Best definiton of the RPG genre - poll

I'd like to know what the general tendency is with people's expectations when they buy an RPG. Please only vote if you have played a significant number of RPGs and have really given a thought to the question. These groups won't account for every game and every player, but I've made two broad groups which I believe roughly represent the current two dominant approaches to RPG gaming. If you don't agree with the groups, please explain why. And only pick the "both 1 and 2" option if you really can't make up your mind or if you think some elements from both sets are absolutely necessary to make a game an RPG.

Set of features No.1:

Meaningful choices in dialogue and action; coherent and reactive gameworld; believable, complex and original story and characters, developed character interaction; possibly multiplayer mode with a DM.

Set of features No.2:

Free and rich choice of the character and stats/skills thereof; presence of an inventory with a variety of items to choose from; choice of party members and developed combat strategy; free-roaming gameplay; PvP/online features.

Edit: to make things unambiguous, I mean by "choice of the character", the race, class, appearance, etc... Personality would be a Set No.1 kind of feature.

the first with a few things from the second

nah. your descriptions are too narrow. RPG is something more general.

I'd say stats+items+quests(or missions)

that's RPG in a nutshell, although leveling might be obligatory, too. not sure if separate quests or missions areobligatory tho'... maybe just knowingan end objective is enough

nah. your descriptions are too narrow. RPG is something more general.

I'd say stats+items+quests(or missions)

that's RPG in a nutshell, although leveling might be obligatory, too. not sure if separate quests or missions areobligatory tho'... maybe just knowingan end objective is enough

kpsting

By your logic, GTA and STALKER are RPGs as well (they have all the characteristics you said )

Meaningful choices in dialogue and action; coherent and reactive gameworld; believable, complex and original story and characters, developed character interaction.Plomdidom

[QUOTE="Plomdidom"]Meaningful choices in dialogue and action; coherent and reactive gameworld; believable, complex and original story and characters, developed character interaction.foxhound_fox

so let'ssay, a game withno dialogue, and no characterinteraction can't be an RPG?

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="Plomdidom"]Meaningful choices in dialogue and action; coherent and reactive gameworld; believable, complex and original story and characters, developed character interaction.kpsting

so let'ssay, a game withno dialogue, and no characterinteraction can't be an RPG?

What !? Of course that isn't an RPG

That kind of game would be an action adventure game or a FPS or a RTS or a racing game or a platformer etc

Did you read my previous response?

so let'ssay, a game withno dialogue, and no characterinteraction can't be an RPG?

kpsting

As I see it, most definitely.

I really urge everyone to try and choose between options 1 and 2. Consider not what you think RPGs usually have, but what fundamental characteristics they have that MAKES them RPGs.

Not that I'd want to influence the votes of course ;)

Option 1: the definition of a roleplaying game.

Option 2: the definition of a roleplaying game in the computer game world. I don't know how, when or why it started, but people associate stats and inventories with roleplaying games. If you have a game with a stats system and/or an inventory, it's classed as a roleplaying game or a game with roleplaying elements. Even if it's a straight up FPS - stick an inventory and some stats in and it's a FPS/RPG. Dark Messiah, Deus Ex, System Shock 2, S.T.A.L.K.E.R - all games thought of as being RPGs or habing RPG elements.

In my ideal world, a computer roleplaying game would be both option 1 and 2 - and I understand both as falling within the RPG genre, but option 2 is a more accurate definition, simply through popular usage and gaming trends.

By your logic, GTA and STALKER are RPGs as well (they have all the characteristics you said )Darth_Kane

Yeah, actually. It's a total misnomer, but it's just how things developed. They are acknowledged as having roleplaying elements. Check ten reviews of San Andreas, I bet at least 8/10 describe the character development as a roleplayingmechanic. S.T.A.L.K.E.R is widely regarded as a FPS/RPG - just like WarCraft III is recognised as a RTS/RPG... depending on who you ask, anyway.

In my ideal world, a computer roleplaying game would be both option 1 and 2 - and I understand both as falling within the RPG genre, but option 2 is a more accurate definition, simply through popular usage and gaming trends.

mfsa

Yes, but I'm asking for YOUR conception. It is precisely the purpose of this poll to know what people really think. So forget about popular usage. Besides, in this case there really isn't any such thing. See how many people complained about Oblivion not being a true RPG for example. What you're talking about is crap sites like GS usage mostly. I agree with your general description of the situation though.

I'd like to know what the general tendency is with people's expectations when they buy an RPG. Please only vote if you have played a significant number of RPGs and have really given a thought to the question. These groups won't account for every game and every player, but I've made two broad groups which I believe roughly represent the current two dominant approaches to RPG gaming. If you don't agree with the groups, please explain why. And only pick the "both 1 and 2" option if you really can't make up your mind or if you think some elements from both sets are absolutely necessary to make a game an RPG.

Set of features No.1:

Meaningful choices in dialogue and action; coherent and reactive gameworld; believable, complex and original story and characters, developed character interaction; possibly multiplayer mode with a DM.

Set of features No.2:

Free and rich choice of the character and stats/skills thereof; presence of an inventory with a variety of items to choose from; choice of party members and developed combat strategy; free-roaming gameplay; PvP/online features.

Edit: to make things unambiguous, I mean by "choice of the character", the race, class, appearance, etc... Personality would be a Set No.1 kind of feature.

Plomdidom

hey there, i think choice of character is important (unless the game's intent is to tell the story of one specific person, like in the witcher). that should have been in features no. 1, because race, class, appearance often have a LOT to do with the personality of the character (it does in real life, imo).

the problem is that stats also have a lot to do with the personality of the character. a person who's strong and good at fighting tends to be more aggressive and confident, for example. it's just tough to separate features no. 1 and no. 2, so conceding that point i voted for no. 1.

hey there, i think choice of character is important (unless the game's intent is to tell the story of one specific person, like in the witcher). that should have been in features no. 1, because race, class, appearance often have a LOT to do with the personality of the character (it does in real life, imo).

the problem is that stats also have a lot to do with the personality of the character. a person who's strong and good at fighting tends to be more aggressive and confident, for example. it's just tough to separate features no. 1 and no. 2, so conceding that point i voted for no. 1.

fireandcloud

Welcome, nice to see you here, fireandcloud. foxhound already dropped by, I was worried I wouldn't see you.

I can see your point. It's about broad trends anyway, I know it's not that clear-cut. As in the Witcher, the Nameless One in PT is given, but he's still the character I've found the most role-playable ever. And I really didn't care when I was playing if he was a fighter, a mage or a thief. And usually in RPGs dialogues and quests are not class- or race-specific, so it only affects practical matters, and your own representation of your character which is, I agree, important.

I decided to limit myself and chose option 1. For me, what really defines an RPG is it's meaningfull choices in dialogue, a responsive world that get's affected by every option I make, character developement and a original plot, etc.

You should get the point.

By heart, option 1 is the true RPG. Option two is more on the gameplay wise side, but it's still important to many. Most people get a kick out of role-playing their character. Not me though. In truth, one cannot live without the other. Option 1 is just a good game without the 2. option, not an RPG. Vice Versa.

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"]

hey there, i think choice of character is important (unless the game's intent is to tell the story of one specific person, like in the witcher). that should have been in features no. 1, because race, class, appearance often have a LOT to do with the personality of the character (it does in real life, imo).

the problem is that stats also have a lot to do with the personality of the character. a person who's strong and good at fighting tends to be more aggressive and confident, for example. it's just tough to separate features no. 1 and no. 2, so conceding that point i voted for no. 1.

Plomdidom

Welcome, nice to see you here, fireandcloud. foxhound already dropped by, I was worried I wouldn't see you.

I can see your point. It's about broad trends anyway, I know it's not that clear-cut. As in the Witcher, the Nameless One in PT is given, but he's still the character I've found the most role-playable ever. And I really didn't care when I was playing if he was a fighter, a mage or a thief. And usually in RPGs dialogues and quests are not class- or race-specific, so it only affects practical matters, and your own representation of your character which is, I agree, important.

i like vampire thus far. it's VERY rough around the edges, though. could have used some polish. but i really like the voice acting and that each character i meet is unique and interesting. the game itself has tons of personality. thanks for recommendation. :D

I decided to limit myself and chose option 1. For me, what really defines an RPG is it's meaningfull choices in dialogue, a responsive world that get's affected by every option I make, character developement and a original plot, etc.

You should get the point.

By heart, option 1 is the true RPG. Option two is more on the gameplay wise side, but it's still important to many. Most people get a kick out of role-playing their character. Not me though. In truth, one cannot live without the other. Option 1 is just a good game without the 2. option, not an RPG. Vice Versa.

RealDuffi

I think points 1 and 2 often get in each other's way. Oblivion is all 2 with no 1, VtM Bloodlines is all 1 with next to no 2 for example.

My dream RPG would have no character sheet, would be first-person so you just imagine yourself what you look like, and would be all Group 1. Not gonna happen any time soon though.

Progressing your character, having an inventory, obtaining missions and interacting with other characters is the definition of an RPG to me, without even one of these I wouldn't call the game an RPG but rather something else with RPG elements. A game that doesn't do all these things decently sucks in my opinion.

Adding the words "meaningful", "complex", "original", "rich" and all that is completely irrelevant to the definition, that's relevant to the quality of the RPG.

Adding the words "meaningful", "complex", "original", "rich" and all that is completely irrelevant to the definition, that's relevant to the quality of the RPG.

WhiteWorld

I know, I know. Not the best formulation by me. Well to me it means very precise things but it would take forever to explain everything in objective terms. For (the usual) example, choosing the order in which you do quests isn't a meaningful choice. I hope that most people will know what I mean.

Okey, I don't get it. All the people who say No 1 is the definition of an RPG... Let's say that Dreamfall has a wider variety of dialog options. It's suddenly an RPG then?

I don't see how you can separate the two options. Role-playing means you can look, act, talk the way you'd like and have stats that let you play that role. All this in an interactive world. The story has nothing to do with anything here, it's just a bonus. A crappy FPS is not less FPS'ish just because the story sucks. Same with multiplayer, it's not part of "definition of an RPG".

Neither Oblivion or the Witcher are true RPGs imo.I don't see how meaningful char interaction + a deep world and so on can be the definition of an RPG. IMO it's just an essential part of a great RPG-experience which has to include parts from 1 and 2.

so let'ssay, a game withno dialogue, and no characterinteraction can't be an RPG?kpsting

Okey, I don't get it. All the people who say No 1 is the definition of an RPG... Let's say that Dreamfall has a wider variety of dialog options. It's suddenly an RPG then?

I don't see how you can separate the two options. Role-playing means you can look, act, talk the way you'd like and have stats that let you play that role. All this in an interactive world. The story has nothing to do with anything here, it's just a bonus. A crappy FPS is not less FPS'ish just because the story sucks. Same with multiplayer, it's not part of "definition of an RPG".

Neither Oblivion or the Witcher are true RPGs imo.I don't see how meaningful char interaction + a deep world and so on can be the definition of an RPG. IMO it's just an essential part of a great RPG-experience which has to include parts from 1 and 2.

artur79

i agree that it ventures too closely to incorporating adventure games (and there HAS to be a separation between the 2), but i think the elements of option 1 are more important than those in option 2. i interpret rpg to mean that you're a VERY SPECIFIC person in a VERY SPECIFIC world, and you exist within it and impact it by your choices (action and dialogue alike) in accordance to what type of person you are and what type of world you exist in. adventure games don't quite do that - the options are mainly puzzle-solving, and you don't impact anyone except in the means that the devs want you to. i do think stats and appearace in option 2 are important to rpg, and they should not be left out, but they're not as important as those in option 1.

@artur79: I can't make up my mind if I agree with you or not. Sort of like I agree with all the arguments but not the conclusion. Or vice-versa. I'm confused :roll:

But basically I think a RPG is a game with an emphasis on role-play, of which Group 1 is the essence and Group 2 some possible though not exclusive means. Because noone really tries anything else (I think most gaming companies are very conservative), it doesn't mean it's not possible.

[QUOTE="artur79"]

Okey, I don't get it. All the people who say No 1 is the definition of an RPG... Let's say that Dreamfall has a wider variety of dialog options. It's suddenly an RPG then?

I don't see how you can separate the two options. Role-playing means you can look, act, talk the way you'd like and have stats that let you play that role. All this in an interactive world. The story has nothing to do with anything here, it's just a bonus. A crappy FPS is not less FPS'ish just because the story sucks. Same with multiplayer, it's not part of "definition of an RPG".

Neither Oblivion or the Witcher are true RPGs imo.I don't see how meaningful char interaction + a deep world and so on can be the definition of an RPG. IMO it's just an essential part of a great RPG-experience which has to include parts from 1 and 2.

fireandcloud

i agree that it ventures too closely to incorporating adventure games (and there HAS to be a separation between the 2), but i think the elements of option 1 are more important than those in option 2. i interpret rpg to mean that you're a VERY SPECIFIC person in a VERY SPECIFIC world, and you exist within it and impact it by your choices (action and dialogue alike) in accordance to what type of person you are and what type of world you exist in. adventure games don't quite do that - the options are mainly puzzle-solving, and you don't impact anyone except in the means that the devs want you to. i do think stats and appearace in option 2 are important to rpg, and they should not be left out, but they're not as important as those in option 1.

I'm not saying that a good story, great chars, dialog and a believable world are not important, I'm just saying that 1 can't live without 2 and other way around. If you define an RPG by the characteristics of the first option, then it's just an adventure game with RPG-elements from option 1 (just like SS2 or DE are shooters with RPG elements from option 2). One could argue and say that most RPG's do not meet the requirements of my definition, but damn it, they should. The only reason I call Witcher or Mass Effect RPG's is because I don't want to have this discussion with every RPG-fan out there and it's easier to just call them that. There's RPGs and there's true RPG's (or at least games that come close).

Just wanted to mention.. Witcher and ME are great games, I'm not critisizing them.

There's RPGs and there's true RPG's (or at least games that come close).

artur79

I can agree with that. And I think at this stage it would almost be necessary to create a new genre to account for the games that actually follow the old definition. If you see what I mean.

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"][QUOTE="artur79"]

Okey, I don't get it. All the people who say No 1 is the definition of an RPG... Let's say that Dreamfall has a wider variety of dialog options. It's suddenly an RPG then?

I don't see how you can separate the two options. Role-playing means you can look, act, talk the way you'd like and have stats that let you play that role. All this in an interactive world. The story has nothing to do with anything here, it's just a bonus. A crappy FPS is not less FPS'ish just because the story sucks. Same with multiplayer, it's not part of "definition of an RPG".

Neither Oblivion or the Witcher are true RPGs imo.I don't see how meaningful char interaction + a deep world and so on can be the definition of an RPG. IMO it's just an essential part of a great RPG-experience which has to include parts from 1 and 2.

artur79

i agree that it ventures too closely to incorporating adventure games (and there HAS to be a separation between the 2), but i think the elements of option 1 are more important than those in option 2. i interpret rpg to mean that you're a VERY SPECIFIC person in a VERY SPECIFIC world, and you exist within it and impact it by your choices (action and dialogue alike) in accordance to what type of person you are and what type of world you exist in. adventure games don't quite do that - the options are mainly puzzle-solving, and you don't impact anyone except in the means that the devs want you to. i do think stats and appearace in option 2 are important to rpg, and they should not be left out, but they're not as important as those in option 1.

I'm not saying that a good story, great chars, dialog and a believable world are not important, I'm just saying that 1 can't live without 2 and other way around. If you define an RPG by the characteristics of the first option, then it's just an adventure game with RPG-elements from option 1 (just like SS2 or DE are shooters with RPG elements from option 2). One could argue and say that most RPG's do not meet the requirements of my definition, but damn it, they should. The only reason I call Witcher or Mass Effect RPG's is because I don't want to have this discussion with every RPG-fan out there and it's easier to just call them that. There's RPGs and there's true RPG's (or at least games that come close).

Just wanted to mention.. Witcher and ME are great games, I'm not critisizing them.

i agree that a GOOD story isn't essential to the game being an rpg. an rpg with a bad story is still an rpg. but i do think that story is MORE important in an rpg than in any other genre (except maybe adventure games), so it does merit consideration. however, i didn't vote for option 1 cuz of the story requirement; i voted for it because of the character development aspect (the non-stats character aspect, that is). that, i think, is the most essential for an rpg to be an rpg. adventure games do often feature fully-developed characters, but they're stagnant, as in there's no way to take the character to another level - you can't change the character by the choices you make unless the devs force you to change the character. but yeah, essentially, i totally agree - they're both important; i just think no. 1 is more important.

Well, I think that 1 is more important too, because it makes a game better. All the stats in the world won't make a crappy game into an instant classic, while a good story and great chars in a unique world can elevate an average game (gameplay-wise) into stratosphere. I just don't think a great game that implements those things well is automatically an RPG. You just walk around talking to people, influencing them and they are influencing you. To me it sounds like a hybrid between Sims and adventure games, lol. Sounds awesome actually.:)

Anyway,I can't see myself voting other than option 3 for the said reasons.

Well, I think that 1 is more important too, because it makes a game better. All the stats in the world won't make a crappy game into an instant classic, while a good story and great chars in a unique world can elevate an average game (gameplay-wise) into stratosphere. I just don't think a great game that implements those things well is automatically an RPG. You just walk around talking to people, influencing them and they are influencing you. To me it sounds like a hybrid between Sims and adventure games, lol. Sounds awesome actually.:)

Anyway,I can't see myself voting other than option 3 for the said reasons.

artur79

what is the sims, btw? i have no idea what genre to place that. it's pretty close to an rpg... it just lacks a story (though i guess you make your own story), and there's no beginning and end. that's an interesting point you raised, man.

At GS they actually seem to have created a new genre just for that one series of games.

I don't really know how it plays but as far as I know the main difference with an RPG is that you manipulate characters as if they were units in a strategy game, you' don' play one character in particular. Or am I wrong?

At GS they actually created a new genre just for that one series of games.

I don't really know how it plays but as far as I know the main difference with an RPG is that you play characters as if they were units in a strategy game, you' don' play one character in particular. Or am I wrong?

Plomdidom

depends. you can create a family or 2 or 100, or you can just create one character. i usually just created one family, and let him or her or them interact with the neighbors, and if that led to marriage or babies, then so be it. the only thing besides the lack of story that limits it from a true rpg feel is the character that you create doesn't really have a personality - yeah, he or she will like, say, entertainment and won't like to read, for example, but he or she won't be any different from someone with the same characteristics. i really want to create a fat guy, and have him be teased for being fat, and for him to get all depressed, but then find like a love of his life and start working out and getting his life together to win the girl of his dream or something, but no one notices that my character's fat or ugly or anything. :P they should make sims 3 like that... anyway, after a while, it's just all about making sure they eat, poop, shower, go to work, and have fun, and it gets repetitive. but i had a lot of fun with it for a while.

[QUOTE="artur79"]

Well, I think that 1 is more important too, because it makes a game better. All the stats in the world won't make a crappy game into an instant classic, while a good story and great chars in a unique world can elevate an average game (gameplay-wise) into stratosphere. I just don't think a great game that implements those things well is automatically an RPG. You just walk around talking to people, influencing them and they are influencing you. To me it sounds like a hybrid between Sims and adventure games, lol. Sounds awesome actually.:)

Anyway,I can't see myself voting other than option 3 for the said reasons.

fireandcloud

what is the sims, btw? i have no idea what genre to place that. it's pretty close to an rpg... it just lacks a story (though i guess you make your own story), and there's no beginning and end. that's an interesting point you raised, man.

Yeah, lol. Sims: THE TRUE RPG! is the next expansion pack...

But seriously, what the hell is Sims? It lacks story and meaningful dialog, but you can pretend you are someone else doing whatever the game allows you to do, not unlike RPG's. (Like being Hilton abusing that poor dog of hers.)

It's damn close to being an RPG in it's purest form. Maybe it is and we elitists smartasses tend to talk crap about that game because there is no meaningful story or dialog. But hey, everyday life is not exactly filled with awesome quests, shiny swords and you having a deep conversation with a wisard about black magic on Mount Doom(at least I hope you're not). You're just playing a character that does more ordinary things than Saint Jock the Deamoncrusher in a "true" RPG, lol.

I chose both, because i found features in both

the most important features i think make up an RPG are:

coherent and reactive gameworld (set 1)

Free and rich choice of the character and stats/skills thereof; presence of an inventory with a variety of items to choose from (set 2)

this in my mind is what defines an RPG, therefore i chose both sets

So it's kind of like toying with laboratory mice? Sounds interesting indeed :twisted: though not really related to RPGs.Plomdidom

yeah, it's interesting. if you control one character and micromanage (as in MAKE SURE that the character stays true to your vision of the character) and give the game background story (although it won't impact the game) and give the character quests or goals, it borders on rpg. :)

I always thought as RPGs as the closest thing there was to an alternate-life simulation. I suppose that's where my ideas about what constitutes an RPG come from, added to the fact that I've been playing the old PnP RPG for many years (15 years actually, ouch). Still, I think there is a fundamental difference being assuming the identity of a character, and playing the puppeteer for that character. Different kind of experience.Plomdidom

You can make a guy in sims and totally think his identity is yours. Free your mind, man, free your mind...

But seriously, simsare what you make them to be. It's all up to you. You can either think you're God in Sims universe controlling characters or you can make one char that reperesents you and who you want to be in the game. Sounds like an RPG to me...

I always thought as RPGs as the closest thing there was to an alternate-life simulation. I suppose that's where my ideas about what constitutes an RPG come from, added to the fact that I've been playing the old PnP RPG for many years (15 years actually, ouch). Still, I think there is a fundamental difference being assuming the identity of a character, and playing the puppeteer for that character. Different kind of experience.Plomdidom

well, it really depends on how much the player gets involved. if you're just content to look on, then it's a god game, in which you're the god and the character the subject. but if you get really involved and control the character entirely (you can turn off your character's ai), i'm telling you, it's hard to find major differences between the sims and an rpg. the only difference is that there's really no story, but then again you can create the story yourself. and in terms of alternate-life, it's alternate-life; i'm not a fat guy who's depressed, but i'd like to play one; sounds intriguing. it's almost rpg. at the very least, it's an interesting point that artur79 raised.

oh, and one more difference between the sims and many rpg these days - you can't steal, you can't kill people, etc. BUT you can harass an npc; you can create rifts in families and romantic interests. one of the things that frustated me about the sims is the limitations on what you can do. there are a lot of things you can do, but given that kind of freedom, it's a bit frustrating not to be able to go other people's houses (unless you control other characters) and do stuff to them that i would have liked to do to advance my version of the story for the character that i'm controlling.fireandcloud

That's probably because the game is "simulation of reality" or something,you can't just break into people's houses and go on a killing spree in real life either.

you can't just break into people's houses and go on a killing spree in real life either.

artur79

You can, but unless you have good connections, the gameworld being as reactive as it is, the option for free-roaming adventures might get switched off abruptly.

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"]oh, and one more difference between the sims and many rpg these days - you can't steal, you can't kill people, etc. BUT you can harass an npc; you can create rifts in families and romantic interests. one of the things that frustated me about the sims is the limitations on what you can do. there are a lot of things you can do, but given that kind of freedom, it's a bit frustrating not to be able to go other people's houses (unless you control other characters) and do stuff to them that i would have liked to do to advance my version of the story for the character that i'm controlling.artur79

That's probably because the game is "simulation of reality" or something,you can't just break into people's houses and go on a killing spree in real life either.

but wouldn't it be cool if you could and get away with it (depending on how skillfully you do it). and have like the detectives and csi agents go to the house and investigate; and if you get caught, you go to trial. that could add a new element to the game. :)

edit: i'm talking about in the game, of course. not real life.

@fireandcloud:

By the way, I've started playing Betrayal at Krondor (and I thank you for that suggestion, the game is indeed very interesting). So don't tell me VtMB is rough around the edges :lol:

@fireandcloud:

By the way, I've started playing Betrayal at Krondor (and I thank you for that suggestion, the game is indeed very interesting). So don't tell me VtMB is rough around the edges :lol:

Plomdidom

lol. ok, i take that back. :)

oh, and are you a fan of the ultima series or wizardry or might & magic. they're ancient, but they're the grandfathers of rpg gaming. many consider ultima 7 to be the ultimate (pun intended), and i'd agree if not for the great games that came around the late 90s and the beginning of this decade.

but wouldn't it be cool if you could and get away with it (depending on how skillfully you do it). and have like the detectives and csi agents go to the house and investigate; and if you get caught, you go to trial. that could add a new element to the game.

edit: i'm talking about in the game, of course. not real life.

Damn, good that you said that, I was like: Que?

Okey, someone should write EA a letter telling them to focus on a Sims RPG, and then make a CSI:Sims. The more I think about the possibilities with that franchise, the more it blows my mind that they release dogs-expansions and whatnot instead of making a game that defines "free-roam" in a whole new way, where you do whatever you want.

Think about this: The King gives you a quest to take down a dragon in half a year. By that time you have to buff up in the gym, get laid (because you know, sex is fun...), get decent gear, get money for the said gear by working or solving problems for other people or just paying some idiot off to do the job for you. All elements found in RPG's, but with total control over what your character does without quest progression. The most awesome thing would be that the day you have to take the Dragon down, you'd have to take a crap, shower, get dressed and all that and then say "screw it!" and take the consequences of your actions. Damn, immersiveness would have a whole new meaning! Maybe in 2015...

oh, and are you a fan of the ultima series or wizardry or might & magic. they're ancient, but they're the grandfathers of rpg gaming. many consider ultima 7 to be the ultimate (pun intended), and i'd agree if not for the great games that came around the late 90s and the beginning of this decade.

fireandcloud

I played M&M 6 when it was released. I did get addicted to playing it at the time, though I don't think I could play that kind of game anymore that involves butchering 3 million goblins and skeletons. I remember trying Ultima VII on my Win95 system and it was way too fast. Maybe I'd find a way to play it now. Good thinking! Especially when I'm stuck with a sprained ankle in front of this PC which will not play anything fancier than NWN (Hence the present forum frenzy).

but wouldn't it be cool if you could and get away with it (depending on how skillfully you do it). and have like the detectives and csi agents go to the house and investigate; and if you get caught, you go to trial. that could add a new element to the game.

edit: i'm talking about in the game, of course. not real life.

Damn, good that you said that, I was like: Que?

Okey, someone should write EA a letter telling them to focus on a Sims RPG, and then make a CSI:Sims. The more I think about the possibilities with that franchise, the more it blows my mind that they release dogs-expansions and whatnot instead of making a game that defines "free-roam" in a whole new way, where you do whatever you want.

Think about this: The King gives you a quest to take down a dragon in half a year. By that time you have to buff up in the gym, get laid (because you know, sex is fun...), get decent gear, get money for the said gear by working or solving problems for other people or just paying some idiot off to do the job for you. All elements found in RPG's, but with total control over what your character does without quest progression. The most awesome thing would be that the day you have to take the Dragon down, you'd have to take a crap, shower, get dressed and all that and then say "screw it!" and take the consequences of your actions. Damn, immersiveness would have a whole new meaning! Maybe in 2015...

artur79

lol. dog games. yeah, some of the expansions are lame. it's like, sims had the unleashed expansion; now sims 2 has a pets expansion. wtf? why not just include the pets element with sims 2? stupid ea - all about the money.

i don't know about dragons, lol. but i see the potential, certainly. ;) the sims series has so much potential, but they decided to go with prettier graphics and stupid gizmos in sims 2 instead of really taking the game to a new level of interactivity. too bad, really...

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"]

oh, and are you a fan of the ultima series or wizardry or might & magic. they're ancient, but they're the grandfathers of rpg gaming. many consider ultima 7 to be the ultimate (pun intended), and i'd agree if not for the great games that came around the late 90s and the beginning of this decade.

Plomdidom

I played M&M 6 when it was released. I did get addicted to playing it at the time, though I don't think I could play that kind of game anymore that involves butchering 3 million goblins and skeletons. I remember trying Ultima VII on my Win95 system and it was way too fast. Maybe I'd find a way to play it now. Good thinking! Especially when I'm stuck with a sprained ankle in front of this PC which will not play anything fancier than NWN (Hence the present forum frenzy).

yeah, same here. i don't have a physical injury, but i'm taking a winter break dedicated to computer gaming. i've cut way down on gaming since...2000 or so, but i've been so stressed out the previous two semesters (i work and go to school part-time) that i just had to do something drastic. hence, i went on a shopping spree (got 8600gt, 10 games or so, and spent all my time playing games and participating in forums). best vacation ever! :)

and i'm not a huge fan of the m&m (i played 3 & 4) and wizardry series (played the latter ones), but they're worthy of respect, at least in terms of how they impacted rpg to this day (both good and bad). but ultima series - dude, they used to be the best; they're a bit dated now, but only cuz every other rpg copied the series. there's also the ultima underworld, but i'm not sure you'll like it... they influenced the elder scrolls series, if you like the series (besides oblivion, that is).

Never thought I would say it, but all this talk about Sims 2 makes me want to play the game. When I'm home from the holidays, I'm getting it and every interesting expansion/mod that is available. Hope there are some Mafia mods or something...artur79

oh yeah? i was thinking about getting it when the whole game is sold together with the expansions, since i don't want to spent too much money on it. i got ripped off by the sims; i bought the original and some of the expansions separately, and like a month later they released the complete package. i vowed to stay away from sims 2 unless they include all the expansions in one package. are you going to get the sims stuff as well? gotta dress your sims nicely. :lol: