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

[Toby Kitching]

If you think that a player having skill levels makes an RPG, then you do not know what an RPG is.
Is BF3 an RPG? By your measure it is.

Define what an RPG is, right now, without resorting to just quoting existing games.

Sorry, but whatever you just said is wrong. The reason being there isn't really a definition of what an RPG is; it all depends on what you want from a role playing experience. So if you want a huge, richly detailed world which dynamically reacts to every choice you make (including conversational choices) then I suggest you abandon video games altogether and go for old table top games, because so far as i can tell such a thing not only no longer exists, but will never exist. In a video game like that, you'd essentially have to make new plot and dialogue trees for every possible combination of choices that anyone could ever make. Result: you can either have a game which does dynamically react to all your decisions but is very linear, or you can have a game which is big and open but has limited scope for change. You can't have both without a huge army of programmers working for decades.

 

[Blade_125]

I posted something similar in another thread, but I'll add a bit mroe here.

It all depends on what you classify as a role playing game. The OP seems more inclined to think of an RPG as something with a great story. Nothing wrong with that thought. However he then brings in a comparison to table top RPG's, and in that regard I think Skyrim is exactly like an RPG.

The story may be limited, and some of the examples of lack of consiquences are true, but in Skyrim I can role play my guy however I want.

I ran into some guy trying to kil me to prove he was worth of some cult. I read a note he carried, did some digging and found it was a cult, and was given a quest to join them. I showed up, had the whole deal explained to me, and I said, you know what this is really horrible and these people must be stopped. So I killed them all. That wasn't the quest, but I could stil do it. What was really cook after was that after they were dead a deadric prince showed up and after a lot of threats told me to bring a stooge up to be sacrificed to her. At which point I left and don't plan to come back.

Skyrim in my opinion is the definition or role playing. You chose what kind of character you want, and then you go out and play them. You are not railroaded into one way of doing things. You can join various guilds or not, and do quests in various ways (although not all). The main story is rather sub par (although I'll admit I think I am only a little over half way in the main story and I have been playing the game a lot for the past month).

To the OP, it really sounds like you want a game that has a riveting story, and I will agree that Skyrim doesn't really have that. I love how many characters there are and al that goes on, but as I said the main story is not pulling me along to finish it. I would suggest you look at bioware or developers of games like that and you will be happier.

 

[ThePuzzldPirate]

Skyrim is an RPG, just a weak one at that. There was a reason for stats in RPG's, it was to define you hero character and accept a role, a role that you were forced to work with. If you were a sneaky thief, you had to play as a sneaky thief cause that is where your skills are at. The problem with Skyrim is that doesn't matter, I joined the thief guild in heavy armor and dual wielding and didn't give a fuck. I didn't even get punished for it as I finished the Quests for it.

RPG also requires more interactivity than other genres because of where they come from, of course games can't match the freedom of the mind that you get with PnP but Skyrim doesn't even try. Its freedom comes from giving you a bunch of stuff to do but nothing ever changes.

Skyrim is a bad RPG and should of spent more time going into the action route. Skyrim however isn't a bad game, just a shallow one, a very common trend as of late.

 

[Anthony Wells]

Veloper - "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."






Big BRO fist to you my man !

I just said it in another thread. Skyrim is not a good RPG, but COULD OF been a decent little action adventure game if the gameplay was any good. Instead it's just a shitty hiking/LARPing sim type game.

edit your post before someone far more nasty than i show up to say this but its "could have" not could of. im just trying to get to you before someone far more nasty about grammar does

i completely disagree with your points btw but its your opinion your entitled to them


OT: i find skyrim tto be a great rpg for the resons listed at the bottom of the last page and top of this one.

 

[NickySquicky]

I've never played the RPG you mentioned, but the party system seems very similar to BioWare's usual RPG formula, especially in Dragon Age, which has the very same confrontations between companions that could lead to approval from one and dissent from the other. I do believe that character development is a great way to manifest role-playing in a game, but that and player choice are not the exclusive elements of role-playing. Though your character in Skyrim is not shaped so much by your interactions with NPC personalities, you develop a sense of character just from how you play the game. You can become murderous, heroic, crafty, wizard-y and a whole plethora of other adjectives, but you are admittedly more required to connect the dots yourself than you would in a BioWare RPG, whose NPCs' reactions you can use to gauge the kind of character you're creating.

Actually, ou can still use the NPCs and the world as a reflection of the character you're developing, only in a shallower way compared with Mass Effect, Kotor or Dragon Age. Obviously if you join the Dark Brotherhood, you'd probably feel more villainous. Then if you became a cannibal, you'd feel a bit creepy. And though principle player choice in quests often amounts to either accepting or denying them, it's still a way to shape the morality of your character. Obviously these aspects are not very thorough in Skyrim, but like someone else said, it's a technical limitation. BioWare is known for massive worlds and excessive questing and the time spent on developing such probably comes at the cost of better characters.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

I would LOVE to see the child of The Legend of Zelda and The Elder of Scrolls series.
It would be described by just 1 word. EPIC.

 

[burningdragoon]

The short version: there are a lot of ingredients in RPG stew, and if you get enough people together you'll be able endlessly argue which one is the Main IngredientTM.

Skyrim succeeds greatly in some aspects of RPGdom and fails greatly in some others.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

I still consider Mass effect my go-to RPG, even if you're only character choices are Mother Teresa and Darth Vader.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

i roleplay as a stealthy hunter. i use bows, stealth and one-handed.
i actually go hunting. i look for animals. i see one, i kill it for its stuff. i dont just loot/buy my hides.

and i'm also going to make a High Elf mage. and i'm going to Roleplay him. as a Thalmor.

and i have never felt railroaded in Skyrim (except during the main questline). and when i do, i think 'so fucking what. i want to do this. then i can do the other shit.'
and during the other questlines... well lets look at the Thieves Guild. "go do this go do that blaghblaghblaaagh!" "no, imma do this shit for Delvin!" "kay".
and their are consequences to the questLINES.
if you do the Stormcloak shit, then the guards turn to Stormcloaks. there are less Imperial patrols. Jarls get replaced.
do Thieves Guild? the story advances.

Spoiler

Mercer Frey gets replaced. you meet Nocturnal. Karliah appears.

and if you do the Shadr-Sapphire quest, you get different options with Sapphire.

and the dialogue options? they dont MATTER, but they help you define your character to yourself. want to RP as an insensitive prick? you can. the specific options dont matter because that would PUNISH people for RPing in some way.
and you compare it to D&D. unfair. in D&D, you have a conversation and say something in-character. the GM then reacts to your SPECIFIC answer. the story can be dynamic. and D&D requires multiple players. you RP for other people, and it has to stick. in Skyrim, its for you, so it's variable and SUBTLE.

but it's an RPG. because you can RP.

Plus Bethesda admits they don't make good RPGs they make fun games though.

yeah, this too. it isnt a game where, if you dont RP, the game is shit. its a game where, if you RP, the game is better.

 

[Machocruz]

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.

This is all demonstrably false.

Fallout 1 and 2 have not only more options (freedom) for creating an array of characters with different skill sets, the quests are far more layered and have more variables that change the course of quests, providing more ways to finish the quests, which is closer to the scope of PnP RPGs than Bethesda can ever hope to be with their current design philosophy. New Vegas less so, but still more than Skyrim or Oblivion. Arcanum had a character creator that was far more comprehensive than Skyrim's, so that game was also more of a RPG.

There have been games that offer the same level of freedom since the 80s, so Skyrim gets no points for that. But being able to go anywhere and do anything isn't fundamental to the genre anyhow. If you decide to create and RP a castle guard in a game, you're not going to be catching butterflies at your leisure, you're going to have a duty, so freedom to go anywhere is not relevant to role-playing in that situation.

Risen is not only has an open world, but the NPC interaction, quest design, and choices and consequences/re-activity is on a higher level than the very basic interactions of Skyrim. Another game that is closer to the standards of a PnP game.

The original Deus Ex gave you more power to effect the story and interact with the world than Skyrim, and it's not even considered a pure RPG.

The other side of freedom, and no less important to RPGs, is limitations. Roles, in reality as well as games, are defined by limitations based on the choices you made in creating your avatar. Bethesda doesn't believe in limitations anymore, so a meat-head warrior who never cast a spell in his life can rise through the ranks of the mage guild. Yes, really an immersive and convincing simulation right there. In Fallout 3 I was getting regular head-shots with a shitty rifle at low %, with just an average firearms stat. The game really enforced my decision to make a so-so marksman by letting me makes shots like a sniper god...

Obsidian excel Bethesda in character interaction and reactitivty. You don't have to LARP in their games because the rules support and enforce you're choices. When you create a role, their games are going to respond to that role, not just let you do anything you want under any circumstances, which really has nothing to do with the RPG genre.

Larian Studios makes games with all the freedom and scale of an Elder Scrolls game. You can ignore the entire first town in Divine Divinity and head out anywhere you if you want, while I'm stuck on a boring wagon ride in Skryim.

Old Bethesda alone negates your point. Can I make a wall-climbing spearman who casts teleport spells in Skryim? I could in Daggerfall. Skryim's "freedom" is irrelevant because it offers less than previous Elder Scrolls.

So no, Skryim isn't more of a RPG than a alot of games, and Bethesda do not really understand the concept of role playing games better than anyone else, because there are several areas where other developer's exhibit a much stronger grasp of the capabilities of the genre.

 

[Machocruz]

and the dialogue options? they dont MATTER, but they help you define your character to yourself. want to RP as an insensitive prick? you can. the specific options dont matter because that would PUNISH people for RPing in some way.
and you compare it to D&D. unfair. in D&D, you have a conversation and say something in-character. the GM then reacts to your SPECIFIC answer. the story can be dynamic. and D&D requires multiple players. you RP for other people, and it has to stick. in Skyrim, its for you, so it's variable and SUBTLE.

General dialog options are the same as specific. They are both still written in a way that is probably unlike what I want my avatar to say. They are just the means by which you get a result from the NPC you are interacting with.

Defining the character to yourself is an activity outside of the game, it's not role-playing within the rules or format of the game. It doesn't make Skyrim perform better in its capacity as a role-playing game.

 

[Kimarous]

Sorry, OP, but you make me laugh. You lambaste Skyrim for lacking a lasting impact on a world and a shortcoming of interactions with characters, yet praise Mount and Blade. I've played both games and I roll my eyes at this. The only "impact" you have in Mount and Blade are statistical only. "Oh, Count Bulba likes me +4, but the King likes me +13. Milady, I dedicate my tournament win to you; one more and you'll like me enough to marry me and... continue to live in your father's castle until I get my own... and have no impact on my life beyond your dad continuing to like me." Also, nobody beyond random troops die; they just go "I Fight For The Strongest Side" and join your faction or an enemy. ROLEPLAYING! At least you can KILL Ulfric at the end of the Skyrim Civil War!

 

[2733]

I think the real question here is, What is role playing? This seems easy to define but it escapes my grasp. As mentioned before it cannot be defined as simply the act of taking a role, if we did all games would be RPGs and saints row would be the most role playing of all. Some define it by choice, which makes even less sense as that's not taking on a role, it's imposing your values on a existent (not really but you know what I mean) world. Someone also mentioned the idea of character interaction being role playing, but speaking to people and having good conversations only proves good writing, which in turn does wonders for immersion but doesn't define the playing of any role but that of a fine conversationalist. Unless immersion is what we are really talking about, but that's a whole other can of worms.

 

[Anthony Wells]

Anthony Wells - I could give a fuck about the grammar nazis.

i was just saying. i dont really care either i just hate people derailing threads anpout it...kinda like this im gonna shut up now. lol

 

[Machocruz]

I think the real question here is, What is role playing? This seems easy to define but it escapes my grasp. As mentioned before it cannot be defined as simply the act of taking a role, if we did all games would be RPGs and saints row would be the most role playing of all. Some define it by choice, which makes even less sense as that's not taking on a role, it's imposing your values on a existent (not really but you know what I mean) world. Someone also mentioned the idea of character interaction being role playing, but speaking to people and having good conversations only proves good writing, which in turn does wonders for immersion but doesn't define the playing of any role but that of a fine conversationalist. Unless immersion is what we are really talking about, but that's a whole other can of worms.

The character interaction, imo, has to be guided by the specific traits of a character the player has configured. So like in Fallout, having a low intelligence means you can't communicate on the level of someone with a higher intelligence. I'm now wondering if there are any games out there that have a Attitude stat or trait. So if you pick Sarcastic, all you're responses in NPC interaction would have to align with that. The only choice you're allowed is during character creation, not the campaign, because personalities don't truly change in an instant or on a whim.

The point is, the conversation must be rule based, not Choose Your Own Adventure, which is the player deciding the response not the character's nature.

Role-playing is adhering to the rules of your established character, just like actors do. If conversation is present, your character must converse within the confines of they're selected traits. If you're role-playing the Joker, you can't interact with people in any way that betrays the essential nature of the Joker.

Likewise, in combat you can only perform at the capacity that was determined during your character's creation. If he has low fighting skill, the game won't let him chop down 3 orcs in succession.

The difference between pre-generated characters in RPGs and set characters in other genres are that A. you can view detailed information on every aspect of you're character's existence B. Besides the "gist" of your character, nothing else about them is pre-determined, not by the GM, voice acting, cutscenes, scripting, etc. You have the choice as the Joker to even have that conversation in the first place C. an element of random chance and fluctuation in performance, such as brought upon by dice roll or RNG.

RPGs are essentially simulations of reality, abstracted into game form. In tabletop, it's up to the discretion of the GM how much of the simulation is included, and in video games, it's the game designers.

This is why there is no ultimate CRPG; not Skyrim, not Fallout, not Ultima, not Baldur's Gate. Because each one of them are comprehensive in a couple areas of simulation, but lack in others. There is no game that has all of the best of every game ever made in one.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well if I am using a one handed sword, then why am I improving in-game with the skill?

I think that classifies as an RPG

Smackdown Vs Raw 09 improves your abilities based on your in-ring performance in career mode. Is that an RPG?

There have been very few video games that have succeeded in every aspect of an RPG. The Elder Scrolls series focuses on dungeon crawling, exploring and lore, and combat that tries harder than it should (IMO) to be an action game.

RPGs for video games have started off as dungeon crawling sims, so while it's interesting to see people 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...

To be fair, tabletop RPGs largely started off as "dungeon crawlers." Well, assuming you count early RPGs and not the adaptations from tabletop strategy games. I do know that's the chain of command, but that's not the part I was talking about.

It's not surprising that the "dungeon crawler" style is so popular, due to technical limitations of gaming.

Not like you can really have the freeform elements of a tabletop game. For one thing, a computer can't get drunk and/or angry. Even without the limitations of voiceovers, it's kind of impossible to have true open dialogue, which is why people tend to gush over moral choices and their good/bad/neutral "choices." Not to mention why any game with a lot of expository dialogue tends to be hailed as "deep," regardless of quality.

Games that are more open are good, but they don't really stretch out much further and are still starkly limited.

 

[Silenttalker22]

So the point of this essay is to show that you are all of impossible to please within the borders of reality, and extremely nitpicky. I call this thesis a success.

 

[Snotnarok]

I'm more confused why there's those debating if a game is an RPG or not and why that matters so much?

Isn't Zelda a action adventure RPG? I'm pretty sure Skyrim has about 100x the content of that game and then some even in terms of becoming a stronger hero and sheer number of interactions.

Role playing doesn't mean numbers and digits and complex deep weapon stats, it means an adventure where a hero grows and progresses on an adventure/quest and as far as I can tell it fits that JUST fine.

I think game players as of late have become way to snobby in terms of games it's either great or bad, no middle ground or it's not an rpg because it doesn't have enough of X or Y.

 

[TheScientificIssole]

OH MY GOD, SOMEONE THINKS THEY'RE DIFFERENT! MAN THE HARPOONS! AHHHHH, OPINIONS!
Well, you're special and better than everyone. Good Job.