Have to disagree: for me, a large part of the fun is developing a team of characters, each with its own strengths and weaknesses that come into play when planning and then executing a battle. For this reason, I 've really enjoyed turn-based games -- BG2 obviously, but also the first icewind dale and wizardry 8 and Jagged alliance. The first KOTOR was also pretty good at handling turn-based team play.

More to the point -- currently real-time RPG's are basically too-easy too-frantic click-fests that dont reward thought or planning. Utterly boring to me. Are there any current real-time RPG's that you like?

Regarding your assertion that console asian RPG's like FF arent in any way RPG's. I dont like these games either because the stories are utter drivel, but there's lots of opportunities for the player to develop and customize a team of characters and those choices can play a huge role in combat. FF10 comes to mind but there's plenty of others. It may not be the kind of RPG either you or I want to play, but they are RPG's. Cant believe I'm defending console RPG's but your definition of RPG is one that many many folks wont agree with and I wanted to reply

There are several current console RPG's including Final Fantasy 12 that moved to real-time combat and this trend is very discouraging when you play them.

Hmm, I wouldn't consider any of the FF games to be RPGs anyway. They've always been adventure games with a few stats that only come into play during combat.

The extreme advantage of turn-based or semi-turn-based is that it give the developer and gameplayer MANY more options in the course of combat that never could be implemented in real-time.

The only advantage that turn-based combat offers is more control over party members. When you only control a single character, real-time combat offers the same choices as turn-based combat, only with less time between each choice and more opportunities to even make choices. Seeing as how controlling a party is inherently less immersive than controlling a single character (in real life, you only take on the role of one person), RPGs should ideally focus on only one character: you. And any combat you engage in should be real-time.

I for one never feel "dropped out of the game" with turn-based or semi-turnbased (like BG2). The extreme advantage of turn-based or semi-turn-based is that it give the developer and gameplayer MANY more options in the course of combat that never could be implemented in real-time.

There are several current console RPG's including Final Fantasy 12 that moved to real-time combat and this trend is very discouraging when you play them. Combat becomes a random click-fest with pretty light effects. You can give your characters abilities before the fighr but then you set them on automatic when fighting. To me it is utterly 100% lame.

What's discourging is that teens love this style of gameplay. Hence we're gonna be stuck with this type of RPG for years to come.

But you're only referring to the majority of RPGs actually available. So that leaves pretty much Diablo 1-2. And that wasn't so much an RPG as a mega-clickathon on one level to fortify your stats to clear the next. Bleh.

I agree, Diablo isn't an RPG. It's an action game with stats. A poor action game, at that.

To me, an RPG is all about immersion. I want to be immersed in the game's world and believe that the characters within it actually have some modicum of intelligence.

Turn-based combat, while useful for handling a party, really sucks you out of the immersion by forcing you to take turns during a fight for your life. In an RPG where you only control one character, turn-based combat really isn't necessary at all, as you can make all the same choices with real-time combat. The only difference is that you have to make them much more quickly.

On the other hand, the benefits of real-time combat are plentiful. You never suddenly switch from a real-time game world to a turn-based combat system and thus, you never get pulled out of the game. In addition, you get to make more choices as you are not limited by turns. And of course, you never get a chance to sit around ponder your next move, making the whole encounter far more intense.

As for stats, I believe they are important for RPGs but should not be the only thing driving gameplay. The main purpose of stats is to ensure that the player is actually playing a role. If, however, every action's success is dependent solely on one's stats, there's a strong sense of detachment between the player and his character. To create an immersive game, you have to make it feel like the player has control over his actions. Relying completely on stats takes this control away and makes it feel like the player is simply ordering his character around rather than actually being that character.

The best way to ensure player involvement while maintaining the purpose of stats is to strike a balance between the two. Allow the player to aim where he wants, attack when he wants to, etc. Just make sure that the efficiency of these actions is largely affected by stats. For example, if a player chooses to wield dual pistols, the accuracy and recoil of his shots would be affected by his dual wield stats. If a player wants to be stealthy, he should be able to hide behind cover or in shadows and his stealth stat should determine how well he can do this. A player with a maxed out stealth stat would be able to peak around corners without being seen while a player with a low stealth stat would be noticed rather quickly. Balance between character stats and player skills is key.

Of course, the best perspective for an RPG is a first-person one, as it is the one that we can relate to the most and is thus the most immersive. Conversely, isometric perspectives are the worst, as they severely limit your view distance and prevent you from looking where you want, when you want to. Good for party-based, turn-based combat? Sure. But then, I don't like parties or turn-based combat in my RPGs.

With these considerations in mind, you can see why I disagree with all the people who claim that a good RPG must be turn-based and rely entirely on stats, as all the "classic" RPGs did. I think that the mold set down by Oblivion is a good one. Bethesda got the perspective right and the player involvement right. Now they just need to work on giving the player more high-level choices and having these choices make a meaningful impact on the game world.

Of course you're right there, but it does make me wonder what RPGs you actually played in the past few years going by your passage.

KOTOR1&2, Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines & Redemption, Morrowind, Oblivion, NWN1&2, Gothic 1,2,3... pretty much anything that's come out, I've played.

I, for example, loathe turn-based combat (in RPGS) and completely stats-based gameplay. While there are some benefits to both, I believe that the negatives far outweigh them.

But you're only referring to the majority of RPGs actually available. So that leaves pretty much Diablo 1-2. And that wasn't so much an RPG as a mega-clickathon on one level to fortify your stats to clear the next. Bleh.

Does this make my opinion somehow inferior to your's? Nope. It just means I expect different things from RPGs.

Of course you're right there, but it does make me wonder what RPGs you actually played in the past few years going by your passage.

This comment was edited on Apr 16, 02:11.

But the sort of games that just completely blew me away and got me hooked on gaming to begin with will become increasingly few and far between.

This is an inevitability as the business grows more mainstream and production costs grow sky high. The likelihood of seeing a new, high-profile game adopting the "classic" CRPG mold of your dreams is very, very low. You're better off just replaying the old ones.

Though, keep in mind that what appealed to you so much in those games may not have the same appeal to everyone else. I, for example, loathe turn-based combat (in RPGS) and completely stats-based gameplay. While there are some benefits to both, I believe that the negatives far outweigh them. Does this make my opinion somehow inferior to your's? Nope. It just means I expect different things from RPGs.


This comment was edited on Apr 15, 19:43.

The reason why I'm really hard on Oblivion, despite the huge numbers of hours I've logged in it, is because I'm afraid that it represents the direction RPGs are going to go.

That, plus the fact that it's being lauded so fiercely. It's the same thing with games like Halo or HL2. Both were decent games. Neither, imo, were nearly as good as they were hyped to be.

Oblivion is a fun game. But take away the phenomenal graphics, and you've got a decidedly mediocre game. But the "hype machine" (ie, most review sites that spend <5hrs "reviewing" a game) churns overtime on such games. It really just comes down to style over substance - which I think is a bad path to be heading down.

I am, in fact, "pleased" by a significant number of games that I've played, despite having criticisms of them.

Very true. The only game I ever felt like I completely wasted my money on was Star Wars Galaxies. Other than that I've always gotten enough enjoyment out of title to feel like I got my monies worth. That does not however mean that I liked all of those games equally. Some were far, far better than others. When I criticize a game it's because it doesn't measure up to other titles, not because I absolutely hated it. That's because I'm a smart enough consumer of games to know which games I'm absolutely going to hate and then avoid them. The reason why I'm really hard on Oblivion, despite the huge numbers of hours I've logged in it, is because I'm afraid that it represents the direction RPGs are going to go. Oblivion was fun, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't measure up to the classic CRPGs. And the more the press and console crowd hoist Oblivion up as an example of the future, the less likely it becomes that we'll see a return to what made those classic CRPGs classic games. Will games still be enjoyable? Yeah, I'll probably still even spend hundreds of dollars each year and waste countless hours to them. But the sort of games that just completely blew me away and got me hooked on gaming to begin with will become increasingly few and far between.

This comment was edited on Apr 15, 14:03.

There are a decent number of people who dislike Casablanca or The Godfather.

And said people have no taste.

Gamers, gamers never change.

You know, when someone is claiming that red is blue, you can only argue about it so long before you realize that you're never going to convince them that red is not, in fact, blue.

You do realize that different organisms see colors in different ways, right?

I'm starting to wonder if there are clubs of these people where they decide what old game to elect the "ultimate RPG" so they have a point of reference when they badmouth new games.

Wait, so a large percentage of people share a similar opinion, and it can't possibly because the opinion is legitimate, it must be a big conspiracy?

We PC gamers are getting to be a very hard-to-please group.

Who is this "We PC gamers" you are refering to? I, and a lot of other PC gamers, happened to enjoy playing Oblivion. I dislike some of the design choices that developers made. And I would be greatly disappointed if they used those choices in a Fallout 3. But overall, the game was decent. I don't consider it to be as good as Fallout 1/2, or BG 1/2 for that matter. But the fact I have complaints about the game doesn't mean that I'm "hard-to-please" so much as it means that I think the game could be better. As could almost every game I play.

I am, in fact, "pleased" by a significant number of games that I've played, despite having criticisms of them. I think you are under the impression that people who express criticism of a game are "unpleased" by it. Or that the minority of people who post on forums in displeasure represent the majority of PC gamers. Or both.

My sister used to hum loudly when she couldn't think of anything to say while we were arguing. It's always funny to see the internet equivalent.

You know, when someone is claiming that red is blue, you can only argue about it so long before you realize that you're never going to convince them that red is not, in fact, blue. If you can't understand that, well, feel free to start humming loudly.

But I'm not expousing an idea, I'm talking about a definition.

Ah, yes, the universally-accepted definition of "open-ended game." Care to show me the dictionary or encyclopedia entry where this completely objective, absolute and unquestionable definition can be found?

And even I know never played any of the Fallout series, that it is one of the classic PC games of all time.

How can you compare a yet-to-be-released game to one that you never played? The only valid comparison is that you haven't played either. Also, "classic" status is less relevant for games than it is for movies (where it's already fairly irrelevant). There are a decent number of people who dislike Casablanca or The Godfather. For each factor that can turn someone off to a movie (the viewer doesn't like an actor, or the music, etc.), there are 10 for a game. So calling a game a classic isn't as significant as it sounds. A lot of the love people have for Fallout is due to it being the first RPG they enjoyed, too. I played BG before I played Fallout, so all of my "wow, this role-playing game is so cool!" feeling was used on BG. By the time I played Fallout, I was already pretty familiar with RPGs, and it didn't wow me like BG did. Sure it was good, but not really what I'd call "the best RPG ever!"

As far as open ended-ness goes, Jeryyk is right. It's rather amusing that so many people let their fond memories of games from the "good old days" define terms for them. How would you define "open ended" if Fallout had never been made? The funny thing is, years from now when Fallout is long forgotten, the ornery "that's not a REAL RPG" crowd will compare everything unfavorably to Elder Scrolls XV. I'm starting to wonder if there are clubs of these people where they decide what old game to elect the "ultimate RPG" so they have a point of reference when they badmouth new games.

We PC gamers are getting to be a very hard-to-please group. It almost makes me want to switch to "next gen" (I guess the next generation will be "next next gen") consoles. But then there are those damn thumb sticks, and I'm too old to learn a new way to play shooters.

Ok, thanks for proving you have no idea what an "open ended" game is. Discussion over.

You don't understand what the definition of an "open ended game" is, therefore you are not qualified to talk about them. Having a discussion about them with you is pointless.

My sister used to hum loudly when she couldn't think of anything to say while we were arguing. It's always funny to see the internet equivalent.
This comment was edited on Apr 15, 01:20.

In our debate over STALKER's poor design, weren't you constantly telling me not to claim that my opinions were fact..?

Yup. But I'm not expousing an idea, I'm talking about a definition. You don't understand what the definition of an "open ended game" is, therefore you are not qualified to talk about them. Having a discussion about them with you is pointless.

Ok, thanks for proving you have no idea what an "open ended" game is. Discussion over.

In our debate over STALKER's poor design, weren't you constantly telling me not to claim that my opinions were fact..? The irony is not lost to me.

One possibility I've always thought about was to set the game like 3 days after the bombs have dropped.

That might make a decent game, but I don't think it should be Fallout 3. I'm looking for a sequel at this point, not a prequel. Unless they decide not to call it Fallout 3, in which case, yeah, your idea would be quite good. "Fallout: Origins" or something tacky like that.

Ironically, your example of Hitman is a perfect example of an open-ended game because of its many low-level choices.

Ok, thanks for proving you have no idea what an "open ended" game is. Discussion over.

Nowadays, games that are labelled "RPG" are either real-time strategy hybrids (click-fests) or shooters with a few limited character choice options (like Stalker).

I don't think STALKER was ever officially labeled as an RPG. You are right that games like Diablo shouldn't be called RPGs, though.

As for Fallout 3, I'm not going to form any opinion until I actually know something about the game.

Jerykk Beth was the publisher, so they have the final call on Legacy. Another game rushed out to get Xmas sales, and no contact at all with Beth or Mad Doc about further support except through their forum moderators. BTW there was suppose to be no demo for Legacy as well but guess what, 360 got one last month.

As for the paint drying comment, there is a reason it's called a cliche.