Stopped reading after you called crap a sub-category of RPG....

If only, will play tonight though.

That post only proves what you think makes an rpg though.

To me skyrim is an rpg, but the fact that many other games from diffrent genres surpass its rpg elements it is disapointing, even if you were to argue charactor creation a complete goof game like saints3 has it beaten badly.

I know i keep making the saints refrence but it is fitting especially when the game isn't even trying to be serious, choices make a rather large diffrence to the landscape aswell as characters/story aswell.

Here's the point getting constantly glossed over:

Who actually manages the roleplaying experience?
The game master or dungeon master, that it who. It is -their- responsibility to create the playing field (or modify a pre-existing field to suit), =and to create a compelling story that will keep the gamers involved=. That is what quite a lot of us 'old school' types re trying to get across to the young whippersnappers. gamesas's ability to provide that coherent story had been decaying on a depressingly consistent trend since Morrowind came out. Oblivion's story was pretty weak; Skyrim's story is fractured and disassociated. And no Virginia, it is -not- supposed to be like that. The whole idea is that there is a world that is not this world, that you are in. It continues on after you quit playing. But while you =do= play, it is supposed to react and change as you act.

That does not happen in Skyrim. As Dovahkin (the first of the 4th age, and the first of Dragon blood since Uriel Septim VII was shanked in Oblivion and illegitimate Martin Septim became a dragon statue) your simple existance should be shaking the world and its structures; political. Military. Magical. Then toss the return of dragons into the mix. You -should- be having events like the firebombing of London and Dresden. These dragons were once masters of all; they got deposed. Why aren't at least some of them out for revenge? Why (as I pointed out elsewhere) are both Ulfric Stormcloak and General Tullius ignoring the political effect having you on their side would be.....and the danger of you picking the other side? And why is neither of them concerned about having so powerful a single living thing wandering around out there? Get it? There is no coherence in the events playing out around you, and your presence is strictly optional.

Freedom to do what you want is supposed to be a hallmark of TES. But the lack of consequences and the frankly piss-poor shadow you cast in the world is a classic example of poor writing, and weak roleplaying mechanics implementation. Remember all the hype? Almost none of it concerned gameplay; just vague promises that the graphics, despite being tied to a decade old version of direct X and equally old GPU architecture, would somehow magically melt your eyes. Nothing about real game playing. Sure, the visuals are good for what they are. The world lighting scraqes though. But the story is no story. There are rules in =making= a story, and those have been tossed to give you the illusion of free choice (no consequences, no difference in choice).

There is supposed to be at least a backbone; all we have are disconnected vertebra. It's great if you want to go the hack & slash and kill them all route......not so much if you actually want to roleplay. Which does, btw, involve you getting slapped across the continent at times. Losing. Making a choice that makes your life harder. Making the right choice....with the information you have. Only to find out that you were played, and the choice you made was the worst that could happen.

Yes, I know that we are stuck with it until either gamesas quits pandering to the most limited hardware, or M$ gets off its butt and fields that new game system that =might= have some power to use. Or until it becomes obvious that they are -not- going to do it, and PC gaming takes off like a scalded cat once again. But those of us who actually remember the heyday of gaming, when creativity and risk taking were rewarded, are not going to 'well, its good for whats out there, so we'll shut up now'. TES has fallen into the same trap that FPS did a decade ago; they are associating bling with gameplay. Not the same at all.

I think most of the confusion stems from the movie industry influencing the video gaming industry.

Look at post #58 in this thread:

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1313383-greatest-rpg-game-poll/

It is also the reason why Morrowind is winning the best RPG game from that poll. Yes, I guess a lot of studios haven't woken up yet.

Skyrim is an RPG, obviously, but an essential part of an RPG is decision-making, and in that sense the game lacks some vital options for the player to be able to make more decisions after some conversations.

Fallout 3 New Vegas is a great example of a game which is great in that regard. The quests change because of your decisions, you have a great influence in what happens, not just a yes or no.

There are some moments where you have that in Skyrim, but they are few and far between.

I know many many people who are criticizing that part of the game.

Also, please, try to balance some classes. Mages are fine this time around, but some other classes are overpowered.

And add weapons like Scythes....

This is FEEDBACK for Bethesda, but I don't know where to post it so I decided it would be a fine thread to mention this.

I Agree! Thank you for writing this.

Very well said. I like the game but only because after the RPG-disappointments of Fallout 3 and Oblivion I had come to expect nothing from Bethesda. I was surprised with Skyrim. Compared to those last two this feels at least like a step in the right direction, though as you said Bethesda truly need to learn how to implement real consequences for the player's actions. The world needs to react to the player and the player's actions. There is some of that going on in this game, but not enough.

I think Skyrim WANT's to be an RPG. A bunch of new players just don't know anything better.

You are right, we should all bow down before your almighty wisdom of what is and is not a RPG.

I think the thing is that there is "RPG" or cRPG, the offspring of table-top role-playing which is the thing from which all console or computer "RPG"s are born. Judging by the traits which traditionally made up cRPGs, Skyrim both is and is not a cRPG. If you want to get into really blurry semantics about what "role playing" is or is not, that's fine and sometimes even an interesting conversation.

But I feel like what people are really driving after here is that Skyrim has left too many traditional components of the cRPG behind in favor of creating a vast sandbox world to explore. And you can't really argue that. For better or worse they've abandoned many traditional cRPG elements. All you can argue is whether or not you prefer their games to more closely resemble the traditional cRPG or if you prefer their new brand of "RPG", for whatever it's worth.

It is my sincere belief that those people who claim that Skyrim is -not- an RPG have no self creativity and need the game to hold their hand and tell them "YOU ARE ROLEPLAYING! YOUR CHOICES MATTER" instead of finding meaning in their choices without the game slapping them in the face with it.

I get it. People want their choices to matter. And so do I.

But no, it is not the dungeon master who "manages" roleplay. I don't know what kind of table top RPG's you play, but the ones that I play are all about as little DM involvement as possible, and letting the roleplay come from the players, not from the DM dictating to them.

Basically, the types of RPG these people are talking about is the type where the GAME tells the PLAYER what the character is, through a series of numbers and scripted events that limit player choice and freedom. Maybe you get the illusion of more "meaningful" choice, but that is only because the game can script more by limiting the actual choices a player has. Those options come down to a "good" choice, a "bad" choice, or a "neutral" choice, essentially giving you three roleplays, and a lack of true personalization.

The type of roleplaying game that I am a proponent of, the type of RPG that Bethesda games are, and as far as I'm concerned, the superior model of RPG, is one that allows the PLAYER to tell the GAME who the character is, through a series of choices and decisions. The choices may not seem as "meaningful", because the game doesn't really script your responses and your decisions, instead, it's just up to you to do them. However, it gives you virtually infinite choices, as you're not limited to the "good", "bad", "neutral" route. Unlike the previous style of RPG that requires your character to remain in a box, so that the game can script world events to it, there are no boxes and you can create virtually any type of character that you want. The "meaningful" choice comes in how your character develops as a person, not necessarily how the world evolves around you.

I don't need the game to tell me that I did an "evil" deed when I killed that innocent person in their home. I know it. I was there. I did it. What I want is the choice to do it. Essential NPC's aside, Bethesda gives you the opportunity to make that choice. The previous style of RPG that people claim is the "real" type of RPG does not allow that. It has to limit what the player can do so that it can script those sweeping world changes.

I'd rather have full control over my characters and how they develop, than to watch a scripted game tell me what's happening. If I wanted the world to tell me what was going on, and have boxed in character choices, I'd play a linear adventure game or shooter game. But in an RPG, I want freedom, I want choice, I want my character to be who I determine it to be, not who the game determines it to be. I don't need the game to hold my hand. I don't need the game to TELL me what my character is, when I can just make the choice and KNOW who my character is.

Role playing Game:

You select a preset character and play through the game in its role and make your character "grow" throughout the game, or you create your own and have decscions, but do basically the same thing. Whether or not it's lineair, has a good story, can equip weapons or not. If it allows character progression and character interaction ti can be classified as a role playing game. There are many games that can be defined as both action adventure game and role playing game, because they have aspects of both. If you need a more concrete division: if your character has some sort of leveling system to progress in stats or abilities, you're playing a role playing game. This has actually nothing to do with the type of role you're playing or if you actually have any impact on your role at all.

Have you played Daggerfall?
They managed to do just that with the fiddly ol Evil Spreadsheets of Doom ™.
No other Elder Scrolls game has -ever- had the amount of character generation control......and consequences of same. None.
You start the main quest clock, then you have X amount of time to finish the main quest. Otherwise, Things Happen.
That was a DOS 5 era game, and it has far more depth to it than any of the 3 after it.

The whole point that is getting missed is that your choices in Skyrim have =No Consequences Whatsoever=. You don't kill Alduin.....does the world end? No. You side with the Empire; does this affect anything in the game? Not really. You wield a power beyond -any- that any other mortal wields. And it has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the world. Or to quote Mr. Spock; a difference which makes no difference -is- no difference.

And yes, the GM -does- manage the story; they set up the initial events, and let people stumble into them however they wish. If there is no monitor on the rules as agreed on, no one who boobytraps that innocent looking chest, then what you have is friends talking trash over a brightly colored grid table cloth. The GM doesn't make a rigid story for each character; s/he makes a series of coherent, integrated =events= that characters react to within the bounds of their definitions and the personality of the player(s). It's how they react to 'the world' as it happens to them, not how they metagame each other.

The ideal situation is where you have (for example) the nine different D&D alignments, and you then have dialog responses and quest choices that fit each of those alignments. Then all the NPCs recognize what alignment you are playing, and the story progression also changes to fit that. Then at the end of the game, you are told how all your choices contributed to the state of the world.

However, this means writing nine times as much script, and adding a whole bunch of extra programming on top of that. And your average player is simply not going to see 89 percent of the results of that money and time.

With a game with as much content as Skyrim has, that is pretty much never going to happen. Where you will still see it is in more linear games like Mass Effect. Unfortunately in these times where everything has to be voice acted, it is just not going to happen in a game with 400 quests. The money you spend will never be recouped in extra sales.

You have to "do it yourself" by choosing what quests you are going to take, and other such stuff. I have quests in Skyrim that I refuse to complete because it doesn't fit my character's alignment. Some of my characters kill deer, others don't. Some steal anything, some steal from the rich, others steal nothing. Some take Daedric quests, others don't. Etc. etc.

If that sort of customization is essential to you, I would say try pen and paper. You shouldn't expect it in a multi-million-dollar entertainment product.

They could do it in DOS based games, couldn't they? All that has changed is that they have exchanged writing for visual bling. How much of the 'content' is actually useable in any way, shape or form? They could thin out the plate-mug-tankard-dish-etc stuff and regain a decent chunk of storage space. Plus the simple fact is that writing takes next to no space compared to visual and aural components. You only need someone to do a script who is familiar with the genre, and has access to the lore and the overarching story concept. It is not rocket science, and it is not substantial enough (even including game script tags) to be a hinderance. In fact the recorded voices are the hinderance to the story, as they limit you to what has been recorded. Text isn't as sixy as getting Ming the Merciless and Wonder Woman to do voices, but it is by =far= more flexible and capable.

Linearity has nothing to do with it. They have deliberately chosen to gut the complexity and make something that the so-called casual gamer can get into without thought or concern. And like it or not, every game that loses its uniqueness fails. If they waste millions on voice acting and overbuilding gribble, and continue to ignore good story and world interaction and choice significance, they will only have themselves to blame for the consequences.

Yeah, if they wanted to make a game where all the story was done by text, then you could have meaningful choices for all possible alignments. In fact, this would have been possible in 1992. It is possible right now in fan mods for games like Fallout 2.

In my experience, the problem with fan mods that try to create large amounts of text-based quest material is that the writing completely svcks. Juvenile would be a compliment. When it comes to professionally produced material, my judgement is that it is not profitable. That also is a matter of opinion.

Linearity has everything to do with it, because that determines how much material has to be budgeted for.

Wonder Woman probably comes for free since she is sleeping with the boss.

What the guy above you said is valid and has nothing to do with the time the dev spends on it. It has something to do with teh size of the gameworld and the options it already has. Combining that with impact of choice in any way creates a game which no living sole will ever complete to 100%. Unless they are completely devoid of something called real life. Those people already play WoW, so...

I'm glad I can play real RPGs on table-top (Not some Gygax[may his spirit slaughter PCs ages to come]-era AD&D dungeon grindfests where the ammount of supposed role-play correlates with ammount of monster killed and splash-books used) and can play games like Skyrim as they are: game where I can make up a mediocre story for my character, some-what act like it, wander and wonder at the landscape and punch monsters. Is it a RPG? Most likely not. Not that any plausible game would get very close (Daggerfall is quite close, but it lacks the best parts of table-top RP and video games).

But I really don't care. Though, I need to admit, Skyrim, in my opinion, would benefit with more non-voiced NPCs with text dialogue. Something like in the early Fallout games perhaps.

Meh, I'm finding the game fun enough...

I kinda like the lack of impact my character has on the world, because it frees me up to go do other stuff. Yeah, there are times I wish people would acknowledge my accomplishments... on the other hand, I don't want assorted Lobbyists chasing me going "By Azura By Azura By Azura! It's the First Dragonborn of the Fourth Era!" as I'm decorating my house with whatever, or out stalking rabbits with Ice Form.

And I'm not suggesting it be that way; there -is- a continuum, you know. But being at the end where you leave =no= mark on the world? At all? That's not only sad, but a betrayal of the gamers who were expecting more than just fedex quests.

Well, coming off of Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, and Oblivion, I was pretty happy with my expectations.

It's not like anything changed in previous games beyond opening dialogue...

The definitions of words and terms like "RPG" is arbitrary and subjective. Words are only provisional categories that are used as shorthand so that others can have some clue about what we are trying to communicate.

"Semantics was invented to distract the dull in issues of thought so that they may cause less problems."

I'm interested in knowing why table top RPG would be "real" RPG over a game like Skyrim, which you consider not to be an RPG. Both games are exactly the same. You choose where to go and what to do. What you run into is decided by the engine (or dungeon master). It's fiendishly elitist to claim Skyrim is not an RPG while some fruity table top- I can do whatever I want- game is. By all definitions Skyrim is a high-fantasy RPG, no matter what your opinion of it is.

Thanks for posting...I've never seen anything so over-anolyzed before. Your post will be my standard by which I base all future over-anolyzed posts.

To me an RPG is an element of gameplay where you can choose the type of character your play and improve your skills by leveling up...hence Skyrim is an RPG.

Also, Deus Ex is very linear...yeah, there are a few side-missions, but not enough to call it an open-world...you must complete the majority of missions in a specific order. It's not even an RPG because you increase your skill ONLY by buying Praxis Kits. And, you can only play as Adam Jensen...hence Deus Ex is a First Person Shooter (FPS) and not an RPG.