YAY!! *dances around happily*....... *regains composure* Uh... I... uh.... I mean: "How awful".....

What I like about RPGs is that not every character I play is exactly the same. I enjoyed my Adventure games (Sierra's "Quest" series) when I was younger, and true, they sometimes offered multiple solutions, but with RPGs there are so many options that let me define my character & those options are what lead me to finding different solutions each time I play. Fallout 1 & 2 and Arcanum are prime examples of this.

So I guess what I like best about RPGs are the options, because that adds replay value to my games. I get to play them the way I want to play them, instead of being railroaded into precisely how the game designer wants me to play it.

Agreed on a PST Adventure game, I'd have preferred it that way really, the infinity engine combat really didn't fit the game and just got in the way IMO. Since playing a (very) high wisdom and intelligence character is the only way to see everything in the game, combat wasn't a fun challenge but was just an irritating speedbump that got in the way of the excellent storyline, dialogs, etc. Would have made a wonderful adventure game really.

On Oblivion, I don't know. The game might as well have been claimed to be a flight simulator, as it's game-mechanic opportunities for both flight simming and role playing were both "none". Conversations were railroaded no matter your character stats (a mentally retarded warrior and extremely intelligent mage both got exactly the same conversation options, usually existing solely to tell you to "go here and kill that!"), no class-based character restrictions at all (untrained mage being able to just up and wield a warhammer like a gladiator champion, etc), and of course much more.

( I should note, the horrible and fun destroying level scaling "feature" in Oblivion is more responsible for the level 1 mage terminator incident as opposed to the TES class system itself, which didn't allow this sort of thing in the previous games)

The problem being that advertising it as "Action Adventure" is just going to piss off the previous TES game fans who WANT an RPG, so I don't know there.

"shifting focus away from base building and resource gathering would be quite novel and interesting" - I agree, but this would also remove a major point of core Starcraft gameplay, make the sequel a lot less like Starcraft 1, and likely enrage many fans of the old game. In general, I think fans of a game look in a sequel for more of the same done better, with extra features (so long as the AI can handle them of course), not dramatic changes to how to game itself plays.

I don't mean that a mage should never wield an axe ( I find DnD class restrictions on weapons annoying and arbitrary), a warrior mage is neat, I just mean that a level 1 mage with no combat training at all (again stat-wise) should not be able, due to a combo of badly done level scaled enemies and reliance on the player's action game skills, to be an incarnation of Conan the Barbarian right off the bat. ;)

True but I kinda like the way 3e D&D handled that... by making you "learn" or "train" in it. Though it would have been better if learning or training didn't meat using up a feat :'( And what you said before about level scaling I completely agree with. I mean if your stupid enough to think you can take on the great evil demon of doom at level 1 well then it's your fault.

This is somehow how it goes:

Helpless Town Guard: "Help us the giant dragon that's been plaguing our humble little town for years and has defeated all our great knights and even a few renowned adventurers, including the one who saved the world last week from the dark demon or dastardly deeds from returning, is coming!!"
Player: "Huh? Oh whatever this'll be easy."
HTG: "Didn't you here what I said?!?"
P: "Don't worry.... I'm level 3 *decapitates dragon easily*"
HTG: "Huzzah! We shall remember you for all time: the greatest hero ever!!"

NOTE: That was intentionally lame and corny =P

I beg to differ. The thing that would scare me the most of a PS:T adventure game is that old point-and-click adventures follow a single thread of logic (often pretty weird) and every situation has one and only one solution, and that would eliminate the thing that made Torment so great. If you could avoid falling into this trap, it could work, but I don't think I'd rather play a Torment aventure game over the Torment we have...

I think you really nail it here. What made RPGs like PST, BG and IWD so great was they featured good game design, immersive depth, and a compelling narrative. And I think that that applies to all games, really. What made FPS games like NOLF2 and Deus Ex so compelling, for example, wasn't that they had RPG elements in them; it was that they were well designed games, with a well-told and well-paced story told with the backdrop of an immersive and deep world.

I really think that the problem is a lack of depth in many games in general (and you could attribute that to anything, from lazy design, to rushed production schedules, to simple cost-cutting on the part of the developer). I think the loss is especially felt among RPG games because depth was such an integral part of the RPG experience for so long.

The sad thing about it is that game developers took that the wrong way. They saw the fact that many people were drawn towards RPGs and mistook that for the desire for a game play mechanic, not for a well crafted gameplay experience.

I'd have preferred it kept in the same engine with most of the filler combat thrown out, not as a standard point and click game. I'm having fun with combat in Icewind Dale (once you get used to the maddening and pointless real time nature of it), but it mainly just felt like it got in the way of the game in PST.



Rampancy- good post, and I love the Marathon avatar! Easily my favorite FPS series ever.

Very interesting points here. I love both adventures and RPGs but curiously I'm neither a great fan of puzzles nor strategic combat. Don't get me wrong, I like both of them to a certain degree, but I don't think it's those mechanics that draw me to these type of games.

I would probably enjoy a RPG without combat and an adventure game without tricky puzzles if someone was courageous and smart enough to pull it off; and I think PS:T was a glimpse of what an adventure/RPG hybrid with exploration and role-playing and without too much emphasis on combat and puzzle-based linearity could be like.

Firstly, props to the OP, very interesting topic.

I'd have to agree with a few others on here, I'd say its the general complexity of RPGs that makes people put them on a pedestal.

A high-quality, rich FPS or RTS doesn't necessarily require bucketloads of content and detail, sidequests and branching plot points, whereas, for an RPG to be considered high-quality and rich, this is generally expected.

The same could be said for Turn-Based Strategy games like Civilisation. Every TBS gets compared to that series because of the sheer amount of content and that's possibly why Civ5 hasn't gotten the response its earlier titles have - because they've streamlined a lot of that content.

I wouldn't say that RPGs are a superior genre. After all, look at titles like Half-Life 2, Descent, Jedi Knight, TIE Fighter, Dune II, and so on. There are just as many exceptional titles in other genres.

I think the thing with RPGs however, is that a good one usually requires a phenomenal amount of development time and detail and it is hard not to appreciate that a little more than other genres. Baldur's Gate II is a great example - yes, it is a good game, like many others released at the time, but when you compare it to other games that were getting similar reviews at the time, you almost feel it deserves a little more respect because of the extra love and attention it was given during the development phase.

Anyway, I think I rambled for a while there...

Cheers
Fat Barry

Nerds overemphasize intellectual elements. Story is one of the easiest targets for this. Complexity as well. This is why RPGs are favored, as they can have both elements in abundance. Even if both elements aren't employed in an intelligent way, they can at least be justified in intellectual terms.

That's a bit harsh isn't it?
In essence you're saying that all the people who like RPGs do so because they're elitist jerks.

Personally I like RPGs because I find them fun, for the reasons I stated quite a few posts above. If that makes me an elitist nerd, so be it I guess.

That's not the essence of what I said at all. I simply said that they're easy to justify liking to people who prefer to think of their hobbies as intelligent.

Elitism requires the derision of the hobbies that they can't justify that way. And "jerks" requires the elitists to be obnoxious about the distinction to others of a different opinion.

I don't believe I remarked on those. Such individuals exist, but I would never claim that all people who like RPGs are elitists. Or further that they're all jerks.

I disagree. Not necessarily with what you meant, but with what you said.
Firstly - "nerds" are not a well-defined group.
Secondly - "overemphasize" in terms of noticing, valuing, enjoying ?
Lastly - "intellectual" as opposed to what ? "Physical" ? "Emotional" ? "Dexterity-based" ?
Computer games are almost purely "intellectual" in the first sense. Emotions are how we can judge the quality of a plot and I consider myself both a "nerd" and very emotion-oriented person, so that's the second... As for the third - I sincerely doubt there is such a crevasse between people who enjoy stories and those who like precise aiming and such...