What was your best rpg experience in a video game?

While I'm a fan of the concept, even the games I liked the most always fell short one way or another. Mostly the problem for me is a limitation of the medium.

I really like a lot of skyrim. The part I don't like is how the characters and storytelling feel shallow. But even in the games I did like in the past, the same complaints could be made. None of them have been 100% flawless.

So, is there a limitation to the medium or have other games pulled it off, good stories and rp? And not just remembering it better than it was, stuff that holds up even now.

The Dragon Age games were good with the RP aspect as far as actually making choices... I find there to definitely be a bit of a lack of choice in Skyrim but I don't exactly expect this to be D&D either and I never expect much in the way of choice in a game so that when I actually have choice in one it just makes me happier with the game...

i think for me one of the things missing in this game was that there were so few major characters i actually cared about. it seems like bethesda really wanted to make it a point that everyone is a [censored] in some way or another.

i always point to FF6 for example (even though the style is totally different). i loved most of the characters and even the main villain was "loveable" in his own right as well.

I also think Dragon Age, especially the first one, is among the best for me. Lots of choices, and you get a little background on your character early on.

Skyrim and the rest of TES is like...a different kind of roleplaying. It can be slightly harder to get into, but I feel like I have a bit more freedom.

the problem that I have with the games that you have mentioned is there is no input from you after you decide what class you

will play. In Skyrim you are constantly roleplaying your character. You decide what class, what skills to improve, what to train in.

and you also get to go off the beaten path unlike the games that were mentioned.

i played and enjoyed AD&D games since the 80s and both Dragon Age games. to really roleplay Skyrim has them all beat.

My RP is very combat-based, always has been, so Skyrim is near perfect for me.

Sorry for using this thread but I didn't want to start a new topic for what I have to ask.

Does anyone have the link to the thread that gives some very good tips for roleplaying? Forgive me but I can't remember exactly who posted the thread, all I can remember is that it is quite popular as it was very useful!

Invisible walls always bothered me, reminders that you are in a simulation of a world no different from Disney. All of these Beth games have been good about that in a physical sense.

I never had the patience for the final fantasy games.

My biggest favorite for storytelling was the original Dune. It was 100% on rails and all you did was satisfy conditions to make the story move forward but at least there were no conventional fetch quests, just moving people about. Felt more real.

Of course, this game is freaking old so probably wouldn't have aged well for the modern audience

Roleplaying , especially in a single-player world , is whatever you make it.The poblem some of us have (me specifically) is if you're trying to roleplay a seriously anol GOOD character the game can get rather frustrating.But that's nothing new actually.After calming down a bit I realize that yes , being uncompromisingly good anywhere is harder than taking the easy route , always has been.My mistake was trying to play this kind of character for the very first run-through.Most roleplay starts with a premise you've devised and try to stick with.One of the easiest starters is simply playing a guy or gal that's simply trying to survive and maybe have a good life someday.Nothing is hard-set on your path with this premise , so ending up as a thief is completely plausible because the money's good , well better money than your poor adventuring soul has found on it's own.

Going the extreme uncompromising good , or bad guy , can be some of the most challenging ways to start off any game.Both ways will leave you with big parts of the game content inaccesible as your evil guy kills/steals/cheats anything he sees fit.Your good guy is the exact opposite and will miss pretty good stuff like the thieves guild stuff and dark brotherhood.You'll also not be doing many fun things like pickpocketing or stealing sweetrolls from the guards quarters =P.There's nothing set on rails in this game , you simply don't do certain things while doing certain other things.But as far as this game it has the most possible actual freedom at the same time, it may leave you thinking ,"Ok , what now?"I was personaly a little put-off because my first impression is being bad rewards you much more in this game.It does in the immediate sense , just like the real-world can.But there's lingering problems you can cause for yourself for that immediate gratification that will sit on your shoulder pecking at you for quite some time.Being totally good you miss alot of content in this game but at the same time you never worry about entering a town , or going anywhere for that matter.

So starting off being a nuetral more open-minded type of PC , then feeling out what you like and dislike about things is probably the best way to go.Even my "mostly" bad assassin had a problem with the torture chamber after the end of the main quests for the DB,But you reap what you sow.

Too many of the important characters are indeed too shallow. "Story-telling" is fine - it's refreshing to play a game where part of the story-telling is left to the player. Where Skyrim is falling woefully short is on the consequences, as far as the main questlines are concerned.

When the Civil War is settled in favor of one faction or another, NPC's ought to be taking notice. Changes need to be a bit more involved than a change of uniform for the town guards.

When the Main quest features opposing factions with different ideologies, it makes little sense to bounce the player between both of them then abruptly have him choose sides when it doesn't matter. He should be choosing early on, with consequences changing how events flow.

the consequences you're talking about prob involve the game having to end like in new vegas...how the consequense were supposedly so big that you were forced to quit playing after the last lame quest, forget that...nothing respawned either because of the so called consequences, so forget that game ending consequences business, one of the reasons i play bethesda games is because they basically allow you to decide when your game ends yourself...so how they did it works for me perfect...there's enough consequences to make it fun...i'm enjoying the game a lot,,,the dungeons respawn, you can play all the questlines to the end and it doesn't end the game. what you're talking about is obsidians way of making a game...consequences=game ends and you have to start over. so if you want consequences just restart a new character after you finish the main quest.

Yeah , if anything I think Beth might be onto a different concept here that's not completely been realized is that the PC does win , but he also keps living and doing things.The need for a hard END has always bugged me about certain peoples' expectations of everything.I like cliff-hangers and imagining what's going on after the main story has been told.The only real END in this story is the PC becoming too old to do anything , dying early , or simply saying ok I did part NEXT! If you try viewing the NPCs reactions or non-reactions towards you as maybe some other effect like you saving the world , so maybe they'll just turn a blind eye to that sweetroll you just took or maybe not.I also was trolling for every possible story flaw , and found them in spades according to previous experiences with games that rail you into a hard ending. Even Mass Effect2 , I skipped alot of the side mission stuff because I knew I was gonna have to play the way THEY wanted the game to flow , because the side missions in that game just become sad and you're super god guy killing everything.I don't feel any pressure in this game to advance ANYTHING.

You can literally roleplay a farmer or whatever and never do anything.That personally doesn't thrill me , but there's posts about people trying just that.The story doesn't overwhelm you with people that will come to you and force quest objectives on you , you have to go out and be active in this game for that to happen.Try "just hanging out" in other games , most will force the issue in some way.I'm appreciating some more aspects of this game as it grows on me now.

im gonna go out on a limb here and give Bethesda a lil slacks as in thegame isnt completely finished yet as far as the consequences go. It would be great if they added the consequences later in the DLC as in lets say for example....BIG SPOILER
















lets say u finished the Stormcloak side and at the end, Ulfric still isnt High king yet they are waiting on the Moot. Lets say in a DLC the Moot shows up but depending on which side u sided with is what happens...Lets say for stormcloaks, they give the moot to ur toon and make him high king, soemthign happens with Ulfric either dueling u or going off into the sunset with a warning taking quite a bit of stormcloaks with him . now lets say u sided with the Empire, they allow the Moot to go on and u become the high king under the empire. Lets say consequences would be DB assassins after u and maybeeither stormcloak or thalmor grps waiting for ya on the side of the road . Lets say there is a DLC that impacts who u sided with and who u let live with the greybeards/blades. like how there would be 2 lets say optional paths, seeign hwo the thing would need to be doen if u never got to that point so choosing would either give ya a different route, battle, items, etc.

And yes i know realistically these thigns probl;emly will never happen......but a drunk man can dream though..........

No, they don't. They involve changing part of world state, similar to what was done in Morrowind and Oblivion. I'm unconcerned with whether there's anyone on the throne, but it does irk me when you supposedly end the Civil War and almost no one notices.

Its a limitation of the medium to a large extent imo.
In PnP the referee can choose to concentrate on a particular aspect (eg storytelling, character development, player freedom, choice and consequence) based on what their players want. A videogame has to concentrate on some aspects more than others so inevitably it will neglect aspects that are important to some RPers.
Also there are some things a videogame just can't do as well as PnP (yet anyway). Manys the time when I've wished that the developers of the game had included other options for solving a quest or reacting to something a NPC says or does, but they just can't give options for all the unlikely, brilliant or foolish things a player might decide to do.
To me the best video RPG I've ever played was Morrowind, doubtless because it paid attention to aspects of RPGs that I find important.

being anonimous to everyone but your guildmates is at the core of the TES games.

just like in oblivion you save the world and what do you get....some crappy armor.

New Vegas.

I shouldn't have to explain why.