[Poll] What are the two most important things to you in a computer roleplaying game?

[King Crispy]

Answer this question by choosing any two of the options above.

 

[bionicman]

Not one of the options but I prefer the RPG doesn't make me fall asleep (like Solasta did).

 

[Pink Eye]

Hot, hot, hot waifus. If you don't have sexy babes in your game, what's the point? Chalice 2 has a couple of sexy babes. Colony Ship has loads of sexy babes. The real RPG devs know exactly how to pander to their players.

 

[HeroMarine]

Voted for komplex kombat and MCA (in memoriam)



Not a very balanced vote



, but so be it.

 

[Disciple]

To me: combat > exploration > setting > character systems >>> other aspects

 

[Jermu]

lgbt representation + graphs

anything else is extra but not needed

 

[King Crispy]

I added an exploration option. I could reset the votes, but I think it's still early enough not to have to.

 

[Tony]

As a filthy lowly plebian, I'm not allowed to vote. My number one isn't included - license or specific system. I'm not going to pass up a 3.5e or 5e game, especially officially licensed ones.

 

[Ismaul]

Reactivity/believability is #1, but exploration vs story is a hard choice.

What I really want is believable in-world motivations to do things. That implies story, but it doesn't need to be complex. And sometimes a well-crafted, immersive setting motivates you to explore.

Really, it's all about giving me a reason to play. I need to be immersed in a believable world, I need to buy into the reasons to act and take seriously the choices offered, and I need to see the effects of my actions and choices, i.e. C&C. The rest can vary.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Good gameplay is obviously #1. If the gameplay is poor, then little can be salvaged. Next has to be good exploration. If you're not interested in the world, or what it has to offer, then all the C&C and reactivity are without value.

 

[Daemongar]

I'll go for believability as there weren't all that great of options. One thing missing was compelling character creation - but maybe that was under the umbrella of "character development" and such so blame my lack of comprehension. By compelling, I like games where you obviously have to give up something to create an archetype. You can't be everything. You must think about how you approach the game - or think about it when creating your party.

For believability - I'll say that I just lose interest in a world that doesn't make any sense, no matter how well it is created. The world of Ultima starts really sucking when you get to U8 and U9, but before that, well it all makes sense, even U2. Dragon Age: Origins, it felt like the whole world got dumber as I went along. That is, I spent most of my time punching holes in the world logic, and the world got less cognizant as I worked my way through it. Compare this to Morrowind where the world starts out as a place to steal healing rings from dipshits, but becomes more thought out as you go along. The shitty hand dealt to Dagoth Ur, and your role in everything.

Again, compare Morrowind to Skyrim. Skyrim, well, you can become that savior of the world by entering the mages academy. You can solve age old riddles in caverns that take about .3 seconds to work out - but no fucking other person in HUNDREDS OF YEARS could loot that cave, because a puzzle that has about 27 maximum combinations would stump the citizens of the village below! Same as how I never made it past the beginning of Bioshock: Infinite. You get to town and just start murdering peope.

Look, I don't ask for a lot. Just don't make the world idiotic.

 

[Ysaye]

Could we add "well designed user interface" as a choice? This is key to the good, enjoyable gameplay point made by Magniloquent above.

 

[Ismaul]

If the gameplay is poor, then little can be salvaged.

What of Torment?

It really depends on how you define gameplay. If gameplay is combat and systems, then Torment has shit gameplay, yet the game is great despite that. If it includes dialogues, choices, situations and encounters, then Torment has interesting gameplay and the game is great because of it. I mean, is unlocking the Circles of Zerthimon gameplay? Is bringing your own severed arm to the tatoos guy to extract your previous selves' tatoos gameplay? I consider it so, but I know some don't.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

If the gameplay is poor, then little can be salvaged.

What of Torment?

It really depends on how you define gameplay. If gameplay is combat and systems, then Torment has shit gameplay, yet the game is great despite that. If it includes dialogues, choices, situations and encounters, then Torment has interesting gameplay and the game is great because of it. I mean, is unlocking the Circles of Zerthimon gameplay? Is bringing your own severed arm to the tatoos guy to extract your previous selves' tatoos gameplay? I consider it so, but I know some don't.

Core gameplay in torment is exploration. You find, reveal, and discover. Gameplay is good because the world and plot are good. It is distinct from other RPGs where the motive is to explore in order to access more gameplay (typically combat). Perhaps the term "gameplay" is overly broad for a genre that is so broad itself, and not useful for reductionist analysis. In any case, my votes for combat and exploration are mutually supportive.

 

[Deadyawn]

Exploration: If there isn't stuff to discover, it usually doesn't hold my interest very long.

Reactivity: But not when it's confined to the game's narrative. If the fact you are a dwarf comes up in dialog, that's nice, but it's just fluff. I much prefer when choices affect gameplay in some way or another. Becoming a vampire in Morrowind and finding yourself cast out from most of civilization or your race having a big impact on how you interact with certain npcs in Arcanum, stuff like that.

 

[Ismaul]

Exploration: If there isn't stuff to discover, it usually doesn't hold my interest very long.

I agree about Discovery. But it's not exclusive to exploration, it can also be about narrative. In fact, it's best when both are linked.

Mysteries are compelling. A huge world does nothing for me unless there is something hidden, something to know that is kept from you that you are driven to get to. And for that discovery not to be pointless, it needs to inform what you're doing, to at least give some context on the narrative in some way, if not lead to new avenues and choices. So ideally, the gameplay of getting to the hidden stuff must be good (exploration), the reason to get there compelling (narrative), and the use of the information discovered impactful and satisfying (C&C).

 

[King Crispy]

I added the word creation to the second choice.

 

[udm]

Voted Reactivity and Complex combat as any member of the genteel class should.

 

[Daedalos]

Disgusting combatfags on codex, no surprise.
You want C&C and combat? Well that makes no fucking sense lol.

STORY is paramount.

The reason why you guys never recognize a good RPG when ya thrown one in yo face.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

I added an exploration option. I could reset the votes, but I think it's still early enough not to have to.

Exploration, combat, and character-related elements are the three components that define the RPG genre, and any poll that was entirely missing exploration might as well be tossed out.

 

[Butter]

Disgusting combatfags on codex, no surprise.
You want C&C and combat? Well that makes no fucking sense lol.

STORY is paramount.

The reason why you guys never recognize a good RPG when ya thrown one in yo face.

You have an Iron Tower avatar, clown. They literally do C&C + combat.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

1. companions
2. companions, because there should be more than 1.

 

[thesecret1]

Exploration and an interesting game world are a must in an RPG, there's no going around that. I was split between story and combat for the second most important thing, but then remembered that combat was shit in Gothic, Morrowind, New Vegas, etc., and I enjoyed them a lot despite that, so I picked story.

 

[flyingjohn]

Combat first since it is the gameplay element of any rpg.
Character development second because the genre is called ROLE playing game.
Story line is meaningless to me and is reliant on good writing,which games are not known for.
Graphics and music can enhance a good game but can't make a bad game good.Plus,youtube covers the music part.
Reputation is only useful if a company is known for making buggy games that have no redeeming quality,but word of mouth covers that.
People change/get lucky, so that is not any basis of quality.
C&C/Reactivity sacrifices too much in other gameplay elements and is reliant on other factors to succeed.
Exploration is usually a buzzword for "The game has lots of walking with small payouts".
Fuck elves.

 

[Ismaul]

You have an Iron Tower avatar, clown. They literally do C&C + combat.

AoD is more C&C + exploration. Combat is secondary, you can even play without ever fighting.