I know I said this trhead wouldn't be just about Oblivion, but it's a really interesting border-case.

Once I gave the game to play to a friend of mine. He's 19 (which is young by my standards), he hadn't played any RPG before, which means he didn't have any special expectations. Ha doesn't know what Fallout or BG2 are. First he thought it was very impressive, and he was enthusiastic about all the different things he could do in the game. But after about 3 or 4 hours, he gave it up saying he was bored. He said the whole thing really felt just big, empty and repetitive.

I do think this is happening because games like Oblivion and others have the appearance of an RPG, and not the substance. The developers think it's enough to have the exterior characteristics of an RPG. And it sells, with the complicity of the specialised media (e.g. Gamespot), which is even more depressing.

That's why defining RPGs by stats and inventories is like defining an astronaut as someone with a space suit. No point if the person doesn't actually go into space.

@Anofalye:

I actually haven't played MMORPGs much (they bore the hell out of me, worse than shooters) or just traditional multiplayer games, so I'm really not qualified to comment on your post. But I can see that the qualities required of an multiplayer game would be completely different from a solo game. Another reason why they are completely different genres and not just sub-categories. In a solo game, obviously you're not there to socialise...

I understand what you are saying about the roleplaying and story. In a PnP game however, or in a solo computer game, a good story is necessary for the immersion. If the story is clichéd and stupid, the roleplaying will feel empty. You won't want to be deeply involved in a game where the events depicted feel like they were written in ten minutes by just mixing a few traditional fantasy themes. A good story isn't sufficient, but it's almost necessary for a good solo RPG. On exception would be, for me, Baldur's Gate 2 where the main story and setting are standard stuff, but the character interaction and some quality side-quests more than make up for it.

U are entitled to ur opinion but its wrong.

comradex

Thanks. You're entitled to your wrong opinions too. :lol:

Compare to shooters, side scrollers, racing, simulators etc, the above games are similar and BELONG IN THE SAME GENRE. As has been mentioned many times in this thread there are sub categories for these RPG's.

comradex

Please tell us what these games have all in common that games from other genres don't have, and I'll shut up.

Stats are never hidden in computer RPGs. As you can see in games like Neverwinter Nights, having a DnD system and managing all your stats and bonuses has become the central feature of the gameplay, which it never is, or never should be, in PnP. I feel like we're not talking the same language though, so no disrespect but I don't think there's any point in continuing to argue.

Edit: actually on second thought I think, if we're not too pig-headed, we might get somewhere.

Bah...I'm done arguing. If you people can't see what makes an RPG an RPG by what Squaresoft has done then you are all blind.Ironfungus

You didn't really argue, you just told us what you liked in those games. Please tell us how you think they're more RPGs than adventure games for example. It's not the honour of Squaresoft as a game maker which is at stake here.

Ramble all you like. This thread is for you. The concept of urgency is indeed interesting. I'm always annoyed when I'm supposed to go on a quest to save the world and the game designers expect me to go off picking mushrooms for my granny.

I think though that JPRGs can be deep, except not in the same way as Western RPGs are. If you've played Chrono Cross for instance or some Final Fantasy games (not 9), the stories can really get hairy towards the end and treat complex metaphysical issues that are never touched upon in the West. And fluffy bunnies don't always triumph as I discovered to my own amazement.

@comradex: PnP rules are very, very, very unrealistic, because they are designed to be handled simply by hand. But if you follow those rules to the letter, you'll end up doing very stupid things, because PnP game designers can't take every special case into account. That's why they ultimately need a human being, who is still much more capable than a set of tables and sheets to see if an action works in real life.

Remember that a computer only knows the few things that a human being has taught it. On the other hand, a computer can process large amounts of numbers. So instead of asking it to do a job designed for humans (handling simple dice and tables) just because you can sell games better with the DnD franchise, it should have been used to develop complex mathematical models of reality. That's what computers are good at. A computer doesn't have the ability to imagine the scene and say: "look, you're tired, you've just recovered from a poisoned arrow, you're going mad and shaking from starvation, it's pissing rain, there's no way in hell you're going to climb that muddy wall." Even if the PnP rules technically allow it.

If you think that "Role-Playing" in the PnP sense is about stats, I'd say that you're not really familiar with the concept. I can admit that it's blurry in computer gaming terms, but in PnP it has a definition, and it means playing a character, through your behaviour, moral choices and interaction with others. And I'd like to see a computer which can handle storylines better than a human being. Well it depends on the human being of course :roll:

If one of your characteristics is enough to make a RPG, then all video games are RPGs (give me a game where you don't assume the role of a character of some sort). Oblivion does not fit that definition you give in the most critical aspects. In Oblivion the choices offered are limited and meaningless. But I don't feel like flaming Oblivion today. Tomorrow maybe.

About the fruity problem, it's just that I feel like games such as WoW, Final Fantasy and Vampire Bloodlines should not belong to the same genre. I think they have too little in common. They're not like diferent types of fruit, but rather like an orange, a briefcase and a garden-shed. Today the concept of a shooter is quite straightforward, as are rts or driving simulation. RPG isn't. But that's a subjective opinion I suppose.

@Ironfongus:

I'm not talking about what makes a game good, but what makes a game a RPG. Please bear that in mind. When you talk about those hings you like, ask yourselves if they really are specific to RPGs. There are some great japanese games out there, I loved Chrono Cross, but when I examine what kind of gameplay they have, I find that they are closer to adventure games (you have to find objects and use them in the correct places to progress) and strategy, with no choices to make. I completely agree with you about the storyline and graphics, but it's not the matter at hand.

Let's forget about the whole Crysis business anyway. I hate shooters with or without dialogues. And quit posting while I'm answering your previous post, I can't keep track of things. Hey it's 3.30 am here, I'd better get some sleep.

@fireandcloud:

It's not that simple to answer I have to say, but it's an interesting question. I do think that sometimes the why and the how of a quest are more meaningful than the fact that you chose to do it. In Fable, you can say 'no' to a quest, but do you feel like you've made a meaningful choice and developed your character? In this cas, like in Oblivion, you just chose from a menu of quests, but it's not awfully involving.

As I said before, I think you misunderstood what foxhound said. It's not about whether or not crysis would be a RPG if it had dialogue options, it's about whether or not these dialogues were central to the gameplay. Question which indeed followed that of the different methods which which you can use to complete a quest, but is not exactly the same. I do think that having ways of completing quests through dialogue instead of skull-bashing is a strong feature of the kind of RPGs I like. It is quite rare however.

But, as you point out, it's not just about having the option to talk. It's about choosing carefuly what you're going to say amongst options which give you real dilemmas, and have you wonder what kind of person the said guard is and how you can influence him in a way that is faithful to your character.

Note: I answered before your last post.

I think the reason why I like dialogue choices over action choices is that the former are potentially much more subtle than the latter. Especially when the border between good and evil is a bit blurry. Choosing between saving the child who fell into the well and throwing stones at him isn't a real choice for me - I am a good guy deep down. Dialogues allow for more shades of gray.

And you're very welcome to contradict me.