[Maddy Paul]

Yes that was the question I asked Since thread 1, I made it clear I really don't give whether people feel if its an RPG or not, I even made a point of it by Drawing MW3 into it and comparing them, but of course that was wasted effort since all I got back was how it WAS an RPG..and I'm like that's not what I was asking. and the last few threads as stated by another forumer did result in nothing more than Circle jerking.

So what is your question exactly? What makes an RPG, or what makes Skyrim an RPG?

I can't really be bothered to go onto the 1st thread and re-read through what I read yesterday.

[priscillaaa]

So what is your question exactly? What makes an RPG, or what makes Skyrim an RPG?

I can't really be bothered to go onto the 1st thread and re-read through what I read yesterday.

Probably something like. Why do we consider Skyrim an RPG and CoD not an RPG when they use the same mechanics?

[Eibe Novy]

No not what makes Skyrim an RPG, since RPG is so skewed now any game can be an RPG.

What makes Skyrim a -GOOD- Rpg.

Which will lead into arguments about what makes a Good RPG

More Circle jerking

See where I'm going with this?

[Lucky Girl]

This expresses my feelings on this matter.
http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/6949/evolutionoftheelderscro.jpg

[Aaron Clark]

This expresses my feelings on this matter.
http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/6949/evolutionoftheelderscro.jpg

SPEARS!

[Josee Leach]

This expresses my feelings on this matter.
http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/6949/evolutionoftheelderscro.jpg

gg

[Sophie Morrell]

Lolololololol, damn thats funny!

[John N]

No not what makes Skyrim an RPG, since RPG is so skewed now any game can be an RPG.

What makes Skyrim a -GOOD- Rpg.

Which will lead into arguments about what makes a Good RPG

More Circle jerking

See where I'm going with this?

Yeah I can see your point where people had to claim that what makes good RPG's is "Choice" and "quantifiable numbers" or something along those lines. In reference to COD being a first person shooter with RPG elements ONLY available in the multiplayer, sure the game has "stats" and "damage numbers" but anything these days that's released will have, at a basic level numbers that determine the effect and outcome i.e. weapon damage x location / armour vs player health.
Anything else that's RPG'ish that applies to COD is irrelevant, there is no character progression apart from the multiplayer component which we shouldn't even be discussing. The game has set characters with set backgrounds, it's a corridor upon corridor of linear storytelling but that much is to be expected, it's a game of urgency and leaves no time for you to stop and chat and attempt to immerse yourself into the world.

Skyrim on the other hand is an RPG, be it an ARPG or an RPG with AA elements. You create your character at a blank slate, there are numbers that factor into this but technically you start off as the master of nothing and eventually develop into something that you yourself have aimed for without being shoehorned into. Some of the most well renowned aspects of RPG's is character development (You can't deny that exists) narrative (Story took a dive since Morrowind but whatever) and immersion (TES are one of the rare games I can RP successfully in).
Now what makes it a good RPG is a subjective question, but I never bought Skyrim for the quality of writing, I bought it for the quality of the crafted world (immersion) and the depth of the character creation (Spent 30 hours re-rolling trying different races/playstyles).

[TASTY TRACY]

@ Azrael - Of course you can quote from another thread, or anywhere else for that matter. Type [.quote]:Lalala I like donkey dookie[./quote] except without the periods in the brackets.

Lalala I like donkey dookie

I didn't make anyone's point except to say that Skyrim isn't 'stat heavy' at all because it has just as many or less stats than a completely non-stat heavy game, Call of Duty.

ooh, looks like I hit somebody hard
Ha, buddy, my assessment (opinion) was obviously not directed at you but, to those who where in fact "yearning to the past". Although the extent of your retort would lead me to assume otherwise... But besides that, even if I my comment(s) supposedly did "demean" (or refute) your choice and or opinions I (and you) have all the right to do so... It's a simple "trivial" opinion
( so long as we stay within the boundaries of the rules of course... )Now, the nostalgia claim is far from a lazy or outlandish argument. It is completely valid.

I was more annoyed of the condescending attitude of your initial post 'tsk tsk tsk' and felt that I should strike back in an equally prissy way. I didn't actually think you were referring to just me in your comments, but at the same time in answering them I didn't want to put words in other people's mouths or speak for them, so I used my own personal experiences as an example for why you were wrong. As for whether or not nostalgia is a lazy argument. of course it is. Your post dismissed two and half threads worth of arguments with the equivalent of 'Oh, silly boys! It's just nostalgia'. I already outlined why it was an outlandish claim to begin with - you may disagree with mine or other's opinions on where the Elder Scrolls series should be going but your initial post seemed to suggest that the opinions of myself and people like me simply weren't based on fact, or accurate 'recollections' of an old but beloved game. This is not true, we're still playing Morrowind, in some cases we've played it more recently than Skyrim.

I'm worried to wonder if the arguments in this thread closed it twice, and this is the third version... I won't go into detail, but damn. You guys have a lot of insecurity issues. I'm not saying I don't either, but jesus christ. Can't we all get along? Have constructive criticism instead of outright trash talk? It's a little ridiculous at this point. :l

First of all the previous threads weren't closed for any reason other than they reached the 200 post limit so, like any other thread, they were closed and members are encouraged to create new ones if they so desire. Secondly, I don't think there are any 'insecurity' issues and for the most part people aren't trash talking. If you feel that this is an unproductive, obnoxious, or unworthy thread then you're free to stop visiting it.

A path that is totally avoidable the moment you step out of the cavern, and on the other side of the mountain. Whoever you side with, the Stormcloak or the Imperial, even suggest splitting up, and possibly meeting again with them later. You wanna go your own way and avoid the "linear" path of the main story? You are so much as encouraged to do so!

Of course you technically have the option of avoiding the story (unless you sided with Hadvar and want to walk what amounts to twenty seconds to get to vendors to buy all of the 200-some pounds worth of crap before making a longer journey...) But it just isn't the same as Morrowind's non-fixed path. I shouldn't have to 'steer clear' of the main quest like a ship perilously circling a whirlpool, in danger of falling in at any time. Anytime I try and visit Whiterun it will pull me back in immediately, and if I want to do the golden claw quest then in all likelihood I'm stuck carrying a 25 pound deadweight around for forever unless I want to turn it into Farengar, thus released the fiasco we call 'Dragons' on the world.

Quests do have choice that didn't exist in Morrowind.

The Paarthurnax decision in the main quest, which will completely isolate you from one faction or another. The choice to side with Saadia and assist her, or the choice to side with the Alik'r and turn her in. In "A Night To Remember", do you investigate on your own to find out what happened, or do you intimidate your way through everyone to get what you want? In "Escape From Chidna Mine", do you side with the Forsworn leader, or do you kill him? During the main quest, you control ceasefire negotiations between the Imperial Legion and the Stormcloaks, your choices in the negotiations are up to you and based upon previous actions in the game, as well as having consequences with your civil war faction. That kind of choice did not exist in Morrowind

Choices like this existed in Morrowind completely. I spent yesterday doing the Imperial Legion quest line, so lets examine it: In the very first quest I'm being told to shake down a widow for the deed to her dead husband's land. I can either murder her and take the deed, I can beat her up and steal it, or I can listen to her version of events saying that a legionnaire murdered her husband and this turns out to be true. I can avenge the husband's death, save the widow's land, and then later donate a small amount of gold to a fund the legion is starting to help the widow. Later on I'm sent to rescue an Imperial missionary in the Ashlands who has been kidnapped. When I get there it turns out he's been taken by evil Ashlander witches, and once I find them they say that I can have the scholar back, but only if I bring them a substitute sacrifice instead. Or I can just kill them all to free him. In an earlier quest there was a similar rescue mission where I had the choice of paying an exorbitant ransom, or killing the kidnappers.

Ever played the Bloodmoon expansion? Oh ho ho! This has choices out the wazoo. You can decide which person in the East Empire company to support - the really greedy guy, or the more humane, good guy. This will lead to different quests and different outcomes. PLUS if I want to in the main quest, I can choose to either fight against the Daedra Hircine, or become his werewolf minion. So you see, we've returned to my last post where I said that basically the absolute best you can argue is that Skyrim does as good a job at quests as Morrowind (I argue worse but whatever), as if the only thing that should have been improved in the last ten years was graphics.

[Lauren Dale]

I wouldn't know. What I do know is that after Morrowind, I find all BGS games extremely boring. I 've had more fun trying to make mods work than actually playing the games themselves.

[IsAiah AkA figgy]

This expresses my feelings on this matter.
http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/6949/evolutionoftheelderscro.jpg

AGREED

[sexy zara]

Dale B

With all due respect and affect to Arena and Daggerfall (great products for their times) but i sincerely think that even the developers would prefers suicide to the possibility of being forced to play those games now,every day and for months like we can do easily with Skyrim

Apart from joke you've said the magical word: for their times. Priorities changes in this industry.

Who cares about the -developers- playing the game? They build them. The users are the ones who pay for the game.....and there is still a very active community of players of Daggerfall to this day. Despite the hoops you have to jump through to =get= it to play on modern hardware and current OS choices.

Now think about that. There are still significant numbers of people playing a 1996 DOS era CRPG in 2012. Ultima can't say that, nor can Might & Magic. Kind of suggests that there might be something in the design formula of Daggerfall that really works, doesn't it?

And spare me the 'well, things change in the industry'. That does not mean the change is for the better. Shooters ran this path, you know; they went from personalized, 'you know that one in a second' kind of games to Call of Duty clones. They also led the way in bling over substance.....and a lot of developers crashed and burned as a result. Now we are seeing story element and actual roleplaying mechanics being added to shooters....which a lot of kiddies are heralding. Corporate-think is almost universally "NEWER! BRIGHTER! FLASHIER! GIMMICKIER!!" With the underlying attitude of 'You must give us your money. You have it. We want it. It's Our Right'. Which is nonsense. Spend money to make money, and keep the customer happy.

I give you an example :
an "ancient" book can be entertaining and valid even today, at the same level or even more sometimes.
But how many people today read a real book (you know,those of paper ) in real life -if not forced by school/job ? how many prefer it at a good videogame/movie/entertainment product for masses ?

(Looks at the several hundred books, hard and soft cover, fiction and non, in the office, library, and scattered about the home) Everyone I truly know and associate with reads books. A lot of them write, as well. And you know? The only way anyone gets my hardcopy is if they pry it out of my cold, dead hands.....as opposed to Kindleoids, who can lose their entire libraries at a whim of Amazon. And as I am a geek, I have lots of modern toys that go with the ancient books. It isn't the medium that matters; it is the content. Which is the point that has been made over and over and over again. BGS was so puffed up on proving an end of lifespan game appliance could still cut it in the current hardware era they almost completely screwed the storytelling pooch. They didn't break the rules....they outright ignored them.

An electronic product like a videogame etc. for many valid reasons (unfortunately for someone) is subject to become obsolete as time goes on
so these comparisons sounds meaningless to me - other than pretentious and personal,sorry if i have to say.

I bet that even Bethesda developers will change almost everything (at least in the graphics aspect) of those past games to "adapt them" at today "standards" -but they prefer (understandably) to look at the future,conscious that even Skyrim its not up at today achievable standards for various market reasons.

And that is the lamest argument I've ever heard. Where people have the most issues has nothing whatsoever to do with graphics technology; That is pretty much a non-issue atm. They chose to wrap their main efforts around a platform at the end of its lifespan and two or more generations out of date. The majority are talking about quest line scripting (or lack thereof), depending on an automated system to create interesting side quests (Daggerfall's quest parser may have been 'ancient' and FedEx-y, but at least the damned thing worked.....), and a fundamental disconnect between the player character and the world. A world supposedly on the literal brink of destruction, and yet not one leaf quivers. Not one hint of the power and threat.

[Austin Suggs]

I wouldn't know. What I do know is that after Morrowind, I find all BGS games extremely boring. I 've had more fun trying to make mods work than actually playing the games themselves.

that is exactly how i feel....

who plays skyrim anymore? i'm playing S.T.A.L.K.E.R. SoC now that's an rpg.

[Rach B]

who plays skyrim anymore? i'm playing S.T.A.L.K.E.R. SoC now that's an rpg.

No, that's an free-form open-world FPS with inventory and quest systems

No character deveploment of any kind, the character is exactly the same in the end as in the beginning, just better armed.

[Jenna Fields]

@ Dale B - I forgot to say it but your post at the top of the fourth page was really well done and encapsulates most of my opinions and perspective about the series at more length than I've cared to go into. Good job!

@ GeckoPiss - TojKa is right, though that doesn't mean STALKER isn't a great or fun game. I bought the entire series for like four bucks on Steam over the holidays but I haven't gotten around to trying them quite yet. I tried Shadow of Chernobyl and while it did remind me a bit of Morrowind I felt that the dialogue wasn't very well written. One of the first, badass 'STALKERs' that I met, in the beginning camp talked to me like how I imagine a patronizing advlt would think 'kids' wanted to be talked to. When I turned in my quest he said something like 'Whoa! Awesome, dude!' and it kind of killed it for me. I'm looking forward to trying Call of Pripyat some day, and then maybe if that gets me interested in the series I can go backwards and retry the previous games.

[tiffany Royal]

Skyrim's an RPG but it's not a good one. The system it runs under lacks depth and yes we still have choices at levelup but those choices don't mean much. Red maybe important until it gets to 300 but even then it's nothing compared to what we had in Morrowind/Oblivion.

Skyrim suffers from a lack of depth, too much voiced dialoge, terrible absolutely terrible writing, and just an emotionless world that wants to be organic but isn't. It's still a great game but it's a terrible RPG, like Mass Effect 2. At least Skyrim is more of an RPG then the latter although even that description would be going too far.

[Laura-Jayne Lee]

No, that's an free-form open-world FPS with inventory and quest systems

But in SoC you take the role of marked one, an amnesiac in the zone. As you progress you make choices that determine factions attitudes and behavior towards you, and eventually shape marked one into a fully developed character. Your behavior throughout the game influences how the ending plays out. Are you driven by greed, humanitarian reasons, desire for power? These all factor in to how the game shapes out. You really haven't played the game if you think the character stays the same throughout the entire thing.

And as we've learned from this and previous threads. Stats aren't important, it's the character development, quest choices, and agency that determine whether a game is an RPG or not. And for these reasons, Stalker SoC wins in the RPG battle against Skyrim.

@ GeckoPiss - TojKa is right, though that doesn't mean STALKER isn't a great or fun game. I bought the entire series for like four bucks on Steam over the holidays but I haven't gotten around to trying them quite yet. I tried Shadow of Chernobyl and while it did remind me a bit of Morrowind I felt that the dialogue wasn't very well written. One of the first, badass 'STALKERs' that I met, in the beginning camp talked to me like how I imagine a patronizing advlt would think 'kids' wanted to be talked to. When I turned in my quest he said something like 'Whoa! Awesome, dude!' and it kind of killed it for me. I'm looking forward to trying Call of Pripyat some day, and then maybe if that gets me interested in the series I can go backwards and retry the previous games.

The first area in stalker is where all the newbies of the zone(That just snuck in illegally) hang out. Wolf's there to give advice(He also acts like a member of the Freedom faction which are admittably very much like hippies. Extremist gun-toting hippies, but still hippies nonetheless), Wait til you get to agroprom or the bar.

[R.I.P]

TL;DR - I think Daggerfall is the best Elder Scrolls game. Todd Howard is possibly the antichrist of gaming.

I think Daggerfall had a problem you didn't list. It was just so boring. A hundred thousand square kilometers, and so little of it was worth exploring. It was a bloated game, with overdesigned features to compensate for the fact that technology couldn't create an accurate representation of any real artistic vision.

It does have a lot of interesting features I wish were still used, but overall, the execution of Daggerfall was really nothing special. It's only standout feature is it's bloated size.

[Steven Hardman]

You really haven't played the game if you think the character stays the same throughout the entire thing.

It's been a while, but i was mostly referring to the "stats", not the reputation. I may be old fashioned, but to me "RPG" requires some sort character growth system Though i agree that faction-wise SoC does beat Skyrim silly, and Clear Sky's buggy faction wars still beats Skyrim's civil war

Still haven't gotten around playing Call of Pripyat

[Charlotte Lloyd-Jones]

I think Daggerfall had a problem you didn't list. It was just so boring. A hundred thousand square kilometers, and so little of it was worth exploring. It was a bloated game, with overdesigned features to compensate for the fact that technology couldn't create an accurate representation of any real artistic vision.

It does have a lot of interesting features I wish were still used, but overall, the execution of Daggerfall was really nothing special. It's only standout feature is it's bloated size.

that's what i've heard about daggerfall, as well. some great ideas, but, definitely lacking.

it's also how i feel about morrowind, oblivion, fallout3 and nvegas. let alone, other rpg's. many games have great ideas.

and, with skyrim i wanted to see these great ideas get advanced and developed into the game.

but, i didn't. instead, i got a few more good ideas and a lot more either hacked away or eliminated completely.

[Cheville Thompson]

It's been a while, but i was mostly referring to the "stats", not the reputation. I may be old fashioned, but to me "RPG" requires some sort character growth system Though i agree that faction-wise SoC does beat Skyrim silly.

Thats true. (Technically you can alter the stamina stat(best artifacts in the game btw) and health stat, but thats about it)

My response was mainly in response to folks who say the stats/numbers/etc of RPGs aren't important and aren't what RPGs are about.

[Alba Casas]

The first area in stalker is where all the newbies of the zone(That just snuck in illegally) hang out. Wolf's there to give advice(He also acts like a member of the Freedom faction which are admittably very much like hippies. Extremist gun-toting hippies, but still hippies nonetheless), Wait til you get to agroprom or the bar.

Thank you for recognizing the guy I was talking about, I couldn't remember his name. If Wolf is the exception to the rule then maybe I cut out of the game a bit too early... Perhaps I'll reinstall it and try a new game. I think the furthest I got was this part where some men (soldiers?) were defending a junkyard or something and I had the option to stand there and help them fight off a pretty large wave of attackers that, as far as I can tell keep coming for forever, though in reduced amounts after the 'quest' is completed.

I think Daggerfall had a problem you didn't list. It was just so boring. A hundred thousand square kilometers, and so little of it was worth exploring. It was a bloated game, with overdesigned features to compensate for the fact that technology couldn't create an accurate representation of any real artistic vision.

It does have a lot of interesting features I wish were still used, but overall, the execution of Daggerfall was really nothing special. It's only standout feature is it's bloated size.

I'm not sure your TL;DR quite sums it up accurately. Or maybe it does and I missed where he attacked Todd Howard directly...

I always feel a little uncomfortable talking about Daggerfall because I've never gotten the chance to play it (as opposed to over 160 hours in Skyrim), but I think that from what I know about it the actual content of your reply here is true. To me Morrowind was the best of the smaller, 'modern' TES games. And while Daggerfall was ambitious, and I'm sure quite enjoyable I really get the impression that it's mammoth size didn't add as much as people think. I'm sure most people used fast travel to get around because it was practically required anyways, and the relative lack of things to do or stuff happening in the wilderness seems like they just made the world massive 'because they could', and I'm not sure if it would've taken away anything from the game had Daggerfall been reduced in size.

But again, I've never played it so I guess this is the one area where my opinion isn't informed enough to be taken all that seriously.

[Kortniie Dumont]

Thats true. (Technically you can alter the stamina stat(best artifacts in the game btw) and health stat, but thats about it)

My response was mainly in response to folks who say the stats/numbers/etc of RPGs aren't important and aren't what RPGs are about.

i think it was on one of the other earlier threads, but, i made a very basic situation that proves how much attributes can effect a game or should:

if i create 2 nord warriors with the same skills, perks, m/h/s, everything and all i did was change their attribute stats you would instantly have a different game.

the reason being, that attributes are fundamental, core mechanics. in that scenario, those nords with different strength/dexterity/speed totals would have completely different combat and gameplay experiences.

attributes GOVERN everything else.

anybody who reads that scenario and still believes attributes are needless, won't make a better game or are hidden away behind perks or m/h/s just isn't worth the debate time.

[Steph]

i think it was on one of the other earlier threads, but, i made a very basic situation that proves how much attributes can effect a game or should:

if i create 2 nord warriors with the same skills, perks, m/h/s, everything and all i did was change their attribute stats you would instantly have a different game.

the reason being, that attributes are fundamental, core mechanics. in that scenario, those nords with different strength/dexterity/speed totals would have completely different combat and gameplay experiences.

attributes GOVERN everything else.

anybody who reads that scenario and still believes attributes are needless, won't make a better game or are hidden away behind perks or m/h/s just isn't worth the debate time.

We can just continue to add more stats and more stats and that would make the game better... Is that really true?

Edit: Let me open this a bit:
I am a simulationist. Therefore, I want the ruleset to be so complex, human players can't understand it and don't need to see it at all. So we can focus on good parts of roleplaying.

Apart from that, I value a light-system. When I think perks, attributes and skills, I think you can freely disable one of them, which one doesn't matter, and it can still work, not necessarily for better or worse.

[Theodore Walling]

We can just continue to add more stats and more stats and that would make the game better... Is that really true?

Edit: Let me open this a bit:
I am a simulationist. Therefore, I want the ruleset to be so complex, human players can't understand it and don't need to see it at all. So we can focus on good parts of roleplaying.

Apart from that, I value a light-system. When I think perks, attributes and skills, I think you can freely disable one of them, which one doesn't matter, and it can still work, not necessarily for better or worse.

yes. we can add attributes and make the game much better.

attributes aren't complex. as well, the game would define them. attributes add to rping.

no. attributes cannot be substituted for. yes, the game will work without them. yes, the game will always work better with attributes.