I've always thought bethesda rpgs are the only rpgs you can play any role in. Jrpgs always have you follow a set story, Bioware has a set story and semi-open worlds. Most rpgs have you stuck in predictable archetypes of mage/warrior/thief with no control of what your character can/can't do.

Bethesda's games always let you be what you want to be and do what you want to do, and that is basically the best role playing. You can be a necromancer, an adventurer, a kleptomaniac, your character can be obsessed with diamonds and have his bed covered with diamonds, or he can have a knee-arrow obsession and have his manniquins with arrows sticking out of their knees. Your character can be a dwemmer historian/archaeologist, a librarian/book collector, a daedric worshiper. The new perk system is great too, it lets you be anything, from an assassin who reanimates his kills to a lunatic who fights dragons with nothing other than stoneflesh and a shortsword.

It used to be pretty clear what was or was not an RPG. Then we got all these people who decided to take the name "Role Playing Game" completely 100% literally and totally ignoring the history of the label.

A Pen and Paper Role Playing Game is pretty clear. We all know what that is I think.

A Computer Role Playing Game is not exactly the same as a PnP RPG. In fact if you look at what was historically known as a CRPG Skyrim is NOT a CRPG. Final Fantasy 1 was one of the first computer role playing games, Skyrim does not have a lot in common with Final Fantasy 1. RPGs on the computer were quite literally an attempt at making a PnP RPG where the computer is the DM. Technical restrictions force it to be more linear and less reactive to the player.

The definition so many people are throwing around about "A game where you play a role" should just go play second life and move on. I'm not trying to be rude but based on the historical use of RPG when referring to computer games Second Life is not an RPG, nor is the Sims. Those are Simulation Games. It's a very different genre of game. It is also the genre many of the "literal RPG" people seem to be arguing for when defining an RPG.

I have nothing against simulation games or people who play them, just please leave my RPGs the hell alone and quite trying to argue your genre is mine. I've been playing computer RPGs for 25 years (far too many to count across many consoles and computers) and none of them have much in common with The Sims or Second Life. If those games are what you think of as a "good RPG" then I'm sorry but you like Simulation Games (apparently Life Simulators specifically).

I may not be able to define an RPG but I know one when I see it. Skyrim is part RPG but it is not a full RPG. I call it an Action/Adventure with RPG elements, primarily because it emphasizes the Action/Adventure over the RPG side. The game screams "ACTION!!! ADVENTURE!!!... oh and RPG stuff too." You can ignore the RPG stuff to a very large extent, but you just can't ignore the Action/Adventure stuff the same way.

You just had to come in here and talk some sense, didn't you? What are we gonna argue over now?

Wait wiat... mass effect is non linear and open world? Since when? What did I play then that had "Mass Effect" written on the box? Going to other planets and driving around and marking ore deposits doesn't count as "Open world" and aside from those small treks, the game is as open as a sealed can of jelly. Nearly every action you do is related to progressing the story.

You know... 90% of RP'ing comes from the player and your own immersion. That's just lazy and rather stupid to think the game RP's for you.

Yeah, I love roleplaying in pacman.

Hmmm....

Hows about we define a few things, what say?

1 ) Just exactly -what- are you playing Skyrim on? Answer: whether console or PC, some form of digital computer (although flexibility and capabilities are.....incredibly diverse, shall we say?).
2 ) What does a digital computer recognize? Binary. Or in other words, numbers. Not words, not speech, not thought. Numbers, and only numbers. Anything you can not translate into a numeric string is ignored (classic example is ASCII).
3 ) How do game mechanics of =any= genre work? Numbers. Nothing more, nothing less. Period. End of sentence.

And that, boys and girls, is the hard cold reality. Imagination doesn't mean jack to a computer. Numbers do. So let's take the two genre's that matter in this particular discussion: FPS's and CRPG's.

FPS:
How do you 'advance' your character? By constant usage of a weapon? No. You 'advance' by staying alive, beating predetermined situations, and reaching a goal point....where you get a stronger weapon, better armor, or the end of a level (most of that is nothing more than simple numeric alteration of a preset data field, btw). The player is drawn into it because motion and weapon's fire is determined by the player. If you have poor hand-eye coordination, you will svck monkey snot at FPS games. That is the limit of gamer interaction with the system; observe action and react within a preset time frame. You prove your eye-hand coordination.......and perhaps some puzzle solving ability. But that is it for that genre.

CRPG:
The whole point of the computer role playing game was to bring the desktop PnP experience to the computer -as closely as possible-. First, you don't play a generic 'space marine', or the baddest ass around (Duke Nukem). You are -supposed- to be able to create your own avatar in the game; one that is you, or as unlike you as you are capable of playing. And the game is =supposed= to have the system mechanics to support that. But how does that system support it? Computers can not read your mind; certainly not your imagination. So how? Numbers. The only medium we can interact with computers by. That is what those 'useless, annoying spreadsheets' are. Just numbers. But they are also the only way you can create that unique avatar in a way that the computer can comprehend. They also define whatever life your character had =before the game even starts=. What you were trained in, what you knew.....and what you didn't know (which frankly can be even more important). A properly designed CRPG requires you to stop and think before you start; to decide on exactly what kind of life your PC lived before getting into the game situation. As Skyrim is currently designed, you pretty much know a tiny little of everything and a whole lot about nothing. You are a bum. No skills, no training, no education whatsoever. No opinions, no ideals. The perfect avatar for the gamer who just wants to kill things. No effort, no investment. Let's stay with the beginning; -why- were you entering Skyrim? A refugee? A Nord freedom fighter? An imperial who really =shouldn't= have been sent to the block? With the pre-scripted vocal system, all the complexity that -should- have been in that situation is reduced, no matter what you want, into a linear cinematic. The kind of thing you use to get a child's attention. Now the dragon attack was well handled, and an excellent example of combining scripted and user controlled events......and the fact that they could do it there means they could have done it a lot of other places, to the betterment of the game experience.

As it stands, though, you never learn to run faster....or show signs of increasing slowness with load.....no matter how much you run. Never learn better sword moves (this was a place that The Witcher excelled at. Sure it was motion capture, and stepped. But as you went up in levels, you =felt= like you were learning something. And since there was a timing element to making combinations, it felt more 'real'. Any fool can swing a sword (or pull a trigger); it takes training to know when and how to do it....and not do it). A CRPG isn't a shooter. You don't get the holy hand grenade and suddenly become god; you are supposed to feel as if you are improving in an organic fashion. Since rather few RPGers actually are -learning- sword and knife work, there has to be some kind of mechanism to interpret ingame experience into a format that the user will recognize. Guess what that is? A scaled number system.

The only RPing system that =doesn't= rely on numbers is live action. The only one; all others are dependant on numbers to define learning, ability , disability, capability.....well, you should be getting the idea by now. Does it all have to be in your face? Not really. But to fully define your avatar it at least has to be =there=. If it isn't then you are one step closer to an action game, and further away from a roleplaying game. The computer is the map and the DM. You have to speak the same language that the computer does....and if the computer system in question is illiterate or lobotomized, then you are not going to have the character development tools and processes available to do the job correctly.

The game has to act as our GM, and look up the rules we play by.
Here are the rules in Dungeon Master (maybe not all of them, don't know):
http://preview.filesonic.com/img/5c/36/84/4532323.jpg

A computer would be able to solve more complex systems than we do in dice, yet the rules are so generalized and simplified we could do it without lookup at all.

Nowadays, if you can't have content for it, there is no need for rules for it either. So basically roleplaying now implies having to enforce my own rules which should have been enforced by the engine.

A MAJOR part of role playing is defined by the rules you role play by. And this is where TES fails more and more. Because there are almost none left. Rules are simplified for the sake of simplification, in contrary to improved computing speeds which could suggest the opposite. Good rules are not complex for the sake of adding complexity, but to nuance them and have them make more sense. As much as I liked Daggerfall, it was mostly because it added "true 3D" in a world of massive proportions. The actual rules defining the role playing was scaled waaaaaaaaaay down compared to what I was used to. Check this out for role playing depth:
http://www.lemonamiga.com/games/docs.php?id=1335

Of course that doesn't even come close to systems like Role Master, for obvious reasons. But still it beats all of TES combined to kingdom come as far as role playing mechanics goes.

That said, I enjoy Skyrim a lot. But calling it a true role playing game is beyond ridiculous if we the players constantly have to make up our own rules to play by instead of the game itself. Actions and consequences - pretty much non existent in a way that is actually felt. Although some exceptions exist, just take a look at dungeon design. Fairly obvious that we are now expected to see all content? Method was removed since Oblivion since Morrowind had it but horribly designed. Don't get me wrong, I love the visual design of Skyrims location. But I hate the logistical design.

I love it when posts get "heavy." I'm just glad this didn't burn to the ground in a pile of flaming trolls. Of course everyone's insight is appreciated.

Skyrim is categorized as an RPG for all extensive purposes. From any game site to my local game and comic shop in town, t's right there next to dark souls and FF, just saying.

Though as a die hard DnDer i got to say my favorite part is creating a unique and interesting character to Role Play. And Role Playing is a staple in this franschise, and a stronger element that most RPG's in the field. Stats be damned.

But the thing is, I'm not just making those actions up out of thin air.

There literally is an option to tell the kid you aren't from the Dark Brotherhood. Plain and simple.

And when you go to investigate the orphanage, and you talk to the lady, there are 3 dialogue options, one of them I could tell would lead to her death, and one of them is "Remain Silent", which is the game blatantly leaving it up to your interpretation.

I am not a murderer. But I also didn't agree with her actions. I "remained silent", didn't kill her, and my RP was perfectly in tact.

The thing is, there is 2 ways to go about dealing with choice in an RPG.

There is the BioWare way, which disclaimer, I think is great. I love BioWare games, and don't get all the hatred of them around here. That was is blatant - you have good and evil (and sometimes neutral or anti-hero) options. Selecting those choices gives your character "points" towards each disposition, and the game is linear enough that it can script paths and interactions for any disposition combination.

Or, there is the Bethesda way, which I also think is great. Choices are more subtle. Often times, the choice does boil down to "do it or don't", but there is always a choice. There isn't really a disposition system that tracks the progress of your character. Instead, it's up to you as the character to just -do it-. If you want to be evil, there's no evil points, you just do evil deeds. If you want to be good, there's no good points, you just do good deeds. Disposition is mainly on an NPC by NPC basis (or faction by faction basis), and often times there isn't a blatant, in your face, consequence of your actions.

It really is a matter of preference, and neither is really "better" or "worse" than the other, or "more" or "less" RPG than the other. One design leaves the choice, and effect, more up to the interpretation of the player, where as the other doesn't leave much room for interpretation, it blatantly tells you.

I prefer the Bethesda way (again, not knocking BioWare games, I love their games and their design, they are my 2nd favorite studio) because to me, it is more lifelike. There is not always a blatant consequence of your actions. Sometimes in life, you make a choice, and you are left wondering if it was the right or wrong choice. I can cite references to that in Skyrim, and to be quite honest, I felt it enriched my roleplay experience.

It's not so much about just totally letting your imagination take over. If I wanted that, I don't need a video game to let my imagination wander. I can just sit quietly in my room and build stories all night long if that's what I wanted.

It's more about the game choosing to leave things open to interpretation. Here's an example:

After I did the Forsworn Conspiracy quest in Markarth, I did -not- submit to the guards to go to prison. Instead, I fought my way through the guards, got my ass out of town, hopped on my horse and rode. Thus, my roleplay now shifted to that of a fugitive from Markarth. I avoided Markarth at all costs. Thadious developed a hatred of the town, as well as the Forsworn. However, eventually the main quest led me back into that area when I had to find Sky Haven Temple. So my character made a choice - he returned to Markarth, and upon his return, he submitted.

He was taken to Chidna Mine. Well, I had a somewhat alternative experience there. I spoke to... whatever his name is (can't remember), and I did his deeds. Well actually, I didn't kill the guy he wanted me to (the guy got all paranoid, pulled out a shank and got himself killed). Then I made the escape with the Forsworn.

Now here's something else I did. I went "off-script"

Outside the mines, when the Forsworn began to attack the city guards, I got into the fight, but I didn't help the Forsworn. Instead, I began attacking them. I killed off all the Forsworn who I had just escaped the mines with. I fought alongside the Markarth city guards against the Forsworn.

The game didn't "record" it. But I didn't -need- it to. I know what happened. My character made the -choice- to turn on the Forsworn and kill them when I had the chance. The deed was done. It happened.

It's in situations like that - I was given an opportunity to go "off script" and do something that the game didn't necessarily intend, but it gave me the freedom to as well. And I don't need the game to "record" it - I know what I did. I was there. I'm the one who did it. I don't need the game to constantly remind me that I did it to feel validated for it. I know that it happened.

And that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Bethesda doesn't (and I don't know if they -could- do it without making the game more linear and scripted) code blatant consequences into your game. The consequences are just what happens. In real life, the consequences of those actions would be that the Forsworn are dead. And perhaps, a bounty on my head for vigilantism, which I believe I received. The entire world wouldn't change because of that choice that I made.

That's what I mean. The game leaves it open to your interpretation. Because that's their design choice, to leave it up to you. What happens, happens, and it's up to you to interpret whatever meaning behind it. And I like it that way. I believe it gives me more roleplay power, because my motives are truly my own, not just a few scripted "good", "bad", "neutral", "anti-hero" scripted motives. The character truly is who I want him to be.

It really is the difference between the player telling the game who the character is, vs. the game telling the player who the character is.

Bethesda (Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3) is the former, which is why I believe them to be superior RPG's.

The counter argument to that is players like you who can't accept (and don't want to see) the evolution of gaming and the genres within them.

Sports games look nothing today like they did 20 years ago. They are still sports games.

Shooters evolve, and there are many different types of shooters. They are all still FPS.

Strategy games evolve, and there are various types of Strategy games. They are still strategy.

RPG's evolve as well. That is not a bad thing. It is only a bad thing in the minds of players who are stuck 20 years in the past.

You're still playing football, baseball, hockey, whatever. It is still a video game representation of a sport. It hasn't really changed drastically and the changes were made to more accurately represent the sport it is representing.



You still run around shooting things with guns. The biggest evolutions in FPS games since Wolfenstein and Doom have been level design and physics. This is a really bad example.




"Strategy games" is way too large of a category. If we're talking turn based then go play Civilization 1 and then Civilization 5. Then maybe play Master of Magic, Age of Wonders 2, then Elemental War of Magic and Galactic Civilizations (I could go on and on). They haven't changed that much. That which makes them Turn Based Strategy games is still there. If we're talking RTS games then just go play Warcraft 1 and then Starcraft 2 (maybe throw Age of Empires in there somewhere). Again, the core game has remained mostly the same.




Yeah... play every Final Fantasy game in order and then tell me they're "evolving" to be "better RPGs" and not just interactive movies. Or go play the Gothic games in order (hint: ArcaniA is not an RPG, the other 3 are). Those "players who are stuck 20 years in the past" aren't saying these new games are bad necessarily. We're just saying "Quit calling them RPGs, they're not." Is it really such a bad thing that a game needs a different label? If you want to see the "evolution of RPGs" compare Baldur's Gate to Dragon Age: Origins. Those are two games you can actually compare as RPGs. Or The Last Remnant to older RPGs, it's quite different but it's still an RPG.

RPGs have existed for 20+ years. Some of us really liked our RPGs. Now it seems like every other game has RPG elements (leveling, stats, etc...) and that's fine. What's not fine is people coming in and trying to tell the die-hard RPG fans what their genre is and should be. If you like games like Skyrim that is great, I do to. I also really like RPGs but they are a very different thing that what Skyrim is and I'm fine with that. Skyrim doesn't need to be an RPG for me to like it. I'll just be really ticked off if I never get another good RPG because people decide Skyrim, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 2, Gothic 4: AracaniA, and the like are the "new RPG" and what RPGs should be like. If anything they have broken Genre boundaries and become their own thing, but they don't need to drag an entire genre down with them. I say "dragging down" because the things people like about RPGs are disappearing, effectively "wrecking" the genre for the people who have loved it for 20+ years.

There probably a ton of people who love Skyrim but would hate all those older RPGs. I bet a lot of the complaints about the older RPGs would be "There's not enough action," "it's too slow," "there's too much talking," "I just want to get out and kill stuff," "I got killed by a troll when I was level 10 that's not fair (psst, go level up)," etc.... Those "changes" and the "evolution" you are referring to is not there to appeal to people who have been playing RPGs for 20+ years. Those changes are there to appeal to the action/adventure crowd that doesn't like RPGs.

Skyrim is obviously number 3. WTF?

And the vast majority of the changing has little to do with the rules system; it is at least 90% graphics and bling. No real improvement in the rules systems, or newer ways to play. Just more horses to allow for 3D and varying camera angles. And since motion capture has gotten cheap enough, the amount of work on the animatics has dropped considerably.



Again. Aside from some improvements in AI (that is =not= universal by any means), nearly all the 'evolution' is in the eye candy department. The gameplay has stayed pretty much the same. Shoot. Kill. End of level.



In some cases they have improved the AI significantly; but the majority of it, again, is in the visual bling.



'Evolution' and 'change' are two very different concepts. Evolution is a process that implies improvement; better/ more accurate world simulation. More advanced world interfacing. Leaving a mark on the bloody game world (one of those things from the past that seems to have vanished from today's market). Change is neither advancing or restricting. Neither good or bad.

What a great many of the 'youngsters' seem to be unaware of is the fact that CRPG's never were meant for casual gaming. They aren't in competition with shooters for bling of the year awards (simply because the development cycle is so much longer on a properly done CRPG than even a complex shooter). Thinking. Planning. Making an investment of effort into your avatar PC and the game world.....and hopefully the game world noting and reacting to your presence and choices. Those are trademarks of CRPGs. TES has a lore unlike -any- of the other classics (and yes, I mean Ultima, Might and Magic, Neverwinter Night, etc). And it gets gutted over and over to 'simplify the gaming experience'. I know that many of the Mario and Sonic generation are sweating bullets in Skyrim, but compared to games of old, it's kind of easy. CRPG-Lite. That is not evolution; that is more devolution. Because even with the requirements of higher end graphics, the processor power and memory footprint is still there to keep advancing the systems that define a character, and tell you how the system sees that character. Instead that critical mechanism gets truncated and watered down so Bubba can pick his nose and get into the game with no thought.

And if being a PC elitist means knowing what could be done in the long ago days of DOS, and seeing the trainwreck of potential the I-paddies are content with, so be it. I work in retail, so I know all about customers.....and I happen to be one of the 'I paid my money---Rock My World!' types. Not the 'I shouldn't make waves I'll take what they give me and enjoy it no matter what' kind. Because that is what gaming as a whole =was= back then. Someone released title J, it was expected that title K would stomp it flat. At least in some respect. Now, people have been aiming at the same gold ring they have aimed at for the last decade (we know the reason, but Foo forbid anyone points it out yet again....), and that has generated an air of 'Why Bother?'.

You may accept it. I never will. I have too much faith in creativity.....at least when it isn't shackled to corporate idiocy.

You don't have to agree with Hoblak's conclusion, but he just nailed the issue right on the spot.

I wish every one of you "just use your imagination for roleplaying" reads up on this and try to understand why people spent $60 for some data instead of just staring at a blank wall for hours.

If a chick told me this, I would marry her on the spot.

I wouldn't consider Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3, New Vegas, or Skyrim to be RPGs. They are all more like adventure games with RPG elements. The focus is, and always will be with Bethesda games (or Obsidian's NV), on the exploration, lore, and dialog. It is disheartening to see the RPG elements dwindle with each passing game though.

Birthsigns were taken out because they weren't that useful? Then MAKE them useful, don't strip them from the game. They were well described, and the Atronach was the one you really had to think about, so I don't buy the whole "ruining" your character with the first decision nonsense. The attribute system wasn't working as cleanly as you wanted it? Then MAKE it work, don't strip it down to an intellectually-insulting choice between Health, Stamina, or Magic. Why do all races start with 100 health, 100 magic, 100 stamina? Shouldn't a High Elf be weaker than an Orc or Redguard?

That being said, all five of those games are in my Top 10 games of all time. Just because they aren't intricate RPGs doesn't make them any lesser of a game. It just means they don't focus on being RPGs. They excel at being adventure games, and providing the player with a detailed game world to explore, unique dialogue to listen to, and lore to read and take part in. No one else in the business comes close to Bethesda + Obsidian's NV at doing so. That's enough for me.

Makes me wonder what could have been... if BioWare had kept making games like NWN instead of bedtime stories.

Maybe some other dev will pick up the gauntlet again. Long live the King!

MMMMMMM... :spotted owl:

"Role-playing" game? Yes.

"cRPG"? No.

I think Bethesda has actually created their own style of game which transcends the "rpg" moniker for better or worse. I think they do what they do very well (or at least better than anybody else). Fallout 3 however was a great example of them doing what they do well while really not doing what traditional cRPGs do well.

You are missing one thing though.

This isn't just any average RPG. This is a TES RPG with previous TES RPG's that are part of the series. There is a presedence set and each TES RPG has to be at least some similar to the previous ones. The way the RPG plays needs to be the same.

Oblivion was similar but still a poor representation. Skyrim is just plain opposite of any TES RPG other than the Lore. If anyone at Bethesda even cared about the previous RPG's they made they would have realized that Skyrim just changed everything and there is little to no resemblence left. Added to the fact that the game is pretty much Fallout 3, just without guns and the pipboy.

I'm not saying recreate Daggerfall and Morrowind I'm saying take what worked in those games and FIX what is broken, NOT REMOVE IT. I have no problems with adding things as long as they don't take away from the TES Experience. I have a problem when things are REMOVED instead of fixing them. I have a problem when things like the GPS compass are added and the actual directions are REMOVED from the game.

If' it's not a TES RPG than it's a broken RPG.

Omg!!!!! Double damage!

CoD MW3 is an RPG.

I Roleplay as a soldier who blasts people to h*ll with Scatters.

I rank up and customize my weapon.

:)

Brilliant!

I've been playing and refereeing RPGs for over 30 years. I consider Skyrim to be as much of an RPG as any other videogame is.

I dont need any form of closure, i know exactly what a rpg game is and for me it has nothing to do with pretending im a character from a videogame and im guessing im not alone since i cant imagine anyone i know doing it either.

If role playing (pretending) automatically makes a game a rpg then anything can or is.