Maybe. But then why are you posting?

Besides, the whole Oblivion business shows that the issue hasn't been resolved in any way. And I think it's an interesting topic, even if you feel like it's over-rehearsed.

Well most video games involve "playing a role", including shooters and driving simulations. The difference with RPGs is that the role is defined to a significant extent by the player, which implies that the stories and dialogues be central to the game mechanics. A focus on story and dialogue as you point out is not sufficient however, the element of choice being the crucial aspect.

I would see character development only as a secondary characteristic of RPGs. The identification of RPGs with character development (as in character sheet management) is the main cause of the aforementioned confusion, which leads games like Diablo to be classified as RPGs when they are mostly about hack 'n' slash action.

I have noticed that much (virtual) ink is being spilt in these forums about Oblivion. Some like it for its distinctive qualities, and some don't because they were expecting a RPG and feel that it isn't. It's not the first time it happens, I remember the same kind of problem arose when Diablo was released. So I feel like it would be a good idea to try and define what a RPG is, in order to dissipate misunderstandings and avoid some disappointments to peaple in the future. I don't expect that we can all agree on everything, but some general traits could be agreed upon.

I have been playing Pen & Paper RPGs for many years, so I tend to project my definition of it onto computer RPGs. I would go for the obvious definition: RPGs are about Role-Playing. The rules should be there to be forgotten and favour role-playing rather than character-sheet frenzy. Role-playing for me means making meaningful choices. It means that the player should be presented with options in dialogues and quests that fit as well as possible their idea of what their character would do. RPGs should thus have good writing, good plots, well-defined and believable characters, and a coherent and immersive gameworld.

What RPGs are not about: stats, dice, levelling-up, fancy armors and weapons, number of quests, graphics. Even though they can be part of it.

With this definition, games like Baldur's Gate 2, Planescape: Torment, Fallout, or Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines would be good RPGs. Diablo and Oblivion are not, regardless of their own qualities. Of course these would be the more clear-cut cases and some games are not easy to categorise. In my view some games classified as adventure games would be RPGs.

And most of all, the overwhelming majority of MMORPGs are not RPGs and should be given a different name in the media,
because it's annoying when I want a list of RPGs in Gamespot to have all the online stuff listed as well. Its just a completely different kind of gameplay, more often about collective strategy and competition than role-playing.

What are your thoughts?

Get the Baldur's Gate series. It is, quite literally, the best RPG ever.Akivaria

No offense, but this kind of comment doesn't help anyone if you don't say what you liked/didn't like about either game.

They are very different, it depends on the kind of game you go for.

Baldur's Gate 2 is a very traditional medieval fantasy RPG, where you'll find all the ingredients that 90% of RPGS are made of, except crafted to quasi-perfection. It has a good story, interesting side-quests, good dialogues and great character interaction - both with the player and with each other. It has party-based combat, which means that there is a lot of strategy involved; you might or mightn't like that. It has a significant amount of hack 'n' slash, more than I'd personally like. Throne of Bhaal in particular is very combat-intensive; I had to stop playing it after a few hours because I go bored to death slaughtering the same meaningless creatures over and over; the main quest was because of that moving at an intolerably slow pace and I didn't have the patience for it. It was a major disappointment for me, but I think many people like it. Still, BG2 is overall a great game.

With the same kind of gameplay, Planescape Torment is in my view much better; the story is the best I've ever come across, and it is the closest I've ever felt to a real, deep roleplaying experience in a computer game. And contrary to BG, every single fight felt like it had a purpose and a meaning. It's the kind of game which you will still be thinking about when you go to bed after playing it, turning all the turns and events in your head.

Fallout is more original than Baldur's Gate, and it doesn't use any predefined gameworld or rules, it has its own distinctive ones which I find much better (but again, I hate DnD with all my heart, so I'm a bit biased in that regard). Black humour is its main distinctive characteristic, and I loved the real turn-based combat system. The only problem I had with Fallout 2 was that it is almost too rich and complex; I found it hard to complete many quests without a walkthrough. The graphic sytle (it's not a typo, just a word you can't enter in this forum) is also a great success, with that mixture of traditional post-apocalyptic features and American 50s imagery. And don't wait for Fallout 3 because it's being made by Bethesda and I can pretty much guarantee it will be crap.

One other game which in my opinion competes with the three mentioned above, is the highly underrated Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines. Best voice-acting and face expressions I've ever seen, rich dialogues, great plot. Because of some insignificant technical issues and a combat system which some people didn't like, it didn't get great marks in many reviews. I don't know if it qualifies as old, but it's certainly good.