General News - The best RPGs of all Time - Page 2 - RPGWatch Forums
|
Your donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » General News - The best RPGs of all Time

Default General News - The best RPGs of all Time

July 16th, 2019, 07:23
Originally Posted by GabrielMP_19 View Post
They are not owned by the same company at all. Kotaku was originally created by Gawker Media, which went bankrupt in 2016 and now it's owned by Univision (which owns the Gizmodo Media Group, Kotaku is a part of that). PCGamer is published and owned by a British company called Future PLC.
If you look at either Future PLC of Future US Wikipedia pages and scroll to the bottom of the page and open the purple tab, it lists Gizmodo and Kotaku as current websites. If you go to Future's website, it lists both Gizmodo and Kotaku as brands:

https://www.futureplc.com/brand/kotaku-uk/
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
retired poster
Original Sin 2 Donor

#21

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,973
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)

Default 

July 16th, 2019, 09:01
Originally Posted by lackblogger View Post
If you look at either Future PLC of Future US Wikipedia pages and scroll to the bottom of the page and open the purple tab, it lists Gizmodo and Kotaku as current websites. If you go to Future's website, it lists both Gizmodo and Kotaku as brands:

https://www.futureplc.com/brand/kotaku-uk/
Future PLC, the owner of PC Gamer, runs Kotaku UK (kotaku.co.uk) and Gizmodo UK (gizmodo.co.uk).

I don't think they have anything to do with the main websites that we'd normally care about, Kotaku (kotaku.com) or Gizmodo (gizmodo.com).
Stingray is online now

Stingray

SasqWatch
Original Sin 1 & 2 Donor

#22

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,952
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)

Default 

July 16th, 2019, 12:24
I actually think it's a pretty decent list, even if some of my own personal favourites are missing. And there are some games in the list I wouldn't even label RPG's, but that's a matter of subjective opinion.
TomRon is offline

TomRon

TomRon's Avatar
SasqWatch
RPGWatch Donor
Original Sin Donor

#23

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 2,858
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)

Default 

July 16th, 2019, 12:35
Originally Posted by Stingray View Post
Future PLC, the owner of PC Gamer, runs Kotaku UK (kotaku.co.uk) and Gizmodo UK (gizmodo.co.uk).

I don't think they have anything to do with the main websites that we'd normally care about, Kotaku (kotaku.com) or Gizmodo (gizmodo.com).
Ah, so there are TWO Kotakus! Scary stuff!
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
retired poster
Original Sin 2 Donor

#24

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,973
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)

Default 

July 17th, 2019, 04:59
Yeah, PC Gamer has a lot of these "living articles" that they update every few months. They only have the last-edited-date showing, though, so you have to scroll down through the comments a ways. They will suddenly jump from "2 days" to "4 months".

On the plus side, the link stays the same so anyone reading this thread can follow the link to see the latest.
Originally Posted by Stahl33 View Post
You know I liked the witcher 3 - never finished it, but I didn't mind it, but is it truly a RPG? I mean what role do you get to play? Geralt?! And how many roles or ways to play it are there? I kinda found it a little RPG light, but still in the genre. Any thoughts?
10+ years worth, scattered all over this site.

How many roles can you play in most of the Bioware games? Typically: two. Well, I guess you could play an eccentric that would sometimes be a nice person and other times be a complete ass wipe, too. Not one computer RPG even holds a cheap, little birthday candle to the roles you could play in the pen & paper games that inspired them, though. If you call Role Playing Games the games that let you play the role you want, I think you're going to end up with no games in the genre!

Anyway, you might have some fun exploring the Analyzer: https://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20485
--
The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views….
-- Doctor Who in "Face of Evil"
Zloth is offline

Zloth

Zloth's Avatar
I smell a… wumpus!?
RPGWatch Donor

#25

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 6,578
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
+1:

Default 

July 17th, 2019, 15:34
Originally Posted by Zloth View Post
How many roles can you play in most of the Bioware games?
I accept your challenge.

Before I start, can you clarify your qualifier by saying specifically which Bioware games am I allowed to choose from to compare to Witcher 3
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
retired poster
Original Sin 2 Donor

#26

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,973
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)

Default 

July 17th, 2019, 18:34
This seems more like just a list of rpg’s than a best of but i’m Pretty bored with the “best of ALL TIME” thing anyway. It’s mostly going to be the same games being a best of all time and all.

I’m more interested in stuff from the last 5 years or so.
sakichop is offline

sakichop

SasqWatch
Original Sin Donor

#27

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,971
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)

Default 

July 18th, 2019, 01:49
Originally Posted by lackblogger View Post
I accept your challenge.

Before I start, can you clarify your qualifier by saying specifically which Bioware games am I allowed to choose from to compare to Witcher 3
?? Witcher 3 doesn't matter. How many personalities are possible in Bioware games?
--
The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views….
-- Doctor Who in "Face of Evil"
Zloth is offline

Zloth

Zloth's Avatar
I smell a… wumpus!?
RPGWatch Donor

#28

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 6,578
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)

Default 

July 18th, 2019, 02:34
I think that bioware games were as good as wiz8, m&m and so forth. That isn't to say they were the best or worse but I think they have become a soft target (with some merit perhaps but to a degree unjustifiable).
-
To me the best rpg are the ones you enjoy playing. Mind you enjoyment does not equate to matching a formal defn or broad spectrum - but no matter how good an rpg is on paper if you don't find it fun or enjoy playing it - it doesn't really matter much does it ?
-
Anyway I'm not one to say that witcher 3 is more or less an rpg than dragon age origin or b. gate or wiz8 or m&m vii or whatever or mass effect. They all bring something to the table - I am willing to say I have the fondest memories of wiz8 and m&m vii but some of that is when i played them and some of it has nothing to do with rpg aspect - they just caught my interest and I had a blast to playing them (I also enjoyed witcher 3 but it was god awful long; but i loved that first expansion - bloody baron or whatever ).
-
Anyway - the problem with these list is they don't really define what makes an rpg and then systematically explain why a particular game scored well. For the most part they are just popularity contests (which is fine i suppose - but there is no metrics or merits to be on the list - other than being well known or popular).

Originally Posted by Zloth View Post
?? Witcher 3 doesn't matter. How many personalities are possible in Bioware games?
you is offline

you

Lazy_dog
RPGWatch Donor
Original Sin 2 Donor

#29

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: usa - boston
Posts: 7,375
Mentioned: 55 Post(s)

Default 

July 18th, 2019, 02:46
Originally Posted by Zloth View Post
?? Witcher 3 doesn't matter. How many personalities are possible in Bioware games?
Personalities? Are you moving the goalposts before my very eyes? I'm quite happy to analyse a game to provide a statistical assessment of how many roles a game offers for your player character, but personalities? Since when has personality determined role?
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
retired poster
Original Sin 2 Donor

#30

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,973
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)

Default 

July 18th, 2019, 03:01
Originally Posted by lackblogger View Post
Personalities? Are you moving the goalposts before my very eyes? I'm quite happy to analyse a game to provide a statistical assessment of how many roles a game offers for your player character, but personalities? Since when has personality determined role?
Well, you could call it interesting decisions then if you don't want to go with personalities.

While I liked Dragon Age Origins 1 it lacked interesting decisions as you could only be the "bright paladin" or the "Malevolent asshole" role or personality. Your decisions were either in the one or the other ballpark, but rarely in between. If you have a choice between A and B, you will look into which decision will end in which of these two directions. I still remember that there was one choice which I made thinking "But this decision was the more reliable one", and the game then directly told me something like "well, here is the outcome of your evil decision". Of course the one I deemed as "unrealiable" was the good one and ergo also resulted in a 100% "morally better" result.

I haven't played Witcher 3. But from Witcher 1 I remember that the decisions were actually fun and meaningful. You are not forced to one option if you don't want to play an asshole or evil character.
Furthermore two grey-scale decisions mix far better than two black and white decisions, where you'd stick to one side.
--
Doing >Let's Plays< and >Reviews< in German. Latest Review: Pathway
Mostly playing Indie titles, including Strategy, Tactics and Roleplaying-Games.
And here is a list of all games I ever played.
Kordanor is offline

Kordanor

Kordanor's Avatar
Wastelander
RPGWatch Donor

#31

Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,693
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)

Default 

July 18th, 2019, 03:43
Originally Posted by Kordanor View Post
Well, you could call it interesting decisions then if you don't want to go with personalities.
Or you could go with the wording the person who initiated this conversation went with, that of role. I don't believe that poster was talking about personalities or assessing the extent of philosophical decision making the player is required to entertain every time they order another mead.

The poster was talking about roles, to which one would then be looking at a whole raft of game mechanics before one even got to the point of assessing how many flavour texts the game offered you. You know, character classes. Then, after character classes you could extend the meaning of the role via racial selection. Then, if you wanted to extend the concept of role even further you could choose a background. Then, if you wanted to go even further you could specialise your class into an even more specific class.

At this point I'm tempted to say "etc etc etc", you know, to save you from having to cope with more than a single paragraph to explain something you should be familiar with already, so… etc etc etc. This can all be distilled down to the answer: The stuff you do during character creation when you fill out your character sheet.

Nowhere on your character sheet does it ask you to provide a personality for your character. Nowhere does it ask you if you want to play like Forest Gump or Mahatma Ghandi. It might ask you to select a general alignment or proscribe to a historical general intent (such as a paladin), but nowhere does it imply that these details will need to be studiously adhered to during every encounter the game offers, from ordering mead to slaying a kraken.

Even in P&P the notion of personality is completely abstract from the concept of role playing. Sure, people pretend their played character is somehow some creation only an Olivier standard method actor could aspire to, but, in reality, all they're doing is playing themselves with all the pretention of an amateur ham. It would be physically impossible for a P&P player to roleplay an intelligence 3 character because an intelligence 3 character is something so alien to them it would be akin to a 1920s vaudeville performer donning blackface.

"Oh, use your imagination" is an amusing quote because that is the fundamental problem with the concept, the only thing you can use is "your" imagination. You cannot conceptualise someone with a different wisdom score than yourself and no amount of pretending can hide that. You cannot conceptualise someone with an intelligence of 3, you can only pretend to be thick, you wont be demanding your DM have you die of infection from poor hygiene after three days of being incapable of wiping your own ass, you'll just be sitting there 'laughing' with your mates that you open doors by headbutting them, completely oblivious to the fact that this is just you making jokes rather than actually sympathising with the concept of idiocy in any real way.

To somehow imply that the only gauge of roleplaying is the extent to which you have increased dialogue options and for those options to somehow interpret a consistent personality throughout an entire game is abundantly absurd, both in expectation and initial concept. The extent of roleplaying begins when you start character creation and not when you answer to your first NPC… LMAO.
Last edited by lackblogger; July 18th, 2019 at 04:17. Reason: missed out a word
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
retired poster
Original Sin 2 Donor

#32

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,973
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)

Default 

July 19th, 2019, 01:40
Originally Posted by lackblogger View Post
Since when has personality determined role?
??? That IS role. When you role play, you're playing some personality. Maybe a nice person, maybe a mean person, maybe an eccentric, maybe somebody dull (though hopefully not), maybe somebody that can't deal with anyone else having authority, or maybe somebody that avoids personal responsibility like the plague.
--
The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views….
-- Doctor Who in "Face of Evil"
Zloth is offline

Zloth

Zloth's Avatar
I smell a… wumpus!?
RPGWatch Donor

#33

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 6,578
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)

Default 

July 19th, 2019, 02:49
Originally Posted by Zloth View Post
??? That IS role. When you role play, you're playing some personality. Maybe a nice person, maybe a mean person, maybe an eccentric, maybe somebody dull (though hopefully not), maybe somebody that can't deal with anyone else having authority, or maybe somebody that avoids personal responsibility like the plague.
No, that's a personality…

And if you play the exact same strict personality for more that a certain period of time then it becomes either a stereotype or a caricature.

Let's just take your first example: Nice person. Lol. For real? Apparently Hitler was a nice person. You can find a gazillion quotes of people saying he was very nice. He was nice to some and not nice to others.

What constitutes nice for you might not constitute what is considered nice for someone else, your entire 'roleplay' will just be you playing what you think is nice. You're not playing 'some role', you're playing yourself when you imagine yourself being nice.

And it's an entirely false proposition, because all beings are natural dichotomies, existing in perpetual duality. No being will ever be permanently nice nor permanently mean. Your imagination of role is merely a natural being stripped of all facets of themselves bar one specific trait, a trait that is exclusive to you and you alone. You'd be taking the nomenclature of toon to it's literal meaning of making, essentially, a cartoon character with all the depth of a repeated five minute cartoon, forever locked in as Dick Dastardly, always looking for the 'option' to lay traps for pigeons or racing cars with no singular objective or driving force beyond that one specific trait.

When you go to your job, whatever it may be, you have some kind of title. This identifies your role. What personality you have from day-to-day is irrelevant to the function of performing your role. If you quit your role and a new person took it over, they would have a singularly different personality to you but would perform the exact same role.

Your personality is what you personally bring to your role in surplus to the requirements of the position (or detriment). To take an example of an MMO team, the simplest means to express the point, the MMO usually demands the core of the team consists of three 'roles', the tank, the glass canon and the healer. If your healer is good or evil makes no difference to the role beyond character sheet specialisation, the actions they perform are the same. The only time the personality is relevant is occasionally deciding the direction of a quest or quest outcome, something that rarely effects either game or character progression, but just adds 'flavour text' to the adventure.

P&P parties are no different, people are encouraged to take on different roles. What choices people make with regard either quest direction or quest outcome are irrelevant to the role each player assumes and irrelevant to the progression of the characters. Individual personalities will effect only the flavour of the adventure.

Ergo: If you say that personality is role and that only personality is role then you are not speaking from the point of view of a role playing game, you are speaking from the point of view of a choose your own adventure where role is entirely irrelevant. And, further than that, you are creating a choose your own adventure where you aren't even choosing your own adventure, you're forcing yourself into a linear story experience where you're actively refusing to make any choices at all, you're just going through the motions of laying traps for pigeons as your answer to every crossroads, because you can only conceptualise something as not being you (ie: a different personality) by selecting one of your preconceived assumptions of character and turning it into a cartoon character - I'm evil, therefore I must lay traps for pigeons. Which is the most lazy way to play a game possible.

The reality of greater options via roleplaying is that by having a healer with you, whatever their personality, this then allows the DM the option to offer you the option to revive and heal people who would otherwise die, or whatever other character sheet trait the role brings - you decided to heal the dying Mayor, you gain 500XP and a new NPC to interact with instead of just the option to loot his/her corpse.

Whether you perceive healing the Mayor as good or evil or nice or mean will depend on other factors, factors regarding the flavour of the story, but that wont be roleplaying, that will be you making philosophical decisions that you justify however you want, as a person disassociated from your character sheet. The extent to which the gameworld agrees with your philosophical choice as being in line with your character will depend on the individual personality of the DM or developer, again, completely disassociated from any character sheet roles.

I can put this into an actual example:

You are playing as a rogue with a party of other RPers, you are the only one with rogue skills, the party finds itself in a room in a property that is not theirs, with no NPCs in sight:

DM: There is a box in the corner. It looks like a treasure box.
Party member 1, Fighter: Hey, Zloth, I don't like the idea of bashing that box, I think I'd make too much noise.
Party member 2, Healer: Now THAT'S a treasure chest!
Party member 3, Druid: I cannot seem to manipulate it, it seems to be mostly metal in construction.

They all look at you.

They look at you because this situation is a situation for your "role" in the party.

It doesn't really matter what your personality is here. Either you're going to go have a go at the box or you're not. Of all the myriad 'personalities' you could apply to this situation, your 'choices' are still pretty much binary, you either perform your role or you don't.

If you choose not to and you use your personality as an excuse then you are not roleplaying not examining the box, you're simply refusing to perform your role, for whatever reason. You're "wasting everyone's time". Why did you pick a rogue if you are going to then contradict that choice by 'choosing' a personality that has a likelyhood to not want to perform it's role.

If anything, personality is more anti-role than role, and yet you seem to be under the impression that it's everything about role. And I have no idea why.

The increased game options occurred precisely because your role added an extra option to the party. Your personality did not add any options and, in fact, your personality only has the possiblity to reduce options in such a scenario, reduce them back to where it would be no different than if you weren't even in the party in the first place.
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
retired poster
Original Sin 2 Donor

#34

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,973
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)

Default 

July 19th, 2019, 03:24
@Zloth Just nod your head and smile. It's for the best.
JDR13 is offline

JDR13

JDR13's Avatar
SasqWatch
Original Sin Donor

#35

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 26,896
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
+1:
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » General News - The best RPGs of all Time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 23:43.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by DragonByte Security (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright by RPGWatch