get a section right then you do it. You can't get GOTY if you take shortcuts and you certainly won't get GOAT consideration. Rome wasn't built in a day and if it was I'll bet that I could throw a rock at the wall and that rock would destroy the wall.

5. The Final Fantasy Model is bad for RPG's. It's simple Final Fantasys are great at telling you a story and have decent gameplay but that's it. Those games don't have Character Creation, 1st person view of thinking (Meaning Silent Protagonist), no choices or consequences and Linear Storyline. Bioware tries to do the best of both but they never can succeed in that development. The closest they've gotten is Dragon Age Origins and look at what Bioware did to the sequel, they butchered it.

The Silent Protagonist with Character Customization/Create A Character is the way to go for RPG's. I don't know why people haven't copied Oblivion and Bethesda Game Studios way of developing games and no Two Worlds doesn't count you can't create a character in that game. Kingdoms Of Amular Reckoning will be one to watch I think those guys get it as to what you should try with an RPG. Although I still have reservations on that game and will need to see it in action before I commit to it.

6. If developers can do the points given above, then their game can possibly win GOTY and they could be a GOAT as well.

7. This is my last point and it needs to be said "Todd Howard is God" Thread/

It seems like everyone griping about RPGs "going downhill" are always complaining about how there are fewer quests now, less in-depth customization, etc etc. Here's my problem with these arguments: none of them address the issue of WHY these features are being removed. Sure, they all say they're being removed to "dumb down" the game for mainstream audience, but that's simply untrue. Adding voice overs is not "dumbing down" a game. Rather, adding voice overs moves the game forward to more realism.

In the same way, many of the things being removed as customization options were useless anyway. They've taken out skills and abilities no one used or wanted. They've rolled other skills into different categories to cut down on the categories without cutting down on the skills. This, also, is not "dumbing down" the game.

There are fewer quests because there is less room on the disk for quests when it has to take up other files. Files like graphics. Files like voice overs. Honestly, if we really want to go back so far why are these people advocating for just going back 5-10 years? Why are we even talking about computer games or video games at all? Why are we not throwing dice and playing dungeons and dragons? There were more choices there than any computer game. Why? Because your imagination was the game engine. You didn't need a disk, just a brain.

My point is this: people should stop complaining about progress. We have better graphics, better gameplay (if shorter gameplay), and we've included voice overs. Now we're even getting the player character to have a voice in some games (Mass Effect 1&2 and Dragon Age 2). It will not be feasible in the near future to give all player characters a voice, just when there is only one race that can be played. Does this cut down on roleplay? Possibly. But I doubt games like Skyrim where you can pick from several races will ever restrict you to only one.

Progress is good. Going back in the past is bad. Regardless, the games will continue to progress whether some people want old games or not, they aren't coming back. Why? Because not enough people will buy them to justify the cost of making them. And why would they? I doubt there is a single person arguing for this "old game" style of RPG who would actually buy an RPG from a developer they've never heard of releasing a game nowadays that is dated 10 years old at release. If there are any people willing to do that, I doubt it's many.

Most people who want to go back in time really just miss their old games they liked a lot and want that same excitement again. They don't want a brand new game that they have no connection to that's just 10 years old. Games are moving forward, gentlemen (and gentlewomen), either buy them or don't, but they aren't going backwards. Evolution is a one way street - the same for games as for living creatures.

My main concern, as a physically disabled gamer, is that RPGs always used to be based upon the skill of your character (to unlock the story, which should be engaging), rather than the skill of the player. I have dreadful co-ordination IRL, but I have always been able to play 'dice roll' RPGs - because it depended upon building up my character's skill, rather than my own. This to me is the defining factor of what should make an RPG different from other genres - if my character is good at shooting or archery or swordplay or magic, it shouldn't matter whether I am able to press buttons in the right combination to pull off some killer move. In that way it provides a level of escapism that games based on player skill cannot provide for me. I want to be able to play the hero (or villain!) and get my ￡40 worth of game and be able to play through the whole story despite not being able to hit a barn door with a banjo in real life. There are plenty of other genres where player skill and quick reflexes are important, those who want that can go play those, they don't need to take that aspect of the games I like away so that they can have even more games to play leaving me with none!

So games that place importance on player skill rather than character skill are IMO moving away from the RPG ethos - it makes little difference whether I play a character with a background I have made up, or whether I play a character who already has a name and pre-determined background (I loved Geralt in The Witcher, and I am looking forward to TW2, it makes little difference to me whether I am playing the role I decide, or putting myself into the role of another character and acting as if I were them - either can be described as role-playing! Having said that, I would be deeply disappointed if TES went in that direction, but that's not the make or break factor for me in other games) but it's whether the skills my character earns in game, by whatever level-gaining mechanic, make a difference to the gameplay that counts. If I cannot pick a lock because my character's skill is poor, then fair enough - but if I cannot pick a lock even though my character's skill is high, but I don't have the manual dexterity to play the requisite "mini-game" - then that is not role playing, when the character's skill development no longer means anything.

Same with me. If you can create your own character and the game allows for that character to act good or evil, or whatever they are...if the game allows the character the player comes up with to be themselves then its an rpg.

Everything else is just fluff to make the game more fun and unique.

Also, it might be a good idea to define exactly wha "mainstream" is. because, like it or not, a certain way of "dumbing down" games, isn't mainstream. People don't suddenly buy a game because they say "oh look, SIMPLE!"
They buy a game that's solid and fun. but more importantly, most people buy a game about a setting that they like, and adapt to the game (that's how I got started in RPGS. liked swords and fantasy settings, so I picked up Final Fantasy 7... Then Morrowind a few years later)
the "mainstream" people aren't dumber, they don't like worse games.
The problem that there is with appealing to a huge crowd is more one about publicity. If I never saw Morrowind at my friend's house, I'd have never bought it. Not because it was a "niche" game, but because I saw NOTHING about it, no one talking about it, no posters anywhere, no ads on TV. Not to mention that the internet was much more of a rich's man thing than it is now. So I had never heard of it.
Now say Fable (the first). There were announcements almost everywhere, and almost every magazine had an article on it when it just came out. not to mention the deals at game rental stores. THAT'S how you get a game known. And that's what Bioware (EA's slave now) doesn't get.

Skyrim doesn't need to dumb things down, as TES is now a quite well known series. And they didn't dumb it down either (from what we know). Yes, they changed a few things, but when you think about it, they're not going to hold us to tight by the hand that our hand ends up breaking.

Just read the Article. They lost their point around the Elder Scrolls part.
I believe the Elder Scrolls has done the best for Roleplaying of all games. I actually found Oblivion to be easier to role-play in than Morrowind.
When they said that Skyrims classless system would remove the role-play from TES series. I had to disagree. Classes are always so restricting to your character(forcing you to play your character a certain way), and always make you Meta-Game(as my D&D group calls it).

So, by allowing you to choose your class, or to design your very own, you were forced to play a certain way? Interesting.

well, in OB, if you wanted to level up, you HAD to absolutely use those major skills, and you couldn't choose how many you wanted.
The way it's done in Skyrim, you get to choose exactly how many skills you really use. so there won't be anymore situations like these "ok, so... Blunt, Heavy Armor, Block... mmm... I don't really think I'll use anything else... mmm... Persuasion for easy levels, Blade (never gonna use it), restoration (weird, for a pure warrior) and... erm... hand to hand, yeah"

In Skyrim, you go "ok, so, a sword, a shield, and an armor. I got it all"
Yes, it's more simple, but simple =/= bad. useless = bad

Many RPG's are tailoring the game to be more popular with the FPS crowd. i agree with almost everything said in that article. Literally, my definition for RPG has become- "Bethesda". Everyone else sacrifices too much for sales. The thing I don't agree with is that Skyrim is no longer considered RPG (they didn't state that as a fact but the question was proposed). I think that the removal of the class system, although different, does define it further as RPG. Yes, many people will just hit the middle and get a bit of each class- but its their choice (emphasis on CHOICE). I can choose to finish an FPS only using melee attacks. Does that make it First Person Melee? No.
Long story short, for me- Bethesda has and always will be what I think of as RPG.

Everybody has done en excellent job of pointing out what a RPG is not (ME3...DA2... apparently) but I can't seem to find any consensus on what a RPG truly is. In our struggle to disown what we deem to be the "dumbing down" of RPGs we lose the very purpose for why we even play role playing games. In my opinion, it doesn't matter whether they've removed this or that, or made the game more accessible, it's whether they've allowed us to fulfill a role that is exciting, fun, and rewarding. True role playing begins to die the death of a thousand qualifications when we decide to cast out a game just because it's more accessible.

I sincerely doubt that any of the existing franchises will ever really challenge us again. They simply can't - they have too much at stake to gamble on a complex and challenging game that might only appeal to one portion of the gaming market.

I hope, and might even go so far as to predict, that some independent and relatively unknown group of devs will take advantage of the latest technology to throw together a decent and workable game engine, then invest all the rest of their time and effort into creating a truly astonishing game, full of intricacies and novelty and risk and reward - something, ironically, like Daggerfall was back in its day.

There is still a market for such a thing - it's just a market that can't be well served by enormous companies producing long-running franchises.

Have you given up on Skyrim this early in the game? It hasn't even been released yet.....I fully believe that Skyrim could be "a truly asonishing game, full of intricacies and novelty and risk and reward - something, ironically, like Daggerfall was back in its day".

Thats what I meant about Oblivion easier to play in. But games like Dragon Age, Neverwinter Nights, Dungeons and Dragons, they restrict you heavily. You are bound to your class.

If I began my Neverwinter Nights(for those who don't know, it was the Dragon Age before dragon age, developed by Bioware) as an evil assassin, but then suddenly had a life changing experience and sot out to become a paladin, well that could never happen because I choose Neutral Evil as my alignment and Assassin as my class.

When I design a character, I give him Traits not skills. He is heroic, selfless, full of compassion, and uses whatever weapon to crush evil doers, hes not a Blade, Block and Heavy Armour.

One interesting thing about this thread is seeing all the different definitions of "RPG" people have.


I can certainly say that, for some people, 90% of the "RPGs" released in the past 30 years weren't "RPGs".



(If you think about it, most of the games in the late 70s/early 80s were just combat games - yeah, you picked classes for your party, killed monsters/got gear/pursued quests.... but it was all combat. No choices, no "role" to play besides "guys who beat up monsters and save world/clear dungeon/etc". Some of the games had stories, but they were basically linear - the pre-Avatar Ultimas, the Bard's Tale games, the SSI Gold Box D&D games..... and many of those are considered the beginning of the genre and great games.)




...thinking about Bioware games. Choice of class & six is all you get in most of them, as I recall. KotoR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect..... and you're the character that fits the plotline. Sure, you can go evil or good with choices along the way, but the story is still there. Not trying to defend that DA2 is a great game (I've heard enough bad things in reviews; and it was clearly rushed out), but "you're Hawke, all you can pick is six & class" isn't some new "dumbing down". You're Revan-with-amnesia, you're the Exile, you're the last Spirit Monk, you're Commander Sheppard... pick a six & class.

I think the only true RPG I have ever played was when I was little and I was just playing made up adventure games with my friend. We didn't have a plot, we made up characters as we went along, and it was awesome. We kept it fair and we kept it realistic. You can't put role playing like that on a disc, and eventually we have to accept that. The best we can hope for is to keep it as open and fluid as possible.

Are RPGs evolving? Yes.
Are RPGs dying? Far from it.

I can tell you this.

Removing features like Spell Making, dumbing down character creation instead of improving on it, and making consoles the lead platform for game development will inevitably destroy the RPG genre. PC is the forerunner for all gaming consoles, and the platform should be acknowledged as such during multi-platform development.

I'd say there's absolutely no chance of that. I haven't "given up" on Skyrim - I expect it'll be entertaining and diverting and I certainly intend to buy it (although after they've patched it into playability and hopefully after they've bundled it with the sure-to-follow DLC). But I don't think for a second that it will be intricate or novel. It can't be. Beth has too many salaries to pay. They can't gamble on something out of the ordinary that might flop. It has to have guaranteed mass-market appeal. It'll have just enough novelty to it to hopefully limit the outrage of the long-time fans, and that's it.

Software works just like movies in that sense. Enormous, established companies almost never gamble on quirky, original things. They have to be certain that they're going to get a return on their considerable investment. The only companies that can take gambles like that are ones on the fringes - ones made up of a handful of hungry and creative talents who not only can afford to gamble on something startlingly original, but have little choice but to do just that, since they can't even begin to compete with the big companies on their own established and well-defined turf.

I cant believe native speakers of the english language dont know what streamlining is, and how it dos not mean simplifying.

Its funny how people say Morrowind was "complex", which it was in terms of gameplay; but in terms of RPG mechanics, it was pretty broken. Making it easy for me to exploit and break the game is not what I consoder complex. And fixing a broken system (based on a hell of a good idea), like they seem to be trying to do in Skyrim, is not my definition of "dumbing down".

As a side note, I liked DA 2, even though I recognize they made a few bad decisions with the combat design , which is fine: Bioware has been releasing uber amazing games for over ten years. About time they "screwed up". But, so what? I play games cuz I likethem and how they make me feel, not because I want to gloat about how " cool" I am cuz "I play games people that play Halo cant get into".

Two words: GROW UP!

We asked for this. We wanted all the skills to matter in level ups.. we asked for higher skills to matter more. We wanted class to mean more then just a label on char creation...

Now your ..class.. is the perks you chose along the way. Is that dumbing down or more complex... Id say alot more complex. No more cardboard box with your label in crayon on it I R MAGE....

THAT was dumb. THAT was mainstream.

Birthsigns... only 2 elder scrolls had them... frankly they svcked.

In my view this is a very different and better start.

I am just a commoner. Before all my choices made me whatever I become. I am truely at the start of my adventure for the first time ever in an elder scrolls game. And I like it.

Planescape, probably one of the best RPGs ever, and a pioneer of the genre, had you playing a predetermined character. So please, dont be a fool in public.

Well, in my opinion, i don't think RPGs are dying, i think they just discontinue with working with RPGs and make a different type of game genre. I saw a few people mention that they don't really consider "Dragon Age" and "Mass Effect" RPGs anymore, im going to have to agree with them on that.

But as for skyrim, is yet to come, TES is the best RPG series out there and i think TES is evolving with their RPGs.

• anyone comparing Bethesda's games with Bioware's games or Black Isle's games or anything that isn't ULTIMA UNDERWORLD and MIGHT AND MAGIC is an idiot. Bethesda's games have never had heavily-abstracted combat or focused heavily on anything beyond killing and exploring and interacting with the world. even your precious Morrowind was 80% dungeon-crawling.
  
• "streamlining" doesn't mean anything.
  
• "console gamers" are no worse than "PC gamers" and anyone who says otherwise is an elitist moron.
  
• anyone who thinks any genre is "dying" just because it's wildly different now from what it was twenty years ago (or mildly different from their favorite game as a kid) is an ignorant luddite.

genres don't "die". genres cannot "die". people say "adventure games are dead" and conveniently ignore games like Hotel Dusk and Penumbra, which are exactly the same as your typical Sierra or LucasArts point-and-click, but from a different perspective and with a new coat of paint.

the problem with this ENTIRE ARGUMENT is that "RPG" DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING ON ITS OWN. if somebody asks you what x game is and you say "it's a first-person shooter" they'll know it's first-person and you shoot things. if they ask you what y game is and you say "it's a platformer" they'll know it involves platforms and jumping between them.

if they ask you what z game is and you say "it's an RPG", they'll ask you, "what kind of RPG?"

lumping The Elder Scrolls with Dragon Age shows a remarkable degree of ignorance about the topic of RPGs. [censored], even lumping Mass Effect with Dragon Age is stupid. if you're going to compare games, compare them with games that are actually similar. compare The Elder Scrolls with Gothic, or Mass Effect with Deus Ex, or Dragon Age with Neverwinter Nights. would you compare Fallout with Might and Magic? Baldur's Gate with Jagged Alliance?

Signed up just to toss in my 2 cents here. Been a long running fan of TES, but never joined one of their forums.

I am also a huge Bioware fan. I have been playing TES since Daggerfall, and have been playing Bioware games since Baldurs Gate. I personally think that Skyrim will retain its RPG status, but that is based on what little we know atm. I really get the impression that Todd Howard would fight tooth and nail before taking the RPG out of TES.

With Bioware I am puzzled. Until DA2 I had very little to complain about, and really loved all their games (including Jade Empire). Many hated ME2 and the removing of certain RPG elements, but I thought it fit the style of game they were going for. ME was a 3rd person shooter at its core, and making it more fun as a 3rd person shooter was good for it.

However, DAO was a tactical strategy/RPG, and reducing its focus there hurt DA2. DA2 also had a very odd story. I know it was a frame narrative, but i didn't know what the heck was going on till I finished the game. It felt like 3 little stories that were tied together loosely in the end.

The encounters were very uninspired because it was simply 8 baddies spawn, and once you kill about 5-6 of them, 5 more baddies spawn... so on and so forth. In most Bioware games I enjoy dialogue as much as the combat, and that gives their games good pacing, but with DA2 I was kinda bored when I wasn't in dialogue.

They hindered companion interaction by putting them in different locations in Kirkwall. So in order to talk to your companions you gotta go to their house, tavern, hideout, etc. You can't talk to them while they are in your party. Which is STUPID. IF I have Anders in my party why do I have to go to his emergency room hideout with him to have a ****ing conversation? It makes no sense.

I laughed when I realized they were using the cookie cutter dungeon method they were using cuz it was a concept that many people bashed with ME1. People don't wanna go into the same 4 dungeons over and over even if you give a slightly different path for them to travel down.

All in all DA2 was rushed, and suffered from not knowing what it wanted to be. Was it a tactical RPG or was it an action game? The way they made it it was a horrible tactical RPG, and a very terrible action game.

I am what many would call a Bioware really devoted fan, but not even I can overlook the terribad game that is DA2. DA2 is easily the WORST Bioware game to ever be released.

If Bioware wants an action game to get the COD crowd they should create an IP for it, and not destroy their current IPs. I hope Bioware realizes their issue here, and that they don't make the same mistakes with ME3 or SWTOR. If they cut corners or take the RPG outta their games much more they will just be a subpar action game company that has some good writers.

This being said I think there will always be RPGs, but they will evolve, de-evolve, and evolve again over time. There will be some constants within the industry, but most companies will follow trends that lead to $$$. Then some companies, like Bethesda, are in a position to make their games how they want and make money regardless.