How about another RPG Codex Top 70 RPGs poll?

[V_K]

remove 1 and 10 scores.

Vehemently disagree. I've seen such systems used for other types of competitions. The only thing they do is bring mediocrity to the top. We could have a simple populariy contest just as well.
Besides, the Bayesian average already takes care for brigading.

I am talking about removing those scores after people voted for 1 and 10 scores.
So when you vote 1 or 10 your vote doesn't count.

I understood you correctly the first time. And I reiterate, in practice such systems punish entries that voters feel strongly about while safe mediocrities rize to the top. Seen that one too many times.

 

[Deleted Member 22431]

There's really no way to avoid a popularity contest with a poll

Polls are popularity contests. Period.

 

[V_K]

There's really no way to avoid a popularity contest with a poll

Polls are popularity contests. Period.

Not necessarily. If you take simple average instead of Bayesian, popularity won't matter. But then you'll get mobs of butthurt people whining about how it's unfair that this indie with 10 votes total got ahead of PST. Which is fine with me, the more people are butthurt - the better.

 

[Perkel]

Beyesian average takes into account people because if 500 people say something is 10 out of 10 and only 1 will say it is 1/10 then clearly it is much better representative score of quality than 3 people saying something is 10/10.

Avarage by itself work only when you have huge datasets and you don't have edge cases.

 

[newtmonkey]

I'd much rather have an interesting result that generates butthurt (but similar to the previous poll with nicely written reviews that back up the results) than not. Getting butthurt about reviews/results is one of the best ways to check out stuff you don't know about... I never really got into Planescape Torment when it was released, but the love for it on Codex made me somewhat butthurt, but also interested in checking it out, and I ended up liking what I played of it.

 

[V_K]

Beyesian average takes into account people because if 500 people say something is 10 out of 10 and only 1 will say it is 1/10 then clearly it is much better representative score of quality than 3 people saying something is 10/10.

The question wasn't about representation, it was about whether it was possible to take popularity out of the equation. Simple average does that, Bayesian reintroduces the popularity aspect, whether it's for better or worse.

 

[Perkel]

I'd much rather have an interesting result that generates butthurt (but similar to the previous poll with nicely written reviews that back up the results) than not. Getting butthurt about reviews/results is one of the best ways to check out stuff you don't know about... I never really got into Planescape Torment when it was released, but the love for it on Codex made me somewhat butthurt, but also interested in checking it out, and I ended up liking what I played of it.

There will be plenty butthurt either way.

 

[Molina]

Simple solution for modern games problem :
You need Two questions in your next survey :
1° Which games did you play ? (with unlimited number of answer)
2° Choose the top 5 among games you have played

It's the easiest way to adjust on the popularity of the games, and on the age of the participants.
Rate all games would be dumb, pParticipants almost never rate in a Gaussian way, and when there is too much to rate, the score loses its meaning.

(Yeah, i'm epidemiologist, bitches).

 

[Sigourn]

I never said anything about digression from tradition being "a flaw". I never made any evaluative statement of that kind at all only a factual statement about it. No one is attacking Fallout here, no need to get defensive and protect anything.

Sorry, I misunderstood you.

And yes, I agree with what you've said: Fallout doesn't encompass everything you could want in a cRPG, but within its limitations it does encompass most of the elements. While I like tactical combat, I feel that games are best when it is done in reduced amounts to keep a steady flow of the gameplay (e.g. Final Fantasy Tactics).

It's a shame that Tides of Numenera was so bad because I liked the idea of "crisis" in principle: few fights, but you had a degree of interaction with the environment that was lacking in other cRPGs and thus allowed you to think outside the box (even though it is all obviously staged by the devs).

 

[Sigourn]

Bayesian doesn't even cut it. Take for example the Neptunia games: the people who play that kind of stuff are usually the people who know they will enjoy those games beforehand. It's like making a poll asking "have you sucked dicks? Did you like it?", and think the 10 users saying "yes" and "I LOVED IT" are some sort of representation that sucking dicks is great and everyone should try it.

I think the Age of Incline poll was great. It just needed brief paragraphs and pictures to go with it. Else it was just a bunch of names and you didn't know why people voted the way they did. While Neptunia appears to be lewd crap, Rance allegedly has great strategical combat (on top of the porn).

 

[newtmonkey]

Changed my mind, new poll should literally be "have you sucked dicks? Did you like it?"

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

The opposite is true. Fallout is good example of a very focused CRPG that is very strong in some aspects and treats other elements superficially or ignores them completely. As much as I like Fallout for its setting, good quest design with multiple solutions allowing use of different stats and skills combinations, for its exploration and a few other thing - it certainly doesn't pay attention to things like serious tactical combat and full party creation and management. It does not try, it never meant to try to seriously tackle those aspects. Those limitations you mention have been put there exactly because the devs didn't care much about certain elements of traditional CRPGs when designing Fallout. Not the other way around.

You are seeing digression from tradition as a flaw, when it isn't. I'd argue you wouldn't have FALLOUT if you could create an entire party. It defeats the purpose of rolling with one character whose strengths and weaknesses limit just how much you can do in the world. I've seen it with Wasteland 2; a lot of people think it's just "modern Fallout", but reality couldn't be any different: having multiple charaters all with their own specialized set of skills allows you to overcome far many obstacles than you could if you just rolled with one character as in Fallout.

As a consequence of "one character, one build", you can't really hope to have "serious tactical combat". It makes sense to have serious tactical combat when it's a party against a party. Not when it's just one character against hordes of enemies, which is why Fallout has such small encounters (and reduced number of encounters at that) when compared to many other cRPGs.

I never said anything about digression from tradition being "a flaw". I never made any evaluative statement of that kind at all only a factual statement about it. No one is attacking Fallout here, no need to get defensive and protect anything.
Your description of Fallout is correct - which is only reinforcing MY point. You are arguing against your own original claim that Fallout, and I quote: "tries to pay attention to pretty much all aspects you can ask for in a RPG". It clearly doesn't try to pay attention to some aspects by your own admission. There are reasons for that of curse and you correctly pointed out those reasons. And they might be good reasons and good design decision for Fallout. But the fact remains and it contradicts your original claim. Fallout does not try to pay attention to all aspects that "you can ask in a RPG". On the contrary, it concentrates on some and tackles other only superficially or not at all. The question if it's a good thing or a bad thing is irrelevant in that context and neither you nor me should care. It's not part of the current argument.

One more point. The combat in Fallout is (relatively) simple not only because the player controls directly just 1-character. There are CRPGs out there with with only 1 controllable character that attempted (with varying and arguable degree of success) implementing tactical combat with more complex mechanics than Fallout. Underrail to not look very far. Fallout devs simply weren't interested in making combat very tactical. One might make an argument that less tactical combat = faster combat resulting in better flow of the game but again - whether one considers it a good or a bad thing is beside the point.

For the record, not that it matters for the discussion but here it is: I find Fallout combat fun.

The idea is more like that the gameplay loop and the whole structure of Falllout is as close to ideal RPG as possible. It lacks great combat, but you can put it in the game without changing the structure. You have a whole building already built, you just need to put one brick in the place you see an empty spot.

 

[V_K]

Bayesian doesn't even cut it. Take for example the Neptunia games: the people who play that kind of stuff are usually the people who know they will enjoy those games beforehand. It's like making a poll asking "have you sucked dicks? Did you like it?", and think the 10 users saying "yes" and "I LOVED IT" are some sort of representation that sucking dicks is great and everyone should try it.

But it is great and everyone should try it!

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

Ask respondents to indicate an age range. Results by age range may be interesting.

 

[ItsChon]

Ask respondents to indicate an age range. Results by age range may be interesting.

This man gets it.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Don't get caught up in the subgenre thing, having 10 different subgenre lists would be a lot less interesting than one comprehensive list. The whole point of such a list is to give people an idea about all time greats, so they know what to play and thereby incline themsleves.

With subgenre lists, people will just ignore the subgenres they don't like right now, ruining the whole purpose.

 

[octavius]

We already know which games will top an all time greats list.

 

[undecaf]

Leave the top 10-15 alone until there are actually compelling enough games and arguments over why they should be dethroned (other than people getting tired of voting them or voting at all).

 

[newtmonkey]

OMG do the poll, then delete the top 10. #11 is #1.

 

[Chainsaw Gutsfuck]

Don't get caught up in the subgenre thing, having 10 different subgenre lists would be a lot less interesting than one comprehensive list. The whole point of such a list is to give people an idea about all time greats, so they know what to play and thereby incline themsleves.

With subgenre lists, people will just ignore the subgenres they don't like right now, ruining the whole purpose.

Well, if the point was to just make people to play cool games we could drop the whole RPG thing and make it about games in general. An RPG list implies that the games are measured in regards to how good RPGs they are, and if by "RPG" we mean 10 different subgenres then the point is lost.

You said that people are going to ignore the subgenres they don't like, but isn't that the best proof about how little in common these subgenres really have?

 

[Sigourn]

We already know which games will top an all time greats list.

Skyrim, Mass Effect 2, Fallout 3.

 

[Darth Canoli]

find a real job instead of obsessing over video games put in some autistic order
we all know twitcher gonna end up high on the list along with IE borefests

If we vote again, let it have some gimmick. Best Rennaissance RPG, Best 80s RPG or best Combatfag game or whathaveyou.

I took a look at the 2012-2016 results, aside from the couple of retarded mainstream games, it's pretty well done, particularly the graph with the two circles in the middle.

It would be great if we could have different categories and limited choices by categories and even to choose in which to vote so if there's 6 categories, we can only vote for 4 and everyone has to write his choices, no blind poll.

Would be pure incline.

Let's make the codex great again !

 

[ushas]

felipepepe, if you want a codex poll and track changes over time, why not to have a permanent one? For example, on online shops you can rate or change your rating anytime, not in the short will-miss-once-per-five-years window of opportunity...

Thinking aloud, can imagine one more tab on the profile, all the rpgs listed with a voting option. Then once a while (eg. daily or weekly) a scheduled script backs up the current state and updates statistics on some ~"The current RPG codex weather top 70" page. Then you guys can use the data and decide to run more indepth editorials, showing all sort of outputs, subcategories, how things changed, etc., anytime you wish. That cool "RPG Codex Top 70 PC RPGs" article with pictures and reviews could be re-published in editions, i.e. the 2019 edition. Naturally, everybody will bicker over which edition is the most monocled one (the 2014 one, of course).

Though I guess that requires more collaboration on the DU and Taluntain side. Definitely more work initially, so dunno.

 

[Open Path]

• Morrowind on #7 and Daggerfall on #35 . the website that likes to throw around "decline" puts Morrowind above Daggerfall .

Because Morrowind it's indeed a huge incline over Daggerfall. It was never well explained how Morrowind brought so many incline perspectives with THAT development team, some members of wich becoming key people in later games development with all the casualization and simplification... It's a mystery...

Morrowind offers less than Daggerfall in every aspect, therefore it is major decline.

No. Morrowind is extremely more complex than Daggerfall. I highly doubt that you played Daggerfall and specially Morrowind extensively if you say that. Morrowind offers FAR more content than Daggerfall (original/new/different content in game mechanics, questing, world building or other miscellaneous content).

you can learn the language of giants and talk to them instead of mindlessly killing them

WTF? Did you played Daggerfall at all?

Daggerfall's "language skills" were a bluff, a disappointing waste of a promising idea.

You don't "learn the language of giants" and less "talk to them" in Daggerfall, you simply have a pacify creature spell in a bunch of useless skills, and actually you must kill (well approach them at least, with them obviously attacking you repeatedly) hundreds of creatures to "learn their languages aka make some creature types less hostile without dialogue at all".

The calm creature spells in Morrowind did exactly the same than Daggerfall language skills without all the dissapontment of don't "talk with giants" at all... And indeed its not Daggerfall but Morrowind, the game that allows you to talk with some monsters if you pacify them, some of wich have unique dialogue, and even services hidden by their initial hostility.

the gameworld is much much bigger

Yes... And not. The landscape, the worldmap, the number of locations are bigger, but the actual content in the gameworld is extremely inferior as I'm going to explain later. But what some people (NOT Daggerfall fans at all usually) tend to ignore when talk about Daggerfall world's size it's that 99'9 % (probably more) of Daggerfall map is an inmense randomly generated and barren landscape with NO content at all: no quests, no locations, no treasures, only some minor random encounters with ultrarepeated enemies and other minor exceptions and the same rocks, trees and bushes again and again, there is no game content in Daggerfall wilderness (outside "locations").

the towns feel like actual towns

The biggest cities in Daggerfall (8-9) are similar in area to Vivec and the npcs, dialogue, quests, enemies, interactive items or building/interiors diversity are extremely superior in Morrowind cities, towns and villages. Morrowind's settlements design is a scaled one as the rest of the game world, Vivec or Ald'Ruhn are representations of much bigger cities, but still there are very similar in size to Daggerfall supposed 1:1 scale settlements (Vivec to biggest cities, Ald Ruhn or Balmora to DF's towns, Seyda Neen or Maar Gan to small DF villages), which is very indicative... and together, MW settlements include far more npc archetypes with far more dialogue (unique or shared), more different services, more items to trade or interact, more quests or in a worldbuilding perspective, more building types, more social complexity, more little non directly gameplay related world details, more diverse and unique interiors, etc.

I also feel that Daggerfall or Sentinel areas are huge cities in comparison with tiny settlements that most games offer, but even the first time that I played DF 20 years ago, when "unique" handcrafted big worlds were so rare, I noticed the extreme level of reuse in game content just because the size of the world wasn't followed by similar addition of "more content".

I don't feel Daggerfall settlements more credible, alive, finished or complex than Morrowind's at all. And the size in DF big cities don't help to this consideration but the opposite.

Morrowind has shinier graphics, less boring NPCs and the dungeons aren't an absolute nightmare. but other than that, Daggerfall wins.

No. Morrowind has far more features than made it much mor complex than Daggerfall.

1. In a quantity perspective (more different content to experience): Morrowind has more quests (near double), more factions, more services, more animals and monsters, more weapons, armors (and armor and weapon types skill dependant) and clothes, more ingredients, potions, beverages, more unique npcs, way bigger dialogue count (with extremely bigger unique dialogue count and far more shared dialogue lines also), more spells and spell types, more equipment slots, more diseases, more books or notes, more dungeon types, more architecture diversity, etc...

2. In a quality context, besides the Morrowind uniqueness and diversity in every perspective that add itself quality over reusing Daggerfall style we can describe some superior features in TES III:

-Morrowind has an extremely more rich, complex and rewarding exploration than Daggerfall: with sligthly more movement possibilities, much more content finding dependant of these different movement possibilities, a complete directions system as no other game, more diverse and world integrated fast travel, more uniqueness and diversity in loot, dungeons, enemies or combat and better and more complex landscape design. Morrowind is an exploration experience firstly. There is no contest in this regard and is not only superior to Daggerfall or follow-the-arrowkyrim but to any other game. Still there are codexers than can't enjoy MW exploration as many others can't enjoy Planescape writting or Wyzardrys party management. But MW exploration it's objectively the best (if most complex, rewarding, challenging, interactive and diverse means the best), better than Gothics, Ultimas, M&Ms or Wyzardrys by a year light.

-The complexity, detail level and subtleness of MW's worldbuilding is the second feature in with TES III excels as no other virtual world. The society and nature are deeper and more diverse than in most other games: Deeper factions or fast travel services with more worldbuilding around them, more non gameplay directly linked details (as the already several times explained in the codex example of daedric texts in MANY world objects with meaningful messages in english), more subtle dialogue and book mentions (with many world existing details only subtly mentioned, useful hints about the world or social-natural realities,etc), the consistence between different "factions" philosophies and ways of life and their material reality (for example the architectures of the Great Houses) or a landscape design way more dense and convoluted than any other virtual world.


-The writing and quest script are not brilliant in general (there are excellence exceptions) but is good enough and far, far superior to Daggerfall's.

-MW has also a more complex hand to hand combat system with far more possibilities and factors ruling the success: Daggerfall has one attack type more, but the damage range is linked with these 4 types with bonuses and penalties -instead three different ranges in MW for every attack type with the linked specialization in some weapons, with relevance of time pushing the button, condition, etc- a complex damage system in real time combat, but not as much as Morrowind's, besides damage, DF lacks weapon speed relevance, there is not fatigue -and weapon weight influence in it-, there is not weapon deterioration, there are less spell effects to enchant weapons/armors, there is not significative weapon reach level difference, Morrowind weapons or armors materials/styles are far more diverse in the damage/protection range, etc... With balance, less easy OP, and better enemy AI, Morrowind combat could be brilliant... but it's decent enough as it's is anyways, fun and one of the most complex of real time ones.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG