Originally Posted by fatBastard()
Sorry, but lately it has struck me how "elitist" (the word is a bit harsh but unfortunately also fitting) the tone here at the Watch has become. If a game meets certain standards (looks like it is from the early 90'ies, plays like it is from the early 90'ies, have been developed by an indie firm or has been made with a tiny budget) it is automatically praised for upholding the "True" RPG spirit no matter how flawed the game may be. Likewise if the game has a been made with a big budget or looks and feels like a game of today it is automatically criticized for no being a proper RPG, again no matter how great the game may be. (e.g. DA:O winner of the most disappointing game of the year here at the Watch)
If being a proper RPG means that a list of requirements must be fulfilled to be able to don that label then I say good riddance. I would much rather play a game that was created based on the concepts and ideas the developers wanted you to play than a game made to fit a predefined mold whether or not it was actually the original concept of the game.
Then again I play most games for the experience not necessarily the gameplay elements (Plant vs. Zombies and similar titles excluded of course). I would much much MUCH rather experience one superb playthrough than several okay repeats.