New CRPGS have gravity-defying horses, and that's all :-P

In Daggerfall I had a horse in my Backpack!

FO 1 & 2 are WAY newer than the classic 8bit CRPGs I was thinking of when I said old.

I'm surprised you mention Ultimas older than 6. U4 for example, hardly has any narrative. Its Britannia is an 8bit sandbox. Back then, Origin was more into simulation ("we create worlds") than story telling. Just look at the conversation system. The npcs won't tell you anything unless you bring the subject up (no menus or hints, you have to hit the proper keyword). They wanted it to be like real life. A fantasy world that you the player literally go to (check the early manual fluff [U3 Book of Play?]).

CRPGs didn't start out as the great story telling gaming genre they are today (that was more the forte of adventures). I think they had more in common with war game scenarios. If you were to go back and play some Wizardy 1/2/3/4, Ultima 0/1/2/3, Wizard's Crown/ Eternal Dagger, Phantasie 1/2/3, etc and I think you'd understand.

Why is mislabeling them such a huge crime? Is this going by the assumption that ("true") RPGs are automatically better than any other style of game?

No, of course not. It's going on the basis that calling a game a shooter when it really doesn't have anything much in the way of shooting in it is going to guarantee disappointment from those who play it expecting some gunplay.

Genres sometimes do nothing more than create false expectations that lead to disappointment.

Too new, even SSI gold box. The 8bit platforms where the CRPG genre spawned were mostly dead by the time it came out. But even then, I doubt anyone played them for the plot (gold box).

Perhaps I should have said OLD. ;)

I don't agree with this. Old CRPGs and new ones are doing different things. If you want a stat heavy, story light, non-linear, battle intensive, turn-based, dungeon crawler with brutal resource management (*pant*), you will not be well served by modern AAA RPGs. Digging up old games need not be a case of nostalgia goggles when not everyone's tastes are being catered to.

Also, Mass Effect is awesome.

The 8bit platforms were by no means dead when the Gold Box games started to come out. Most of the ones I've played, I played on an 8-bit platform, namely the C64.

^ This!

I think if you go too far back they're too harsh and require too much outside-the-game effort. However modern games are too helpful, too guided.

For me there is a sweet spot around the turn of the millennium where they were just about right. Morrowind and Deus Ex, Arcanum and Fallout 2... right around there works best for me. For example Morrowind had a helpful journal and in-game travel systems out the wazoo, but it didn't spell everything out and you couldn't just fast travel anywhere at anytime. It struck the right balance for me, personally.

The fact that you can use your brain changes nothing about ~85% of gamer population who can't. Otherwise the games wouldn't be dumbed down further and further.

Again forgetting Infinity Engine from this period also!

I think RPGs aren't making full use of the possibilities side quests provide. I can fully understand it if the main questline is excessively signposted, that prevents players from becoming stuck for good.

But really, developers should be more adventurous when it comes to side quests. Skyrim (which I'm loving, by the way) has a few quests that require a bit more initiative from the player, and I find myself really enjoying these, even so some of them are giving me a lot of trouble. I wish there were more of them.

I think the question isn't that of 'old RPG's' vs. 'new RPG's', as there indeed are RPG's that've come out in the past 4yrs that people like as much as the classic ones.

So I think the real question is that of 'RPG's made with heart' vs. 'RPG's that were money-grab's right from the jump.'

One feature I definetly don't want to miss anymore is an automap. Yes, drawing maps yourself was fun (and I still have some awesom The Bards Tale maps somewhere) but honestly, I'm getting to old to do without.