Skyrim is worse than Oblivion in every way

[Surf Solar]

I wouldn't be surprised if it actually worked that way in the game, though. It's Bethesda. Someone at Beth will probably think "why couldn't we think of that?" when he sees that vid.

The music doesn't kick in when you use that shout. Those shouts are sometimes even pretty useful in desperate situations, to clear your view, buy yourself a bit time to recharge magicka etc.

 

[Multidirectional]

I wouldn't be surprised if it actually worked that way in the game, though. It's Bethesda. Someone at Beth will probably think "why couldn't we think of that?" when he sees that vid.

Yep, it's not that far fetched to expect this of Beth. Retarded screams you hear each level up are indicative enough of the way their minds work.

 

[circ]

If you're talking about stats then you have no idea what an rpg is either. An rpg has never been about stats, there's never been an rpg game made for the computer either.

Well that's why they're called CRPG's. Pretty sure Gygax would disagree about your stat dissertion however, seeing as how RPG's trace their roots to wargames, which are about stats among other things. Unless well, you thought the dice were just there for show.

Why? Because an rpg is all about freedom of choice and choice and consequence, you should be able to make any choice in response to any situation without being limited at all.

Your freedoms are dependant on the DM, same with C&C if any, unless you're playing in your head. Just as you say stats aren't an RPG mechanic, which they are, C&C actually aren't an RPG mechanic, but up to the DM. Unless of course you get really pedantic about it and consider BACKSTAB NECK or BACKSTAB FACE if applicable, C&C.

 

[draexem]

Well that's why they're called CRPG's. Pretty sure Gygax would disagree about your stat dissertion however, seeing as how RPG's trace their roots to wargames, which are about stats among other things. Unless well, you thought the dice were just there for show.

Crpgs just means rpgs on the computer. It in no way changes the fundamental concept of an rpg. And wargames were never traditionally about stats until you got to D&D, and rpging was around before then. Stats are just a mechanism to mimic character growth in the game. It in no way is a defining characteristic for rpgs. There are other ways to simulate character growth.

Your freedoms are dependant on the DM

Of course, and the quality of your rpg experience relies on your DM. The more he/she limits your freedom the crappier the DM and the worse the rpg experience.

 

[Data4]

If you're talking about stats then you have no idea what an rpg is either. An rpg has never been about stats,

How else are you going to define the abilities of your character? Freedom is all well and good, but the absence of limitations stifles creative and strategic use of your character's abilities. Otherwise, why even roll up a character sheet?

Stats are absolutely crucial to RPGs. Otherwise, you're not playing the role of a character. You're LARPING yourself with abilities you just make up as you go.

 

[draexem]

How else are you going to define the abilities of your character? Freedom is all well and good, but the absence of limitations stifles creative and strategic use of your character's abilities. Otherwise, why even roll up a character sheet?

The fact that every game and its dog cousin includes stats these days means the deining characteristics of an RPG aren't dependant on a game having stats. Otherwise every game would have rpg characteristics including Tiger Woods 2008... (the game doesn't by the way... provide a strong rpg experience that is). It helps define your character but your character doesn't have to be limited by the computer it could be limited by your own abilities. Which means stats wouldn't be needed at all your character would be limited by your competence with the controller, there are no rules to say this shouldn't be the case.

This forum hates twitch games and loves turn based stuff. Because the more twitch the game is the more it relies on the player competence and not the character. This has no bearing on whether the game provides an rpg experience or not because who's to say that the character's abilities aren't modelled on the player's competence with the controller. Stats aren't the only way to do things.

Freedom is all well and good, but the absence of limitations stifles creative and strategic use of your character's abilities.

And yet an RPG isn't about encouraging creative solutions by limiting choices, as inteesting as the concept is.

Otherwise, why even roll up a character sheet?

People should stop thinkin of rpg as D&D.

 

[ChristofferC]

Last time I checked this is not the WHAT IS AN RPG?? thread.

 

[draexem]

Last time I checked this is not the WHAT IS AN RPG?? thread.

If people want to put down a game for not being an RPG, then they had better damn well know what an rpg is.

 

[villain of the story]

It helps define your character but your character doesn't have to be limited by the computer it could be limited by your own abilities. Which means stats wouldn't be needed at all your character would be limited by your competence with the controller, there are no rules to say this shouldn't be the case.

This doesn't even make sense in the context of RPGs. RPG = outcome determined by stats. You can bend it towards different directions (see C&C fags, combatfags etc.) but you can't throw away that core tenet. On the other hand, action game = outcome determined by manual playing skills. Is this one of those newage spoiled brats who wants everything? Also, if stats wouldn't be needed "at all" if your character could only be limited by your manual skill with the controller, then who in earth would "limit" NPCs to be diverse and fit roles in the RPG context?

Anyway, 2/5 for the effort.

Skyrim can still be passed around as an RPG, though, skills works pretty much the same way they did in previous TES games. But it's really more like an action-adventure with RPGLite.

 

[villain of the story]

Last time I checked this is not the WHAT IS AN RPG?? thread.

If people want to put down a game for not being an RPG, then they had better damn well know what an rpg is.

This does it. 1/5. Stop responding, people. Also ignore +1.

 

[Data4]

Which means stats wouldn't be needed at all your character would be limited by your competence with the controller.

I dunno... when I'm using a character that is adept at bending the elements to unleash arcane hell on an enemy, my own personal ability to manipulate a mouse and keyboard shouldn't have any part beyond being an interface with the game. Twitch play turns it into an action game, because it's less a matter of what the character is able to do and more a matter of what the player is able to do on a meta level.

And you can't equate sports games to RPGs, simply because sports stats aren't an abstract representation of the player character's entire personality. They're limited to a very specific set of skills to do a specific action, i.e. swing a golf club.

And for the record, I consider games like Skyrim to be more action adventure with RPG elements.

Last time I checked this is not the WHAT IS AN RPG?? thread.

Since when does ANY thread here stay on topic. Besides, you can't let a comment arguing that stats have nothing to do with a game being an RPG go unchecked.

 

[draexem]

This doesn't even make sense in the context of RPGs. RPG = outcome determined by stats.

Utter rubbish. RPG only means 'outcome determined by stats' if you are defining rpg as D&D clone, which it isn't. Rpgs were around pre 1974, there is a very clear definition of what it is and isn't, D&D is only one type of rpg it doesn't define an rpg, it doesn't change because everyone has forgotten everything else except D&D.

Also, if stats wouldn't be needed "at all" if your character could only be limited by your manual skill with the controller, then who in earth would "limit" NPCs to be diverse and fit roles in the RPG context?

I have no idea what the hell you just said.

This does it. 1/5. Stop responding, people. Also ignore +1.

More evidence that the codex has gone to shit in recent years.

 

[Data4]

Alright, draexem, what is YOUR definition of a CRPG?

 

[draexem]

I dunno... when I'm using a character that is adept at bending the elements to unleash arcane hell on an enemy, my own personal ability to manipulate a mouse and keyboard shouldn't have any part beyond being an interface with the game.

Making it twitch just makes it an action rpg, but if it helps pretend your character's skill in the arcane arts is the same as your skill with the controller. Then you should be able to roleplay it just fine.

On a side note, I find basing your character on stats presents its own problems. For example in Morrowind increasing your stats just meant you got a bit luckier, it didn't improve your characters skill at all. So what you did was your skill in blade increased and now your chance of hitting an opponent increases to 20%, it doesn't matter if your opponent is the size of a barn or if he's staggered and stock still, you will have a 20% chance of hitting no matter what. A stupid system that definately wasn't dependant on your players skill but in cosmic luck.

Twitch play turns it into an action game, because it's less a matter of what the character is able to do and more a matter of what the player is able to do on a meta level.

And it can't be both an action game and an rpg? An action rpg?

And you can't equate sports games to RPGs, simply because sports stats aren't an abstract representation of the player character's entire personality. They're limited to a very specific set of skills to do a specific action, i.e. swing a golf club.

This is what's known as rationalising.

 

[draexem]

Alright, draexem, what is YOUR definition of a CRPG?

The same as Andrew Rilstone's definition

A role-playing game is a formalized verbal interaction between a referee and a player or players, with the intention of producing a narrative. This interaction is such that the fictional character (controlled by the player) has complete or nearly complete freedom of choice within the fictional world (controlled by the referee).

What is essential in this definition is the freedom of choice allowed to a player's character, compared with the very limited range of choices available in most computer or boardgames. In any given situation, a character in a role-playing game should be able to take any action that that character would be able to take if that situation were to occur in real life. I wonder whether the distinction between player and referee is a corollary of this - role-playing games require human referees because no one has yet developed a computer or rules system which can allow complete freedom of choice.

http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/rpgoverview.html

He makes it clear that defining an rpg as being a game that is based on D&D is a very narrow (and not complete) definition. I agree. He says that an rpg on the computer is impossible. I agree. It is a very good article.

He actually defines 3 different ways the term role-playing is used. The first way isn't used in reference to games so that's out, the second way was derived from the 3rd way (mostly, Larping not included) so I took his definition on the 3rd way the term role playing was used. It's not quite the right definition but it mostly reflects what an RPG should be, in that it is all about freedom of choice. That last statement would probably make sense if you read the article and be confusing as hell to anyone who has not. You could probably tweak it a bit but it's got the important stuff included.

You have to remember that crpgs were developed as an attempt to bring rpgs to the computer. Obviously they couldn't do this, they did it the best they could then slapped the 'rpg' tag on it, other games looked at these first rpgs for guidance and included some aspects of these games into theirs not knowing what constituted an rpg then slapped the rpg term on that. Somewhere down the track we got this obsession with stats and God knows what else. It's a big fucking confusing mess all brought about because they were never able to create an rpg experience for the computer in the first place but they still slapped the rpg tag on it.

 

[grotsnik]

A role-playing game is a formalized verbal interaction between a referee and a player or players, with the intention of producing a narrative. This interaction is such that the fictional character (controlled by the player) has complete or nearly complete freedom of choice within the fictional world (controlled by the referee).

The article might be talking about role-playing fantasies, or role-playing interactive stories, but it's pretty determined to ignore the notion of games as involving structured play by dismissing structure as something 'narrow' that's inextricably tied up with 'character sheets'and 'Dungeons and Dragons' (scoff, scoff). The Bronte sisters using models to act out a fairytale are not playing a game - they're still playing, sure, but they're telling a collaborative story with the use of props. Two little kids playing Tag are playing a game, because there are rules and objectives and limitations oh god why can't I stop arguing about this I'll stop now.

 

[Gord]

Let's say there are two approaches when it comes to the stupid (because we get that like every two months without leading anywhere) question of what is an rpg. The first is very broad, the other is very narrow.
You have some people with a very narrow definition of rpg here (like only turn-based, stat-heavy games, or only dungeon crawlers, etc.).
No point of arguing about it, imho, it's a waste of time, nothing else.

 

[draexem]

The article might be talking about role-playing fantasies, or role-playing interactive stories, but it's pretty determined to ignore the notion of games as involving structured play by dismissing structure as something 'narrow' that's inextricably tied up with 'character sheets'and 'Dungeons and Dragons' (scoff, scoff). The Bronte sisters using models to act out a fairytale are not playing a game - they're still playing, sure, but they're telling a collaborative story with the use of props. Two little kids playing Tag are playing a game, because there are rules and objectives and limitations oh god why can't I stop arguing about this I'll stop now.

They just talk about the origins of role playing games. Rpging isn't about structured play or rules or anything else, to be perfectly frank rpging is all about LARPing, it's all about sitting around a table and ceating an interactive narrative free to do whatever you want how you want. This is what an rpg experience is all about. D&D brought stats and dice rolls and character sheets into it, then they tried making rpgs for the computer and they found out quickly that computers weren't equipped to provide an rpg experience. So they took what they could (dice rolls and character sheets and swords and fighting and exploring and whatever) and abandoned the rest. The problem is that future developers who had no idea what an rpg is filched bits and pieces from this game, and other future developers filchd other bits and pieces, Japanese developers just filched the fucking stats and slapped the rpg tag on it.

The most important thing they abandoned was of course freedom of choice and I still argue that this is the most important thing to any game which wants an rpg tag to it.

Anyway, like you I'm done arguoing on it. It's like 1 in the morning here and I still have some pages to write for NaNoWriMo.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Why should it get acclaim? It does nothing original and everything it does is done better by other games.

Compared to the witcher this game is shit.

Why does it deserve acclaim? It's huge. The world is alive. The game is beautiful on the right hardware. It's actually fun to explore. Enemy scaling is virtually unnoticeable. Townspeople are very dynamic and no longer have idle chat. The things said usually mean something. The towns seem alive. When you set out on a quest, you have no idea what you'll stumble upon. I set out alone and now I have 2 dogs following me and fighting with me. It's weird, but unexpected.

This entire post is pretty much a troll topic as it's pretty much left behind everything negative about Oblivion. After the disappointment of Oblivion, I was prepared for disappointment again, but I was very pleased. The negatives so far are some pretty bad technical bugs. My razer Naga didn't like the game at all. I had to update drivers. I miss the more traditional RPG stats and the UI sucks. All in all, it's a very good game and most importantly it's fun if you leave behind silly RPG elitism and just enjoy it. I like games like this better than more linear RPG's such as Witcher. I like to explore and wander. It's the thing that made me fall in love with the first Zelda.

 

[made]

If you liked Morrowind and hated Oblivion you will enjoy Skyrim.

Guess that depends on the reasons why you liked Morrowind. I had some fun in Skyrim while I was grinding smithing - scrounging mats while working towards the next armor tier gave the game purpose. Now that's maxed out along with enchanting, there's fuck all left to do. Main story doesn't interest me one bit. Side quests range from ridiculous to boring (Harry Potter University being the pinnacle of derp). Dungeons are tediously linear, writing sucks. Morrowind was boring too gameplay-wise, but the backstory and wondrous world with its mushroom palaces and insect farms kept me going. Skyrim otoh has nothing to offer in that regard.

If you enjoy traversing vast landscapes just for the sake of traversing them, though, I'm sure you can have endless fun with Skyrim. There's literally weeks and months worth of content in there. But then I don't see how you couldn't have the same fun with Oblivion.

 

[Xi]

Skyrim's not even got any stats, so it's pretty easy to write off for me.

That doesn't mean you have to go on a rampage about it but sorry it's not an RPG, and even if it's good for what it is it's of no interest to me. The only reason it gets any attention is there's no real RPGs made any more and most the current posters have never played one.

If you're talking about stats then you have no idea what an rpg is either. An rpg has never been about stats, there's never been an rpg game made for the computer either. Why? Because an rpg is all about freedom of choice and choice and consequence, you should be able to make any choice in response to any situation without being limited at all. Obviously this is well outside a computers power to emulate so there's no such thing as an rpg on a computer. All a person can talk about is how close some games emulate an rpg experience. If you wanna talk about stats then go play Tiger Woods golf or something. And if you're gonna talk about how there are no real rpgs being made anymore you should be aware that no one has ever made a computer game that could deliver an rpg experience. Ever. Not Planescape Torment, not Fallout and not Gothic.

So full of shit. Character development is a staple of Roleplaying games. Choices/Consequences is simply a concept from tabletop that never really made it to the PC, or at least not in any major capacity - baring a few titles. IMHO, if you think roleplaying isn't about character development, then you are a fucking retard. Dumbfuck tag worthy.




If you want to design a good cRPG, you'll need both character development and a branching, interactive story. That's pretty much all that's required.

 

[Gord]

This post illustrates nicely why there is not much sense in discussing this topic.

The most basic example for "what is an rpg" goes something like this:

"You travel along an old road in the woods. Suddenly you hear muffled sounds from the scrubs close to the road. What do you do?"

Voilà, you are already playing an (admittedly very basic) rpg.
Stats are a way to give some structure and tangible feedback, but they are not necessarily required to make it an rpg. A good enough DM can make a good rpg session without any stats.

 

[Surf Solar]

This post illustrates nicely why there is not much sense in discussing this topic.

The most basic example for "what is an rpg" goes something like this:

"You travel along an old road in the woods. Suddenly you hear muffled sounds from the scrubs close to the road. What do you do?"

Voilà, you are already playing an (admittedly very basic) rpg.
Stats are a way to give some structure and tangible feedback, but they are not necessarily required to make it an rpg. A good enough DM can make a good rpg session without any stats.

Ah, because only in RPG characters can run into a situation where something hides in the scrubs. This is not possible in Action Adventures, Shooters etc. ofcourse. Even if it would be - what could one do?!?! Does the FPS guy run away or explore the foliage the sounds are coming from? Does the action adventure guy load his bow or take his sword?! There's like, so many possibilities!

 

[Xi]

IMHO, character development is clearly a staple of RPG's though. I'm not arguing definitions, I'm arguing the history of the genre. Saying that RPGs aren't about character development is akin to saying that shooters don't require guns or projectile weapons.

To make the game even better, and to give the player the illusion of an interactive story, branching stories are a good option - and about as close to achieving PnP story telling as is possible given the medium.

I'm not talking definitions.

Edit: The poster I have quoted was clearly a complete dumbfuck. That's the only real point I care to make.

 

[Crooked Bee]

If you liked Morrowind and hated Oblivion you will enjoy Skyrim.

Guess that depends on the reasons why you liked Morrowind. I had some fun in Skyrim while I was grinding smithing - scrounging mats while working towards the next armor tier gave the game purpose. Now that's maxed out along with enchanting, there's fuck all left to do. Main story doesn't interest me one bit. Side quests range from ridiculous to boring (Harry Potter University being the pinnacle of derp). Dungeons are tediously linear, writing sucks. Morrowind was boring too gameplay-wise, but the backstory and wondrous world with its mushroom palaces and insect farms kept me going. Skyrim otoh has nothing to offer in that regard.

If you enjoy traversing vast landscapes just for the sake of traversing them, though, I'm sure you can have endless fun with Skyrim. There's literally weeks and months worth of content in there. But then I don't see how you couldn't have the same fun with Oblivion.

Pretty much my thoughts about the game as well.