Urgh...double.

Okay guys. Here we go. A new favourite RPG for everyone disappointed by the consolidation of abilities. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/.

Look, we're not saying we don't like "real" RPG's. Quite the contrary, I respect that. But the reality of the matter is that the majority of gamers, the ones Bethesda are trying to reel in into TES, don't enjoy it when their character is completely seperate from them - they want their character to be a natural extension of themselves. That has been the sole reason for dumbing down RPG elements in the recent titles.


The hell? Isn't that a bit too in the face?

The definition of RPG is subjective.

To me, a roleplaying game is a game that allows me to roleplay. Not only will Skyrim allow me to do that, but it sounds like it will empower me to do so more than Morrowind or Oblivion did. If I create a character whose goal in life is to master the arcane, combat, and subterfuge arts, and I achieve that goal through great struggle and hardship, that is still roleplaying.

Again, that's just me. As I said, it's subjective.

Interesting discussion. I recall Todd saying in a recent interview how he thought the future of gaming would include a lot of RPG elements being incorporated in other game genres. This has been an ongoing trend for years: character building (purchasing abilities/items), while not a genre defining aspect of RPGs, has been increasingly used by many action and even fps games. Lots of RTS games have incorporated various RPG elements as well. Of course, it works both ways and many games considered to be RPGs nowadays have combat systems inspired by FPS/action/arcade games.

Because the defining lines between various genders have been waning, some of the terms used for earlier games might be misunderstood or employed in different ways than they might have originaly. For example, there is a large number of gamers that were introduced to "RPGs" through games like Oblivion or Fable (especialy console gamers). Many gamers would thus nowadays understand character building (stats/combat syles and abilities/items) and character customisation (hairstyle, custom armor etc) as the defining elements of RPGs.

On the other hand, gamers who have been around for a longer time, and might also have had experience with DND games and DND-based C-RPGs understand the term "RPG" as a game genre where you get to role play - much like an actor playing a role in a theatrical piece (many of the posters above have explained this very well). I still remember the initial confusion when Thief: The Dark Project came out. Was it an RPG? Was it an action game? Was it a new genre?

So, for me, the core of the issue is a matter of definition. What are "RPGs" nowadays? Should we stick to the old definition and find new terms for all the cross-genre games? Or just apply the term RPG to everything that involves character building? Personaly, having played computer games ever since I was the proud owner of an Amiga, the answer is clear, but one should not completely dismiss the views of the newer generation of gamers.

My post has been phagocytized. However, the long and the short is that I agree with what you're saying. I think the definition of RPG must not be distorted by the new generation players who think that OB is a RPG. However we must admit that true RPGs are disappearing.




Actually, it's not subjective at all.

You can be whoever you want in a game, but as long as you are using your capacities to play it, you are not playing any Role. It's always YOU who's playing the game/slaughtering the enemies/interacting with NPC, and not the game character him/herself.

Playing a role, as iomind was saying, is like being a theatre actor, or a movie actor, but (preferably) without a script.

Yeah, it is a bit confusing when "roleplay" and "character advancement" are used interchangeably. I guess no one invented a better term for the latter other than using the origin.

Who's to say my personality isn't a role as well? A character that would make the same choices, say the same things, do things the way I would do them. That's just as much a role as the crazy killer or the kind-hearted thief. An rpg to me is where you get to choose the character you want to play as. You get to make the moral choices, be them good or bad or grey. Your own personality is a role, a set of restrictions that we impose on ourselfs while playing. Its probably the most natural role to fall into, because its the one we use outside the game as well as in it.

Being evil is hard for me. The who done it quest for the DB quest was really fun, but at the same time I felt bad because it didn't feel like the people diserved to die to me. So for one playthrough, I didn't do that factions questline. That's rping, my personality took a role and the character was playing the the same restrictions and attittude that I hold in real life. My character shares the same thoughts and ideas I do. A movie or theatre acter? I bet there are a few actors that have played a part that reminded them of themselves before. A movie personality is made to feel real, and my personality is real. Playing with either a made up personality or your own, its still a role.

This. :rofl:

You're judging too soon.

I couldn't disagree more, if by 'imagination' it's what I think it means.

...which is?

Those may be your criteria. And actually, I happen to agree with them (albeit in a different way.) But other people could easily have different criteria. Subjective criteria for the definition = subjective definition. It's like musical genres. You can say a genre requires this element or that element, but ultimately, someone came up with that definition based on their own subjective criteria. Other people agreed with it, and it became accented terminology. Those definitions are ever-changing, though. What people call an RPG today isn't necessarily what they called one ten years ago. That doesn't mean they're wrong, though. It just means the definition is subjective.

You cannot prove that it isn't subjective, because any proof you could provide (including a dictionary definition) includes subjective criteria to support it.

But taking what you said, by your own definition Skyrim is a roleplaying game. In Skyrim, you are using the skills, perks, and roleplaying choices of your character, not necessarily yourself. Your character's motivations and abilities can be completely distinct from your own.

No, video game is suppose to do most of those things for you.
Roleplaying you are talking about is for DnD, not video games.
When I want to use my imagination to the fullest, I go outside, walk trough a park and enjoy a nice book and then use imagination to set me in that world... or when I'm trying to get kinky with a girl.
The point is, role playing video games should not rely on you to fill all the blank spaces they've left behind, they should do it themselves.
RPVGs should try to make it so they svck you in the story, not create it yourself.

Just wondering, a lot's been discused here about the RPG stats and character developement.
I've just reinstalled and modded two of my favourite games the last few days.

Planescape: Torment in effect guts the AD&D system of stats, leveling and class based rules, yet I can rarely think of another game that is more of an RPG.
Story, moral & ethical questions, rich npc's, richer dialogue, fantasic setting, freedom to play however you like.
All with a tiny percentage of the immense system rules the game is based on.

The second game is.

Arcanum a huge character sheet and stats that spread all over the place.
Not one but two stats related to reactions, beauty and charisma.
Health, magicka, fatigue all able to be raised via character points on level up.
You could raise base stats to open up new options, or buy new skills and perks, or open up and expand on your magic ability.
If you go more techy you lose the ability to get healed by magic, if you raise up your magic you can't use technology of even basic types.
Npc reactions are based on race, class, abilities... etc.
You have the option of taking a trait, each handicapped you in some way, turning you into a genius, or beauty but making you dumb as bricks all game, or weak as a feather.
People may attack you or ban you based on what style you make your character.
You can talk your way through a huge ammount of things.

So imo any style of game can work, whether less rules and stats or more rules and stats, however thought needs to be shown.
Options put in game to show that who or what you're playing as.
That they're going to have reactions to those choices they've made, and actions they've performed.

@madocmayhem-Planescape is one of the best all time.

With that said, I understand the trepidation of folks with Skyrim. Especially if you've played this game since Arena or DF. The series has systematically dulled the character you may be, to the point where your character in Oblivion wasn't really role played. There were no reactions to your race or abilities. In DF there were. In MW, there were certain factions you could join and others you could not, same in DF. Oblivion, you could do everything. There was no consequence of joining one guild and how it may or may not affect another. If I'm in the Dark Brotherhood, that would affect how other guilds feel about me. So while guards knew when you stole something miles away, factions in the same city were oblivious to your actions. It felt canned. I think the series will continue to streamline, as Todd said in his recent interviews. It's not going to have the same appeal to hardcoe RPG fans, since they are trying to market to a wider audience. On one hand, it makes me mad, since there's so much potential here to make a great RPG, but on the other hand, I understand that Beth isn't making Skyrim to make a great RPG, they do it to make MONEY. And at the end of the day, that's what is going to win out. FOr $60-$70 US, you'll have great entertainment for many, many hours. But you will not have an RPG. Those days are long gone. If you want an RPG, you need to look at other games.

Well that word is usually used in a context of 'the limitation of the gameworld doesn't matter if your imagination is infinite' in that sort of way.

I have to disagree here. Now, I agree that there should be some consequences for who we throw our lot in with, but few if any people would know if a character joined the DarkBrotherhood. A person in the mages guild could easily roleplay a reason why they would want to be in the DarkBrotherhood, but if the game took that option away, then it wouldn't be as much of an rpg as it could have been. Taking away that option would dull the rpg, not make it sharper. Now, if you were caught, and word got out you were with the DB then people should react in the game world. They shouldn't do so before that though, because then the'd be just as bad as Oblivion's guards.

Another example could be a roleplay character that was trying to organize the factions in order to combat the Oblivion Crisis. If the game had allowed more control of the guilds once you became the leader, that could have been a possibility. Basically, there are an unlimited amount of ideas that can be created with an rpg. Restricting things omnicantly takes away from the rpg factor, it doesn't add to it. Some guilds would want you to boast about the guild, letting people know that you're in it. Other guilds would want things to stay quiet, only letting guild members know who other guild members were.

Like others have been saying as well, the term RPG boils down to personal opinions. There is no one true deffinition. Some people would say stats and numbers make a game an rpg, I would disagree. I think an rpg is an open world that lets me play as I want. I can even be myself, exept I'd have the guts to take on a dragon on my own. An rpg lets me take a role that I can come up with, it lets me make my own back story, and it lets me continue the story in the game. Other's would disagree with me. That's fine, its actually a good thing. The label rpg means different things to different people, its not set in stone.

But the fact remains. You essentially master everything. You can do everything. That's not human. It's one of the things I hated about Fallout 3, was how super-human the PC was compared to everything else. Even NV was a bit bad.

Hit the nail right on the head

This is one reason why I loved FO1. I can't go everywhere or else I'll get creamed.

I want my character to feel human or elfish or argonian or khajiti, with a mix of Dragonborn. I want weaknessess, I want strength, I want to get my but whuped, I want to cream too.

Do you play "as" someone? Do you progress? Is there a well penned story to play through? Is there a rich open-world to explore and interact with?

It just met my criteria as an RPG. Open your mind, or go back and play all the old games people seem to think new ones should be, lets not hold back the future.

@ResistanceKnight:

I consider roleplaying any kind of person in an RPG a fairtale. RPGs (videogames) are made to make you assume the role of a certain amount of character types. You can be a good paladin, an evil mage, a brave ranger and a lot more. These are all types that the game supports. You can't play the role of Count of Anvil. None will recognize you as Count. You can't play a secret agent sent by the DB to infiltrate into the Mages Guild. The DB is not "programmed" to sent you there to spy the MG (or at least I think so, didn't play DB quests ). You can create (imagine) these characters, these situations, but it's impossible for you to rp them (more or less) accurately, you've not been given the right tools and that kills immersion.

The game (consider it as the "Master") must give you the possibility to rp a certain character, if not... it's useless. Sometimes immagination is not enough to enjoy a game (/RPG) that is not that enjoyable.

And to respond to anotgher post of yours: Yes, you can play yourself in a RPG, no doubts about it. But things don't change a bit. In that case, there will be two separated entities as well: you player and you character. The character would have the same strenght and the same intelligence as you have, ok. But, it's not you as player who has to interact with the world. Moreover, the fate of the character is determined by the character skills, even if they are the same as yours as player. But you as player shouldn't interfere with what your character is trying to do.

As already said above, the most of the people want to be part of the action, like in a FPS, or in an Action/Adventure game. That is not role-playing. But it is what people want.



Oh well, if you put it that way, that everything is subjective and all, we can end the discussion here.



Taking in mind that stats, "perks", quests, char. advancement etc don't make a game a RPG (but you will say that this is subjective too), yes, Skyrim might come out as RPG, but we have to see how it will work in its entirety to come to a conclusion.

ITS [censored] TESV SKYRIM NOT A ****ING FABLE!!!1

Maybe there are some people who want their character to be more than human. Think of how many time the Champion of Cyrodil had to go into Oblivion. When the populous of Tamriel pictures hell, they picture Oblvion. After visiting hell time after time after time, it isn't to far of a stretch to think that the character may become more than just human. To survive those kinds of things, people often push themselves past human standards, making them more in order to survive. Human's can be quite adaptable.





I'll admit that its not perfect. We've never been able to take up a strickly political role like a Count or Adviser in any of the games before. But still, immagination can go a long ways some times. It can't do everything, and shouldn't have to. But it still can do quite a bit on its own. Maybe you were the last Count, and was replaced by a new one - your name stripped from both the records and the memories of the people. Its not out of reach, its just the ideas have to bend sometimes. If they have to bend to much that it takes serious effort to hold onto it, then its taking more immagination than what should be needed. That said, its nearly impossible to implement in game all the possible roleplay possibilities people can come up with. I think TES has been able to hit on the larger ones, while the smaller ones slip to the wayside.

Factions are something that can be greatly improved upon. So far, the Master hasn't been able to let us do everything and anything. We couldn't be spys, or things like that. We could tell ourselves that we were, but your right, we really were not. NV took a step in the right direction with factions, albeit that Obsidian made that game. So far with Skyrim, the only real solid info on factions is that they're happy with what they have come up with, but they're saving the real info for later. So we dont' know how they're going to expand on that. It could open up a lot of avenues for roleplaying, we don't know yet.

Immersion is stronger for some and weakers for others as well. For some, they can stretch things in order to rp the way they want, while other's need the tools and the ingame reactions to exactly what they're trying to do. Its just one of those things that is different from person to person.

The player breaking from the character is indeed breaking from roleplaying. If you're playing as yourself however, it'll be harder to do that. Cause if you wanted to do something, obviously your character would want to do the same. Its a pretty simple form of roleplaying, but it still is roleplaying in my book.

I agree with you. The game must offer some tools for role playing, you can't fill everything with your imagination. If you do, then every single game out there should be considered an RPG. If the categories are so flexible, what makes a sports game not be considered RPG? after all you role play a team manager or a tennis player that you just created. A fighting game is an RPG because you role play the career of the fighter you choose. A city builder is an RPG because you are the mayor. In Black and White you roleplay God. Are all these RPG games? No. For me an RPG game offers me strong tools of customization (statistics, attributes, dialogue options with proper choices and consequences).