I use the preface "True" or hardcoe to distinguish a RPG, from a RPG hybrid.

What I call a True RPG is just a pure RPG, and does not try to be something else.

Most RPGs end up being referred to as an Adventure/RPG, a Strategy/RPG or an Action/RPG. A True RPG would just be referred to as a RPG . . . there would be no confusion as to what type of game it was.

In my opinion, Morrowind was a True RPG.

Well with all the pr scrap about how great the features are i can only say that prolly the mechanics are bad i.e framerate draw distance choppiness screen tearing ect

Considering how Morrowind is more action based compared to say, Baldur's Gate, I'm even more confused about how Skyrim's going to be an Action game...

Skyrims Weakness: Justin Beiber.

I will personaly hunt down anyone who dares create Justin Beiber in Skyrim... and give them a stern talking to.

I don't believe that Morrowind is labeled by many users as an Action/RPG.
What part of Morrowind has been criticized the most? Combat. Many gamers hated Morrowind's combat.

The reason why it was so despised was that it was based more on your character's weapon skills, than on the player's skill at aiming a cursor or timing a hit. people hated it when their perfectly timed slash did practically no damage (because their character was so unskilled with that particular weapon). That's a pure RPG feature, not an Action Game feature.

If it would be true RPG you wouldn't had to aim the cursor at all. You would have to order your character to do it and he/she would obey. People said how the character skill mattered a lot more than player skill, but that's not entirely true. You still had to aim yourself, you still had to make the arrow or magic spell to physically hit the enemy, which was based entirely on player skill.
You could also dodge from enemy blows, which makes the whole unarmored skill kinda laughable when you can do the same thing without any character skill...

This mixture simply didn't worked, so player skill got more focus, otherwise the game would've worked like Neverwinter Nights, Dragon Age or World of Warcraft.

By your definition of True RPG.

I gave my definition and this is all just MY opinion and My definition. My opinion and definition are not up for debate . . . they are what they are.

You really want to know what one of Skyrim's biggest weaknesses will be? I'll tell you:

Working ladders.

They won't have any climbable ladders and it will be one of the Elder Scrolls quirks that has yet to be conquered.

EDIT:

Beaten by first post. That's what I get for not reading

Then by your definition Skyrim won't be that far from a true RPG either...

otherwise it's just another "it won't be Morrowind 2" complaint...

Please don't try to twist my words. I have language issues, and I have tried my best to put my feelings into words, which is very difficult for me.

I don't believe that Morrowind is labeled by many users as an Action/RPG . . . most just call it a RPG or a CRPG

I think most users will label Skyrim as an Action/RPG.

What I defined as a True RPG is just a pure RPG, and does not try to be something else. Skyrim is being designed (in my opinion) to be an Action/RPG.

I posted my actual feelings as to what I feel will be Skyrim's weaknesses. It is not a complaint, it is my prediction . . . based on what I know so far about the game.

I tend to view Morrowind as transitional. It was a traditional RPG at it's core, but with a more action based interface and the two of them clashed horribly. That's why so many people didn't like the combat. When it came time for Oblivion, instead of adjusting the interface, they scrapped the RPG core of the combat system and went for Action, instead.

So what could Skyrim do to improve it's immersion? Is this a bad thing?

Personally, every game I play feels like a game. The Immersion, or how "Into" the game I am just depends on how fun it is. If I'm having an awesome time I'll feel more attached to in-game events.

Skyrim will be the video game incarnation of Chuck Norris, it will have no weaknesses!

I'd say its the removal of all thats superfluous. Perks are great, but they shouldn't be made to do everything. And I like the idea of one spell having multiple uses, but no spellmaking is just terrible. At this point it looks like diablo 2 had more depth for character growth, to me at least.
The graphics are fine, nothing special, but not terrible. Who plays TES for graphics anyway?

I'd have to say the weakness is going from a dedicated fanbase to mainstream. It will be far more successful than Morrowind or Daggerfall, but will it be better? Simplifying things to make it approachable to people who don't play RPG's, that doesn't sound like quality RPG design.


Thats an interesting perspective. How the combat was affected by the RPG mechanics, and a lot of people felt it was stupid. You make a very good point, I loved that, and yet I see it as a major complaint.

I hated that about Oblivion, and I know I won't like it in Skyrim. Action is great, but my stats should mean something. Thats why I play RPG's, for the character growth.

graphics............while they do look pretty good all the versions are identical save some higher res textures for the PC version and they are still going to svck if they are the "higher rez" textures we got for obliivion and fallout 3. this is my biggest disappointment with this game that they didnt develop all the platforms seperately and make them the best for each one. the difference between the PC version of Two Worlds 2 and the console version is astonishing and i so far it looks like the Witcher 2 is going to be dramatically different. people seem to think that the only differences between consoles and PC is that PCs can run higher res texture. they forget about lighting effects etc. there isnt going to be another TES game for 5 or 6 years at least. im content with the graphics overall and they did a nice job but ive got a sinking feeling that they wont hold up well over time. at least they have nicer animations.

Personally, I wouldn't even call Morrowind a "True" RPG. As it doesn't allow you to develop the moral compass of your character in a meaningful way. Most choices boil down to "Take job, or don't?", which aren't particularly satisfying from that angle. Daggerfall at least takes the broadest of strokes in that direction, with the multiple, albeit shallow and ultimately meaningless, multiple endings. You should really change up your words to "pure" RPG though, instead of "True". "True" is implying insult, and I think it's more insulting to be locked in a stagnant, die-roll, excel based mindset forever. Whether you agree with them or not, at least Bethesda Game Studios has the willingness to change their formula and take risks. A lot of people cry "catering" to things like FPS crowd, when the only thing they're catering to is their desire to not crank out the "Expansion pack +1" so many people seem to want.



Also, sad to see such a good thread turned into yet another "I'm a PC gamer, and I'm entitled to the F***ing moon, thx." thread.

Good points, Ugly guy. I agree with your perspective on this issue.

What is a role-playing game anyway? The definition is so broad it's like trying to define art under one description. It's different to everybody, so you'll ultimately end up alienating someone depending on your target audience. You just can't appeal to everyone, or satisfy everyones vision of a "True/pure RPG" The artist has to paint a painting that he himself enjoys painting. If he paints something for someone else it doesn't come from his heart. Nobody is wrong, really. The good thing is there are many artists crafting RPG's, so you can always find a painting that speaks to you. Awesome metaphor? I think so!

I loved Morrowind as much as the next chap, but I think the best thing it had going for it was interesting guilds and atmosphere/story. It was very alien, which made it fun to explore. Beyond that, I feel like the die roll form of gameplay is an old and stagnant form of RPG element. I didn't find it fun. I wanted my sword to act like a real sword, and whittling away at a mudcrab for hours with a claymore is a bit ridiculous no matter what your opinion on game design. It just comes off looking silly. If they can make the combat more interesting and exciting then I'm all for it. In my opinion, of course. :hubbahubba:

I also guess you can count me in the camp of people who love the graphics. I think they look fantastic. They are a huge improvement. Materials actually look like materials, ie: toning down how reflective or shiny something is. It looks dull and dirty and grimy, and the soft shadows truly add a lot of depth to the scene.

They do need some of those Morrowind writers back on board, though.

Also, here's a question. If developing for the PC first and scaling down towards consoles/porting to consoles easier and pleases all crowds (DX11, whatever other dream land awesome PC features you'd like) why don't they design this way? The only thing I can think of is that consoles are their focus, they want to hone how they play and work on those platforms first.

Oh, and as for ladders...It would be nice if they worked, but I'm already used to a segregated world. It's just as jarring to me as going through any other door or loading bar.

I used the word "True" because that is the term that is generally used to label a RPG that is not mostly a hybrid. Pure is perhaps a better word, but it is not the one that is generally used.

I never stated that Morrowind was perfect. And you can base combat on character's skills without including die-rolls into the equation . . . it is done by basing the amount of damage on how much skill you have, or adding weapon skill requirement for weapons, or by slowing down reaction speeds, or by reducing accuracy. But Action/RPG players tend to be opposed to all these things.

PC gamers have a right to expect that the top games in development will take advantage of what their systems are capable of displaying. We have a right to be disappointed because things like open cites, and fewer NPCs, and less than top graphics are not going to be in Skyrim, just because the game is being developed mainly for consoles. Everyone has a right to chime in with what they feel may be the weaknesses for Skyrim, and in the case of many PC gamers, one weakness is lack to full support for things like DX11, or making the entire game fit on one DVD.

Fun, imo, has nothing to do with immersion. A game can be very sad, stressful, exhausting and not fun at all, and yet entertain me much better by the means of immersion than a "fun" game ever could.

Especially role playing. I love it when I feel like the world around me could exist and I could exist within it. I hate to be reminded "ah, by the way, you're just playing a game!" constantly by things like level-ups, inventory screens etc. Those things should be as minimal as possible. If I find myself carrying 50 books and 8 swords, for instance, I think "well, let's pick up another sword here, because the game allows me to". Can I, however, only carry a realistic amount of stuff, I don't think "damn, this game won't let me pick up more stuff", but rather "damn, this stuff here is heavy, I should lose some of it".

Uh... that's pretty much how Oblivion and Fallout worked...

... and I'm pretty sure that's how Skyrim will work.

What I don't understand is why some console players are so adamant that everyone should be held back to their level. The pride of the bottom looking up?

No one is asking for the moon. We're just asking that the game take advantage of current tech (like other games are doing) and feel that it will suffer for not doing so. Rumors have the next Xbox coming out in 2013 and say that at least one developer (was it EA?) is already working with the specs. If those rumors hold true, the next gen consoles will be hitting the shelf less than 18 months after Skyrim is released. Instant obsolescence. And we're not just talking about graphics, either.

Now consider, if they had made the game with current tech in mind, when the new console did come out, how hard would it be for them to take the PC version, port it back to the console and release an Xbox 720 edition?

Indeed, and I think it was a logical step, not "dumbing down". Like people have already said, you have to position yourself in order to hit something or dodge something (and this holds true for all TES games) anyway, so also making the actual strike or dodge be a die roll tends to make the game less "pure" IMO, certainly less honest. Computers are a different medium from pen and paper games, and die rolls are neither pre-requisites for role-playing nor do they make the combat "smarter", or whatever the opposite of "dumbing down" is. A die roll equals randomness, nothing else. The end result (total damage) is the same whether higher skill equals hitting more often or inflicting more damage, only less immersive and tactically suspect with the former.

Not really.

In both games the character's skill was a pretty small factor in calculating the amount of damage that you could do with a weapon. The damage rating of the specific weapon itself was the biggest factor, and how fact you clicked the whack button (or how well you could place the crosshairs on your target). I know exactly how small this was in Fallout 3, because my mod beefed up all the RPG aspects of the game, most of which had very little impact on the default game's gameplay. I'm pretty sure that neither game had weapon skill requirements . . . I know that Fallout 3 didn't . . . only Fallout NV added skill requirements and strength requirements to the weapons.

Actually damage was mainly factored by skill. If you were unskilled with Blunt weapons in Oblivion, you could see that an iron would have around 1 damage and a Daedric one would have at most 3 when on higher skill levels it would be much higher.

Same with Fallout, while it didn't had skill requirements, the skill mainly factored in damage and VATS chance. It also contributed to accuracy and spread. You could argue that the latter two wasn't big enough, but damage was definitely came mainly from skill...

I don't have the exact figures for Oblivion at the moment, but you are wrong with regards to Fallout 3.

At 10 Small Guns skill, a 10mm pistol will inflict 5 DAM.
At 100 Small Guns skill, the same 10mm pistol does 9 DAM.
For a 10mm pistol, advancing your Small Guns skill from 10 to 100 only increased the damage it does by 44%. So 66% of the damage is due to the weapon itself.

And the MOST your spread increases from 10 Small Guns to 100 Small Guns is 38%.

VATs to me is just a cheat, that makes an easy game even easier. I NEVER use VATS, because of the way that it benefits the player, and handicaps the NPCs. (The PC only take 10% of the amount of damage when shot while in in VATS; while the NPCs still receive 100% of the damage when shot.)

And in Fallout 3, you are just as accurate running while shooting, as when you are standing still.