Skyrim is bad as an RPG, but would have been decent as an action adventure: Discuss

[TheRightToArmBears]

I thought we'd been over why comparing RPG games to tabletop RPGs is fucking stupid. We know that current tech isn't going to match our imaginations. So far though, I'd say Skyrim is the closest yet, in terms of freedom at least. The problem is that you can't make that level of choice with voice acting and things, it's not feasible yet. I don't think it makes sense to go back to a Morrowind-style system, because that would be lazy. If progress is hard, going back to how it used to be because it's easier isn't going to get us anywhere in the long run. Just because Bethesda haven't gotten to the same point as traditional P&P rpgs yet doesn't mean that they never will.

 

[Pearwood]

As I said earlier: You do not know what makes an RPG an RPG.

An RPG purist would certainly agree with you but I think it's more to do with the genre changing over the years. It's been a hell of a long time since D&D started, a long time since the computer games you'd call RPGs as well and genres change.

 

[Legendsmith]

I thought we'd been over why comparing RPG games to tabletop RPGs is fucking stupid.

I think I understand what you are saying, but I don't think you see what I was trying to say. Look at the post above yours for more details. I am comparing Skyrim to other videogames. I've mentioned P&P games in comparison to Skyrim... Once. Maybe twice if you read it a certain way and miss the point.

Most of my comparisons have been with other video games, not P&P.

An RPG purist would certainly agree with you but I think it's more to do with the genre changing over the years. It's been a hell of a long time since D&D started, a long time since the computer games you'd call RPGs as well and genres change.

Change in itself is not good. There are RPG video games that are most defiantly RPGs, then there are games that call themselves RPGs, but don't really do it properly. Like Skyrim.

 

[Pearwood]

Change in itself is not good. There are RPG video games that are most defiantly RPGs, then there are games that call themselves RPGs, but don't really do it properly. Like Skyrim.

Well arguing if it's good or not is something different, the point is it's happened. The RPG genre is much different today than it was 15 years ago, personally I prefer the ones from back then as well but for whatever reason they aren't as popular and the new style of RPGs have taken over.

 

[Fishyash]

RPGs for video games have started off as dungeon crawling sims, so while it's great to see developers try to recreate the P&P experience, it doesn't really seem worthwhile to discuss the definition of an RPG in regards to video games, because, frankly, there really isn't one...

I can see where you are coming from, but I disagree. There are quite a few elements that carry over fine from P&P to video games. They undergo changes and such, yes, but the result is still a game where a player can play a role and have the game be recognisably an RPG.
Skyrim does not do it right. There was potential there in Skyrim for it to work, but it didn't.

What would you think should have been done for it to become an RPG? I don't think skyrim is fundamentally flawed, and that something could have been done for it to be an RPG.

Character interaction. It's virtually non-existent in Skyrim. Characters with personalities who actually respond to events would have greatly improved the game. I gave an example in the OP with mount & Blade. There are intra-party interactions between the NPC party-members. Consequences for events.

That's all secondary. I could go on pointing out things like that for hours.

That's a very legit criticism. The fact that the world and characters doesn't/barely respond to your actions is a downside to the game.

What really needs to change is this: The mechanics of the game should be a medium by which a player plays out the role of his character. Things like skill level should measure the character's progression through the story and the world. In Skyrim, they don't. There's barely a story, NPCs pile quests on you for no real reason. Hell, a lot of these are arbritarily given to you, the player has no choice in the matter, but there is no reason given for the quest. Levelling up is an end to itself in Skyrim, rather than a means to an end.

This is mainly due to the level scaling. It kinda trivializes the point of levelling up in the game. However (and some people prefer it like this), it lets you do whatever you want, whenever you want. You don't need to level up for anything.

There is no character development in Skyrim.
I've mentioned Mount & Blade too many times, but I'll speak of it again. In that game, the mechanics of levelling up and gaining higher skill levels actually DO measure a character's progression through the world and story. A higher level character can interact with Lords on an even playing field and present a threat to them. When a character is high enough level to lead an army, they can enter the national 'stage', to use a metaphor, and challenge Kings and enter diplomacy on a national scale. Pretty much anyone who has played Mount & Blade can tell you that if someone had the will and the talent for writing, they could write a story based off a Mount & Blade game and give it some depth.

In regards of your mount & blade, it's the "whatever you want, whenever you want" approach the elder scrolls has. I may not agree with it, but it wouldn't still be there if the majority didn't prefer it that way. Character development and good writing aren't exclusive to an RPG. I believe that RPGs rely on good writing, rather than a game requiring good writing to be an RPG. Stories in an RPG are only as deep as the DM who writes it.

Is that possible in Skyrim? No, not that I have seen. Skyrim is wide, yes, but it is flat. There is little depth.

Skyrim is a canvas. You have a lot of content to work with in the game, but the roleplaying is done through your actions rather than dialogue options (A poor generalization, but I hope you understand what I mean). TBH I have a feeling that the elder scrolls could be an interesting P&P setting...

...why haven't they made an elder scrolls board game yet? That would be pretty nice actually.

 

[Legendsmith]

That's a very legit criticism. The fact that the world and characters doesn't/barely respond to your actions is a downside to the game.

Downside? It's a huge flaw. You said this game is like a canvas. But what can you do with it when it doesn't even respond.

What really needs to change is this: The mechanics of the game should be a medium by which a player plays out the role of his character. Things like skill level should measure the character's progression through the story and the world. In Skyrim, they don't. There's barely a story, NPCs pile quests on you for no real reason. Hell, a lot of these are arbritarily given to you, the player has no choice in the matter, but there is no reason given for the quest. Levelling up is an end to itself in Skyrim, rather than a means to an end.

This is mainly due to the level scaling. It kinda trivializes the point of levelling up in the game. However (and some people prefer it like this), it lets you do whatever you want, whenever you want. You don't need to level up for anything.

Yes, exactly! No character progression/development. There's no reason to level up other than levelling up for the sake of levelling up!
I was going to say this, but I wasn't sure how to put it. I'm glad you understood what I was getting at.

Is that possible in Skyrim? No, not that I have seen. Skyrim is wide, yes, but it is flat. There is little depth.

Skyrim is a canvas. You have a lot of content to work with in the game, but the roleplaying is done through your actions rather than dialogue options (A poor generalization, but I hope you understand what I mean). TBH I have a feeling that the elder scrolls could be an interesting P&P setting...

As I said earlier, you can't roleplay through your actions because the game world doesn't respond to them. There's no consequences, barely any interaction.
If skyrim is a canvas, it's a waterproof one. The paint of the player's actions runs right off.

In regards of your mount & blade, it's the "whatever you want, whenever you want" approach the elder scrolls has. I may not agree with it, but it wouldn't still be there if the majority didn't prefer it that way.

That is why I compared Skyrim to Just Cause 2. Just cause 2 gives the player whatever they want, whenever they want, but it does it right. The game is about blowing stuff up, roping jeeps to jets and flying around a huge island. There's nothing to get in the way of that. It has a story that backs up the player's actions. The story is tongue in cheek and the voice acting is pretty much deliberately bad, so bad it's funny; the characters actually tell the player to keep blowing stuff up. You progress the story by blowing stuff up. It doesn't try to be what it's not, instead its elements support the main goal: guns, explosions and ridiculous vehicle chases.
Skyrim does try to be what it's not and it fails. it's not quite one or the other, it's a muddy middle ground that gives a mediocre dose of both RPG and action-adventure; doing neither well.

Character development and good writing aren't exclusive to an RPG.

Yes, but an RPG needs them to be good as an RPG. TES V: Skyrim doesn't have them. This is a major part of the reason for this thread.

...why haven't they made an elder scrolls board game yet? That would be pretty nice actually.

Get an existing system, possibly an adaptable generic one like GURPS, Basic Roleplay, etc and adapt it to TES lore or whatever. You now have a Elder Scrolls P&P RPG.

 

[BathorysGraveland]

Well, for me. I couldn't really give a fuck what little label you want to give it. Skyrim is a fun game that I richly enjoy. That is enough for me and no label or tag is going to change my opinion on it.

 

[Legendsmith]

Well, for me. I couldn't really give a fuck what little label you want to give it. Skyrim is a fun game that I richly enjoy. That is enough for me and no label or tag is going to change my opinion on it.

You're missing the point of the thread if you're coming in here just to say that.

I'm not saying it's not fun, I'm saying it's not good as an RPG. Please read the thread carefully.
This may also help: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/7588-Voice-vs-Choice

 

[Jimmy T. Malice]

In Just Cause 2, you play Rico Rodriguez, an established character with his own personality and dialogue.

In Skyrim, your character is a blank slate that you can turn into whatever you want. That's the difference.

 

[veloper]

Character development and good writing aren't exclusive to an RPG.

Yes, but an RPG needs them to be good as an RPG. TES V: Skyrim doesn't have them. This is a major part of the reason for this thread.

Give me a simple premise followed by challening turn-based combat and I'm happy.

None of this weak LARPer stuff; roleplaying used to be all about picking a tactical role and then trying to beat the challenge in front of you.
That is the origins of D&D: a wargame scaled down to just a few characters. The rest was unnecessary fluff, but for some people it's become the reason they play.

It's a lost cause now trying to hold to a tight definition of the RPG.
Any game that is sold as an RPG is considered one by the vast majority of the gaming community and the gaming press, even when the games have nothing left in common, unless it's a leveling system, which not all RPGs have, or experience points, or something vaguely like experience points.

What makes a "good RPG" then is what makes a good game in general, which depends on the criteria you pick for all of your games.

 

[Elfgore]

Why do you care so much on what other people classify a game as. You don't think its an RPG so don't call it that call it a Hack n' Slash adventure or whatever it is you called it, and just let other people call it what they think Skyrim is. It does not matter all that matters is if the game is good or bad. I mean I have sunk at least 100+ hours into Mount and Blade. It is the great game. But to compare it and skyrim on an RPG scale just does not work. In mount and blade you build and army and do quest for people. Also you level up your character with combat and non-combat abilities. In skyrim you level up, yet you then go on quest to kill a dragon or bandit group. They are to largely different games. In Mount and Blade you have to think is buying this upgrade for my castle going to make me not able to afford to pay and feed my men, yet in Skyrim you have to worry about not getting attacked by a giant under level 15. So the fact you compare 2 very different games that argument is pointless. Plus Bethesda admits they don't make good RPGs they make fun games though.

 

[Ryotknife]

I love mount and blade warband (not so much Fire and Sword expansion), but that game is even LESS RPG than skyrim. Your "companions" talk once or twice in the entire game, and your character responds with "very well." You are more limited in the character you create than skyrim. especially in personality. Your choices dont mean anything because X does not get along with Y and one of them will leave regardless of anything you do (that is why there are faqs on the optimum party config that gives you the most companions that dont hate each other)

Granted, I actually have an issue with calling any open sandbox game a RPG. To me, RPG as a standalone genre is pretty much dead. Nearly every game has RPG elements, but very few new games i would consider to be a legit RPG. Hell, FPS are more like RPGs lately due to their heavy focus on a story.

"JRPGs" are the truest form of RPGs. A long in depth story, character customization, a buffet of personalities, exp, money, etc, but sometimes their focus on a story comes at a cost to actual gameplay.

dont get me wrong, i find "WRPGs" to be a lot of fun (i love playing the thief/assassin archetype in these games), but i miss the 50+ hour story sagas.

 

[Zantos]

To be honest, the factors that make an RPG seem to change from person to person, making hard to define what is good as an RPG and what is bad as an RPG.

That said, yes. By the standards which Skyrim is judged in the original post then I agree, it does so pretty poorly. However, I also think to make a full rant post based on what looks to be a throwaway comment is pretty poor form. I'd imagine they're judging it based on more than that, they simply picked 2 things (which aren't even RPG conditions by any standard) that they liked about it.

 

[lacktheknack]

Everything it does has been done before, and better... but not all in the same product.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

People seem to think ROLE-PLAYING means leveling and stuff like that. Take a second and read this again: ROLE-PLAYING.

It doesn't get any more role-playing than Skyrim. You can be whoever you want and make choices you think your character should make. You don't have to do anything you don't want to if it suits you (or if that's how you interpret your character). TES games are the only games that embrace the actual definition of a role-playing game. You are your character and you have more freedom than in any other video game series.

Just look at what you can do in Skyrim. You're this Dragonborn character, right? You can be one of 10 races. But that's not the point. The point is, if you want to make a Dragonborn that doesn't give a fuck about being a Dragonborn you can do that. You don't have to do any of the main quests to have fun in this game. You still have this huge, beautiful open world where your character can do things he wants. Don't care about the civil war? Fine, don't join any of the factions involved. Find something else to do. No other game lets you do that. In other "RPG's" you have to progress through the story. One of my favorite newer RPG's is Dragon Age: Origins. But it's a linear game. It's not a real RPG because you don't have a choice in being a Gray Warden out to save Ferelden from The Blight. You must progress through the story when you play that game. And it's like that in most RPG's these days. They are still good games, but I think developers don't truly realize the meaning of the term role-playing. Bethesda does.

 

[ediblemitten]

You're playing a role.

Dragonborn. Not only that, but you can have this 'Dragonborn' be whoever you like; you can complete whatever sidequests you like, be as chivalrous or cruel as you like, kill whomever you like, buy whatever, build skills in whatever category, etc. You're playing a role. In a game.

Thus, RPG. Also, where do you get off implying that you know the EXACT, ONE, SPECIFIC definition of what an RPG is? Just like human beings, games have interbred with each other for too long to lump specific games into broad, sweeping categories. Any first person shooter with you taking on the role of a specific soldier has an rpg-element; hell, even CoD4's multiplayer had level progression, 'classes', and new equipment to create special, player-created characters. Skyrim is an RPG, plain and simple.

 

[Roan Berg]

I don't believe we have yet to define what a "role-playing-game" is.

In this post, I'd like to explore what we consider an RPG to be.
As a young boy attempting to become a future video game developer, what I know is . . .
- RPGs have commonly been associated with the idea of avatar growth, thus "having RPG-like Elements" can be used to describe many games.
Games that fall under this definition that may not be RPGs:
Call of Juarez: The Cartel
Megaman (series)
Call of Duty (and all other games with mutliplayer persistence that has an effect on gameplay)
MMOs
Facebook games
- A role-playing game is intended to let the player experience character growth, in regards to personality and characterization. Often times this focus is shifted onto supporting characters.
Games that fall under this definition that may not be RPGs:
Mass Effect (and Dragon Age)
Final Fantasy (series)

Uh . . .
I could've sworn I had more to say, but I kinda forgot . . . .

 

[him over there]

To be fair unless you're in a group of people who also roleplay, plus with videogames it's only possible in mmorpgs anyway. Why? because roleplaying is a two way street and there need to be others role playing to complete the experience. In Skyrim you can choose not to complete the quests that will save the land if you're a douchebag dragonborn but you can't tell anyone. You can't be like "nope I hope the dragons destroy you now I'm leaving" and then people beg you to help and try to stop you. They just stare at you and the land is totally static until you progress the world. Everyone knows you are the dragonborn but still treats you like a regular person and all the kids are jerks who scoff at you even if you murder everyone in front of them. Freedom=/= Role Playing, it equals an unstructured mess. Quite frankly I'm okay with this and my favourite thing in Skyrim is doing no quests or training skills and just running around miles away from civilization. I guess it's because I like exploring alone in the wilderness, I'm the kind of person who would play Shadow of the Colossus if there weren't any Colossi. So Skyrim is good I guess, but you're moreso just defining your characters personality and behavior, not realy full on roleplaying.

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

The difference between table RPGs and VG RPGs is significant. I essence all games is RPG to some extent. After all, your playing the role of a character in a world.

Keep in mind that Table RPGs involve you building your own story, while VG RPGs involve you stepping into the role of a character in an already defined universe.