What you miss from oblivion that skyrim doesn't have .

[xXGalenXx]

And here I thought RPGs were about playing a character.

But what separates one character from another in a game?

[stabbykitteh]

Diablo 2 is a Good Example of RPG. Stats and Skill Tree.

 

I loved Diablo I & II - but grinding to level and get loot doesn't constitute an RPG for me. There's no character development or role play involved really at all. (edit: I don't think you're wrong if you do think it's an RPG - but personally when I think of role playing, Diablo never comes to mind).

 

And here I thought RPGs were about playing a character.

 

That would make two of us. I have several Skyrim toons - all of them are different builds with different sets of perks and skills. Most importantly to me, they are unique characters who interact with the world in very different ways.

Edited November 26, 2012 by flummox

[Lachdonin]

Diablo 2 is a Good Example of RPG. Stats and Skill Tree.

 

It is a good example of a single type of RPG. Don't think that something is either an RPG, or it isn't. That takes the beauty and the depth out of the concept of the RPG. They aren't RPG's because they are based on some arbitrarily determined gameplay mechanic (like FPS games, for instance) but rather are about playing a character other than yourself. In all honesty, almost all games constitute RPG's.

[JanusForbeare]

The original role playing video games were text-based, and many of them didn't have stats at all. I remember playing the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy RPG on my old Commodore 64 as a kid. Like many games of that era, it wasn't about getting into fights, or powerlevelling, or any of the stale, two-dimensional conventions of the genre as it is today. It was about being immersed in a fictional world, and taking on the role of a character within that world. It was about solving problems through dialogue and figuring out the solutions to puzzles by observation of the world around you. There are plenty of other role-playing games that took a similar approach.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think that stats and combat have their place in the genre, especially these days (and I definitely think that it's something lacking in Skyrim). However, they are very mechanical, mathematical systems that are easily exploited, which often changes the point of the game from, "How can I solve this problem using the tools available to me?" to "How can I become ridiculously powerful in the shortest amount of time?". They're also not unique to RPGs. Sports games have stats (FIFA, for example). Racing games have stats. Many first-person shooters have stats. They define the genre about as much as swords do - in other words, they're a common element, but they don't make a game into a RPG on their own.

 

Ultimately, an RPG is what its name implies: a role-playing game. As in, a game where you take on another persona. It's a very loose definition, and one that is by its very nature open to interpretation. It's really not worth debating too heavily, because people are going to have had different experiences with the genre, and their expectations are going to be based on those experiences.

 

Anyways, what I miss about Morrowind is the size of the world, the fact that different paths were mutually exclusive (ie. Great House Membership), the feeling of actually being part of organizations (I'm sure I'm not the only one nostalgic about their legion days in Gnisis, or taking a pilgrimage across Vvardenfell), the deep and varied dialogue, and the bizarre setting. While I'm on the subject, while I'm as excited as the next person about seeing the Dunmer in their own lands again, I can't help but feel that that "exotic" atmosphere is going to be lost a bit. After all, we've already seen Dunmer architecture, and we've already been to Solstheim. Sure, they may have changed a little, but wouldn't exploring Dominion territory have been even more alien, novel, and exciting? Besides, there's already a plotline with a whole bunch of loose ends there... why start up a new one? Hell, we're not even travelling in the right direction!

 

EDIT: Just realized that the title of this thread only mentions Oblivion, not Morrowind. Whoops. Well, I miss more from TES III than I do from TES IV, so... sorry. I stand by what I said, though. Really, Morrowind was the high point for the series.

Edited November 26, 2012 by JanusForbeare

[xXGalenXx]

Stats make an RPG. There are no RPGs without stats. Fact is, you can't name one RPG that didnt have stats. Nor was Hitchhikers Guide on C64 an RPG. It was a text based adventure game, like how it's listed anywhere you look.

 

You can RP -real world acting- without stats, you cannot however RPG. To have an RPG you must have stats so characters are tangible and different and can actually do things in the game world. Obviously other games have stats, but RPGs requires stats to be RPGs. And no, there isn't anything mechanical or easily exploitable about them. No more easy or hard to exploit than anything else. If you min maxed and didn't stick to an RP, that was your bad, not stats or the games fault. Also, it isn't even a debate, just a known fact that stats make an RPG what it is. Hence why every RPG made had stats in one way or another.

 

If the only thing people can come up with is a fallacy about min/maxing, then I guess nobody truly has an argument against stats or attributes. Which I already knew of course, since this has been known as far back as November last year, on the TESF.

Edited November 26, 2012 by xXGalenXx

[luzburg]

And here I thought RPGs were about playing a character.

 

Yes. In fact stats and such often take away from immersion. Takes you from your characters life and makes you do maths instead. I think the perk system is a step in the right direction. The implementation of it could be even more immersive. My ideal arrangement would be stats that grow naturally alongside your abilities so that you never actually have to put points into anything, and perks would be things you learn at trainers and thats where you see the perk tree. This is only for ES though, I feel ES is more of a role playing game than anything else I've ever played. If I want a traditional style stat based game I will play Dark Souls which does it far better than ES ever did.

[xXGalenXx]

 

 

Yes. In fact stats and such often take away from immersion. Takes you from your characters life and makes you do maths instead. I think the perk system is a step in the right direction. The implementation of it could be even more immersive. My ideal arrangement would be stats that grow naturally alongside your abilities so that you never actually have to put points into anything, and perks would be things you learn at trainers and thats where you see the perk tree. This is only for ES though, I feel ES is more about role playing game than anything else I've ever played. If I want a stat based game I will play Dark Souls which does it far better than ES ever did.

No, it doesn't. The stats in fact make your character what it is in a game. Perks are just as much stats as attributes.

 

Seriously, you guys sound like you dont know too much about RPGs. Skyrim must have been your guys first RPG. But seriously, if you think counting to 100 is hard math, you probably shouldn't be allowed outside, much less to play video games.

 

Name one RPG without stats, you cant.

Edited November 26, 2012 by xXGalenXx

[Lachdonin]

Name one RPG without stats, you cant.

 

Kings Quest and Space Quest, though i suppose one could consider those more proto-RPG adventures.

 

And no, for the record, stats (perks or attribues) do NOT make an RPG. An RPG is about being someone you are not, in as realistic a way as possible. When i exercise, i don't suddenly thing "Oh, look, my strength and enduance went up by 3 points!". What happens when one practices skills is they become gradually better, without arbitrary milestones. The only relavent milestones in character progression are the development of new skills, which aren't the least bit represented by stats. The Perk system fails to adiquately deal with it as well, but it does a far better job than Oblivion did. You don't instantly learn how to disarm an opponent once you get good eough with a sword, you have to activly take an intrest in that particular skill.

 

The fact is, some of the most enjoyable tabletop RPG's i've ever played are ones which rely on the ability to think through a situation. Nothing mainstream, of course, because 'thinking' isn't something the general consumer does particularly well (Why think when you can count to 100?) but my local D&D group has experemented with several in-house game modes in which you have no stats, you don't level up, and your success it entirely based on quick thinking and problem solving.

 

If you are so arrogant as to think that stats are crucial to the RPG experience, i would have to say that it is YOU who knows very little about RPG;s.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Lachdonin

[acidzebra]

To have an RPG you must have stats

 

It's Role Playing Game, not Baseball Statistics Manager.

 

My first RPG was Bard's Tale on the C64 and I've been playing tabletop D&D since forever. In computer games, the stats are the measure of your character - but they are not the core of RPG. People obsessed with stats were often the least fun people to have at your D&D table.

 

(I'd group KQ, SQ, and HHGTTG in the adventure games group, but that's just me - if others see them as forerunners to RPG, I can live with that - problem solving, exploration, there are a lot of commonalities)

 

Also, to stay mildly on topic, what I miss most about Oblivion is all the people complaining how much better Morrowind was. :rolleyes:

Edited November 26, 2012 by acidzebra

[JanusForbeare]

Nor was Hitchhikers Guide on C64 an RPG. It was a text based adventure game, like how it's listed anywhere you look.

 

Now you're just splitting hairs. There was more role-playing in that game than there has been in most TES games, and if you'd played it you'd definitely classify it as an RPG. Besides, as I said before, genres aren't hard-and-fast categories, they're broad, fluid attempts at defining widely-varied items.

 

Fact is, you can't name one RPG that didnt have stats.

 

-As I've already stated, Hitchiker's Guide, among other text-based games of that era

-Pretty much every JRPG ever made

-The Legend of Zelda (you'll probably point to the little hearts as "statistics" - funny that your definition of stats is so open to interpretation, but your definition of RPG is so firmly entrenched)

-Harvest Moon

-Paper Mario

 

To name a few.

 

Why are you so desperate to prove this point? You do realize that regardless of what you say, some people are going to disagree with you. Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't make them wrong, nor does it mean that your own point of view is invalid. It points to the fact that (as I'm now saying for the third time) gaming genres are not possible to definitively define. It's like artistic genres; some paintings are obviously intended to be abstract, while others are obviously intended to be surreal, but many artists' work could be defined as either, or both. The human capacity for artistic expression is too great and varied to be contained within neat little categories, and games are just another form of art.