Probably an omnifag, but I don't know any more. When it comes to RPGs from the Windows 95 era onward, some of them offer great promises in terms of game features - complex character systems, tactical combat, good story, nonlinearity, choices affecting the reactive game world, but very few on them deliver even on a single front, almost none delivers accross multiple fronts, and the way they deliver is limited.
The reason that Planescape: Torment is my favorite game is that it really shone in terms of the interactive storytelling, where other gameplay elements, though mediocre, didn't detract from the story and even adding to it (e.g. combat, which was mediocre, added a layer of interactivity and wasn't annoying since the encounters were more or less brief and easy). But, unless the game has the level of writing and attention to detail of the setting at least close to Torment, it cannot be good (though some short-term enjoynment can sometimes be derived, depending on the case), unless character development and combat are satisfying. Most story-based RPGs fail to deliver a good story, and other elements in them are usually badly implemented.
On the other extreme there is Jagged Alliance 2, which perfected tactical combat. There is not much of a story there but what little story and dialogue there is only adds to the experience of the game. We need to be realistic and admit that no RPG represents a real significant challenge to a player from a tactical standpoint (cheating doesn't apply, as forced difficulty doesn't equal interesting challenge), but JA 2 comes close. Most of other RPGs where combat is the most important factor fail to provide adequate challenge to be interesting.
Then you have Fallout, which is jack of all trades. It has all the mentioned elements done at least well, but not much more than that. Fallout is a blueprint of what RPGs should be like and what elements they should contain. It is like a prototype that should be expanded upon. But, when a game tries to expand on that prototype, it usually fails at implementing (not necessarily challenging, but at least interesting) combat.
I think that RPGs should contain the same checklist of RPG elements Fallout does, that games like PS:T are a thing of inspiration and developers shouldn't actively pursue developing them and I think that every RPG should copy JA2 combat system and weapon system (if applicable), while expanding on the character system and the story.
But, the sad truth is, most RPGs suck at all elements, so these days I play strategy games, like Hearts of Iron III.
The reason that Planescape: Torment is my favorite game is that it really shone in terms of the interactive storytelling, where other gameplay elements, though mediocre, didn't detract from the story and even adding to it (e.g. combat, which was mediocre, added a layer of interactivity and wasn't annoying since the encounters were more or less brief and easy). But, unless the game has the level of writing and attention to detail of the setting at least close to Torment, it cannot be good (though some short-term enjoynment can sometimes be derived, depending on the case), unless character development and combat are satisfying. Most story-based RPGs fail to deliver a good story, and other elements in them are usually badly implemented.
On the other extreme there is Jagged Alliance 2, which perfected tactical combat. There is not much of a story there but what little story and dialogue there is only adds to the experience of the game. We need to be realistic and admit that no RPG represents a real significant challenge to a player from a tactical standpoint (cheating doesn't apply, as forced difficulty doesn't equal interesting challenge), but JA 2 comes close. Most of other RPGs where combat is the most important factor fail to provide adequate challenge to be interesting.
Then you have Fallout, which is jack of all trades. It has all the mentioned elements done at least well, but not much more than that. Fallout is a blueprint of what RPGs should be like and what elements they should contain. It is like a prototype that should be expanded upon. But, when a game tries to expand on that prototype, it usually fails at implementing (not necessarily challenging, but at least interesting) combat.
I think that RPGs should contain the same checklist of RPG elements Fallout does, that games like PS:T are a thing of inspiration and developers shouldn't actively pursue developing them and I think that every RPG should copy JA2 combat system and weapon system (if applicable), while expanding on the character system and the story.
But, the sad truth is, most RPGs suck at all elements, so these days I play strategy games, like Hearts of Iron III.
