Yes. A lot of people think the golden age for RPGs was when the old Interplay games were fairly new - PS:T, BG2, IWD - and to a lesser extent NWN and KotOR(underrated but up there with BG2 IMO).They are still good games, but newer games like Mass Effect 1 and 2 especially, The Witcher 1 and 2, and Dragon Age: Origins are on par(maybe not with PS:T's writing, but PS:T was a game almost entirely dialogue based and the combat was terrible) when it comes to most RPG elements and superior in other ways. Video game writing can still get much better, for some reason most games are just nowhere near book or movie quality yet and aren't progressing much. I think maybe we'll have to wait for gameplay and graphics start to be less defining as progress in those areas slow down before many devs start using writing to gain an edge.

Bwahahaha, you can't be serious.

no way the golden age of RPGs is when looking glass studios came in the scene. the games they created and inspired other developers to create are the greatest games of all time. deus ex 1, system shock 2, arx fatalis, vampire: bloodlines, and ultima: underworld. apparently even the elder scrolls and the recent fallouts are inspired by the looking glass legacy (its quite obvious actually). interplay and early bioware etc was good, but not compared to LGS legacy.

100%

People simply associate RPGs too strongly with the d20 system and little character sprites. Most RPG gamers looking at things without black isle tinted glasses, or without childhood nostalgia, would recognize Mass Effect 2 as being as valid and impressive an RPG as Baldur's Gate 2 was.

agreed the man is on crack. mass effect & dragon age are inferior in many ways. not sure bout witcher tho havent played it.

Games were definitely generally harder at one time, however harder does not mean better. In general I feel like games are better today, it's just that big ones are made for a broader audience, so some of the detail that 'vet' gamers like will be missing.

I actually think the best open world RPG ever is Ultima 7, both parts..wich iirc came out in 96'. That said, there is no question that many games have gotten better, it's just not a totally linear thing, some things are worse also.

The fact that you consider Baldur's Gate 2 "valid and impressive RPG" shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

oh yeah. mass effect or BG2. id say BG2 but its not far off. but BOTH those games are far inferior to the LGS legacy. but if your only comparing those games then i take it back- you are not on crack i apologise.

Speaking from experience, I thought Baldur's Gate 2 was the best RPG ever NO CONTEST even after playing some of the newer games I mentioned. Then I replayed it in my 20s, along with replays of said newer games. It was definitely nostalgia making me overrate it. Great game still and one of my favorite RPGs, but I can't honestly say it was better than Mass Effect 2 or Dragon Age: Origins.

I never played Deus Ex as a kid, was a little before I started gaming. I tried to get into it later but it was pretty hopeless, the game did not age as well as the much more visually appealing Interplay/Black Isle and Bioware games. Huge Thief series fan though, obviously, and IIRC Thief and Deus Ex as well as System Shock were made by some of the same people - Spector and I forget the other guy's name.

If that's so, why not choose not to use the exploit?

I actually played it for the nth time again after playing DA:O, and I have to say I felt that BG2 was the better game..nothing specific, I just felt the story was better and that essentially DA:O is a modern infinity engine style game anyway, just with less interesting plot.

I'd say Mass Effect 2 = Baldur's Gate 2 > Dragon Age: Origins all things considered, partially a personal preference thing of course. Could make an argument for the other way around depending on what you look for in an RPG. Mass Effect 2's setting was most original and appealing to me - yes highly Star Wars-esque, but better than the overdone fantasy setting of DA:O.

Games aren't food. They don't age. They don't become better or worse as time goes on. They stay exactly the same, forever.

But technology, people, and gaming standards change.

I could say that Pacman is more fun than Skyrim, and I'd get my ass kicked. But, when Pacman came out, it was the most bomb-ass [censored] ever.

When you've never had authentic mexican food, you might think Taco Bell is good.

Same kind of deal, your standards rise as you get used to better things - that includes video game graphics and combat.

thief was developed by looking glass studios
system shock 2 was co-developed by looking glass studios and irrational games. (yes the same irrational that made biosock/biosvck)
deus ex was developed by ion storm.
and the rest all by other companies too. but thief is not an rpg.
and if you gave up on deus ex because the graphics was not appealing to you then you have no place in this discussion, imo.
these are games we are talking about, not movies. (besides deus ex is better than any movie or game)
i played dx in 2006.
arx fatalis in 2008
vampire: bloodlines in 2011
system shock 2 in 2011. far superior games to ANYTHING else this gen except MAYBE fallout new vegas.

EDIT: wait a minute so your saying thief aged well visually but deus ex did not? sorry i dont wanna be a dike i just get a lil worked up over this subject cos these games are leagues above anything else in all but graphics

odd hermit, i suppose you reckon fable is a superior rpg too? please just play the 4 games i mentioned from start to finish. then you will understand "what is wrong with gaming today".

these 4 games-
i played deus ex in 2006.
arx fatalis in 2008
vampire: bloodlines in 2011
system shock 2 in 2011

i played em whilst playing modern games inbetween. from mass effect to dead island to dark souls to oblivion to bioshock to dragon age and so on. they svck in comparison.

CHEATS is what I hate about all games. Cheats and and cheat codes and being able to use console commands. Yeah you don't have to use them but it still hurts the game as a whole. It's like buying a jigsaw puzzle that has numbered pieces. Why bother?

Imagine a game like Skyrim that has no cheats available at all. It could be done with encryption techniques.

Where did this cheat mentality come from anyway?

The first person to make a truly great cheat proof game will win BIG.

Heh. Guy explains what is wrong with gaming today just makes me think "old man yells at cloud"

Hehheh, off to read the thread now.



Such things have been around since the dawn of electronic gaming.

It really doesn't worry me much, because you know, I am under zero obligation to use them. I've never found myself thinking "you know what is wrong with this game - the fact if I typed in a a certain random seeming series of letters, numbers and symbols I would activiate god mode and be invincible. Just svcks."

I'm also pretty sure the status of cheats and whether or not "cheats" are available in game rarely, if ever, enters into peoples thoughts when getting a game. I'd probably chuckle if I saw a game that advertised itself as "cheat proof" rather than think "visionaries! I will pay anything for the experience!"

lol what? cheats are fine. i never use them as they ruin the challenge. just like i never or rarely use exploits. the last time i used cheats was in gta san andreas 7 years ago, and they were extremely fun! if you just mess around with them then load your previous save. there is plenty of problems with the industry and cheats aint one of em.

I'd Imagine that would be rather frustrating every time you get stuck in a gap or incline... rooted to the spot with no recourse but to reload.

The problem with gaming is the escalation with fanboysim. Back in the day it use to be what platform was better and it still is today, but now it is more than that now you have [censored] going crazy with this "every game has to compete with the other and be better else my world will end" [censored]. I remember when dragon warrior/quest and final fantasy came out there wasn't a lot of which one was better no instead it was "well if you liked final fantasy you will like dragon warrior/quest). I remember when games were played and enjoyed and not enjoyed on the merit of their quality and not how well they matched up or were some clone of another. These days alot of games have to go multiplatform or have some multiplayer element to it just to be noticed by enough players in hopes it can become the next "standard" for gaming... everything has to be "epic", everything has to have "MP", everything has yo be streamlined and accessible, everything has to have graphics better than the last game, everything has to compete and win or else. It is just frankly stupid. People should just pick their preference the games they like, the games that appeal to them, then simply shut the hell up and just game.

The "dumbing down" catch phrase just seems to have become the cliche cry of disgruntled gamers atm.If you can't evolve with the product I see litlle sense in so much complaint but each to their own.

Pretty sure there must be endless threads complaining that all you do in some Mario games is jump and D-Pad.

In my experience RPG's have always been one of those genres that caters to both types of gamer if you play the right game for your wants and needs, as appears to be the case with FPS.I had a fair idea of what Skyrim was like before I bought it, not a number crunching high strategy RPG, so no biggy but then my expectations were obviously different than others which is only to be expected.

The only place I've ever see the debate hold much water is in RTS franchises.

At the end of the day I think if your going to buy the pop music equivalent of RPG's (or any genre), mass marketed and mass appealed, I find it ironic people complain it's not jazz.Maybe it's not the games that have changed but merely the end result of catering to the ever-changing market.

Soz guys...we all just got old.

gaming has been on a huge decline this entire generation, It's not just COD's fault either... its reviewers going nuts over mediocre games like mass effect.
on the original xbox you could pop in star wars battlefront and play it 2 hours a day for a year and not get bored.. it was amazing, it had many flaws but it was a blast.
on 360 we get "AAA game" MW3, beat it done bored in 4 days.
original xbox, halo 1 took the world by storm lan parties almost every weekend until halo 2 came out....
360, halo 3, 2 weeks, boring

360/ps3 "AAA" games that i can think off the top of my head that svck because they get boring in less then a month
mass effect ( series)
bioshock
saints row ( series)
every COD except cod4
halo 3, ODST, reach, and anniversary
uncharted ( series)
resistance (series)
dragon age 2

what happened to the value of games? i had like 7 games for the original xbox and NEVER got bored.
i have at least 30 for 360... and im bored, i have another 6 or so for PS3.

unfortunately this lack of value is one of the bigger reasons PC gaming is making a comeback... with Mods and player made stuff the game last longer... starcraft 2 would svck without custom maps. and face it, skyrim would be pretty meh on PC without the modding community.

I fear that next gen we will get more of the same, and honestly i think i might just quit one day... $60 for 6 or so hours of fun is a terrible deal when i can just watch netflix.

thank you bethesda as skyrim DID last over 60 hours, which makes it worthy of being called a AAA game.

ha ha i wish i could. the problem is there is only a few games in my fav genre- "first person roleplaying immersive simulator" genre. the 4 games i mentioned plus a couple of games not so true to the genre like fallout, eldercrolls and deus ex human revolution.