You don't create a character in Skyrim, you pick a character. In Total War, I pick a faction. Just because there isn't a gender or appearance window doesn't mean there's a meaningful difference.

Even if we assume that there actually is character customization in Skyrim's character creation that does not exist in Total War, the existence of a single RPG element in Skyrim's creation system does not immediately make Skyrim an RPG where Total War is not. There are many RPGs (mostly computer ones) that start you as a preset character and offer less choice than either Skyrim or Total War. Those games are still RPGs despite having no actual character creation at all.

It has marriage system.
It has guilds that you can donate and support for rewards.
Combat is WAYYY better.
Other NPCs actually function on their own with each other through both hostility and peace.

Oh and here is the most awesome feature that even Skyrim is missing.

Your actions and status change your reputation among factions which actually change how they deal with you.

Plenty to roleplay off of!

And don't forget, you are the GM! Only your creativity and imagination is limiting the roleplay potential of TW games.

Nope, you create a character in every ES. In Skyrim its more of an ongoing thing since Beth wanted to dumb down creation for people that wanted to dabble, as oppose to commit to a class, role, archetype etc. In TW you don't. Fact, and end of discussion.

It has more strategy than it will ever have RPG mechanics. TW is a strategy game. Fact. And, end of discussion.

You guys are kind of missing their point. Their point is not that Total War is an RPG (it isin't) but that, according to the ''but you are your own GM!!'' arguments presented in this thread, they are very similar in terms of mechanics and in term of the player's investment in the world. Total War has RPG elements (lots of them, even) but I would hesitate to call it a RPG. You may decide a lot of things, but ultimately it's the available units and player skill that matter much more than the decisions the player makes in-story. Like in Skyrim; yes you decide if you are a mage, an archer or a warrior. But in-story, you can't make many decisions. Most ''choices'' in TES are basically do it or don't. That's not a choice, that's being either apathic or blindly jumping in something that doesn't concern you. Seldom are you given a reason for doing things, you can almost never expose why your character does this. Why can my pure warrior become arch-mage? Yes, I can decide not to do it. But the simple fact I can do it is already bad; I should not be even able to become an Arch-Mage unless I am very skilled in magic. There are dozens of similar situations in Skyrim. Sure, I can make up reasons in my head. But in-story, those reasons do not exist. And RPGs are about the player's decisions influencing the story above all else. I simply cannot influence the story in Skyrim as much as I can in TW2, Dragon Age, ect. For most quests, anyhow, there are exceptions and I am pleased they exist. But the majority of the game still follows a model I am not confortable with.

This is no different than the faction differences in Total War.

Can you chose your character's (Not faction, Character) skills and equipment, and control him directly? If not, it fails to match the definition of RPG.

The numbers aren't just there for show on the menu though. They're there for gameplay purposes, to make the game about the character, not about you.

The outcome of combat should largely be determined by your character's abilities, not by the player's skill. Choices and actions should have an impact on the character and their interactions with the gameworld, etc.

Playing as a character like John Marston in an action-adventure game like RDR and being told a story =/= an RPG. Sure, you can imagine you're John Marston, and by literal definition you are technically roleplaying... but the game is not an RPG.

The difference is Character versus Faction.

Yes, Strategy games have RPG mechanics. However, in order to be an RPG, said Strategy Game must narrow the player's focus to a single unit.

Can you chose your character's (Not faction, Character) skills and equipment, and control him directly? If not, it fails to match the definition of RPG.

Actually it's a different type of RPG. You're talking about the roll-type RPG, but I would argue that the game is more of an action RPG. I don't think it's not an RPG if I can't hit a mudcrab in front of me. It becomes an RPG when I start making decisions based on what the character would do. I don't do that with shooters, nor do you do that with Final Fantasys. In fact I would argue that FF as a series is NOT an RPG even though you have lots of stats. You're Cloud Strife, and no matter what you role play with Cloud, he still acts the same and the game responds in kind. He always falls in love with Aerith who I thought was the worst possible character in the game. You have lots of stats and your magic skills decide what kinds of spells you can cast, but you aren't playing a role.

Can you chose your character's (Not faction, Character) skills and equipment, and control him directly? If not, it fails to match the definition of RPG.

If TW is an RPG, then so are a lot of modern sports games.

If TW is an RPG, then so are a lot of modern sports games.

In Shogun 2, your generals and agents have rudimentary talent tree with three slots for advisers/items in singleplayer. Online it's more extensive.

However, none of those generals or agents are the "player Character" - Just customization hero units, which are a long-standing part of Wargaming.

That said, Total War and most modern sports games are RTS/RPG hybrids. So is Warlords Battlecry... which I DO consider a Full RPG and Full RTS, especially the third one.

However, none of those generals or agents are the "player Character" - Just customization hero units, which are a long-standing part of Wargaming.

That said, Total War and most modern sports games are RTS/RPG hybrids. So is Warlords Battlecry... which I DO consider a Full RPG and Full RTS, especially the third one.

The following are my thoughts I posted in another thread. I am not addressing anyone in this thread when referring to "you" and that's just a leftover from the fact that my posts were responses, so please ignore those:

They are not these redundant "numbers and statistics" as you refer to them, they are actual gameplay mechanics which allow for a more meticulous fleshing out of your character. The gameworld responding to your status is not some inexplicably redundant number or statistic. The actual factions with actual substance making them feel like factions are not inexplicably redundant numbers or statistics. The scope of the world, the maturity with which it presents itself, the seasons, the holidays, the plot choices, the reputation of your character with a certain class or faction or region which in turn affect the opportunities and respect they present to you... these things are not inexplicably redundant numbers. The subtle and detailed, yet ignorable, backstory shaped by your choices within the character creation, the complexity and choices presented in the character creation system which allows for so many possibilities of character, the politics and faction conflicts and alliances... these are meaningful. One thing Daggerfall doesn't do is have a whole lot of wildlife for being a hunter, but that alone does not make role-playing in Skyrim anywhere near as valid as in Daggerfall. What can you do in Skyrim, just kill bears and sell their pelts? Wow, what role-playing. [/sarcasm]

No, Skyrim offers no recognition, no reaction, and no tools to do much beyond decide you want to wear heavy armor and swing swords. The factions are pure garbage... irrelevant, pointless garbage Bethesda clearly tossed in at the last second. If you're content with simply hunting down wild things and selling their hides in Skyrim, so be it, but in regards to nearly anything else... to trying to role-play a scholar, a knight of the scarab, a noble pawn, an assassin, a militant warrior-priest of Akatosh, friend of the necromancers, subject of the royal court of Sentinel, etc., Skyrim cannot compete. These "numbers and statistics" you've labeled as pointless with absolutely no explanation other than stating the obvious of being able to kill wild things and sell their hides in Skyrim make the world more believable, play on variations of character design, and make any specific playstyle more palpable, more tangible, and more respected or reviled within the gameworld. Skyrim is shallow. I'm not sure who thought this trend of arithmophobia provided an adequate job of striking down the old and promoting the new or was a valid response, but it's not.

Cut out the numbers and statistics which provide the necessary backbone for reputation... Skyrim has no reputation, and that's a good thing? Cut out the numbers and statistics forming the backbone of a holiday and season system... Skyrim has none and nothing to replace it, and that's a good thing? Cut out the numbers and statistics of factions and prerequisites/quota for position within that faction... we have barely any factions and those we do have are incredibly shallow and tacked on in Skyrim, and that's a good thing? Cut out the numbers and statistics behind the system of spell customization... Skyrim has no spell customization, and that's a good thing? You've not explained anything and your justification for... shallowness is inept at conveying any proper justification at all. In essence, you've said nothing other than "numbers bad, Skyrim has fewer, Skyrim good". You say this makes Skyrim feel more real, inexplicably, but fail to realize at just how "real", or rather unreal, Skyrim really is because it has no holidays, no reputations, no factions, no scope/size, no political machinations, little depth and customization to make one feel a part of the gameworld, etc. The only things more "real" about Skyrim are the graphics and the combat. Without the numbers and statistics apologists so strongly and unjustifiably seem to fear, there would be nothing to separate TES from another sandbox game such as Red Dead Redemption or Just Cause 2... perhaps code for the game itself wouldn't exist. You need "numbers and statistics" in an RPG.

Well, I think Skyrim is an RPG, just not much of one when compared to its predecessors. It's really not that narrow of a definition I have. I love JRPGs (Dragon Quest VIII is my favorite) , I love Baldur's Gate, I love TES. Within the context of TES series, Skyrim is exceedingly simple and lacking many of the role-playing mechanics of its predecessors. I do consider it an RPG, just a very lacking, very shallow one. JRPGs get away with what they do because they often, as is expected of the sub-genre, have brilliant storytelling and characterization. Baldur's Gate and KotOR get off on the same line, but sacrifice a bit of story for a bit more choice. TES has traditionally sacrificed nearly all characterization and brilliant storytelling for freedom and choice, yet I feel Skyrim is severely lacking both. As you mentioned, the questline stories are quite weak. At the same time, there also isn't much actually going on with factions, their influence, and any incentive to actually join them. This is the problem I find. My definition of an RPG of some sort involves some form of character progression, be it via story, characterization, or customization with progressing stats being a given below those three. Skyrim has basic stat progression and creation tools, so yes, one can choose their race and choose what type of "class", if you will, they wish to be and so I consider it an RPG, but the RPG mechanics practically end right there.

Skyrim lacks any meaningful characterization progression, it lacks story, it lacks worldly progression, and it lacks much of the customization aspect. The customization aspect, particularly, was the saving grace done so well by, say, Daggerfall that propels it to the forefront of a good WRPG, in my opinion. Skyrim... has a lot of dungeon-diving and simplistic progression mechanics, but very little substance or meaning to its "factions" (not sure how an incredibly short, poorly explained questline constitutes a faction), very little to its overarching plot, very little quest choice, little customization beyond the basic skill/perk choosing and progression mechanics (basically, Skyrim's progression mechanics are no more advanced than Dead Island's perk-based system and that's not a whole lot of depth), and a generally lacking feeling. It lacks choice and consequence and it lacks progression or realization of the world and its inhabitants to your actions. It's an RPG, but seeing as it doesn't really do much in excelling in actual RPG mechanics, it's a very bare one at that. Basically, no matter what you do in Skyrim, nobody and nothing around you will take notice and nothing changes other than a new dragon shout to use, a shiny new sword, and a little more gold in your pocket. Bethesda have officially reverted to the simplistic-level RPG mechanics of TES I: Arena and that's what the series' growth and then fall as an RPG series over the course of 17 years has left us... back at little more than a hack-and-slash dungeon crawler with RPG progression. Of course, other aspects of Skyrim are far improved over those of Arena, but as an RPG, Skyrim is shockingly quite lacking. It certainly isn't the "ultimate open-ended fantasy RPG" as described by a certain Bethesda employee. At this point, all Bethesda needs to do is cut out the perks and finish merging the armor pieces and voila, TES VI is just a sandbox dungeon crawler.

Everybody always ignores the good posts. :sadvaultboy:

And I use the definition of Role-playing game as it comes from the Strategy genre: You are playing the role of a single hero character in a Wargame setting. Even if the story and character is completely railroaded, you have to play in a manner that allows you to achieve your objective with the unit you are given. The system for increasing your character's combat ability (And, by extension, ability to achieve his goal) and Strategy-game-like tactical management of your character's actions are what make Final Fantasy an RPG. Except it kind of fails at the "One Person" part - it might be better when playing JRPGs to toss the controller to your friend on his turn.

Lets dissect this, shall we?

RPG -> R.P.G. (acronym) -> Role Playing Game
| | |
You play as a role | |
You are playing |
A game

Yup. An RPG.