Best RPG of the 2010s?
 

We should have a "Best Video RPG of the 2010s" poll. Maybe start with past GotY winners at RPGW?

You're right. Lemme vote already.
So… Starting from the third place my vote would go for:

#3 Shenmue 3 for trolling the PC audience
#2 Wasteland 3 for being mmo

:D

Damn, I failed.
WL3 isn't released yet. :(

Can't do that without the 2019 results! That would be a good way to cut down on the numbers. Though I think we should include all the games that got ribbons, just in case one got a lot better after the voting.

1. Witcher 3
2. Skyrim
3. Dragon Ag… oh frak, that was 2 months before 2010.

I also think we need to wait for this year's winners.

The winners of the time in question were:

2018 Pathfinder:Kingmaker
2017 Divinity:Original Sin 2
2016: None
2015: The Witcher 3
2014: Divinity:Original Sin
2013 Shadowrun Returns
2012 Mass Effect
2011 Skyrim
2010 Fallout: New Vegas.

I'd vote for other if that was the list, because I liked both Pillars of Eternity games, Wasteland 2, Stranger of Sword City, Might and Magic X, Lords of Xulima, Trails of Cold Steel and Trails in the Sky, and Battle Brothers better than anything on that list. I'd probably choose Pathfinder:Kingmaker of the ones above, though I also really enjoyed Skyrim.

I don't think that starting with the GotYs is fair. Reason: The second place of a good RPG year can be a better game than the GotY of a weak year.

Also people may realize after some time that a game was a cult classic, in spite of not being voted high in the year it was published.

Anyways my current list (changes every few weeks):
3. Divinity: OS 2
2. Lords of Xulima
1. Elex

I have to agree on that. Besides, we're talking about a whole decade as total, not year by year.
So perhaps we should have a list of "mustplay RPGs from past decade".
That way perhaps none will enter from some year but from another there could be 4, 5 or more.
It doesn't have to be best 10, best 20, best 50 or something, just a list regardless of how many will be on it.

Why am I also saying this. An example: I had enormous fun with ME4 (apart from mmoish world) but I still can't say it's a musthave. Or mustplay before you die…

Yes, an excellent example of this problem is comparing a year like 2014 to any other year of this last decade.

My favourite cRPG from the 2010s was/is Blackguards, being the only game from this decade's output that I've played that I instantly replayed upon completion, and went on to complete it again.

However, Blackguards didn't even rank in RPGwatch's (or many other site's) list of top 10 for that year, as that was the most cramped year for big name RPGs of the lot:

1. Divinity: Original Sin
2. Wasteland 2
3. Dragon Age: Inquisition
4. Shadowrun: Dragonfall
5. Might & Magic X: Legacy
6. Lords of Xulima
7. Risen 3: Titan Lords
8. Legend of Grimrock 2
9. Dark Souls II
10. South Park: The Stick of Truth

And Blackguards, being a completely new name by a completely new dev, and not being triple A but just double A, left it at a 'current vogue' disadvantage. Even me, during the year it came out, did not think I'd like it as communication about the game was very poor indeed with most people just referring to it as not much more than a tactics game, which it was nothing of the sort, it was a regular normal full blown traditional epic RPG that just had a novel and unique way of presenting exploration.

Had Blackguards come out in 2013 though… well, the chart for that year only has 8 games total for it's top 10, we couldn't even name a 9th or 10th position. And who won that year? Mass Effect 3, a game that has gone down in the annuls in infamy rather than must-play classic.

And for all the possible subjective opinions about the quality of Blackguards or Dragon Age: Inquisition, I'm not sure how anyone could keep a straight face by recommending a new gamer DA:I before Blackguards, let alone Risen 3. Just like M&MX, these are all weaker examples of series that have long-since only been made to appeal to the extreme die-hard fans of franchises that were begun last decade or before, whereas Blackguards is an excellent example of the luxury of individuality and variety and uniqueness that more aptly represents the mindset and atmosphere of the more memorable 2010s crop.

Well maybe you should have different sub-class - like best tactical rpg; best rtwp rpg; best combat orient rgp; best story rpg; ….
-
I mean there are a lot of good games out there - banner saga series; d:os series; dragon age series; mass effect series - but many of them are good in different ways…. can there truely be one best (or one best per year) ?

If we want to get the top 3 cRPG of the decade, imho the candidates should be the top 3 of each year. Everything else is too complicated.

If we really want to go with sub-categories we should take the 3 best ranking of each year in this category. For most years and categories you won't have 3 though.

Witcher 3
Huge gap
Some other games

I can sense the implied humour, lol, but you're actually not far off and could well be right with your final conclusion, at least from a general gaming world perspective. In all honesty I can't see how the top 3 of the decade can be anything other than a battle between:

Dark Souls (2011) (or part 2/3 or Bloodborne)
Skyrim (2011)
Witcher 3 (2015)

Now, if the question wasn't a popularity contest but was instead a very dry and overly-academic debate on which games were the best at achieving as many core RPG elements while still providing mostly great reviews and customer feedback in large numbers while also providing the novelty of the completely new, well then, that's a whole different discussion :D

The biggest shortcoming I see with these Best RPG votes is that most people voting will have no even played most of the games. The popular games that received the most coverage, the most hype, etc. will predictably end up winning, in part, because those are the games that everyone played. The more obscure titles are at an inherent disadvantage.

A few years ago RPGCodex attempted to remedy this popularity contest problem by having voters rank games 1-5 then calculating a Bayesian average, so that the games with the highest average ranking would win, not just the one with the highest amount of "best" votes. It's an interesting idea but then you end up with obscure games that probably have a very niche appeal coming in high (as Neoscavenger got #3 in their 2014 game of the year).

So I don't have an ideal solution but I'd say in order for it to be something worthwhile the list to vote for would have to to be much bigger than the past 10 games of the year. I'd lean towards around the top 5 games from every year. 50 games is a pretty big list but still manageable I think & gives ppl a chance to vote for the lesser known games they might have only played years after release but ended up liking more than the AAA stuff almost everyone plays the year it comes out.

Hmm what can i think off in the top of my head?

1. Underrail
2. Shadowrun Dragonfall
3. ELEX
4. Age of Decadence
5. Witcher 3
6. Kingdom Come Deliverance

Those are the ones i remember really good from the ending decade.
Stuff like Wasteland 2, PoE or Numenera was decent, but not really great imo.

Welcome to the Watch my good friend Dazed. Interesting list. I'd rank ELEX very high as well.

Someone needs to compile a list for me to choose from, otherwise my leaky brain will trick me into suggesting sub-optimal, or too-early games. :p

And witcher 3.


What about remakes/overhauls, e.g., Baldurs Gate, Icewind Dale, Planescape Torment… do they count into this? Is it fair to include them, or unfair not to?

I wouldn't count those, they are essentially the same old game with a new coat of paint. Siege Of Dragonspear yes, but the EEs of the old games, no.

Maybe a "best of" list with different categories then? Best indie RPG, best AAA, best role-playing elements, best flipped oldie, best RPG tactical combat, best multi-player, …

I do have to say something favourable about the Codex, and that is at least last year they tried to repair the obvious weakness of their voting system by averaging their Bayesian average with the number of number 1 votes, giving them nearly equal weight. I think that is a fairly sensile approach.

I doubt there is a system that will please everyone, in the end they are just statistics. And as we all know, there are lies, damned lies and statistics :)

witcher 3 and the first dark souls, the rest are several levels below

Not sure I agree with that. Certainly on this board, ME3 was panned for being a shooter, but overall most thought it was an excellent game. The controversy over the last 3 minutes got out of hand, but that was really the only legitimate gripe people had, whether you liked shooters or not. And of course the bitching led an entire studio to pander by changing things and creating DLC.

yes, it's amazing how an ending to a popular series can create such a commotion of anger. I mean, the ending to game of thrones is just a few minutes…

Also: citation needed. Who are these 'most'? Most here? Most there? Most somewhere?

Most anticipated games of the decade:

2013: Star Citizen
2014: Star Citizen
2015: Star Citizen
2016: Star Citizen
2017: Star Citizen
2018: Star Citizen
2019: Star Citizen

My vote for 2020 and beyond: Star Citizen

https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect-3

I don't have time to filter 6500 user scores, but the vast majority of negative ratings were people raging about the ending. 23 critics averaged 89 score and while some I'm sure were biased in some way, it's still one of the highest rated games on their site.

As a side note about user scores, the current user score for Red Dead Redemption 2 is a 4.2, and it's 'widely considered' one of the best games of the last several years. In this case, user scores were heavily weighted by people ranting about it being broken on PC, which it is (it won't even start up on my brand new laptop).

RDR2 is not 4.2.
Regardless of bugs here and there plus unbelievably bad both code and data optimization, it's painfully mediocre - IMO deserves to be somewhere between 5-6.
But it's not RPG. So it's popularity and sales doesn't matter much for a potential list we'd make.

ME3 is per user score also, IMO, too low.
The red green blue Evangelionlike ending sucked and I can't think of a personality who'd like what Bioware made there. But it's not just ending that stinks. It's story critical DLC sold separately and buyable only with scammy Bioware points, it's ME3 mmo part and it's prepatch design where it was impossible to get the best end unless you play either mmo or buy all DLC from ME2 and ME3.
EA wrongdoing aside as we should concentrate on a game and not it's king of hell publisher, ME3 still has plenty of redeeming features to deserve at least 8.

Pathfinder: Kingmaker in first place by far. The rest were… meh :P The other two would be Mass Effect 2 and Expeditions: Viking.

What I find fascinating and extremely telling about your response to my post is that I made a post to highlight a game which deserves more attention than it got, a game which had the unfortunate luck of being released in the only year in which we could legitimately describe ourselves as being inundated with new decent RPGs, the only year that happened in that decade. I chose to highlight a game that is undeservedly genuinely overlooked as a classic of the era.

And what do you take from my post? You want to rush to the defence of a game I mentioned briefly in passing as being 'infamous' "rather than must play classic". A game and series that requires no additional support to highlight it's cRPG historical significance and a game which you yourself admit is only borderline RPG genre anyway, or at least hybrid with an FPS.

Further more, you then decide that the use of the word 'infamous' is in someway a description of the quality of the game and make an inference that the word infamous is therefore incorrect, when infamous is exactly the word to describe ME3, regardless of any discussion of its quality.

By doing so you are implying ME3 is a must-play classic, as that's the only other thing I said about it, to which, no, it's the third part in a series and it's the least popular of the series, regardless of why. If you're going to mark ME3 down as a must-play classic then you might as well call every game ever a must play classic, you're getting to that level of blind fanboyism.

And just to add insult to injury, in a request for a citation for your use of the word 'most' you provide a link which quite clearly shows 'most' people giving the game negative reviews FOR WHATEVER REASON. And so you are now redefining the word 'most' to mean something that is not 'most'.

Do I need to 'in a nutshell' the entire essence of the 'problem' of the nature of these discussions any more than what this brief exchange provides?

No game is a mustplay classic.
Except Drakensang TDE. :)

Buuut… It's from 2008 so it can't be on the list suggested here. :(

Got me, you win the internet! Moving on…

And I guess that's, again, the only part of that post you will choose to focus on?

As a fan of every Mass Effect game the extended cut ending did not really pander. It just added more content leading up to the same endings. So nothing changed at all.

What pissed me off was the bitching for Andromeda had every DLC cancelled.:(

Rated F for Fun

RPG
Divinity: Original Sin
Underrail
Kingdom Come: Deliverance
Shadowrun: Dragonfall
Fallout: New Vegas

Roguelike
Rimworld
Dungeons of Dredmor

Tactics
XCOM
XCOM 2

Hack n' Slash
Grim Dawn

*I still haven't really dived into Pathfinder: Kingmaker. I guess it seems a daunting time commitment. Christmas holidays will allow me to focus on getting stuck in.

For tactics King Bounty Crossroads !