Obviously I love RPGs as much as the next GOGer, but I keep getting a sense that they're placed on some kind of pedestal (this isn't limited to the GOG forums).

I sense this a lot whenever there's a game that has features common to RPGs but, even when they're good games in their own right, they leave people disappointed because they aren't RPGish enough ("oh, it's a good action adventure, but it's no RPG..."). RPGs are they only type of game where I've seen this happen. I don't see people act disappointed in 2D sidescrollers when they fail to be proper Metroidvanias.

Is it mostly nostalgia and longing, since there are fewer "pure" RPGs (depending on your definition) on the market today?

I think the difference is that Good Old RPGames rely heavily on stats/numbers and so on. Today's publishers tend to simplify games to increase potential number of gamers so they are putting most stats (if there are any) invisible to gamer's eye, thus making game less complex = "action adventure" :D

I think I have noticed what you are talking about. part of it, I believe, is that RPGs tend to have more immersive worlds which allows players to kind of get to know the game better. They also usually provide much more play time. This makes people more attached to this genre over say, a FPS that you can beat and be done with in a day, even if it is a good game

I think that it might be that RPGs are one of the last genres left that is 'commonly' regarded as having a lot of room for real growth. Other genres are tapped out for growth in the mainstream mind. But the main thing is that for the past few years anything that isn't strictly in a different category will typically get called an RPG it seems... to me at least. The problem is that people expect someone to be able to magically code a game where every feasible choice is open to them and all the branches those choices could possible bring with it. And when a game comes out that doesnt do that people get pissy...

That and RPGs seem to be the new fad... it's harder to no imagine with games that there are trends of fads but that's because only recently have they become so huge and part of the mainstream.... and that's it as well... now that it's mainstream jock-gamers and the ilk are the ones that are being catered to and RPGs are stereotypically the type that require more thought (I say stereotypically because it's hard to tell how it really is anymore most are pretty dumbed down at the core). With that in mind think of it this way find your nearest moron and ask him a tough question... 'if' he gets it right he's gonna feel pretty proud of himself isn't he? 0=) Same thing with "RPGs" they (now supposedly) require more thought so doing good means: "I"M SUPER SMART! YAYY!!!

I hope this made some coherent sense.... I'm a bit too lazy right now to read back through haha

I think it's more irritation of the trend over the last several years to take what was once a sort of "niche" game genre (with very dedicated fans who liked complex, heavily stat dependent games) and blending them with railroaded action/adventure games, usually including some stats/perks and npc interaction but taking out most of the complexity, character design choices, and heavily tactical, stat based combat (as opposed to "twitch reflex" player skill based gameplay) while still insisting on labelling such games "RPGs". Seeing once-classic cRPG series being taken this route is just maddening (Fallout being a great example).

It doesn't help when you have current day "RPG" (of the above description) designers claiming that classic cRPGs "really wanted to be action games at heart if only the technology had allowed it", or Bethesda claiming Fallout 3 (the once classic RPG series with possibly the most insane, foam at the mouth cult fanbase) would be "even deeper than Call of Duty!", or in a recent "Skyrim" interview, calling Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 "a really hardcore game" because it has... character design, stats and perks. Sigh.

(references to the above paragraph:
http://gamasutra.com/view/news/34276/How_RPGs_Were_A_30Year_Detour_Matt_Findley_On_Hunted_The_Demons_Forge.php

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/35678/Interview_Todd_Howard_On_Scope_Vision_Of_Skyrim.php)

I love a good game of any genre, but hate to see what was once a favorite genre of mine being constantly "dumbed down" through having many once staple RPG gameplay mechanics gutted (turn based tactical combat has generally become a thing of the past now, as a single example) and Indie developers being the last holdout for games that come close to everything from the Ultimas to the older Infinity Engine games (Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Planescape, etc), as big production RPGs at that scale of depth and (relevant) complexity from major game companies now seems to be a thing of the past.

It's depressing really.

Actually, I;m disappointed when things don't turn out to be Metroidvanias... I would say there are fewer pure Metroidvanias than RPGs.

Huh... While I acknowledge that turn-based combat and stat-based character development have traditionally been associated with cRPGs, isn't the genre about, you know, role-playing ?
Otherwise we'd have to say that games like Incubation, and to some extent - X-COM, are RPGs and not TBSs...
I'd say that being "action-adventure" means that there's too much action and not enough adventure for a game to be an RPG.

I'd say most of the "role playing" has been traditionally (and sensibly) based upon character stats- most cRPGs tend to fail badly at this idea in one way or another, but the ones generally regarded as some of the best (Fallout 1 and 2, Planescape Torment being the best examples I can think of off the top of my head) relied upon stats such as charisma and intelligence (generally seen as respectively totally useless and or good for getting better trading prices [Charisma], and existing soley to determine how many usually for combat spell points a character gets [Intelligence]) for more extensive conversation options, ability to talk your way out of situations or convince people to do things for you (as opposed to eventually having to just fight it out one way or another).

Again, ideally any "role played" character should be stat-reliant on what they can or cannot do- as the original idea was "role playing" a particular and well defined character (or group of them), I don't think the genre was ever really about "it has a great story and totally makes you (the player) feel like you're there" as many seem to want to define it now.

I think it could be easily argued that games like X-Com, Jagged Alliance, and etc fit more into the "role playing" category than most RPG (even some of the beloved old ones) do really.

X-Com of course is receiving the mainstreaming First Person Shooter treatment now as well.

Nostaligia? No.
Longing? Yes.

This is b/c it's much more difficult to make an A+ cRPG than it is to make an A+ game in any other genre. And b/c of the nature of the cRPG, the player is going to put more and get more out of a well done cRPG, than any other genre.

At least that's the way I feel. I only had experience in non-cRPG's before playing the Baldur's Gate series, and since that time, I don't think I could ever go back over a long period of time to other genres and still be satisfied.

You've backed me into a corner, I'm not really sure what the question is here... ;)

In the X-Com and JA reference (never played Incubation, heard it was great), I mean that those games play out based more on character builds, with character design and stats being supremely important in who can do what and how well, than something like Oblivion. A JA2 character who's a skilled medic, and bad with firearms, cannot just grab a shotgun and go on a super soldier killing spree anyway as they won't stand a chance. Contrast to Oblivion, where a level 1 pilgrim can go join the warriors guild, clear out a dungeon full of enemies with a battleaxe, then go become the gladiator champion of the realm- all while still at level 1 with very low combat stats, simply because it relies 90% on player "action game" skill as opposed to relying on character abilities/disadvantages.

I'd imagine that only makes up a fraction of the fun of tabletop RP'ing, but in regard to cRPGs it seems like a genre-defining thing to me.




Bolded my response above because I can't figure out how to get it out of "quote" italics. Sorry for any confusion.

I think we were trying to determine what the attributes of RPGs are. As in - things that make RPGs RPGs and not something else and something without which RPGs wouldn't be themselves anymore.

Well... There are always those who like rolling dice and those who prefer participating in a story. cRPGs, I think, are as much of a middle-ground as regular RPGs, offering a wide spectrum of possibilities.

I think what's interesting here, is that back in the day RPGs were "between" adventure games and tactical games (like Jagged Alliance or XCOM's battlescape)... while nowadays they seem to be between adventure games (once again) and shooters.
Which is IMO justifiable, since turn-based fights can seem a bit... awkward and disrupting the flow of gameplay, especially when viewed from FPP.
Don't get me wrong, though - I'm quite fond of turn-based combat and while I have (arguably) limited cRPG experience, I know that Wizardry 8 managed to integrate it into FPP... while Morrowind put me off as soon as I realized I not only have to AIM my bow, but ON TOP OF THAT pass a hit-check (correct me if I'm wrong, perhaps I ragequit that game prematurely ;P).

I always assumed being able to do all that at Level 1 was because of the scaling.

OK, you like RPGs because you get to define a character and try to have him cope with the world, and you're sad to see so few games that rely on that type of gameplay. What I don't get is why RPGs are made out to be the only games that are capable of complexity, immersion, and depth. That anything else is dumbed down and only suitable for the unwashed masses.

Action adventures are often trotted out as being the "retard RPGs". What about classic action adventures like the Zelda series? They had no role playing or stats, but the best ones greatly rewarded exploration and had intricate environment and inventory-based puzzles. Hell, the Zelda dungeons are hardly realistic but in terms of pure gameplay they can rival many famous RPGs, whose dungeons were mostly simple mazes with monsters and, if you're lucky, dialogs and maybe something that can be solved with a lockpicking or hacking skill check. Are these kind of adventure games still dumbed down?

The S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games have been getting complex faction systems where your actions or inaction can influence what happens. Is it dumbed down because there's no Charisma check when you try to convince the Freedom representative to let you join them?

The Witcher series has no stats controlling what dialog options you can pick. Can you really say they have been dumber for it?

Then there's turn based gameplay versus action/twitch based gameplay. I love turn based games, but I can't help but notice that there's some assumption among some classical RPG fans that turn-based is somehow inherently better than twitch-based, which is unfair.

I didn't say other game genres aren't capable ofcomplexity, immersion, and etc. My point was that the current trend seems to be taking RPG series that were known for being "off the deep end" of the dedicated fanbase, not much mass appeal side of the spectrum, and gutting them through "mass appealization" (my own word, for lack of a better term) to sell them to a larger audience while removing much of what made them special to begin with.

Zelda was a great action adventure game, but I have no idea why anyone would want to call it a role playing game. Nothing wrong with action adventure games. Making an official sequel to Planescape: Torment and having it play like Zelda is not something I want to see, however.

Edit: I took your original post to be implying many (especially long time) RPG fans seem to be pissed off about the current state, hence my explanation. Not saying other games can't be deep and immersive or etc as well.

I think terms like "consolization" and "dumbing down" are often used irresponsibly, without any thought given to what they are actually supposed to mean. While I'm quite into retrogaming (which is why I'm here), my infrequent brushes with newer titles have almost always been filling me with awe. As in: "Ooooh, that's so pretty ! How did graphics get so beautiful in 20 years *_* ?", "Wow, this interface actually ISN'T a pain in the ass to use !", etc.

Starcraft 2 was supposed to be ruined because of (out of many things) MBS - the ability to select multiple buildings at the same time. It was said that this makes it easier to manage unit production and as such - is dumbing the game down for the casual crowd. Fast-forward to today - I'm watching the GSL ;P.

What is it exactly that is needed to avoid all the catastrophic terms from the 60's and the 70's (like "mass culture") ? In cRPGs - isometric view, turn-based combat, an enormous character sheet ? Is that all ? Is Might and Magic: Heroes 6 suddenly a cRPG ? Do we need something like Diablo 3, only in turns and with more numbers ? How about roguelikes - they have everything except the isometric perspective.
How exactly is a good modern cRPG supposed to be played like ?

You could argue that the genres are quite artificial qualifications and that all the elements scattered into different kinds of games. Now, the question is - which of them would you like to see and why ?