You people citing D&D know that is but just one RPG, right?

It is not the entire genre

See that's the problem i gave you a list yet you still disagree same here i don't agree with your reasons . Mine are just as valid as yours because the entire topic is subjective.

Once you get past the shiny do da's, and pretty graphics, Skyrim is really bland. And I know someone will want to know how I could say such an awful thing. Well, I'll tell you.


NPC's are bland and this is obvious. I'd rather be able to talk to every npc like in Oblivion, than just be able to talk to a few and watch the rest work at a mill.

Character creation becomes bland, when realizing that every race is the same except your one-a-day powers. Attributes were a better choice than perks in my opinion.

Great storyline quests are hard to come by, once you root out maybe the 3 decent quests, all you have left are radiant quests which are utterly terrible and pointless.

No guild ranks anymore and you can become the GM so quick its stupid. Quest lines are so short as well and are just rushed.

Exploring. Well this is a tricky one because yes, Skyrim did do somewhat a better job with this than past elder scrolls games. But, ALL and i do mean all dungeons are linear.. Whats the fun in that? Not to mention, the gear you find in dungeons are far from "unique".

Essential NPC's... just an awful idea in an "OPEN WORLD RPG". "I can do what i want", "play how i want", but can't kill who i want? Beth just being to afraid to let the newcomers to the game fail quest. Hey i remember when i became a vampire in Oblivion and i wanted a cure but i had no bloodgrass, finished the MQ so no more Gates to go into and get it and at the time, didn't know where to find it. SO guess what? I dealt with it. That's what makes these games great sometimes. The risk and reward.

Spellcrafting eliminated.. just a bad idea on Beth's part.

i'm missing something and it will probably come to me later but this is what i can think of right now.

I know these topics have been beaten to death, but oh well. It's the truth. WAIT GUYS, the truth to me.

Maybe so, but Gygax/Arneson invented the genre.

Please, name me five RPGs that aren't stat heavy.

I didn't say Skyrim is factually not an RPG. I said it's factually not a very good RPG.

I'm not one of these people who claims Skyrim isn't an RPG at all. For me, it has enough RPG elements to be considered an RPG, but the elements are so poor and lacking that the game is really better enjoyed as a sandbox action-adventure game like Red Dead.

No it's not the truth ,only to you is that statement true because the entire topic is subjective,you gave an opinion nothing more.

If there are no objective facts that sets RPGs apart from other games, what's the point of having genres at all?

You appear to have misread me (which would suggest you aren't too bright), I never said the games I roleplay in are RPGs, just that I could roleplay in games that aren't largely stat based. I don't particularly care for for "literal definitions" so long as enjoy myself. I'll confess that I can't list five, because I don't play a great number, but to list:

- Minecraft.
- Red Dead Redemption.
- Saint's Row 2.
- Sim City.

Yeah, unlike you "true RPers" I've got some pretty wide tastes, and I wouldn't consider anyone a "tratior" because they can enjoy a FPS alongside any other genre.


Good question if you ask me.

WHAT?
Those aren't RPGs!
NONE of them are.

In the simplest terms, and most delicate way:

Morrowind had more options at the expense of gfx, animations and combat. Oblivion attempted to balance the two, Skyrim sacrificed options for gfx, animations and combat. Skyrim is less of an RPG than Morrowind, but more of a visual feast.

yes yes yes, the truth to me.

I was talking about stats, not about the ability to influence the world in meaningful ways. I understand your point about the difficulty of having multiple branching questlines in an open world, but that is a different issue than having an open world RPG where your character progression is based on stats, like the classes and attributes we had in prior TES games.

The bolded part is the most important part.

What separates the RPG genre from other genres (aside from Action RPGs) is the fact that combat is not player skill based... repeat not.

An RPG with no stats is not an RPG, it becomes something else entirely. Or it becomes another genre with "RPG elements."

Tower Defense games are "stat heavy" and do not require lots of player skill as nearly every Tower Defense game is simply about placing and building units in the most effective fashion; it does not rely on twitch reflexes like say Street Fighter or God of War would, or even Tetris.



Not an RPG.
Not an RPG.
Not an RPG.
Not an RPG.

Try again?

I can "role-play" in Smackdown vs. Raw Here: Comes the Pain, that doesn't make it an RPG.

If you are saying "oh well I can RPG in any game I want to" then why are you in a conversation about what mechanics make an RPG in the first place?


So you know what game mechanics to include. There are many, many objective facts that set one genre from the other. Just because Skyrim, Oblivion and the original Monster Hunter have First Person archery in it do not a FPS they make.

Are you illiterate? Or did you mentally block out the part where I clearly said they weren't "literal" RPGs?

Not really. As long as you picked the same Str and End for both you'd end up with the exact same HP and damage potential as each other. If you wanted to min/max those attributes, the elf wouldn't be able to catch up with the orc though, but only barelly and nearly all the starting differences would end up practically negligible through some leveling.

This. Somewhere along the line, Bethesda decided that TES was really all about "open world" and "exploration," and while that's part of the picture, a good game can't be built on exploration alone. The open world aspect is important, but by stripping features that foster roleplaying from the TES games, we're getting closer and closer to something that can no longer be considered an RPG. Skyrim is one, but for me its roleplaying aspects are so weak that it's not even worth calling one.

Yes, but what's the point of a visual feast if there is no core to it?

Also this. That's the main reason why a film like Avatar is (imo) such a mediocre movie, and it's the same reason why Skyrim can't stand up to previous installments. With each game in the series, Beth focuses on improving the combat and graphics, while stripping away just about everything else.

Whats the point of a deep RPG if the combat svcks and imo Skyrim is a deep RPG.

Again, are you illiterate? I never once claimed any of them were RPGs by your definitions and I think I made it obvious enough. I don't think you quite grasp my meanings.

Man, these threads are a hoot.

Skyrim is very far from a deep RPG. My choices have no effects on the world around me, the character development system is lacking, and everything is leaning far more towards player-based skill than character-based. And in a true "deep RPG," combat doesn't need to be good. In fact, I prefer RPGs that allow me to pursue characters that don't indulge in combat.

haha so good combat automatically makes it a deep RPG? you must love MW3

That's my point.

None of the COD games after COD4 have good combat, haha.