36 replies to this topic

[Feanor]

During the last years, I have the impression that the RPG genre is going down.
It was faced with a similar situation at the middle of the '90, until Baldur's Gate came out and practically ressurected the genre, launching him again in top. In 2000, came Diablo 2, the most beloved BG2 and Icewind Dale, in 2001 Gothic and in 2002 Neverwinter Nights, Morrowind and Icewind Dale 2.

But, since then, there was no other title which could overwhelm the gaming community like the BG series, NWN or Morrowind did.

In 2003, there were the expansions for 2002 block-busters NWN and Morrowind and, since they were just that, add-ons, and not stand-alone games, don't count. There were also Gothic II and Temple of Elemental Evil, but none of them did not have by far the impact of BG, NWN or Morrowind. In 2004 there was also Vampire, in 2005 Fable and Dungeon Siege 2. Again, none of them was capable of coming close to the great trio BG, NWN and Morrowind.

Yes, there was a series which had a great success during these years : it is KOTOR. Well, at least in my opinion (humble request : KOTOR fans should not toss rotten tomatoes at me ), KOTOR is not a pure RPG like the trio already mentioned, but more an adventure/RPG, quite similar in terms of gamestyle and concept with the old Deus Ex (the one from 2000 ). Why I say this : because a RPG should place the main character in a veridic world. Yet KOTOR did not managed to do that : I never had the feeling that the main character truly belongs to that world, but more like he was just a puppet following a kind of "Ariadna's thread" designed by the producers. Practically, the gameplay was more close to an adventure game like Tomb Raider series rather than the classic BG, which still remains the reference. Yes, KOTOR was fun, but not a RPG.

I do remember that, when the first KOTOR was released, most reviews admitted that it was a great game, but incapable of unseating BG from his throne. The situation remains the same, 2 years after KOTOR 1. I don't know what to make of this : that BG was just perfect, or that the producers became lazy or they lack ideas. This is a reason of pride for Black Isle/Bioware, but also a reason of shame for the current RPG producers, because, at least in my opinion, is hardly acceptable that the best RPG in terms of gameplay/story/atmosphere would still be a game released more than five years ago.

Personally, I have hopes for the new trio, Oblivion, NWN 2 and Dragon Age to restore the RPGs to their previous glory. If BG was the Iliad of the RPGs, maybe Dragon Age will be their Aeneid.

[Archmage Silver]

The future of ©RPGs... well, it hasn't been silent, games have been made just as you listed them, good games but nothing ground shaking. Could it be so that our memories of Baldur's Gate have been goldened by time? Weell... not really, I guess. But there is something... perhaps we don't get impressed so easily anymore because BGs used so many ideas and made them true? Perhaps BGs managed to get working the best story, feeling & world? One could say we are a bit spoiled by the popular RPGs of the past, and now we can't appreciate the slightly less intriguing games enough. What if there was no BG series and NWN was the saviour of the genre? We would like NWN because BG wasn't there. What I'm trying to say, we see BGs and other series as better than the new games because we played them first and felt that they were unique, it's all about first impressions, just ask any Ultima or Fallout fan. Now, we liked them then and now it's harder to like the new games, although I admit there is reason not to, in some cases. It seems that story, atmosphere, gameplay and characters apparently can't do it for the new games, so it leaves graphics. And then we'll have to turn to Oblivion since it will have the best overall combination in a long time. I say TES IV: Oblivion is the way leader for RPGs now, if it fails (unlikely) RPG genre is going to take a big hit, but then NWN 2 or DA has to lead the way instead. The genre needs one big success, and it has to be one of the trio of NWN 2, DA & Oblivion, not all of them can flop.

Edited by Archmage Silver, 10 January 2006 - 10:25 AM.

[Feanor]

What I'm trying to say, we see BGs and other series as better than the new games because we played them first and felt that they were unique, it's all about first impressions, just ask any Ultima or Fallout fan.

Not quite, because I could point every feature where BG2 beats the recent releases.

well, it hasn't been silent, games have been made just as you listed them, good games but nothing ground shaking.

That's the whole point. I still remember when BG series, NWN or Morrowind came out, they simply dominated the gaming world for some good months. Can we say the same about recent releases, even KOTOR 2 ? Hardly.

[Jyzabyl]

My biggest gripe with CRPG's in recent times has been a tendancy by games makers to go for flash graphics over content. Whizz bang animations are great for wow value for the first 10 minutes of gameplay (if you have a highend setup that allows you to see them) but if the game doesn't have a interesting storyline and content, then it ends up being a less than fulfilling experience. Maybe I'm just getting old and grumpy, but it seems to me that there was more enjoyment back when games were content rich and graphics poor.

[Shining Light]

Thats my thoughts without me posting. But since I have, I'll second that view.

[Delight]

My favourite was Fallout 2.
P: T lacked replayability and had a horrible combat and skills system and BG series were too childish and lacked proper dialog options and had a horrible combat and skills system.
I think that modding is future of cRPGs.

Edited by Delight, 10 January 2006 - 02:14 PM.

[Grunker]

During the last years, I have the impression that the RPG genre is going down.
It was faced with a similar situation at the middle of the '90, until Baldur's Gate came out and practically ressurected the genre, launching him again in top. In 2000, came Diablo 2, the most beloved BG2 and Icewind Dale, in 2001 Gothic and in 2002 Neverwinter Nights, Morrowind and Icewind Dale 2.

But, since then, there was no other title which could overwhelm the gaming community like the BG series, NWN or Morrowind did.

In 2003, there were the expansions for 2002 block-busters NWN and Morrowind and, since they were just that, add-ons, and not stand-alone games, don't count. There were also Gothic II and Temple of Elemental Evil, but none of them did not have by far the impact of BG, NWN or Morrowind. In 2004 there was also Vampire, in 2005 Fable and Dungeon Siege 2. Again, none of them was capable of coming close to the great trio BG, NWN and Morrowind.

Yes, there was a series which had a great success during these years : it is KOTOR. Well, at least in my opinion (humble request : KOTOR fans should not toss rotten tomatoes at me ), KOTOR is not a pure RPG like the trio already mentioned, but more an adventure/RPG, quite similar in terms of gamestyle and concept with the old Deus Ex (the one from 2000 ). Why I say this : because a RPG should place the main character in a veridic world. Yet KOTOR did not managed to do that : I never had the feeling that the main character truly belongs to that world, but more like he was just a puppet following a kind of "Ariadna's thread" designed by the producers. Practically, the gameplay was more close to an adventure game like Tomb Raider series rather than the classic BG, which still remains the reference. Yes, KOTOR was fun, but not a RPG.

I do remember that, when the first KOTOR was released, most reviews admitted that it was a great game, but incapable of unseating BG from his throne. The situation remains the same, 2 years after KOTOR 1. I don't know what to make of this : that BG was just perfect, or that the producers became lazy or they lack ideas. This is a reason of pride for Black Isle/Bioware, but also a reason of shame for the current RPG producers, because, at least in my opinion, is hardly acceptable that the best RPG in terms of gameplay/story/atmosphere would still be a game released more than five years ago.

Personally, I have hopes for the new trio, Oblivion, NWN 2 and Dragon Age to restore the RPGs to their previous glory. If BG was the Iliad of the RPGs, maybe Dragon Age will be their Aeneid.

I disagree with you alot on this subject Feanor, but we always seem to disagree about alot of things anyway

In my opinion, Bloodlines is placed right below the Baldur's Gate series, and the objective part of my inner skull tells me that it might only be because of nostalgic reasons that I only place it below, and not next to, Baldur's Gate.

Other than that: How can you call KotOR for adventure instead of RPG, if indeed you claim that Morrorwind is RPG? In Morrorwind, it wasn't always dialogue that made the frame for communication with people, and a realistic setting doesn't (in my mind) make a game an RPG. As far I as I can tell, and I've roleplayed Pen&Paper and live for about eight years, KotOR is as much an RPG as any other. I certainly felt that I belonged to the world when I was playing Charname/Revan in KotORI, and in KotORII, the fact that you didn't feel as though you belonged anywhere was an intentional component added by the developers: Someone on the run, without any firm memory of his or her earlier excistence shouldn't feel as though he/her belonged.

Neverwinter Nights... Overwhelming the gaming community? Last I checked, there were a lot of people who agreed with me when I exclaim that Neverwinter Nights is one of the worst things that has happened to RPG. The fact that you can place a character in a realistic world, make tons of dialogue, and have a beautiful, reknowned setting (forgotten realms) and then call it an epic RPG? It was RPG, sure, but it was boring (at least for some of us) to.

You like NWN, I like KotOR, none of us has the right to announce it as "not an RPG" or to speak on behalf of others when we say it's bad/good (I know it wasn't your intetion, and you didn't do that, but I say it anyways, because it proves my upcoming point).

The RPG-genre isn't dying, it's changing. And I, as you, have trouble dealing with that, because many times, they fix things that ain't broken, to attract new players. But we have to ignore that sometimes, if we are to enjoy the new games. As a final word, we should remember that a true RPG game would only be possible if we were eight players playing multiplayer, with a live DM, and the game was text-based, and then it would only be pen&paper, wouldn't it?

PS. I sound an awful lot as though I mean what I say as a flame, but I truly don't. It's a mixture of my unsatisfying knowledge of the english language (which makes me unable to sometimes choose less aggressive words) and the fact that my opinions are very strong. I apologize if I used some uncalled for language

EDIT: I just thought Archmage Silver needed a pad on the back for saying this, I agree 100%:

One could say we are a bit spoiled by the popular RPGs of the past, and now we can't appreciate the slightly less intriguing games enough.

Edited by Grunker, 10 January 2006 - 03:10 PM.

[discharger12]

No one believes that Oblivion could resurrect the genre?

[Feanor]

Grunker, you do realize that this means war ? (joking, of course)

In my opinion, Bloodlines is placed right below the Baldur's Gate series, and the objective part of my inner skull tells me that it might only be because of nostalgic reasons that I only place it below, and not next to, Baldur's Gate.

First of all, I want to specify that this is not just my personal opinion, it is the result of a little bit of research. Baldur's Gate had an average ratio of 92,5%, Baldur's Gate 2 94,4%, Morrowind had 89,2% and NWN 89%. For comparison, Bloodlines had an average ratio of 80%, Temple of Elemental Evil 71%, Gothic 2 had 79,6%, Fable 83,6%. You like it or not, these are the statistics. The only exception is KOTOR 1, which had an average ratio of 93,2% but, in this case, it is debatable if it is a classic RPG or not. In the best case, we could call it a new style of RPG, but no more.

IMO, each of the 3 games mentioned represented the peak for their style : BG2 for tactical story-based RPG, NWN for the action-RPG, Morrowind for world simulation RPG. Since then, all the other games are just shadows. My problem is that I would have expected evolution and improvements and not a drawback. Unfortunately, a drawback is what I got.

Neverwinter Nights... Overwhelming the gaming community? Last I checked, there were a lot of people who agreed with me when I exclaim that Neverwinter Nights is one of the worst things that has happened to RPG. The fact that you can place a character in a realistic world, make tons of dialogue, and have a beautiful, reknowned setting (forgotten realms) and then call it an epic RPG? It was RPG, sure, but it was boring (at least for some of us) to.

Yes, but that does not change the fact that NWN was in top for some good months. But what caused this, IMO, is the fact that a lot of people, since NWN was coming from Bioware, expected a new Baldur's Gate, but NWN was not, it was more an action-RPG. Thus, the big dissapointment from a lot of BG fans (I was one of them, I openly admit that I always hated the lack of a party in NWN).

I certainly felt that I belonged to the world when I was playing Charname/Revan in KotORI

About this, let me be more explicit : KOTOR places the main character in a network of tunnels, which the designers call nicely "story" (I mean that Bioware invokes the fact that "our game is telling a story" to justify the increasing linearity), and thus they seriously limit the interaction with the environment (meaning that the player can't make step outside of the path designed by the developers for the main story), which is, IMO, one of the main characteristics of the RPG style. To give you an example of what I mean : neither in BG series, Morrowind or (partially) NWN you do not have absolute freedom of movement, but the developers did in such a way that I never had the feeling of being artificially stopped from going further. In KOTOR this feeling is very strong. Can't explain exactly the reason, but in KOTOR I always felt as if I had some walls built around my path.
In terms of linearity, KOTOR reminds more of Tomb Raider 3 (which, exactly like KOTOR, had the same style of allowing the player to choose the locations where he wants to travel next) than BG.

You like NWN, I like KotOR, none of us has the right to announce it as "not an RPG" or to speak on behalf of others when we say it's bad/good (I know it wasn't your intetion, and you didn't do that, but I say it anyways, because it proves my upcoming point).

You missed my point totally. I also like KOTOR, but my problem is that I'm very reluctant to include this game in the RPG genre. And when I said "KOTOR is not a classic RPG", I always specified that, on this issue, I speak only in my name, not "on the behalf of others". But even if I accept your point of view and take KOTOR as a RPG, still only one good RPG in 3 years and a half is very few.

I just thought Archmage Silver needed a pad on the back for saying this, I agree 100%:

One could say we are a bit spoiled by the popular RPGs of the past, and now we can't appreciate the slightly less intriguing games enough.

I don't know if you realize this, but you and Archmage Silver just gave a big hit to the developers with the statement. If we can't appreciate "the slightly less intriguing games enough", it means the old ones were better. If the new ones, despite the awesome graphics, can't make us forget the old ones, then it means their gameplay/story is not great at all. It's a logical deduction.
But yes, Silver hit the nail with this : the RPGs lose complexity in favor of simplicity, heading towards a kind of "story-crawling" (story-crawling = own term which refers to games which keep the gameplay focused only and only on the main story, without allowing the player to immerse in the world where the plot is located).

[Feanor]

And, btw, here are my arguments why KOTOr is not an RPG :

1. Every RPG has a story which can be considered the skeleton of the game ; but usual RPGs, beside the main story, have also additional content and, moreso, they do not chain the player to the main path of the game ; KOTOR does both things :
- it totally lacks this additional content (as I said, I have very hard times trying to remember any significant quests in KOTOR which are not related to the main story - there are just 10-15%) ; it practically lacks the meat on the bones, to say so ;
- it chains the player to the main plot : you cannot deviate an inch from it. Yes, even in BG2 were such moments, especially in Spellhold, but they made sense from the story perspective, while I cannot say the same for KOTOR ; in Spellhold, the player *was* in a maze *in* the game, in KOTOR the whole game is a big Spellhold ; even in the Underdark, the player has the chance to see that there is a whole civilization down there, not just him and those interested in him ; but, in KOTOR, the story takes the hand of the player, keeps it tight and drags him along until the end.
Besides, the way chosen by the developers to limit the possibility of exploration generates a strong sensation of artificiality. One example : on one planet, Revan travels through a desert ; he cannot go to far from the marked path though, because, if he tries, the player gets a warning "if you advance, you risk losing yourself among the dunes". Well, in this case, the solution chosen by Bioware was simply miserable, when someone wanders into the desert the holy spirit does not pop in and says "STOP". It would have been much more intelligent and much more realistic to allow the player to go in that direction and, if he persists, to trigger a movie where Revan dies of thirst as a result of him getting lost.

2. Second, an important thing in RPG is to create the impression that the world where they are located have not been made specifically for the PC and not everything what happens in them is somehow connected to the main character. Well, KOTOR acts as if the Republic came into being specifically to be saved/conquered by Revan and when Revan goes down, the Republic goes down as well. And the cause is that absolutely everything in KOTOR, every bit of information, every story you hear is connected to the main character to some degree. Even in NWN, which is much more linear than BG series, I never had this impression : even when the PC will be no more, Faerun will continue to live his life, as it did before the PC came.

[Archmage Silver]

But yes, Silver hit the nail with this : the RPGs lose complexity in favor of simplicity, heading towards a kind of "story-crawling" (story-crawling = own term which refers to games which keep the gameplay focused only and only on the main story, without allowing the player to immerse in the world where the plot is located).

Yeah, I think that sums up my feelings for some of the new RPGs... Linear.

What I'm trying to say, we see BGs and other series as better than the new games because we played them first and felt that they were unique, it's all about first impressions, just ask any Ultima or Fallout fan.

Not quite, because I could point every feature where BG2 beats the recent releases.

You sure your vision isn't clouded by the first impressions of BG2? Like BG2 showing how it's supposed to be done? Of course I have to agree with that, because the recent releases are so damn linear story- and otherwise. Although this is only the opinion of the gamers who liked BGs and the older series and played them... the newcomers to the genre might say Fable is the best CRPG out there. Personal opinions, eternal point of argument. B)

[Grunker]

Temple of Elemental Evil 71% (...) Fable 83,6%.

Are these the percentage of games bought? I bought all of them, but that doesn?t necessarily make them good games. If they?re not, but somehow a percentage of how many liked the games for being RPG, I must insist on at least not calling Fable an RPG. I enjoyed it, but it was entertaining, not something to ponder on like RPGs should be.

BG2 for tactical story-based RPG, NWN for the action-RPG, Morrowind for world simulation RPG.

Suffice to say, I don?t necessarily agree with you on this.

KOTOR places the main character in a network of tunnels

You?re right about this, but this doesn?t mean that it isn?t an RPG. If lots of tunnels mean ?not RPG", then no tunnels must be ?most RPG?, and I do not want to call Morrorwind the most RPG of them all, because dialogue is what?s most important to me.

If we can't appreciate "the slightly less intriguing games enough", it means the old ones were better

Not necessarily. The first one you try is associated with a lot of nostalgic feelings, and a lot of other things that makes us like them more. Besides that, creating game after game with the same way of doing things becomes trivial, and even though the developers only use small tools to change the way you experience their RPG, it will still just be aversions from the original, which were the best. That?s why I like games like Bloodlines, because it tries to break free from the standard of RPG, because we would get bored with the same ideas over and over again. I like the Infinite Engine, but image all RPGs being made with just an improved version of that (although I believe some of the modders here would be keen on the idea )

without allowing the player to immerse in the world where the plot is located

We agree to some extent here. I think Bloodlines clearly broke free from this, you ventured back and forth through the cities a lot of times in this game (or at least I did, because the game offered me to do it, and had lots of quest that enabled me to return with reason). But I agree that many games have picked up this habit, KotOR being the primary example on this. Fortunately, it sounds as though Neverwinter Nights II is going to redeem the genre at least in this aspect.

in KOTOR the whole game is a big Spellhold

As said before, we agree on this to some extent, but that doesn?t necessarily make it ?not RPG?, unless you would call Morrorwind for ?most RPG?. Come to think about it, Morrorwind might be ?most RPG?, and then you?re right about everything you say, but then I would have to say that ?most RPG? didn?t necessarily mean a good game, because I was, to quote Twillight ?bored to tears by Morrorwind?.

The genre is assuredly hanging in a thin thread, but the games of the last couple of years haven?t been complete and utter failures. I enjoyed the roleplaying of KotOR, Bloodlines and a few other games.

EDIT: Spelling

Edited by Grunker, 11 January 2006 - 10:52 AM.

[Feanor]

Are these the percentage of games bought? I bought all of them, but that doesn?t necessarily make them good games. If they?re not, but somehow a percentage of how many liked the games for being RPG, I must insist on at least not calling Fable an RPG. I enjoyed it, but it was entertaining, not something to ponder on like RPGs should be.

Now, they are the average ratio of the marks received in all the online reviews.

Suffice to say, I don?t necessarily agree with you on this.

Well, they got the highest marks. And I do rely on this, because if don't like something that does not make it bad. I don't like Warcraft 3, but I admit is a very good strategy.

In reply to you, here are the traits which make the difference between an RPG and other type :
1. A main character which can be customized by the player ;
2. Non-linearity of the main story ; the player should be able to take a break from the main quest or deviate from it if he deems necessary, if there are no story reasons to force him ahead (like it was the Spellhold part in BG2) ;
3. Significant events not connected to the main player ; the main character is the one placed in a world, not the world is created for the main character's goals ; there are many things where the main characters gets involved simply because he was there at that moment, not because it had something to do with him in the past ; that is what I called "the additional content", because a game is not a novel.
4. Social interaction : the main character must relate to the environment where the plot takes place ; for RPGs, the environment is a world with his own history, his own problems and schemes, not a world which practically OGLES/STARES AT the main character.

These are the main traits, at least in my opinion. Grunker, please, take note that they are not in terms of good/bad, they are not about quality. KOTOR 1 has one, fails at points 2, 3 and 4.
It's not a matter of liking or disliking the game. I liked KOTOR, but for me it's not an RPG. You said you disliked some parts from Morrowind : if there are some things bad or good, this is irrelevant, because not quality is the issue here. Morrowind meets the requirement at point 1, 2, 3 and 4. All of them.

we agree on this to some extent, but that doesn?t necessarily make it ?not RPG?, unless you would call Morrorwind for ?most RPG?. Come to think about it, Morrorwind might be ?most RPG?, and then you?re right about everything you say, but then I would have to say that ?most RPG? didn?t necessarily mean a good game, because I was, to quote Twillight ?bored to tears by Morrorwind?.

BTW, I would be grateful if you would post your own traits which define an RPG. Careful : not a good RPG, but an RPG, because you discuss this issue in terms of quality. You said you were bored by Morrowind. I was also bored to death by Planescape:Torment, but I do not deny that Torment is an RPG. The statement "how good it was" is totally irrelevant, because if KOTOR was good that does not make it automatically an RPG, while if Morrowind was boring that does not make it a first person shooter.

The genre is assuredly hanging in a thin thread, but the games of the last couple of years haven?t been complete and utter failures. I enjoyed the roleplaying of KotOR, Bloodlines and a few other games

KOTOR was not an RPG.

[Archmage Silver]

Dee doo dee... KotOR is a CRPG... you can't logically shut out that option, not really. If there are hack'n'slash CRPGs and action CRPGs, that means nill, the genre is still CRPG. Ok, made my point.

[Grunker]

2. Non-linearity of the main story ; the player should be able to take a break from the main quest or deviate from it if he deems necessary, if there are no story reasons to force him ahead (like it was the Spellhold part in BG2) ;
3. Significant events not connected to the main player ; the main character is the one placed in a world, not the world is created for the main character's goals ; there are many things where the main characters gets involved simply because he was there at that moment, not because it had something to do with him in the past ; that is what I called "the additional content", because a game is not a novel.
4. Social interaction : the main character must relate to the environment where the plot takes place ; for RPGs, the environment is a world with his own history, his own problems and schemes, not a world which practically OGLES/STARES AT the main character.

Then how come you bring up fable as an example of an RPG?

What makes an RPG (IMO):

1. Social Interaction: The player must be able to interact in as many ways as possible in terms of how the structure of the game is made. As artificial intelligence haven't been discovered, it is impossible to include this feature 100%, but it should always be as close to new technology as possible. This constitutes a dialogue-system with one exception: Games that focus on a main character with a certain story that must be told, thereby having a pre-made personalty, can still be an RPG if indeed the player have control of the fundamental choices of both story and physichal traits (class, for example), as it is done in for example VtM: Redemption. Games such as Diablo and Fable where the NPCs can talk to you but you cannot talk back, does not qualify for this point. Games such as Morrorwind or Might&Magic that substitutes the dialogue with a system that enables the character to reply with bullet-points (Example: NPC to player: You must seek out the dragon. Player dialogue respones: 1. Yes 2. No 3. Information (brings up a window with the NPC giving information about the dragon) doesn not qualify. Morrorwind lies on a boundary, because it has both.

1a. Contents of the Social Interaction: There must be almost equally much dialogue/social interaction as there is combat. Of course, combat is what drives almost any game, and the content-boundary is hard to define, but to give an example, Baldur's Gate have enough dialogue content where as Pool of Radiance II hasn't.

2. Freedom of choice: No matter how the structure in the game is laid out, the character should always be able to go wherever he wants, whenever he wants, with the exception of places that the story or main plot of the games rules out, not in terms such as "locking a level", but ruling the out the choice of going there in a realistic way, as for example making a physichal shield that is imprenetrable shield around the area, locking the door, or set up defences (pretty bad examples but you catch my drift). Note that this does not outrule KotOR.

3. Realism: The character must be placed in a world that acts as close to our own world as possible within the setting: In Starwars, it's still a physical boundary that people can't fly, i.e. they should not be able to fly in the game. Realism is defined through the setting.

4. Deviation: In addtion, games may qualify as an RPG anyways, because their type clearly deviates from the norm that is a "normal" RPG. Pool of Radiance II, for example, is still an RPG, but not a normal one, because it contains enough elements to be an RPG, except for the fact that it has limited social interaction. This arguably makes it a bad RPG, but nevertheless, still an RPG.

This is what makes an RPG (not a good RPG, because ToEE filled out all the requirements ).

[Feanor]

Then how come you bring up fable as an example of an RPG?

But Fable meets all the 4 points.


Anyway, very good traits, I say, but Kotor fails at points 2 and 3 and, possibly 1. But, anyway, although our definitions meet at some point, they are quite different, so that's why we disagree.

[NiGHTMARE]

Linear CRPGs aren't anything new at all. They've been around since the genre began, and in fact they've always outnumbered the non-linear CRPGs. Dungeon Master, the Eye of the Beholder series, Ultima Underworld 1, System Shock, the early Final Fantasies (not that the more recent ones are non-linear) - all classics of the genre - are just a few examples of old and linear CRPGs.

Edited by NiGHTMARE, 12 January 2006 - 06:16 AM.

[Grunker]

Non-linearity? Significant events not focusing on the main character? Social interaction?

Do tell me where in Fable you found that?

But yeah, I actually think both definitions are okay, they're just... Different. And KotOR doesn't faill in any of my points mind you.

[Darnoc]

There was something mentioned by you right at the beginning, Feanor, but it never came up again, unfortunately, in my opion: GOTHIC.

I agree that the first Gothic was only partially an RPG, because only in the beginning you had actual freedom. In the later stages of the game you were bound to a certain path. Gothic 2 ammended this. Gothic 3 will hopefully do it even better. The only reason, why Gothic and Gothic 2 weren't the hits they should have been, is this, I think: It's German (my mothertongue, by the way). Here in German regions, both games were indeed hits and stayed hits for a long time - there's a huge and active fan-community in German regions. But outside the German regions there is not much. I never played Gothic or Gothic 2 in English, so I can't tell, how much they changed. And as far as I know, "Die Nacht des Raben", the great addon to Gothic 2, was never published in English at all. I guess, though, the game wasn't much different in English than it was in German. So, why didn't it become the hit it became here in German regions once it was translated into English?

There are several points, which would definitely speak for Gothic and which make it a unique RPG-series in my opion. The Gothic-series has a particular style which is unique to it and no game or game-series was ever able to do it like Gothic: It is sinister, rough, tough and brutal. Well, it's not necessary "gory", but it is brutal. There's a difference. Gothic has this cruel, rough world, filled with criminals (you being one of them) and selfish persons; everyone has weaknesses and even the "good guys" (for example paladins and fire-mages) are not that good - paladins and fire-mages are arrogant, for example. On the other hand, some criminals are actually good (take Lee, my favorite, leader of the mercenaries and former general of the king). It's not a "nice-hero" world or "good-vs-evil", at least not clearly, since the hero is in fact a criminal himself, although he is the avatar of Innos (supposedly the good god, although I think he is an arrogant bastard, just look at his servants). In fact, the mentor of the hero is a dark-mage, a priest of Belial, the "evil-god", and the hero has an orc as friend (Ur-shak) and his other friends are all convicted criminals.

So, Gothic 3, if it is able to maintain or even surpass the quality of the former two games, could be one of the games, which could revive the RPG genre - if there wasn't the language problem. Not only is there the problem of translation, there is also a certain bias, I think, against foreign games (with the exception being asian games) - foreign to most of you, of course, since I am from a German speaking country. This bias is especially strong in the USA, unfortunately.

Edited by Darnoc, 18 January 2006 - 04:27 AM.

[Grunker]

there is also a certain bias, I think, against foreign games

I live in Denmark, which is connected to germany by land, and I've never even seen either Gothic or Gothic II in the stores. I think it's also a matter of blaming Atari for not using enough money to get the game out of Germany, let alone give the game the publicity it (in your opinion) deserves. I buy every RPG I can find, but I've never found this game in Denmark.