Yeah that was a bit harsh but lately I have been thinking and wondering what exactly is it that makes for a good RPG? Oblivion made for a good sandbox game but it was hardly a good RPG, you diddnt so much create a character and define who he is over the course of the game but instead you really only create an avatar with which to go through the motions and perform a bunch of actions, quests and questlines as you check off these activities on your way to 100% completion just as you would in a Saints Row game. There is nothing stopping your character from doing both the Dark Brotherhood questline and the Knights of the Nine questline on the same playthrough which would define your character as being both a ruthless and bloodthirsty assassin as well as a noble paladin that protects the innocent (2 mutually exclusive character traits that cant realistically exist in a character without a multiple personality disorder), nor is there any branching plotlines within these questlines thus not allowing you to differentiate your character from another character who does the same questline. Now I know that a lot of you at this point are dying to say "LULZ you just have to place imaginary restrictions on your character that the game neither enforces, requires or even acknowledges" but you can do this in the Saints Row games as well making them by your definition just as good a roleplaying games as Oblivion, so what does make a good roleplaying game?

Now judging by what I have seen on these forums a lot of you would say a good roleplaying game is about defining your character by writing a long background story that the game cant possibly acknowledge and boring the poor unfortunate bastards you choose to share it with, and while this may be true in an MMO or a LARP it is certainly not the case in a singleplayer game. Of course the background can be used as a guide to the sort of actions your character might perform and his or her morality but in a game like Oblivion where the only actions that are recognised are those that allow your character to progress in the various questlines this is also pointless.

Contrary to popular belief a single player roleplaying game should not be about defining your character by writing a background story before the game even begins but defining your character by the actions and choices he makes along the journey, you dont simply create a character at the start of a game but instead your forge him/her over the course of the game, your character doesnt start out as a noble paladin or ruthless assassin but depending on the choices you make over the course of the game that is what he/she can become. Dont get me wrong as I love the Elder Scrolls games however to become true roleplaying games they need to be more than just sandbox games that just give you a bunch of actions and quests to perform, there needs to be choices and consequences for your actions, no 2 characters should be alike and the world should change to reflect that, the actions of your character should leave a mark on the world and while the world of 2 different characters may start off the same they will become 2 completely different places by the end of the game.

Serious? I roleplayed a bunch in Saints Row 2 with my bud. :foodndrink:

Well, I do a ton of role-playing...

Within the world of RPGs and Action RPGs, there have been some very well-done games by developers like Bioware that allow the player to experience an epic story that is fully fleshed out, where the PC has a predefined role to play with some choices that affect the final outcome.

And on the other hand, there are developers like Bethesda that immerse the player in a wide open sandbox narrative where you are at greater liberty to define the story's arc yourself, for example, who your character is, where he comes from, which NPCs he wants to befriend or flirt with, why he does what he does and which quests and organizations he wants to join.

Neither is necessarily better than the other from an empirical perspective, but on a subjective level, some RPG fans prefer one or the other, and some enjoy both types of games.

In your personal Oblivion narrative, certainly, it could have been entirely dungeon raiding and performing empty, meaningless activities.

In my personal Oblivion narrative, there was a much more interesting story going on.

To provide some background, I have been playing Oblivion for years and I still have absolutely no idea what happens after you take Martin to Cloud Ruler Temple. In fact, during my latest playthrough, which I started at the end of 2010, I have racked up over 300 hours, without even touching the main quest or setting foot inside any Oblivion gates yet.

My personal narrative for this particular playthrough is the tragic tale of a young, naive Dunmer orphan who defends herself from the advances of a corrupt palace guard captain in Skingrad and accidentally kills the man. After she falls in with a bloodthirsty cult of assassins, she begins plotting her revenge on all those who wear the hated red garb of the Skingrad city guard. Although she has begun to master the ways of stealth, archery and poison making, this Dunmer does not even know what an Oblivion gate looks like. In her narrative, the Dark Brotherhood and the Skingrad City Guard play a much larger role than the Blades, for example.

I have been playing pen-and-paper RPGs for decades, and open sandbox games, although obviously limited by current technology, feel MUCH closer to this tradition because you can "go where you want, be who you want and do what you want," which is simply not possible in more rigidly constructed games with a pre-determined story.

The essence of RPGs is not stats, dice rolls, or branching interactive movies, not even remotely.

The essence of role playing games, going back to the grandaddy of D&D and AD&D, has always been about participating in a narrative that develops at least partly out of your choices as a player. The most fun pen-and-paper sessions in which I've participated have always involved each player taking on the role of a character in a wide open sandbox world where you can be who you want, do what you want, etc..

I agree, you're exactly right OP.

Well I guess you would agree with me when I say that Saints Row offers a roleplaying experience on par with Oblivion then? Or perhaps you are saying Saints Row 2 has a better roleplaying experience than Oblivion?

It's a point of view really. You can roleplay pretty well in either game, if you want to.

IDK what makes a good RPG, and I don't care.

RPG, to me, is just another label used by publishers and developers to market games, just as musical genres (RnR/Rap/Etc.) are used by record companies and bands to market music.

All I care about is good games, and I'm sure Skyrim will be a good game.

Good post, very well said.

For me, a good RPG is just a game I get really immersed in (ex: TES, Fallout, Mass Effect, Dragon Age).

The Roleplaying experience of a game is up to you, to a certain point.

They let you join opposing factions in Oblivion because a lot of gamers prefer to ''?lock'' a game with one character.

This does not neccesarily mean we can not roleplay a bloodthirsty killer or a holy paladin, as you can self regulate what your character would do. A mass murderer may have a change of heart and help society, and the pilgramige sort of explains this.

Games do not have the capability to fully adjust the experience based on everything you do, so unfortunately roleplayers have to do things using imagination a bit.

I would be open to branching questlines, and it wouldn't require a "Warp in the West" style explanation if it was just for the guilds.

Thank you.

I never felt immersed in Mass Effect. It was a like watching a movie. The first one was a really good movie, but not *really* an RPG in my opinion. The second was just a rubbish cash in IMO.

I get what you're talking about... I'd say Skyrim is on the threshold of what a true RPG is about. Option is power in the RPG universe. If I wanna go to a tavern, smoke my pipe and enjoy some mead, then go home and spend time with the wife and kid, I'd like that option. If I wanna be a blacksmith, make weapons/armor/etc. and then get paid for it, I'd like that option. If I wanted to go hunting, skin animals and make a profit off of it, I'd like that option... so on.

Not cool, the city of Skingrad is my favorite in Cyrodill. And their guards seem pretty nice compared to the likes of those in cheydinhal or the imperial city. Don't be hating on the good red boys of the west weald.

In response to the topic, as stated, you can choose to roleplay or not to roleplay. And in order to do so doesn't require any backstory writing (although im sure it doesn't hurt). For example, I've never written a backstory for my character before playing the game. I've simply started playing and along the way found myself shaping up to be a certain type of person. Yes you can do quest arcs that oppose eachother, but its just a choice. If a player wants to roleplay then they won't choose to do contradictory questlines...just as one chooses to fast travel or not (Zing!) it doesn't matter, its a single player game, you are given a lot of options and freedom. Play how YOU want to play. Thats roleplaying. Less restriction = more opportunities for creativity.

I am certainly very much in favor of the PC's actions having a deeper impact on the world, however, as the OP suggests.

I see no reason why some of our many playthroughs of TES 5 might not turn out wildly different from whatever it is that the dev team for TES 6 will decide was the "canon ending" of Skyrim.

No need for another Warp in the West, the devs could simply shout down from the heavens "The Canon Ending of Skyrim was X!" and leave it at that.

PC choices having a greater impact on the game world trumps fidelity to the literary canon of the next TES game any day of the week IMO

Oblivion is a so-so RPG, or maybe more accurately, a so-so sandbox in which to RP.

I create characters by coming up with some combination that I think might be interesting (maybe as simple as "Orc mage" - no more complicated than "Imperial assassin who uses conjuration and illusion"), then just taking them through the world and seeing what happens. And yes - just as you say - I believe that the heart of roleplaying is getting inside the characters' heads and figuring out who they are and what they value and believe and desire, and making decisions based solely on those things. I strive to reach the point at which the characters surprise me - when they're so fully fleshed out that it doesn't even seem any more like I'm playing the game - I'm just following along and pushing keys while they live out their lives in Cyrodiil. And yes - that doesn't come from a backstory. While I guess a backstory could help, I really don't like them myself, just because they're too rigid. Again - I want to be surprised by the character. I find that if I try to give them too much detail too early, then things end up not meshing. If I just let them go and pay attention to them over time, then the pieces start to fall into place, and they always end up more self-consistent and believeable that way.

Oblivion doesn't do a whole lot to facilitate that - there's not enough depth to the NPCs and the situations and the decisions made along the way to provide enough feedback to really define the character, but to its credit, it does little to prevent it either, at least so long as I continue to ignore the enormous smoking hulk of a city up on the hill between Skingrad and Anvil (except with the few characters who would actually choose to get involved in all of that). I've had to learn which conversations to avoid in order to avoid having to either give in to a lousy side quest or metagame a reason to not do it, and I have to make believe quite a bit about NPC attitudes and such in order to provide a richer background for the character's life, but at least, with enough understanding of the game, I've managed to work out ways to get around most of the issues and fill in most of the blanks and at least manage some fairly fulfilling roleplaying.

Is there a point to this? I've lost track of whatever point I might've had, and in looking back over the OP, I'm not sure what your point was either. That simply creating a backstory doesn't equal roleplaying? Yes - absolutely. I'd even go so far as to say it impedes it. And..... is that it?

:D

Hear Hear, I think even player actons will have a greater impact (player actions meaning non-quest related ones). For example, I hope that sabotaging saw mills won't just be for quests and that you can screw up the economy of your own accord.

I found the first much more realistic than the second.

When you got on your ship, you went through decontamination and what not, and could take off when you liked. It was awesome! But in the second, you just clicked and were instantly in space. <_<

I think Oblivion is a great RPG maybe the best i've ever played. No game has ever made me feel i was apart of a world as well as that one does. You can't get more RPG than that to me. Also the experiences people have playing it are totally different. My roommate and I are both playing through Oblivion right now and both are characters are warriors and close in level, I'm lvl 32 and he's lvl 30. But the things we've done and are experiences in the game aren't similar at all. From the quests we've done, to the guilds we've joined, to the different random things that have happened to us in the game. Plus are characters are also very different too, we use different weapons and have built up different skills. Even our worlds are different as my in littered with the remains of dozens of Oblivion games i've closed while i don't think he's even touched the main quest yet. Seems that Oblivion does meet your criteria for a RPG after all. Cause you really can play the game any way you want and the game itself will reflect that.

Saints Row is going to be fun just because of the online co-op and how you can bring a friend into your story at anytime.

TES Skyrim is going to be fun, for the character building, story, and adventure.

I'm picking up both games, and going to have fun. :foodndrink:

I loved Mass Effect 1 and 2... I'm not a fan of Saints Row at all, and haven't even played it... Just what it's about... But, you can honestly role play in any game, to an extent. But the Elder Scrolls series offer such a wide breadth of possibilities and such a huge, interactive world that it's extremely hard to even rival....

Good post

I agree with this, quite a bit :foodndrink:. The Elder Scrolls universe is so rich to an extent that it may not even be comparable to any other game, and the lore rivals that of many fantasy worlds that exist in literature.

The lore is the deepest I've ever seen, in any fantasy universe.

The only rivals (in the video game world) would be Dragon Age or Mass Effect (maybe Fallout), but even they don't come close.