best rpg of 2006-2007.

So far I am disappointed with the rpg's released in 06/07. Oblivion was the shallowest Elder Scrolls in the series and Neverwinter Nights 2 doesn't live up to the original for me.

I'm quite optimistic about The Witcher later this year.

among noticable candidates - NWN2, Titan Quest, Silverfall, and Oblivion (Gothic 3 I haven't touched), I'd say, the best RPG 2006-07 is "N/A."

personally I enjoy NWN2 the most, but it's more because of my dnd nostalghia rather than of its quality.

I would have to agree with teardropmina, NWN2 gets me as well, mostly because of nostalgia. Not to mention, it's got pages of mods already released or being released soon, and don't forget the expansion coming this fall. Granted, I also have a strange love for Gothic 3, which when patched and tweaked, runs great on my system. I actually like Gothic 3 better than I did Oblivion, which is the most shallow of all the elder scrolls series(As stated earlier), but the prettiest looking RPG out there.

This year I'm really looking forward to The Witcher, Two Worlds, Warhammer Online(If it launches), Dragon Age, Mass Effect(Although there won't be any mods for obvious reasons...cough...console...cough..cough), Hellgate London(My vote for 2007), and last but not least, Sacred 2, which looks awsome so far in the previews. I would say, 2007 is looking a WHOLE lot better than it did this time last year in 2006, at least for RPG's and many other genres.

among noticable candidates - NWN2, Titan Quest, Silverfall, and Oblivion (Gothic 3 I haven't touched), I'd say, the best RPG 2006-07 is "N/A."

personally I enjoy NWN2 the most, but it's more because of my dnd nostalghia rather than of its quality.

teardropmina

Actually the D&D rules are the only thing which saves this game from being absolute crap 

Ehh...this was a terrible year for RPG's...at least so far.

NWN2 - I had fun with the OC, but the bugs and multiplayer is a HUGE let down.

Titan Quest: Immortal Throne - The best Diablo clone to date, and tons of fun.  I have spent more time with this game then most in the last year.  Although, I do not consider it a grea RPG.  It's a straight up hack and slash rpg, so I reall can't give it my vote for best rpg.

Silverfall - Only played the demo but seemed fairly generic.  Was pretty fun, but nothing to scream about.

Oblivion - For me it felt like a hollow shell, nothing compared to Morrowind.  MAJOR dissapointment.

"I'd say, the best RPG 2006-07 is "N/A.""

I agree...none of these game really are GOTY worthy.  Hopefully Sacred 2, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Hellgate: London (my favorite) do better and pulls the RPG genre out of the dumps...

My favs are NWN2 and Gothic 3.

1st ) Oblivion

2nd) Never Winter Nights 2

3rd) Titan Quest

Good thoughts all around.

Seems to me, more now than in recent years, the RPG genre is in a big state of flux. More than ever, there's a great deal of debate and confusion about what an RPG even is. For a very long while--stretching back to NES games like Dragon Warrior and up through the late 90s PC juggernauts like Baulder's Gate and Fallout--the conventions of RPG video gaming were pretty clear: whether 1st or 3rd person, these games seperated themselves from action titles by emphasizing exploration and problem-solving, a dialogue-driven story, and the sense that the game unfolded in a manner dependant on how the player customized or evolved his/her own character's skills and gear. Also key, they focused on combat that (whether fast-paced or slow) was more driven by what the character brought to a battle than what the player brought in terms of button skill.

Frankly, it's been a long time since a succesful game came out which satisfies those traditional guidelines. A bad thing? I'm not sure. I definitely miss games like Icewind Dale, but at the same time, I recognize that part of what keeps gaming interesting is how developers ignore genre conventions and push things in new directions. The best titles--the real landmark games--tend to be the ones that defy their category a bit and push things forward.

What's the downside to evolving genres? Growing pains, of course. I feel the RPG world is caught in an awkward balance, with developers pushing tentatively in directions that blend RPG franchises with action conventions; some of the results have been cool, while others leave action and RPG fans alike wanting more. I expect things will sort themselves out... gamers' tastes will evolve, and developers will find a balance between what sells and what's slick. But until then, I've got to agree: 2006-2007 has been a funk for RPG fans.

Good thoughts all around.

Seems to me, more now than in recent years, the RPG genre is in a big state of flux. More than ever, there's a great deal of debate and confusion about what an RPG even is. For a very long while--stretching back to NES games like Dragon Warrior and up through the late 90s PC juggernauts like Baulder's Gate and Fallout--the conventions of RPG video gaming were pretty clear: whether 1st or 3rd person, these games seperated themselves from action titles by emphasizing exploration and problem-solving, a dialogue-driven story, and the sense that the game unfolded in a manner dependant on how the player customized or evolved his/her own character's skills and gear. Also key, they focused on combat that (whether fast-paced or slow) was more driven by what the character brought to a battle than what the player brought in terms of button skill.

Frankly, it's been a long time since a succesful game came out which satisfies those traditional guidelines. A bad thing? I'm not sure. I definitely miss games like Icewind Dale, but at the same time, I recognize that part of what keeps gaming interesting is how developers ignore genre conventions and push things in new directions. The best titles--the real landmark games--tend to be the ones that defy their category a bit and push things forward.

What's the downside to evolving genres? Growing pains, of course. I feel the RPG world is caught in an awkward balance, with developers pushing tentatively in directions that blend RPG franchises with action conventions; some of the results have been cool, while others leave action and RPG fans alike wanting more. I expect things will sort themselves out... gamers' tastes will evolve, and developers will find a balance between what sells and what's slick. But until then, I've got to agree: 2006-2007 has been a funk for RPG fans.

lokstah

While I somewhat agree with most of your post...I think you kinda contradicted yourself using dragon warrior as an example.  While it is an RPG, and deffinetly was story and exploration driven, you really had absolutely zero choices (well...maybe the one at the end...but it as game over if you chose wrong :P )  and pretty much was a very straight foward affair.  In fact, I would almost suggest that *most* RPG's even in those days also presented themselves as such.  Heck...the AD&D gold box games I think were the first official AD&D games, and they were also straight foward, with no moral or story driven choices other then how to build you party.  I think games like BG I & II, Planescape, and maybe a few others are just the shinning examples at what RPG's *could* be, and people now seem to think that some how the genre is "watered down".  As far as I can remember, RPG games have always come in the heavy and lite versions.  I will say it has been far too long since we have had a BG or Planescape masterpiece...

[QUOTE="lokstah"]

Good thoughts all around.

Seems to me, more now than in recent years, the RPG genre is in a big state of flux. More than ever, there's a great deal of debate and confusion about what an RPG even is. For a very long while--stretching back to NES games like Dragon Warrior and up through the late 90s PC juggernauts like Baulder's Gate and Fallout--the conventions of RPG video gaming were pretty clear: whether 1st or 3rd person, these games seperated themselves from action titles by emphasizing exploration and problem-solving, a dialogue-driven story, and the sense that the game unfolded in a manner dependant on how the player customized or evolved his/her own character's skills and gear. Also key, they focused on combat that (whether fast-paced or slow) was more driven by what the character brought to a battle than what the player brought in terms of button skill.

Frankly, it's been a long time since a succesful game came out which satisfies those traditional guidelines. A bad thing? I'm not sure. I definitely miss games like Icewind Dale, but at the same time, I recognize that part of what keeps gaming interesting is how developers ignore genre conventions and push things in new directions. The best titles--the real landmark games--tend to be the ones that defy their category a bit and push things forward.

What's the downside to evolving genres? Growing pains, of course. I feel the RPG world is caught in an awkward balance, with developers pushing tentatively in directions that blend RPG franchises with action conventions; some of the results have been cool, while others leave action and RPG fans alike wanting more. I expect things will sort themselves out... gamers' tastes will evolve, and developers will find a balance between what sells and what's slick. But until then, I've got to agree: 2006-2007 has been a funk for RPG fans.

dnuggs40

While I somewhat agree with most of your post...I think you kinda contradicted yourself using dragon warrior as an example.  While it is an RPG, and deffinetly was story and exploration driven, you really had absolutely zero choices (well...maybe the one at the end...but it as game over if you chose wrong :P )  and pretty much was a very straight foward affair.  In fact, I would almost suggest that *most* RPG's even in those days also presented themselves as such.  Heck...the AD&D gold box games I think were the first official AD&D games, and they were also straight foward, with no moral or story driven choices other then how to build you party.  I think games like BG I & II, Planescape, and maybe a few others are just the shinning examples at what RPG's *could* be, and people now seem to think that some how the genre is "watered down".  As far as I can remember, RPG games have always come in the heavy and lite versions.  I will say it has been far too long since we have had a BG or Planescape masterpiece...

Well, I apologize if this exchange gets us too far down a Dragon Warrior sidenote, but I'm gonna have to briefly retort.  ;)

I don't think citing Dragon Warrior as an early example of a RPG video game is inappropriate, even given my loose definition of that particular RPG style. Scan back over my first post: I never listed CHOICE as a characteristic of video RPGing. Why? Because CHOICE is a weird, controversial concept in role-playing. All games offer choice to some degree. Doom 2 offers a degree of choice (do I strafe right, or left? do I open this door, or that one?). Other games, particularly the truly great RPGs, offer extraordinary levels of freedom--Morrowind is a classic example. And frankly, between millions of games in every genre, there's everything in between.

I think you're making a mistake by suggesting that a key feature of RPG gaming is some specific form of story-related freedom. That's too narrow a characteristic. Being able to trot down a half-dozen story threads (ala Baulders Gate II) or weave your own existence entirely (ala Morrowind) is damn cool, but does it define the genre? Nah, I don't think so. Plenty of the original D&D stuff--the tabletop modules which inspired this whole shebang--didn't offer players the ability to leave the principal dungeon, walk to the next continent, join a guild and poach fruit for a living.

The kind of choice or freedom which does help define RPGs, in my opinion, is what I touched on in my first post: it's a sort of liberty in deciding, on a strategic level, how your character(s) are defined, and what sort of options they bring to a challenge... and then gameplay mechanics which make those available options, and how you use them, the most important factor in winning a fight, or solving a puzzle.

In any case, my point was NOT to define RPGs. My point was to say that for a time, there wasn't a big debate about how RPGs should be defined, because games from Dragon Warrior to Baulders Gate II conformed to a certain broad set of guidelines--and that what we're seeing now is those guidelines melt away.