I see Skyrim as an action game with RPG elements. I see Oblivion as a true action/RPG mix. I see Morrowind as a true table top RPG game being simulated in a video game. All TES are RPG's, just to different levels

Well here's thing, Kotor only had that storyline and a handfull of short side-quests, it was it's main focus and it's what has made Bioware succesfull, their focus on a cinematic experience with a strong narative.
They're also very good at giving you the illussion that you acually have a choice that will make an impact,which most of the time is very minor if it has any at all and leads you to the same goal anyway.
And how did Oblivion have more to the quests than Skyrim? If anything they had less, the majority of them didn't have conversation options past "continue" for gods sake.
There was one, and only one way to complete a quest that wasn't part of the Dark Brotherhood.
Did you ever do the mage's guild questline? Remeber that part where you needed to go and check on Count Hassildor? Do you remeber how you absolutely HAD to wait for that necromancer to string you along to progress?
You couldn't sneak up to the count and acually talk to him beacuse he wouldn't have any conversation options and you're forced into the role of playing a spineless moron without any initative with an inteligence score of 80, fantastic.
In Skyrim you often HAVE additional options but they aren't always spelled out infront of you, no they aren't deep and rarely branch, but this is a cRPG and it's still more than alot of modern RPGs.
The only rpg where choices have a real impact and truely branch for the past 7 or so years are the Witcher games.

What Skyrim lacks is structure which some people just need, if they don't have structure they're being condemed to freedom and see lack of choice rather than oppertunity.

How so?

Agree 100pct.

I still love the game and I'll be playing it for a good while yet, but the last two tes games have greatly diminished in choices. Do I classify it as an rpg, no not really its too limited.

lol.

Let me tell you something, the mechanics that some people think define an rpg are merely a method of simulating something...
When videogames came along... we didn't need to use dice and pens and paper anymore (well... with a few exceptions).

As games became more advanced it was possible to shed more of the abstract systems used for simulation and allow the player more direct experience.

Let's take combat... specifically turn based combat.

Turn based combat was designed for PnP players to simulate real time combat, something they couldn't do at the table without the GM getting hit with a stick.
With the advent of video games and the translation of the rpg into the medium, turn based combat came along for the ride.

At the time it was useful because video games were still pretty primitive.

But turn based combat as a defining trait of videogame rpgs is pretty much dead now because it's no longer needed.
The game can simulate combat in real time giving the player direct experience.

Sure turn based is fun in itself, usually good for tactical fun and I still enjoy turn based games... but I wouldn't want Skyrim to be turn based and I don't declare a game to be or not be an rpg because it doe or doesn't have turn based combat.

I hope you understand what I'm saying here... The removal of attributes for example does not make Skyrim any less of an rpg.
All those dice and pens and reams of paper were tools to let us play the game... they were not the game.

I think people forget that... particularly the min/max peeps.

For the record, I miss the attributes too but that's because I was used to those tools, but I still consider Skyrim to be an rpg.

The systems it uses to simulate the experience is irrelevant, the experience is the same as the one I get playing DnD or reading a Fighting Fantasy book... two very different systems which are both rpgs.

tl:dr yes it is.

Why? That's like saying please don't kick the ice-hockey players out of the professional (non-ice) hockey team line out. Sure D&D campaigns have come along in their time and the storyline was very little to begin with, heck I've played (u)Moira, anagand and rogue a long time ago and yes those were considered RPGs back in a time long ago before things like this could be supported but if somebody came along with a modern game like that today, it'd be considered only an adventure game or a dungeon crawler and not really an RPG. Things move on and sticking to the old out of a nostalgia feeling. They were considered RPGs since they did sort of have story lines and you could some what customize your character with but there isn't the story telling narrative that RPGs today have and so they gained their own title which wasn't and did not include three certain letters, instead they were given the genre name, Roguelike.

As it goes for a lot of these types of game types, they get categorized out of the category because they're like it but they aren't it.

Reviewers HAVE to say what publishers want to hear them say. They are NOT bribed, but if you don't work the way we'd like, no invitation to a special event to play the game. No review code or whatnot you NEED in order to review the game day one. Hell, why do you think there is a review embargo? They control who release their reviews first, and it's those who are most favorable to them. If Bethesda says the dragons are awesome and very well implemented, if they use that particular mechanic to market the game, the reviewer HAS to say the same thing. Otherwise they loose privileges and readers along the way. Why do you think gamespot fired a writer after he didn't gave Kane and Lynch a sufficient score? Because he got on the publisher's blacklist, they have no use of such a reviewer. Why do you think Teamxbox reviewed FFXIII TWICE, and after giving the same score again, stopped doing reviews for MONTHS? Why do you think IGN or Kotaku can contradict themselves so much? Why do you think Famitsu (a weekly Japanese zine) waited THREE weeks before releasing their FFVII: Dirge of Cerberus review, with the obligatory 7/10 even if that was a pile of [censored]? Why do you think that just before major games are out, they flood us with thousands of articles, videos and such about the game, and even after? Reviewers are not there to inform the player, they are there to make games sell. Afterwards you'll see Bioware's websites plastered with game of the year award, 9.5/10 or "game of the show" symbols. If Bethesda say their game is an RPG reviewers will tell their game is an RPG.

Now, sure Skyrim still has RPG elements, but it's much more of an action/adventure game. RPG is a much more marketable term than action/RPG, action/adventure/RPG or action with RPG elements. And I mean, you don't want mainstream gamers to understand clearly what you're talking about. Plus, that way Bethesda can still claim they're making the same type of games. We just "don't get it". And I call [censored] on Tod's statement that they ALWAYS made each TES game differently. Daggerfall wasn't that different to Arena, and Morrowind was meant to be much more similar to Daggerfall. There's this Morrowind map on UESP of the entire province, featuring all the Great Houses and which region they hold, how each little square is big (several miles square) with generated areas and other not. It was meant to be like Daggerfall 2. And the studio clashed. By the end of the project, most of the important guys left. All those who wrote the lore and books left, as well as the major game designers. Todd took the reigns at the end of Morrowind. So out of 5 Morrowind games, he was the head for 2 of them, claiming they always worked the same way and all. And no, they don't look at how they can make things different. That's PR stunt. Skyrim feels like a technically improved and streamlined version of Oblivion. And Oblivion felt like a technically improved and streamlined version of Morrowind. Most of the changes are them streamlining the game or adding fluff. Perks was THE major addition in Skyrim. While throwing out a lot of skills and classes which was unnecessary.


Or maybe certain strong fans like the series in the first place mostly because of the RPG elements, that now they are much more shallower and numerous than before.



What is funny, is that many western gamers make up their definition of RPG with the latest big popular game. They take a bunch of features which are unique to their game, and say they are integral parts of the game. JRPGs wouldn't even fit in your definition. Or you just take important aspects of western RPGs while forgetting other pivotal characteristics.

"mostly linear story" says you after playing Skyrim. Oblivion's MQ is 100% linear, as Morrowind's or KOTOR (wait, you can change the order in which you do the planets, only the ending can change). Hell, Far Cry 2's story is less linear than any of these games. In Splinter Cell Double Agent, you play out missions differently changing the outcome of the game.

And why the you put the emphasis on the number of roles? There's only 6 classes (some which are quite similar) in KOTOR, and you only choose to be a male or female.

The role in RPG is taken way out of context anyway. You don't take the literal meaning, as you don't take the literal meaning of shooter or driving. You shoot in Fallout but it's not a shooter. You drive quite a bit in GTA but it's not a driving game. RPG video games COME from tabletops, in order to experience the game in a different way. Stats is an integral part like it or not.

The main-quest goes DEEP into the lore of the Dhovakiin, the relationship between Akatosh and Alduin, the history of the Blades and Greybeards, the return of the Dragons, and the fate of Skyrim. The Civil War quests reveal the history of Skyrim (Jagged Crown, for instance) and explore the deeper conflicts. Sure, you can do the quests as "Go here, do this"... but that's how I played Morrowind and Daggerfall as well. "Okay, so I run these fifty fetch quest to become this Demigod thingy... Lets match Item name to Requested Quest Item, and Location-of-interest to requested Location - They match. TIME TO FINISH THE MAIN QUEST!"

"Ack! Final boss. Can't hurt him, gotta find the object I need to smack with this dagger and hammer, check quest log to get number of smacks and order of smacks right. Gotta wear quest gauntlet to handle quest dagger and quest hammer..." but still, nothing involving the lore there.

Actually... The radiant quests fill out the world: There's stuff that needs doing, it's not all about saving the world.

And your description only matches two quests in the Main Quest (Bleak Falls Barrow, and Horn of Jurgen Windcaller), and just a handful of the Companion's quests, but then again, the Companions are pretty straightforward like that. The other faction quests are all MUCH deeper than that, as are several of the non-Radiant, non-faction quests available in the world.

no RNG = no RPG

There are people in the PnP community that play Rolemaster, and look down on anyone playing D+D, saying it's not a true RPG because the ruleset isn't as complex. Sounds familiar somehow...

Not that this is the place to actually discuss things of this nature, but I'll bite:

Evolution: The theory that everything is the way it is today through complex growth and evolution over millions of years.

Now, you are so eager to claim this is flat out bull crap, yet you as a Christian believe that humans, the most complex and intelligent creatures on Earth, were created by God using only... Dirt.

Show us factual scientifically proven evidence on that or shut the hell up, hypocrite.

Honestly, I don't believe either, but evolution sure as hell is a lot more believable.

Also, I find it hilarious how you are arguing with Seti18 when he is 100% correct in regards to Skyrim.


Now, to the topic at hand:

It is my opinion that Skyrim is an RPG, but not to the extent it could have been, especially compared to previous games in the series. Looking back at Daggerfall and Morrowind and looking at how Skyrim turned out, I can't help but honestly say: If Skyrims DLC isn't as "game changing for the better" as Bethesda is leading on, I will never pay for another TES game again.

D&D stands by its tradition, and remains the definitive tabletop RPG in the industry. I've played several "hack-and-slash" campaigns.

What makes an RPG is the mechanical development and growth of a character. Most Dungeon Crawlers are therefore RPGs.

This thread seems to have devolved in to a circular debate over semantics involving a lot of browbeating. Fun to read at first, then depressing, then irritating and now just pointless; seriously, if you cannot even agree what it is you're arguing about are you sure its worth arguing over? Unless of course your just arguing for arguments sake, in which case carry on and more power to you.

I can't really comment because I haven't played through the main quest, but how does this differ substantially from the amount of information concerning things like the Battle at Red Mountain, Ashlander beliefs, conflicts between ashlanders, great houses, the temple, imperial presence, Dagoth Ur, the disappearance of the Dwemer, etc encountered during the course of Morrowind's main quest?

Do you mean it's more explicit?

As a 25 year plus pen and paper role player I agree with you here. Ifrankly get tiewed of this old saw and fins it to have zeroo credibilty with me. It works just fine as a rpg for me and my family.

OP doesn't even explain how this isn't a RPG. How delightful!

First, Perks that define your character.

Second, you have to level up skills

Third, You can roleplay as a mage, archer, magic person, etc.

Fourth, Race based skills

Fifth, I shouldn't have to go on. Really if you don't think this is an RPG game I feel sorry for you.

Except that comparisons are largely between Skyrim and other Elder Scrolls games, rather than Skyrim and some other specific RPG.

The only thing that makes any game an RPG is that the objective is playing a role. Skyrim fits the definition.

NO! UP YOURS!

If this isn't an RPG, I really don't know what is. This is from a guy who can remember before D&D when we we using Chainmail miniture rules to roleplay fantasy with.

These are my thoughts as well.

Stop right there. "No longer need", that's not true. Real time combat is dependent on the player's reflexes more than anything else. There are tactics sure, but it's mostly about your reflexes "hit him with the sword, block just before he hits you back". Heck, Daggerfall had real-time combat while JRPGs were turned based, and the game is pretty old. Turned-based combat puts way more emphasis on tactics on the other hand, almost none on player reflexes. Play FFVII (for example) you need to decide which of the 3 characters will attack, if all 3 don't attack. Decide which attack is more effective, maybe cast a spell or maybe you should save the mana. Which character will heal who (or everyone) and when, magic or item? You have to attribute your characters materia, and you can do a combination of them, enabling you to do new things in combat. But having a certain combination of materias disable you from having others which could be useful for a certain situation. You can always decide to give healing materias to everyone, or specialize one character in healing. And it will work in both cases, but differently. There's a lot of thinking and planning involved in turn-based RPGs, MUCH more than ones with real-time combat like Morrowind or Skyrim. BUT turned-based combat is less realistic. It depends on what you want to achieve with the game. If you want to make a huge immersive world for you to explore, well you're better with real-time.

And it's not for no reason we call Morrowind or even Daggerfall action/RPGs, that's because the combat aspect of the game is more of an action game than RPG, it's about the player reflexes, and not the character's abilities (or much less). Look at Morrowind's combat, it's more RPG than Skyrim, because there's a lot more stats involved than in Skyrim. The lack of stats in Skyrim means they are replaced by the player's skills, rather than the character's (role) skills. That's what a lot of people seem to forget about the RPGs, it's not about you, it's about your character.

It's an argument between one ruleset and another ruleset. The campaign doesn't change simply because the GM decides to play using another ruleset, which is what Bethesda did.

Who said anything about saving the world? More so when I'm playing a destructive mage hell-bent on destructing the world? At least on my current play through. The Radiant quests really are fulfilling, and I often get directed back to areas I already cleared out in the past and are level-locked to like level 15 when I'm level 62.

In the college of winterhold you have the midden... what's the point of the midden!?


then the thieves guild


I haven't really done anything in the DB yet, so I can't comment.

The companions guild actually forces you to do some radiant quests, which I've already criticized as such... yeah...


Okay, Okay maybe I could have describe the grip a bit better, some dungeons are also little more then prepping up a boss at the end with people dying off in it but nothing else.


I remember in oblivion... the deep one