Can there be such a thing as a good 'RPG'?

Seriously, this just struck me while reading yet another put down of a modern game for not really being an RPG.

It seems that every game that comes out in what stores would classify as the RPG genre that has any decent amount of polish and fun is derided as not really being an RPG.

So are there any modern games that people *do* classify as an RPG, and why? If not, what was the last RPG in your opinion?

Choices is a key to a good roleplaying game in my book. Choices on how you interract with the world, how you deal with problems and choices in how you create your character.

Many games of today are created like the kind of attractions you have at themeparks, in which you sit down in a car on rails and see everything in a specific order without the ability to change the events you see played out in front of you. RPG's like theese feels more like adventuregames than roleplaying games. The classic RPG's were often free-roaming, filled with optional sidequests.

Then you have the other way around, where the "RPG" is merely a label given to the fact that you have a few stats that can be customized. The Diablo style of games in particular. These do not feel like roleplaying games since you never actually build up a character personality and you also seldom have the chance to interract with the world, you just go out and kill stuff.

As RPG's I count games like KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Arcanum and Divine Divinity. I have to question games such as Oblivion or Titan Quest.

IMO RPG isn't a binary property; it's a scalar. Various games have various degrees of RPG-ness. Of recent candidate games, Neverwinter Nights 2 is pretty close to the "pure" RPG end of the scale, while Bioshock or S.T.A.L.K.E.R. have some degree of RPG-ness but probably not enough to get the classified as "full" RPG's. Mass Effect is clearly more RPG than squad-based third-person shooter, but it's clearly less of a RPG than, say, NWN2.

I played at least two games last year that (a) were very good and (b) had enough RPG elements to be pretty much unequivocally classified as RPG's. Namely, The Witcher and Mask of the Betrayer.

Where is the laboriously maintained thread by HiddenX about "characteristic of good rpg?" Should be sticky-ed or else it'll be a waste and lost.

I wasn't really asking 'what makes a good RPG?' - I'm sure that has been discussed lots already, and I think most people are in at least some sense of agreement about many of the elements (and certainly wouldn't un-classify a game purely as the result of having them). Though I think it's interesting that most of the things itoqylas lists are things I'd expect most good games to have, regardless of their genre!

I was more wondering if its possible for modern games to qualify in your opinions, since many games that strive for being a 'proper' RPG seem to fall in the quality department, while quality games seem to be accused of not being 'proper' RPGs.

Certainly I agree with Prime Junta - The Witcher and MotB are good examples that most people would agree are RPGs and 'good' (as long as you ignore the usual forum trolls). I think he's also right about RPGs not being a binary thing, it's more of a trait perhaps.

kalniel said:

I was more wondering if its possible for modern games to qualify in your opinions, since many games that strive for being a 'proper' RPG seem to fall in the quality department, while quality games seem to be accused of not being 'proper' RPGs.

Click to expand...

There are not many "modern" examples of "quality" games, are there?

As a test I went over to www.gamerankings.com and made a search with the following:
* Last 4 years
* At least 5 or more reviews
* 75% or more
* No MMORPG's
* No expansions
* PC only

Here are the result:

2008: Mass Effect 90%
2007: Jade Empire: Special Edition 81%, The Witcher 80%, Depths of Peril 78%
2006: The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion 92%, Space Rangers 2: Rise of the Dominators 84%, Neverwinter Nights 2 82%, Titan Quest 80%, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 83%
2005: Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords 85%, Fable: The Lost Chapters 83%, Fate 83%, X-Men Legends II: Rise of Apocalypse 81%, Dungeon Siege II 81%
2004: Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines 80%, Sacred 75%

I know that single reviews might be wrong, but gamerankings counts an average between many reviews from different sites, so it gives a better outlook in my opinion.

JemyM said:

Here are the result:

2008: Mass Effect 90%
2007: Jade Empire: Special Edition 81%, The Witcher 80%, Depths of Peril 78%
2006: The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion 92%, Space Rangers 2: Rise of the Dominators 84%, Neverwinter Nights 2 82%, Titan Quest 80%, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 83%
2005: Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords 85%, Fable: The Lost Chapters 83%, Fate 83%, X-Men Legends II: Rise of Apocalypse 81%, Dungeon Siege II 81%
2004: Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines 80%, Sacred 75%

Click to expand...

Are those all the games in total meeting your listed criteria, or just ones you'd classify as an RPG?

kalniel said:

Are those all the games in total meeting your listed criteria, or just ones you'd classify as an RPG?

Click to expand...

They are the ones meeting the search criteria, including "Role-Playing >> All".

I personally consider Sacred/Fate/TitanQuest to be actiongames with some roleplaying statistics, but as you can see they are present in my list.
Dungeon Siege also felt like an actiongame but the sequel is actually a lot better.

I believe there's one quest in Oblivion+Expansion where you can make a choice that have a brief impact on the outcome of the quest... The game is almost completely void of social interaction or moral-decision making. At best you can avoid doing some quests and give yourself a reason for doing so but it wont affect your character or your game. I mean, No One Lives Forever II have stats as well and more personal choices to be made through dialogue than the entire Oblivion...

I'm thinking JemyM's list is fairly accurate, but as he says, TQ/Sacred/DS are not what most old schoolers(as opposed to the "modern" concept you brought up) would say are role playing games in the true sense of the word, and I agree. AFA Oblivion, haven't played it so can't say, but it certainly has taken the heat from role playing fans.

I also go with The Witcher and NWN2 as the most recent clear RPGs with modern production values--you can throw in Escalon:Book I if you want, but being an indie, it may not fit the 'modern' template. I haven't played VTM:Bloodlines, but I'm sure it's a fair example, given Troika's track record.

I'd classify Oblivion as definitely an rpg that offers tons of choices. Not in variety of choices in a particular quest, but in the number of quests offered that allow you to pick and choose what gets completed. It's nice to have choices of how to complete a quest if there are only 20 quests in a game. Oblivion went a different route and offered several hundred quests, most with only one solution. There are a handful of quests that offer multiple choice, but not many. To me exploration and character building are more important than whether I can kill the bandit, rob the bandit or side with the bandit in a freeform game like Oblivion.

If Oblivion would have had that, then the game might have been perfect (barring the gates of course).

crpgnut said:

I'd classify Oblivion as definitely an rpg that offers tons of choices. Not in variety of choices in a particular quest, but in the number of quests offered that allow you to pick and choose what gets completed. It's nice to have choices of how to complete a quest if there are only 20 quests in a game. Oblivion went a different route and offered several hundred quests, most with only one solution. There are a handful of quests that offer multiple choice, but not many. To me exploration and character building are more important than whether I can kill the bandit, rob the bandit or side with the bandit in a freeform game like Oblivion.

Click to expand...

Oblivion have 6 questlines if you count Knights of the Nine and about 45 sidequests. Find a FAQ and count them if you wish. In comparision, a game like Gothic 3 or Arcanum have tons. So Oblivion is quite weak on the quantity as well, not to mention that the quests are almost always the same, dumbed down by chasing a red waypoint in which end you usually must kill whatever is hostile there. There were a few quests in total which surprised me, such as the whodunnit quest, and the noble Orc who couldn't speak english was quite funny.

And what kind of exploration do a game offers, when it's all generated content so that almost every dungeon looks exactly the same and have random content inside so you do not need to search for the loot either? In the real freeform games of the old, there was really a point exploring every city. Being a completist in Oblivion is quite meaningless considering how little the game contains once you get by the graphics. Unfortunately, they seem to have inspired Bioware now, so Mass Effect had the same problem.

The ability for you to create exactly the character you want and play the way you want (completely ignoring quests/main quest as you please) puts Oblivion near to top of my personal definition of what role-playing is in a CRPG, but let's not turn yet another thread into the arguement of whether you think Oblivion is an RPG or not. I don't have any comprehension of those who say it's not, but I can already be failed to be convinced otherwise in other threads.

crpgnut said:

I'd classify Oblivion as definitely an rpg that offers tons of choices. Not in variety of choices in a particular quest, but in the number of quests offered that allow you to pick and choose what gets completed. It's nice to have choices of how to complete a quest if there are only 20 quests in a game. Oblivion went a different route and offered several hundred quests, most with only one solution. There are a handful of quests that offer multiple choice, but not many. To me exploration and character building are more important than whether I can kill the bandit, rob the bandit or side with the bandit in a freeform game like Oblivion.

Click to expand...

You are right in one sense. The Elder scrolls games were always about quantity of things to do rather than about quality. Anyone going into the series should know that and adjust the expectations accordingly.

The irony is that Oblivion falls flat in quantity compared to its predecessor Morrowind. Morrowind offers MORE character customisation in terms of skills and equipment, maybe five times as many quests (vanilla Oblivion totals at around 100, definitely not "several hundred"), more factions (9 in vanilla compared to 4 in vanilla Oblivion) which all had a larger variety in quests (and you didnt have to do all of the quests in a particular order to advance), dungeons that actually had unique content and made it worth exploring (heck, the ONLY other free form RPG I can think of where exploration is as pointless is TES2 Daggerfall that also had random, level scaled, and regenerating dungeon content, but it also had a few surprises such as witches covens and the like). And both Morrowind and Daggerfall had more quests where you could choose sides...

The character building becomes quite pointless when the structure is such that you end up a master of all trades no matter which route you choose (this flaw carried over from Morrowind). Character building is really much weaker than in other games focusing on that aspect. You dont need to build a mage to become master of the mages guild either.

So a drastic loss in quantity with only two significant improvements in quality (vastly improved technical stability and more involved fighting mechanics) in sectors where the predecessor was VERY bad does not smell like roses, but rather of something else... Sure it looks good, but it lost the main strength of the predecessor and is subpar in other (arguably roleplaying related) important departments such as quest quality. If I just want to roam around, build my character and explore (a much more varied world) then I get more fun out of the less pretentious Two Worlds. If I want to actually make choices, with consequences, of which path to take then NWN2 or Kotor or almost any reasonably ambitious RPG spanks Oblivion silly. Still it's a decent action game with very competent production (unlike many other games advertised as RPGs), but to me its not worthwhile as a RPG even if I consider the special TES style. In a way it is like a Hollywood blockbuster, excellent production and craftsmanship but not particularly creative or daring writing.... EDIT: I dont dispute the RPG label of the game though, just how good an RPG it is

kalniel said:

The ability for you to create exactly the character you want and play the way you want (completely ignoring quests/main quest as you please) puts Oblivion near to top of my personal definition of what role-playing is in a CRPG, but let's not turn yet another thread into the arguement of whether you think Oblivion is an RPG or not. I don't have any comprehension of those who say it's not, but I can already be failed to be convinced otherwise in other threads.

Click to expand...

When I played Oblivion I maxed out all my abilities and even before I did I had no problems at all running all the quests in the game, even becoming the master of seemingly opposing factions. Compare that to Fallout 2, which is a radically different experience depending on how you make and play your character.

Finally:
The option to ignore content is not a feature.

*sigh*

If you max out your abilities and do the same things each time then I'm not surprised your experience is the same each time. How about playing a character that isn't a jack of all trades? Or one that refuses to take certain types of quests on? The fact that a game gives you the freedom to do everything shouldn't be seen as a negative, as it allows the player to do as much or as little as they want, depending on what their character would do. That's proper role-playing in my book.

kalniel said:

*sigh*

If you max out your abilities and do the same things each time then I'm not surprised your experience is the same each time. How about playing a character that isn't a jack of all trades? Or one that refuses to take certain types of quests on? The fact that a game gives you the freedom to do everything shouldn't be seen as a negative, as it allows the player to do as much or as little as they want, depending on what their character would do. That's proper role-playing in my book.

Click to expand...

Avoiding to become a Jack-of-all-trades in Oblivion is difficult, unless you put down a serious effort in not leveling your character. Eventually, just by playing the game normally, you will be a master of one armor type, one weapon type and all the important skills (picklocking, stealth, acrobatics etc). Playing Oblivion using heavy armor and maces is not different from using light armor and a longsword. All in all, combat feels pretty much the same and you will probably have some kind of attackspell as well. Oblivion do not have social skills or intellect skills such as mechanics/science/craftmanship/intimidate/bluff etc. It does not have an alignment system. There's really not much to set one players game apart from another. At best you can be a criminal or not.

Compare that with games like Gothic that played out rather differently depending which faction you join, or Arcanum that is quite a different experience if you go for Mechanics compared to if you go for Magic. I replayed Fallout 2 many times using radically different characters, everything from a mastermind scientist, a sneaky ninja melee specialist, a grunt soldier, a survivalist etc. All gave me quite different experiences when replaying the game. There was something unique for me each time I played the game with a new character concept. That's freedom as far as I concern. The opportunity to avoid content in a game that is already quite limited is not what I see as a feature really.