http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/3181/dsc02334z.jpg :laugh:

I like gabriel's classifications of RPG, JRPG, etc. I am always concerned though that no authoritative body exists to either support a solid definition or to define what is an RPG, JRPG, etc. It would be nice if, like the Movie Rating system we have in the US, there was a group of semi-cool people following a standard of some kind to determine what kind of RPG the game is (or what kind of FPS) a game most resembles and to tag the box as such. I know I might as well ask for a white chariot to fly down out of the sky and give me whisk me off to the promise land, but it would certainly be nice too if the gaming industry went through the trouble of establishing a ratings system that works and apply it.

I'll go back to waiting for my chariot.

most bethesda rpg's don't have endings and using the argument that most rpg's have definate endings isn't saying much because most rpg's are lousy and aren't worth playing, bethesda are the the only rpg's i play, the elder scrolls games don't have endgins where gameplay stops and they make some of the best rpg's of all time. the reason movies and books have endings is because you can't exactl'y make a movie go on for days and weeks, same with a book, its kinda hard to make a million page book. games are fun for the experience of exploration not because of some story that has to have and ending.

Okay, but this isn't a Bethesda RPG, it's an Obsidian RPG.

Hrm personally for myself, I'd say that RPG's are defined by several elements woven together to create a whole which is or at least should be greater than the sum of it's parts so to speak.

The elements/components/parts etc that I consider to be required for something to be an RPG are as listed below. (I'm adding bracketed comments to denote whether I've heard that NV has any of these).

The choice of different roles/classes/skillsets for your character/s to play through each playthrough. (Which New Vegas has)
Character Stats and Skills having an ingame effect on what or how well you can do things during the game. (Which New Vegas purportidly has)
The actions that you take throughout the game have consequences, which preferably extent beyond (the all too usual these days) immediate only. (Which New Vegas purportidly has)
The choice of how you will deal with something aka (to name the three most used varients) violently, sneakily or diplomatically. (which again New Vegas purportidly has).
The ability to choose whether your a generous/goody goody type to a greedy/evil git, in how you deal with others including how you end quests. (which New Vegas has).



So going by at least my criteria I would have to say that New Vegas is definately looking like it is a RPG.


With regards to a previous comment about linear gameplay, to myself I would have to say it is basically as follows.
Start Game> do part A> do part B> do part C> do part D> do part E> do part F> etc until you complete the game, and each playthrough follows exactly the same progression each and every time. While admitadly the quest lines for RPG's can also be be described in this manner, quite often you can choose to do Quest A> Quest D> Quest B> Quest P> Quest J in whichever order you like until you eventually do Main Quest Z> End Game.

As to whether a RPG continues after the main quest has finished or not, I'm not too fussed although I admit I lean towards the "You've completed the main quest, that's it" style mainly because a lot of the RPG's I've played which are designed to let you play after the main quest has finished either minimize the consequences of your actions throughout the game to that point or ignore them completely.

It also isn't a TES game.

Actually it's Oblivion With Guns: The Expansion Pack.

Bethesda, much as I love their many games, does not have a lock on the RPG market. Just because they are the only ones you play doesn't make that the "rule" that RPGs should be open ended sandbox games. :shrug: And heh - if you think most other RPGs are "lousy" you honestly need to broaden your gaming horizons. There are a lot of interesting games out there, that I have gotten hours and hours of enjoyment out of. Bethesda games happen to top my list as favorites (and for most hours played, not surprisingly) but I have other games that I just love, because of any combination of the following: they were well done, interesting, beautiful, told a good story, had cool game mechanics, made my laugh or even made me get a bit choked up, and often just flat out fun, or intriguing or... I could go on.

(ps: holy deja vu, you quoted a post of mine from back in June!)





*sigh* Dude. Really? Must you?

I'm more then sure his statement was a joke, Fallout in no way should be (or is) like Oblivion other then sharing the same game engine.

and the option of playing as a knight in shining armor :hehe:

Yes, I do.
And ReinbachThe3rd was right so he deserves a cookie. *opens brand new box of cookies* :cookie:
*Quickly hides cookie package from Paragon*

For my own two cents, there's a little bit too much emphasis on "genre" in videogames today. The entire concept, itself, implies that there's a comprehensive list to which one must adhere to when trying to make a specific sort of game. Or (more unfortunately, in my opinion) the idea that a game can (or should) be designed primarily with a specific genre in mind, from the very beginning. This leads to a very "color by numbers" approach, where you're ostensibly making the "perfect game" by following some sort of checklist of gameplay elements - when in reality you're more likely to end up with a generic lump of design-by-committee.

The idea that, say, an RPG must include elements like (hypothetically) an open world, a dialogue system, skill tree, experience points, etc - is inherently limiting, I should think. By the time you've incorporated all the things you "have" to include, all you've really done is limit your options for furthering the creative process and progressing the evolution of the medium.

It's certainly fair to say that some people prefer specific types of roleplaying games. And certainly designers would do well to make games with those target audiences in mind, and to incorporate the sorts of systems and elements they most enjoy. But if, say, I was to set out to make a videogame - and I started out with a roleplaying game in mind, and then ended up with something that most people thought was more of an "adventure game -" I don't see where the problem would be. "A rose by any other name," and all that... :shrug:

(Back to topic, you play a role in Fallout: New Vegas - that's all I really need for me to feel comfortable calling it a roleplaying game. It might be other things, as well - I mean, you shoot things in it, so technically it's also a "shooter." But many movies do just fine being both a comedy and a horror movie, or a thriller and a drama. The concept that every game must be pigeonholed into one specific genre or another seems particularly unique to videogames...)