Self explanatory really. Winners and brief reasons. Order optional.

1. UFC Undisputed 2010 - Perfect sequel. Improved what was bad about 2009, added tonnes of new gameplay depth and modes, most rewarding online experience I've ever had. Best fighter/sports game I have ever played and the game I played most this year. You've not lived until you've rear-naked choked some noob with Matt Hugh's 90 seconds into the first round.
2. Mass Effect 2 - As near as perfect as you can get for an RPG and a damn fine 3rd person shooter. Played 3 times, played all DLC, reckon it ate 100+ hours of my life.
3. Super Meat Boy - No other game pissed me off so much yet had me coming back for more. 800 points was a steal for 200+ levels of platforming perfection. I love this game.
4. Halo Reach - First Halo game I've owned and a great introduction to the series. Possibly the most fun online FPS ever. So much bat shit crazy stuff can happy I love it.
5. Castlevania: Lords of Shadow - Deep rewarding combat. Intelligent puzzles. Beautiful to look at. Amazing score. Great voice acting. Incredibly long. Great reply value. Not another God of War clone, and a fantastic return to the serie's roots.
6. Enslaved Odyssey to the West - Best voice acting I've ever seen in a game. Weird selling point but couple it was satisfying combat, leveling, gorgeous scenary, amazing art design and one of the most endering stories ever to be seen in a video game and one have one of 2010's over looked gems and a game I adore.
7. Red Dead Redemption - You can hog tie a whore. Carry her over saddle to a train track. Lay her on said train track and watch and she's crushed by said train... And you get an achievement for it!
8. Dead Rising 2 - It's kinda more of the same but I adore Dead Rising and number 2 improves in everyway. Graphics, story, gameplay, variety, AI. All turned up a notch making it the best zombie apocalypse simulator available.
9.Just Cause 2 - The most incredibly well realised virtual playground ever seen. Stupidly awesome physics and the most impressive sandbox created given the scale and detail. Would be higher if it had a half decent story and more mission variety. But I still put 40+ hours into it.
10. Perfect Dark - Never had this on N64 and I picked it up in the sales last week. It's so. much. fun! Way ahead of it's time and beats many current gen FPS's for single player mission variety. A steal at 800 points and I got it for 400

Games I didn't play but will:

Assassin's Creed Brotherhood. COD: BO. NFS: Hot Pursuit. Vanquish. Fallout New Vegas

Noteworthy:

I'm also really enjoying EA:MMA now I've got into it. But I didn't want both that and UFC in the list.

I'm too much of a penny-pincher to buy games new; they're too expensive unless they're must haves, which this year only included Mass Effect, which turned out to be immense (though lacked the story genius of the first) and Final Fantasy 13, which I'm not even going to talk about.

Fallout is impressing me a lot and Red Dead can go suck I think.

Will buy Enslaved at some point and Limbo when I can get a connection that accepts XBox Live but aside from that little has interested me this year. I might get Assassin's Creed Brotherhood but it looks too similar to its predecessor which was great but far too long and repetitive.

All the other games I played were games from last (last) year which got cheap.

Oh yeah I still really wanna get Deadly Premonition which looks awesome in the most baffling way. And maybe Alan Wake. I dunno. Shush.

Written by Guest on 02.01.2011 at 02:22

I'm too much of a penny-pincher to buy games new; they're too expensive unless they're must haves, which this year only included Mass Effect, which turned out to be immense (though lacked the story genius of the first) and Final Fantasy 13, which I'm not even going to talk about.

Fallout is impressing me a lot and Red Dead can go suck I think.

Will buy Enslaved at some point and Limbo when I can get a connection that accepts XBox Live but aside from that little has interested me this year. I might get Assassin's Creed Brotherhood but it looks too similar to it's predecessor which was great but far too lond and repeptitive.

If you're a big fan of a strong story and character development, Enslaved has the most believable character's I've ever seen. It also has Andy Serkis.

Written by King Bonzo on 02.01.2011 at 02:25

Written by Guest on 02.01.2011 at 02:22

I'm too much of a penny-pincher to buy games new; they're too expensive unless they're must haves, which this year only included Mass Effect, which turned out to be immense (though lacked the story genius of the first) and Final Fantasy 13, which I'm not even going to talk about.

Fallout is impressing me a lot and Red Dead can go suck I think.

Will buy Enslaved at some point and Limbo when I can get a connection that accepts XBox Live but aside from that little has interested me this year. I might get Assassin's Creed Brotherhood but it looks too similar to it's predecessor which was great but far too lond and repeptitive.

If you're a big fan of a strong story and character development, Enslaved has the most believable character's I've ever seen. It also has Andy Serkis.

I've heard its story and writing were its strong point, and amongst the best seen in a video game so that's a major selling point for me.

1. God of War 3 - One hell of a game!
2. Dead Space - Played this one probably 3 times and loved every minute of it. Can't wait for Dead Space 2!
3. Gran Turismo 5 - Its GT5, need I say more? It may not be perfect for the amount of time it took to make the game, but its still a lot of fun and still one of the greatest racing games ever made, imo.
4. Demon's Souls - Quite underrated I think. Definitely one of the best and most challenging RPG's Ive played in a very long time! Besides Mass Effect, this is one of my favourites.
5. Uncharted 2 - A really cinematic 3rd person experience! Great story, great graphics....great everything really!
6. Fallout: New Vegas - Fallout 3 was an amazing experience despite all the bugs. New Vegas, I just got and havent played that much of it yet, but Im already enjoying much like Fallout 3.
7. Heavy Rain - Different than any game Ive ever played. It was a unique and fun experience. I hope they make a sequel or another game in that same style
8. Final Fantasy XIII - Really enjoyed the story and linear gameplay. Some fights did take way too long, which got annoying, but overall it was enjoyable. Im kind of glad that the exploration in this one was kept to a minimum...personally.
9. Metal Gear Solid 4 - I actually picked this up in 2009 I think but have yet to complete it. I might start from the beginning though. I really was enjoying it but then got sidetracked with other games...and life lol.

Thats it, one short. I did play a decent amount of Dragon Age: Origins but have yet to beat it, partially because I got busy with work and other personal issues...and even more so because I lost interest in it. So I don't think I can put this as number 10 really. I somewhat enjoyed what Ive played so far but not like the games above.

YOU CAN'T INCLUDE GAMES FROM 2009!

It's against the rulez...

Dragon Age is also really fucking hard unless you put in on easy, and even then the dragon bosses will still force you to use all your potions and whatnot.

Having only a Wii and a DS it makes my list of 2010 games very...very short, but I have played some fun computer games at my friends house as well.
1. Arc Rise Fantasia- Most people hate this game with a passion, but for some reason the story and challenge was really fun, and the voice acting wasn't very irritating to me either.
2.WoW: Cataclysm- What can I say, Blizzard makes good games. All the questing zones look really fun and the lore seems quite cool, too bad my computer can't support it
3. Star Craft II- Playing the multi-player was fun, not sure about the campaign, never got a chance to do it, computer can't even support the trial...
4. Ace Attorney Investigations: Miles Edgeworth- I really love the Ace Attorney games, can't explain why, just something about them are really addicting or maybe its just my weird ass taste.
But that's all I got for my list. (Man, I really need a PS3 or and Xbox )

Written by King Bonzo on 02.01.2011 at 02:05
Games I didn't play but will:

NFS: Hot Pursuit

You better. It does get boring after awhile though. The excitement of wrecking/evading cops and chasing racers wears off, not to mention it's more like "Burnout: Hot Pursuit" rather than NFS.

Written by vezzy on 02.01.2011 at 13:22

Written by King Bonzo on 02.01.2011 at 02:05
Games I didn't play but will:

NFS: Hot Pursuit

You better. It does get boring after awhile though. The excitement of wrecking/evading cops and chasing racers wears off, not to mention it's more like "Burnout: Hot Pursuit" rather than NFS.

...your not exactly selling it to me....

Halo reach the best game ever
Fallout las Vegas
Red dead redemption
Fifa 2011
Guitar hero Warriors of rock
Bio Shock 2
Final Fantasy XIII
Alan Wake
Forza Motorsport 3
Call of duty Black Ops

Written by King Bonzo on 02.01.2011 at 13:33

Written by vezzy on 02.01.2011 at 13:22

Written by King Bonzo on 02.01.2011 at 02:05
Games I didn't play but will:

NFS: Hot Pursuit

You better. It does get boring after awhile though. The excitement of wrecking/evading cops and chasing racers wears off, not to mention it's more like "Burnout: Hot Pursuit" rather than NFS.

...your not exactly selling it to me....

You hate Burnout?

You, sir, have made a very powerful enemy.

(srsly though it's more like a filler for the big cheese, that is SHIFT 2: Unleashed)

Written by vezzy on 02.01.2011 at 14:22

Written by King Bonzo on 02.01.2011 at 13:33

Written by vezzy on 02.01.2011 at 13:22

Written by King Bonzo on 02.01.2011 at 02:05
Games I didn't play but will:

NFS: Hot Pursuit

You better. It does get boring after awhile though. The excitement of wrecking/evading cops and chasing racers wears off, not to mention it's more like "Burnout: Hot Pursuit" rather than NFS.

...your not exactly selling it to me....

You hate Burnout?

You, sir, have made a very powerful enemy.

(srsly though it's more like a filler for the big cheese, that is SHIFT 2: Unleashed)

Nah I loved burnout but you just basically told me NFS gets old and boring :s

Written by King Bonzo on 02.01.2011 at 15:04
Nah I loved burnout but you just basically told me NFS gets old and boring :s

NFS has been declining in quality since Carbon. SHIFT was a sort of jump, but it's not really NFS, more like "Racing Sim Marketed as NFS", kind of like V-Rally, though I don't think that's much of a simulator.

1 mass effect 2: just amazing, pure and simple. Finished it 3 times, and will prob finish it again.
2 fallout new vegas: there may be a lot of bugs, and it may not be long enough, but who cares? This game is pure amazing, especially if you have the balls to play hardcore mode.
3 god of war 3: over the top gore coupled with intelligent puzzles, some of the best graphics i've seen, and just pure and simply oases awesomeness
4: bayonetta: it is simply amazing how many combo's there are in this game! Sure a lot of the elements on this game have been done, but this game takes those elements and makes them a shit load more awesome.
5 red dead redemption: excellent atmosphere, it actually feels like you are in a western. This game could have failed on so many levels, but it succeeded in pretty much everything.
6 dead rising 2: just plain fun. This game would have been higher on my list if it wasn't for the pathetic excuse for a save system. It really shits me when you spend seven hours having fun, leveling up, and getting achievements, then you die, and haven't saved it!

1 mass effect 2: just amazing, pure and simple. Finished it 3 times, and will prob finish it again.
2 fallout new vegas: there may be a lot of bugs, and it may not be long enough, but who cares? This game is pure amazing, especially if you have the balls to play hardcore mode.
3 god of war 3: over the top gore coupled with intelligent puzzles, some of the best graphics i've seen, and just pure and simply oases awesomeness
4: bayonetta: it is simply amazing how many combo's there are in this game! Sure a lot of the elements on this game have been done, but this game takes those elements and makes them a shit load more awesome.
5 red dead redemption: excellent atmosphere, it actually feels like you are in a western. This game could have failed on so many levels, but it succeeded in pretty much everything.
6 dead rising 2: just plain fun. This game would have been higher on my list if it wasn't for the pathetic excuse for a save system. It really shits me when you spend seven hours having fun, leveling up, and getting achievements, then you die, and haven't saved it!

1.Mass Effect 2, PC
-Captivated me from the beginning and being someone who loves science fiction and Roleplaying games with brilliant stories...well, this game had it all. While I don't think it better than the first [especially on the count of Bioware selling out] I think it was definetly my most memorable game of 2010

2.God of War III, PS3
-Loved the puzzles and challenge, a hell of a lot of fun, think I enjoyed the second more tbh, I may be the ONLY person on Earth who has that opinion, bu for this gaming year, GoW III was a great game.

3.Sin and Punishment 2: Star Successor, Wii
-Was always a huge fan of the N64 Predecessor, science fiction on rails shooter thats hard as hell to finish, with a decent storyline. What really made this game enjoyable was the difficulty. The current trend of Nintendo series is that they like to lower the complexity of games to appeal to the target audience that stems from the primary owners of the consoles. Either that or the series get pwnd and dropped [a la F-Zero, sad times]. However with this game, they keep it difficult and appealing to the fans of the original.

4.Bayonetta, PS3
-Despite being a port of the 360 version, I still love the action. Plus, Bayonetta is hot :/ Nuff said.

5.Dante's Inferno, PS3
-I love the mythology behind Dante's Inferno, I love mythology in general, paired with action enough to satisfy the greatest action junkie [which I wouldn't say I am tbh] makes for a brilliant game. With action games like this, having a story with substance is important, what let this game down was the length of it. GoWIII took me longer and even though I think this story is stronger, having more of a slightly weaker story appeals to me more.

6.Allods Online, PC
-My favourite MMO of the year, tough decision between this, Grand Fantasia and Final Fantasy XIV, but I think out of the two, Allods was just better. It's like a good version of WoW, and it is literally dubbed WoW's clone [which I hate]. The PvP style of the game was annoying in the first 26 or so levels, but as soon as I got to level 30, had a good time griefing the noobs of the opposite faction that griefed me so much when I was levelling up.

7.Golden Sun: Dark Dawn, DS
-Sadly the game doesn't do its GBA predecessors' justice, however, I found it to be the most enjoyable DS RPG of the year, the storyline was interesting and I liked how Isaac and the gang had grown up after the events of Lost Age and it was their offspring we controlled.

8.Dragon Quest XI: Protectors of the Sky, DS
-Let down by the single player game. As far as I'm concerned, RPG's are meant to be played by yourself. It's fun and all, to link up with mates then go questing, looting, dungeon raiding, harvesting etc, but sometimes, I just wanna kick back, train my characters for a bit and go to a dungeon and solo it. However the single player game lacks substance and is unfortunately shameful to the rest of the series. Took me around 9 hours to finish the single player game. And I only had one mate with the game so couldn't fully enjoy the multiplayer function, the online was just long winded.

9.Super Street Fighter IV, PC
-Favourite fighter of the year, close call between this and BlazBlue: Continuum Shift on PS3. Granted I have more mates to play the latter with, but SSFIV for me was just captivating, the online rankings, challenges, new characters, costumes, storylines, artwork and music made this one brilliant fighting experience.

10.Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II, PS3
-More enjoyable than the first, but still not brilliant sadly. Having played the first on Wii with the great controls, then the Unlimited Sith Edittion on PC which just supplemented the experience of the first. The PS3 version kinda fails on balance, only thing that really made this game fun for me was the fact I'm a Star Wars diehard.

-Aside from Mass Effect 2 being the best, I find making a top ten list difficult, other games that deserve note: StarCraft II; Warhammer Chaos Rising; Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit [PS3]; NBA 2K11 [PS3]; BlazBlue: Continuum Shift [PS3]; Monster Hunter Tri [Wii]

Written by Guest on 02.01.2011 at 04:44

Dragon Age is also really fucking hard unless you put in on easy, and even then the dragon bosses will still force you to use all your potions and whatnot.

If you spam freeze spells nothing in Dragon Age is hard.... Nothing in the game is immune to being frozen. You should try it. Flemeth becomes super-easy, for instance. Combat in that game sucks a lot, and cheat tactics with the mages are mandatory.

Dragon age is also fucking short, stupidly linear, horrendously written and way too cutscene-driven for it's own good. Only good point would be some of the visuals. Gonna pass on DA2 for sure.

Also, only noobs think Mass Effect is actually an RPG...

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 07.01.2011 at 19:53

Written by Guest on 02.01.2011 at 04:44

Dragon Age is also really fucking hard unless you put in on easy, and even then the dragon bosses will still force you to use all your potions and whatnot.

If you spam freeze spells nothing in Dragon Age is hard.... Nothing in the game is immune to being frozen. You should try it. Flemeth becomes super-easy, for instance. Combat in that game sucks a lot, and cheat tactics with the mages are mandatory.

Dragon age is also fucking short, stupidly linear, horrendously written and way too cutscene-driven for it's own good. Only good point would be some of the visuals. Gonna pass on DA2 for sure.

Also, only noobs think Mass Effect is actually an RPG...

Gameplay-wise Mass Effect is more third-person adventure/shooter but it's so heavy on the dialogue/choices and leveling (though admitedly less than the first) that it is easilly classified into RPG categories and lets be honest, it's identified far more with RPG's than it is with Gears of War et al.

Written by Guest on 07.01.2011 at 19:58

Gameplay-wise Mass Effect is more third-person adventure/shooter but it's so heavy on the dialogue/choices and leveling (though admitedly less than the first) that it is easilly classified into RPG categories and lets be honest, it's identified far more with RPG's than it is with Gears of War et al.

Dialogue/choices isn't even traditionally an element solely and completely associated with RPGs. They are sometimes present in games that aren't really RPGs, and there are plenty of pure RPGs completely lacking any such elements.

As for levelling systems, this used to be an element associated with RPGs, and it still is. It is, however, not associated only with RPGs anymore. Following the surge of the RPG genre's popularity that occured in the early 00s, these elements started being incorporated into games of other genres (including strategy games and shooters). As such these elements do not only exist in RPGs anymore, even if they exist in most RPGs. And, following the trend of RPG elements incorporated into other genres, the character development in ME is so basic and dumbed down that it hurts. It is in not reminiscent of the character development found in real RPGs, but more of an element exported in a watered-down version into another genre.

So, what is the thing that makes an RPG an RPG? Well, the only thing that you will pretty much be able to find in any real RPG is the presence of RPG mechanics, which ME completely lacks. You said it yourself, it plays like a cover-based 3rd person shooter, which is exactly what it is most of the time, even if it has some RPG elements. It has, however, been marketed as an RPG, which is wrong. It also does show some of the more disturbing tendencies that exist in a few mainstream modern RPGs (such as the obiligatory and extremely lame romance options resulting in hot, steamy 3d sex ). So yeah, there were attempts made at marketing it to the mainstream modern RPG audience, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not really an RPG, in the real sense of the word. Why would you market it in that way then? Well, if you judge it as a shooter you would quickly see that it's just not very fun to play, and the modern mainstream RPG community seems like it would just about swallow anything these days, no matter how bad it is. Think about it. Imagine what would have happened if it was marketed as a shooter...

Dragon Age, on the other hand, is actually an RPG, just not a very good one (for a multitude of reasons). Stuff like the KOTOR games are also RPGs, since they have the mechanics. Even Fallout 3 and New Vegas (big fucking leap up from the disaster that was Fallout 3) have some RPG mechanics (mostly visible in VATS, as well as during sneaking, hacking and so on).

[lame attempt to be less OT]
As for games I've played this year, I like Minecraft. Technically the alpha version was released to the public in 09, but the more complete versions (as well as the beta release) started coming around in 2010. That shit is fucking addictive.
[/lame attempt to be less OT]

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 07.01.2011 at 22:43

Written by Guest on 07.01.2011 at 19:58

Gameplay-wise Mass Effect is more third-person adventure/shooter but it's so heavy on the dialogue/choices and leveling (though admitedly less than the first) that it is easilly classified into RPG categories and lets be honest, it's identified far more with RPG's than it is with Gears of War et al.

Dialogue/choices isn't even traditionally an element solely and completely associated with RPGs. They are sometimes present in games that aren't really RPGs, and there are plenty of pure RPGs completely lacking any such elements.

As for levelling systems, this used to be an element associated with RPGs, and it still is. It is, however, not associated only with RPGs anymore. Following the surge of the RPG genre's popularity that occured in the early 00s, these elements started being incorporated into games of other genres (including strategy games and shooters). As such these elements do not only exist in RPGs anymore, even if they exist in most RPGs. And, following the trend of RPG elements incorporated into other genres, the character development in ME is so basic and dumbed down that it hurts. It is in not reminiscent of the character development found in real RPGs, but more of an element exported in a watered-down version into another genre.

So, what is the thing that makes an RPG an RPG? Well, the only thing that you will pretty much be able to find in any real RPG is the presence of RPG mechanics, which ME completely lacks. You said it yourself, it plays like a cover-based 3rd person shooter, which is exactly what it is most of the time, even if it has some RPG elements. It has, however, been marketed as an RPG, which is wrong. It also does show some of the more disturbing tendencies that exist in a few mainstream modern RPGs (such as the obiligatory and extremely lame romance options resulting in hot, steamy 3d sex ). So yeah, there were attempts made at marketing it to the mainstream modern RPG audience, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not really an RPG, in the real sense of the word. Why would you market it in that way then? Well, if you judge it as a shooter you would quickly see that it's just not very fun to play, and the modern mainstream RPG community seems like it would just about swallow anything these days, no matter how bad it is. Think about it. Imagine what would have happened if it was marketed as a shooter...

Dragon Age, on the other hand, is actually an RPG, just not a very good one (for a multitude of reasons). Stuff like the KOTOR games are also RPGs, since they have the mechanics. Even Fallout 3 and New Vegas (big fucking leap up from the disaster that was Fallout 3) have some RPG mechanics (mostly visible in VATS, as well as during sneaking, hacking and so on).

[lame attempt to be less OT]
As for games I've played this year, I like Minecraft. Technically the alpha version was released to the public in 09, but the more complete versions (as well as the beta release) started coming around in 2010. That shit is fucking addictive.
[/lame attempt to be less OT]

I'm gonna get back to you when I'm not drinking, but you seem to be a bit of a hold-up over modern conventions and have some rather odd/extreme views: regarding New Vegas as good and 3 as a disaster. despite them both being practicallt interchangeable in most respects. I dunno, it sounds like you have an issue with the modern format of many games and I have a funny feeling you're gonna give me a rant about console RPG's being faux-RPG's at some point. Essentially ghe whole PC vs. console RPG definition thing. Anyhoo, proper reply tomorrow innit.

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 07.01.2011 at 22:43

Written by Guest on 07.01.2011 at 19:58

Gameplay-wise Mass Effect is more third-person adventure/shooter but it's so heavy on the dialogue/choices and leveling (though admitedly less than the first) that it is easilly classified into RPG categories and lets be honest, it's identified far more with RPG's than it is with Gears of War et al.

Dialogue/choices isn't even traditionally an element solely and completely associated with RPGs. They are sometimes present in games that aren't really RPGs, and there are plenty of pure RPGs completely lacking any such elements.

As for levelling systems, this used to be an element associated with RPGs, and it still is. It is, however, not associated only with RPGs anymore. Following the surge of the RPG genre's popularity that occured in the early 00s, these elements started being incorporated into games of other genres (including strategy games and shooters). As such these elements do not only exist in RPGs anymore, even if they exist in most RPGs. And, following the trend of RPG elements incorporated into other genres, the character development in ME is so basic and dumbed down that it hurts. It is in not reminiscent of the character development found in real RPGs, but more of an element exported in a watered-down version into another genre.

So, what is the thing that makes an RPG an RPG? Well, the only thing that you will pretty much be able to find in any real RPG is the presence of RPG mechanics, which ME completely lacks. You said it yourself, it plays like a cover-based 3rd person shooter, which is exactly what it is most of the time, even if it has some RPG elements. It has, however, been marketed as an RPG, which is wrong. It also does show some of the more disturbing tendencies that exist in a few mainstream modern RPGs (such as the obiligatory and extremely lame romance options resulting in hot, steamy 3d sex ). So yeah, there were attempts made at marketing it to the mainstream modern RPG audience, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not really an RPG, in the real sense of the word. Why would you market it in that way then? Well, if you judge it as a shooter you would quickly see that it's just not very fun to play, and the modern mainstream RPG community seems like it would just about swallow anything these days, no matter how bad it is. Think about it. Imagine what would have happened if it was marketed as a shooter...

Dragon Age, on the other hand, is actually an RPG, just not a very good one (for a multitude of reasons). Stuff like the KOTOR games are also RPGs, since they have the mechanics. Even Fallout 3 and New Vegas (big fucking leap up from the disaster that was Fallout 3) have some RPG mechanics (mostly visible in VATS, as well as during sneaking, hacking and so on).

Red Dead Redemption
Mass Effect 2
Alan Wake
Deadly Premonition
Black Ops (for its multiplayer)

Haven't played Assassin's Creed Brotherhood yet, but I've heard good things. I'd quickly remove Black Ops from this if Assassin's Creed lives up to the hype.

Just because RPGs are changing--evolving, really--doesn't mean that they aren't Role-playing games. The Mass Effect franchise offers plenty of opportunities to play a role and affect the in-game world. Therefore, the Mass Effect series is an RPG series. They mark, if anything, an evolution of the Bioware RPG formula, if not the RPG in general.

On another note, Fallout 3 is easily one of the better games floating around. New Vegas sucked, not just because it was buggy as hell, but because it committed the worst sin for its sort of game: the world was boring. Boring as fuck.

Written by wormdrink414 on 08.01.2011 at 06:51

Red Dead Redemption
Mass Effect 2
Alan Wake
Deadly Premonition
Black Ops (for its multiplayer)

Haven't played Assassin's Creed Brotherhood yet, but I've heard good things. I'd quickly remove Black Ops from this if Assassin's Creed lives up to the hype.

Just because RPGs are changing--evolving, really--doesn't mean that they aren't Role-playing games. The Mass Effect franchise offers plenty of opportunities to play a role and affect the in-game world. Therefore, the Mass Effect series is an RPG series. They mark, if anything, an evolution of the Bioware RPG formula, if not the RPG in general.

On another note, Fallout 3 is easily one of the better games floating around. New Vegas sucked, not just because it was buggy as hell, but because it committed the worst sin for its sort of game: the world was boring. Boring as fuck.

According to that logic, anything could be an RPG. "Lets you play a role" could mean anything really, and this is also not a feature associated only with RPGs. Calling ME an RPG is a bit like calling Children of Bodom death metal. You're not completely wrong on all levels (you can trace it back to DM), but you're sure as hell not right. There are some tendencies towards the RPG genre, but the 3rd person shooter elements overpower the gameplay, making it mostly a shooter.

I've heard it referred to as a hybrid, which I could agree with. It's not in any way mostly an RPG though, even if there are some elements associated with the genre. In fact, calling it an RPG puts it in the same genre as Wizardry, when there are next to no common denominators between the two. As such, the RPG tag is incompatible with ME, just like the death metal tag is incompatible with COB.

To illustrate, Deus Ex offers far more opportunities to "play a role" and "affect the game world" than ME ever does, yet that is not really an RPG and isn't really seen as such. Hybrid? Yeah, that might be a proper term, but for most of the gameplay, it plays like an FPS.

The point is, that ME lacks so many of the elements that define RPGs that it isn't an RPG anymore. For the most part, it is a cover based shooter.

This fact alone however doesn't necissarily make it a bad game. I don't like it for a multitude of reasons, but it has nothing to do with whether it is actually an RPG or not. There are many RPGs that I vehemently hate (yet I cannot deny that they in fact are RPGs), and some hybrids that are excellent (Deus Ex comes to mind). My dislike for ME stems from the fact that it has picked up some of the more disturbing trends from the modern mainstream RPGs, instead of incorporating well-done RPG elements (basically focusing more on people who don't really play RPGs).

As for Fallout 3, that world was boring as hell. The game was also practically unfinished upon release (seems to be the Bethesda trademark nowadays). The mechanics were horrendous, the game was extremely easy, it was short as hell and most places on the map were completely generic. I also love how people complain about New Vegas being buggy. Bethesda games (no matter if it says Obsidian on the box, the core mechanics are Bethesda through and through) are notoriously buggy. Morrowind for instance is one of the buggiest and glitchiest games I have ever played, and it seems to be praised to the high heavens. I also bought Fallout 3 upon release, and at that time it was buggy as pure hell.

The best part of New Vegas is that they made some attempts to fix some of Bethesda's horrendous mechanics. The iron sights made you actually use the FPS mechanics for any reasons, while in F3 you just got stuck using VATS all the time, since it pretty much allowed you to plow through the entire game if you had a decent weapon (like Lincoln's repeater or the terrible shotgun, none of them hard to find). NV had a few challanging sections and combat didn't feel like as much of a chore as it did in F3.

Don't get me wrong though, NV is still not Fallout standard (set by 1 and 2) in any way (even if it's a lot better than 3, which was horrendous). In fact, for the ultimate Fallout experience, I would advice people to stay away from 3 and NV and wait for a worthy successor to be released. Hopefully they ditch the shooter mechanics since they barely work anyway.

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 08.01.2011 at 13:14

Written by wormdrink414 on 08.01.2011 at 06:51

Red Dead Redemption
Mass Effect 2
Alan Wake
Deadly Premonition
Black Ops (for its multiplayer)

Haven't played Assassin's Creed Brotherhood yet, but I've heard good things. I'd quickly remove Black Ops from this if Assassin's Creed lives up to the hype.

Just because RPGs are changing--evolving, really--doesn't mean that they aren't Role-playing games. The Mass Effect franchise offers plenty of opportunities to play a role and affect the in-game world. Therefore, the Mass Effect series is an RPG series. They mark, if anything, an evolution of the Bioware RPG formula, if not the RPG in general.

On another note, Fallout 3 is easily one of the better games floating around. New Vegas sucked, not just because it was buggy as hell, but because it committed the worst sin for its sort of game: the world was boring. Boring as fuck.

According to that logic, anything could be an RPG. "Lets you play a role" could mean anything really, and this is also not a feature associated only with RPGs. Calling ME an RPG is a bit like calling Children of Bodom death metal. You're not completely wrong on all levels (you can trace it back to DM), but you're sure as hell not right. There are some tendencies towards the RPG genre, but the 3rd person shooter elements overpower the gameplay, making it mostly a shooter.

I've heard it referred to as a hybrid, which I could agree with. It's not in any way mostly an RPG though, even if there are some elements associated with the genre. In fact, calling it an RPG puts it in the same genre as Wizardry, when there are next to no common denominators between the two. As such, the RPG tag is incompatible with ME, just like the death metal tag is incompatible with COB.

To illustrate, Deus Ex offers far more opportunities to "play a role" and "affect the game world" than ME ever does, yet that is not really an RPG and isn't really seen as such. Hybrid? Yeah, that might be a proper term, but for most of the gameplay, it plays like an FPS.

The point is, that ME lacks so many of the elements that define RPGs that it isn't an RPG anymore. For the most part, it is a cover based shooter.

This fact alone however doesn't necissarily make it a bad game. I don't like it for a multitude of reasons, but it has nothing to do with whether it is actually an RPG or not. There are many RPGs that I vehemently hate (yet I cannot deny that they in fact are RPGs), and some hybrids that are excellent (Deus Ex comes to mind). My dislike for ME stems from the fact that it has picked up some of the more disturbing trends from the modern mainstream RPGs, instead of incorporating well-done RPG elements (basically focusing more on people who don't really play RPGs).

As for Fallout 3, that world was boring as hell. The game was also practically unfinished upon release (seems to be the Bethesda trademark nowadays). The mechanics were horrendous, the game was extremely easy, it was short as hell and most places on the map were completely generic. I also love how people complain about New Vegas being buggy. Bethesda games (no matter if it says Obsidian on the box, the core mechanics are Bethesda through and through) are notoriously buggy. Morrowind for instance is one of the buggiest and glitchiest games I have ever played, and it seems to be praised to the high heavens. I also bought Fallout 3 upon release, and at that time it was buggy as pure hell.

The best part of New Vegas is that they made some attempts to fix some of Bethesda's horrendous mechanics. The iron sights made you actually use the FPS mechanics for any reasons, while in F3 you just got stuck using VATS all the time, since it pretty much allowed you to plow through the entire game if you had a decent weapon (like Lincoln's repeater or the terrible shotgun, none of them hard to find). NV had a few challanging sections and combat didn't feel like as much of a chore as it did in F3.

Don't get me wrong though, NV is still not Fallout standard (set by 1 and 2) in any way (even if it's a lot better than 3, which was horrendous). In fact, for the ultimate Fallout experience, I would advice people to stay away from 3 and NV and wait for a worthy successor to be released. Hopefully they ditch the shooter mechanics since they barely work anyway.

You're right, but what you aren't aware of is what games like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Final Fantasy XIII, Fable etc are is Western RPG's. One could even argue that the only thing making Dragon Age and RPG is it's fantastical, mythological nature. People see swords, wizards and archers in an RPG and think...'ah that looks right', why? Because of the foundations set by JAPANESE RPG's. The old Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Tales series, Secret of Mana, Mother and so on.

You see space, futuristic looking weapons and you think 'hmm, interesting, but it's not REALLY an RPG is it?' It's not a crime to think that, it's a natural observation to make. The new Phantasy Star games faced similar problems in the early part of the milenium. Not only because they were a huge shift from the old Sega classics, but because it was just weird actually being able to use something like a phaser on a ranger character [or Ra as they're known in game] or a cannon, I mean, people are used to Bows; Crossbows and Slingshots, right?

So my point is, while I agree that Mass Effect is a highly unconventional RPG, it is still an RPG. Albeit a Western one. The other thing that tips ME over the supposed 'RPG' line is the enemies, it may be overdone to death, but people wanna see mythological beasts in RPGs! I'm a very old school RPGer, I love that stuff, but playing ME and ME2 was a breath of fresh air, it was genius to make the gameplay so heavily third person shooter reliant. What Mass Effect is, is a game for the old school RPG gamers who want something new and fresh in the genre. Simple.

You're also right, every game is a role playing game. But whoever goes by that definition may as well be a sage in hills making prophecies; it'll never stick. Everyone knows what a conventional RPG is. The new growth of modern RPGs with this huge emphasis on decision making and film like cutscenes is merely the 21st centuries take on the genre. Who remembers the crap that we all had to hear when we learnt the details of Final Fantasy XIII? No point revolting against the genre because its trying to 'freshen up' a bit so to speak.

EDIT: Though that doesn't change the fact that FFXIII was absolute bollocks; I've always said it: Final Fantasy has been going downhill since the overhyped overrated 7th [I-VI were more than enough]. Also since they moved to sony consoles and decided making Crystal Chronicles spin offs was funny.

Written by Guest on 08.01.2011 at 14:14

You're right, but what you aren't aware of is what games like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Final Fantasy XIII, Fable etc are is Western RPG's. One could even argue that the only thing making Dragon Age and RPG is it's fantastical, mythological nature. People see swords, wizards and archers in an RPG and think...'ah that looks right', why? Because of the foundations set by JAPANESE RPG's. The old Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Tales series, Secret of Mana, Mother and so on.

You see space, futuristic looking weapons and you think 'hmm, interesting, but it's not REALLY an RPG is it?' It's not a crime to think that, it's a natural observation to make. The new Phantasy Star games faced similar problems in the early part of the milenium. Not only because they were a huge shift from the old Sega classics, but because it was just weird actually being able to use something like a phaser on a ranger character [or Ra as they're known in game] or a cannon, I mean, people are used to Bows; Crossbows and Slingshots, right?

So my point is, while I agree that Mass Effect is a highly unconventional RPG, it is still an RPG. Albeit a Western one. The other thing that tips ME over the supposed 'RPG' line is the enemies, it may be overdone to death, but people wanna see mythological beasts in RPGs! I'm a very old school RPGer, I love that stuff, but playing ME and ME2 was a breath of fresh air, it was genius to make the gameplay so heavily third person shooter reliant. What Mass Effect is, is a game for the old school RPG gamers who want something new and fresh in the genre. Simple.

You're also right, every game is a role playing game. But whoever goes by that definition may as well be a sage in hills making prophecies; it'll never stick. Everyone knows what a conventional RPG is. The new growth of modern RPGs with this huge emphasis on decision making and film like cutscenes is merely the 21st centuries take on the genre. Who remembers the crap that we all had to hear when we learnt the details of Final Fantasy XIII? No point revolting against the genre because its trying to 'freshen up' a bit so to speak.

EDIT: Though that doesn't change the fact that FFXIII was absolute bollocks; I've always said it: Final Fantasy has been going downhill since the overhyped overrated 7th [I-VI were more than enough]. Also since they moved to sony consoles and decided making Crystal Chronicles spin offs was funny.

Foundations set by japanese games? Right now, you are getting your facts confused. The japanese games aren't the forerunners. In fact, the first games that looked a bit like the japanese rpgs were western. Actually, Dragon Warrior (essentially Dragon Quest 1) was the result of a couple of japanese people being obsessed by the western Wizardry series, which predated the japanese rpgs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizardry

Yeah, Wizardry 1 was released in 1981. The Ultima series was around even earlier. The foundations of the rpg genre was set in the west. The japanese stuff is a result of them trying to mimic the early western crawlers. This is especially apparent in the early japanese games.

The japanese games also weren't the first to include sci-fi elements. Ultima did, Might and Magic did and Wizardry was often borderline science fiction with both laser guns and space ships. Whether or not a game is an rpg has nothing to do with that, but with the presence or absence of the elements that make rpgs rpgs. These elements were introduced in the early 80s in the west and carried on by the japanese and the westerners for a very long time, but when they disappear from the formula, the games aren't rpgs anymore. This alone says nothing about quality though. It just says that some games aren't rpgs just because they have basic roleplaying elements.

Haha, the mechanics in New Vegas are just a shite as 3, in fact slightly worse. Using the first person perspective is still a virtual waste of time unless you're using a minigun otherwise you'll just hit air every time. They also managed to fuck up the VAT's too; if an enemy is too close you'll probably miss. As for bugs I never experienced anything in 3 that made me need to reset or caused me to lose gameplay unlike the 5 or 6 crashes I've experienced, the 2 times I've had corrupted saves and the times my companions have mysteriously vanished in Vegas. New Vegas' world design was slightly more interesting and the karma system was better implemented but why the fuck they seem to think 50exp for killing a Mother Deathclaw is worth the same as half the other weak-assed enemies in the game is hella retarded. As for it's story it has zero cinematic presence like 3 and whether or not one would think it's better told or more interesting is pretty much a matter of taste. They're both great games but 3 feels the more finished even though New Vegas does manage to improve on some aspects (hardly surprising given how it's a carbon copy and virtually all respects, you'd have to be retarded not to able to improve upon it).

But yeah, you sound like have a major grudge against modern games (your strict adherence to the archaic technical definitions of what comprises an RPG is more than a gentle nod) which is entirely your choice but the melding of RPG elements into other equally stale genres is a natural one and one that I'm perfectly happy with. The immersion felt in the Mass Effect franchise is practically unparralled in my experience and is an example of where the cinematics of film meld perfecty with gaming mechanics. I'd rather follow a story than the so called "character development" present in PC games whose personality I'm supposed to fill in myself which is the pitfall of old PC RPG's. I prefer narrative driven RPG's i.e. the console RPG. Virtually all standard PC RPG's suffer from the problem that they have the narrative drive of a walnut; they're just a bunch of menu's and stats and frantically clicking the left mouse button in all its isometric traversing banality, Morrowind and Oblivion only broke the barrier for me because they presented a vast and interesting world to explore, they could still do with the cinematic drive seen in modern games though. Septerra Core and Anachronox are the only strictly PC-only RPG's that have ever interested me because they emulated console conventions.

Anyway, as is pretty much established RPG's don't have a fixed style anymore (outside of the turn based console RPG or whatever boring, tactical led tripe that constitutes a PC RPG these days), rather they can be imprinted on top of practically every other video game genre. I don't see what the problem with that is.

There's always someone who has a distaste for critically acclaimed games. I'm not having a go because I think the Persona games (3 and 4 anyway) are the biggest rip-offs and most frustratingly unplayable RPG's of the past decade, despite everyone thinking they're all that.

And Luneth is right: you can try pushing that all games are RPG's argument all you like. No one is going to buy it

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 08.01.2011 at 15:05

Written by Guest on 08.01.2011 at 14:14

You're right, but what you aren't aware of is what games like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Final Fantasy XIII, Fable etc are is Western RPG's. One could even argue that the only thing making Dragon Age and RPG is it's fantastical, mythological nature. People see swords, wizards and archers in an RPG and think...'ah that looks right', why? Because of the foundations set by JAPANESE RPG's. The old Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Tales series, Secret of Mana, Mother and so on.

You see space, futuristic looking weapons and you think 'hmm, interesting, but it's not REALLY an RPG is it?' It's not a crime to think that, it's a natural observation to make. The new Phantasy Star games faced similar problems in the early part of the milenium. Not only because they were a huge shift from the old Sega classics, but because it was just weird actually being able to use something like a phaser on a ranger character [or Ra as they're known in game] or a cannon, I mean, people are used to Bows; Crossbows and Slingshots, right?

So my point is, while I agree that Mass Effect is a highly unconventional RPG, it is still an RPG. Albeit a Western one. The other thing that tips ME over the supposed 'RPG' line is the enemies, it may be overdone to death, but people wanna see mythological beasts in RPGs! I'm a very old school RPGer, I love that stuff, but playing ME and ME2 was a breath of fresh air, it was genius to make the gameplay so heavily third person shooter reliant. What Mass Effect is, is a game for the old school RPG gamers who want something new and fresh in the genre. Simple.

You're also right, every game is a role playing game. But whoever goes by that definition may as well be a sage in hills making prophecies; it'll never stick. Everyone knows what a conventional RPG is. The new growth of modern RPGs with this huge emphasis on decision making and film like cutscenes is merely the 21st centuries take on the genre. Who remembers the crap that we all had to hear when we learnt the details of Final Fantasy XIII? No point revolting against the genre because its trying to 'freshen up' a bit so to speak.

EDIT: Though that doesn't change the fact that FFXIII was absolute bollocks; I've always said it: Final Fantasy has been going downhill since the overhyped overrated 7th [I-VI were more than enough]. Also since they moved to sony consoles and decided making Crystal Chronicles spin offs was funny.

Foundations set by japanese games? Right now, you are getting your facts confused. The japanese games aren't the forerunners. In fact, the first games that looked a bit like the japanese rpgs were western. Actually, Dragon Warrior (essentially Dragon Quest 1) was the result of a couple of japanese people being obsessed by the western Wizardry series, which predated the japanese rpgs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizardry

Yeah, Wizardry 1 was released in 1981. The Ultima series was around even earlier. The foundations of the rpg genre was set in the west. The japanese stuff is a result of them trying to mimic the early western crawlers. This is especially apparent in the early japanese games.

The japanese games also weren't the first to include sci-fi elements. Ultima did, Might and Magic did and Wizardry was often borderline science fiction with both laser guns and space ships. Whether or not a game is an rpg has nothing to do with that, but with the presence or absence of the elements that make rpgs rpgs. These elements were introduced in the early 80s in the west and carried on by the japanese and the westerners for a very long time, but when they disappear from the formula, the games aren't rpgs anymore. This alone says nothing about quality though. It just says that some games aren't rpgs just because they have basic roleplaying elements.

Maybe so, but most people will agree that the Japanese cultivated the genre in the early 90's. Wizadry is very esoteric in the RPG genre, whereas something like Final Fantasy isn't. Dragon Quest is the product of the Japs fascination with Wizadry? I think it's more a case of inspiration, Wizadry was the stepping stone needed to create DQ perhaps, but the birth of Final Fantasy a year later puts Wizadry out of the picture in my view.
Speaking of the science fiction elements, Phantasy Star has been around since the early 90's, so is a lot earlier than Ultima. The Japs may not have been the pioneers, but they are certainly the notable source for RPG Association.

Written by Guest on 08.01.2011 at 15:08

Haha, the mechanics in New Vegas are just a shite as 3, in fact slightly worse. Using the first person perspective is still a virtual waste of time unless you're using a minigun otherwise you'll just hit air every time. They also managed to fuck up the VAT's too; if an enemy is too close you'll probably miss. As for bugs I never experienced anything in 3 that made me need to reset or caused me to lose gameplay unlike the 5 or 6 crashed I've experienced, the 2 times I've had corrupted saves and the times my companions have mysteriously vanished in Vegas. New Vegas' world design was slightly more interesting and the karma system was better implemented but why the fuck they seem to think 50exp for killing a Mother Deathclaw is worth the same as half the other weak-assed enemies in the game is hella retarded. As for it's story it has zero cinematic presence like 3 and whether or not one would think it's better told or more interesting is pretty much a matter of taste. They're both great games but 3 feels the more finished even though New Vegas does manage to improve on some aspects (hardly surprising given how it's a carbon copy and virtually all respects, you'd have to be retarded not to able to improve upon it).

But yeah, you sound like have a major grudge against modern games (your strict adherence to the archaic technical definitions of what comprises an RPG is more than a gentle nod) which is entirely your choice but the melding of RPG elements into other equally stale genres is a natural one and one that I'm perfectly happy with. The immersion felt in the Mass Effect franchise is practically unparralled in my experience and is an example of where the cinematics of film meld perfecty with gaming mechanics. I'd rather follow a story than the so called "character development" present in PC games whose personality I'm supposed to fill in myself which is the pitfall of old PC RPG's. I prefer narrative driven RPG's i.e. the console RPG. Virtually all standard PC RPG's suffer from the problem that they have the narrative drive of a walnut; they're just a bunch of menu's and stats and frantically clicking the left mouse button in all its isometric traversing banality, Morrowind and Oblivion only broke the barrier for me because they presented a vast and interesting world to explore, they could still do with the cinematic drive seen in modern games though. Septerra Core and Anachronox are the only strictly PC-only RPG's that have ever interested me because they emulated console conventions.

Anyway, as is pretty much established RPG's don't have a fixed style anymore (outside of the turn based console RPG or whatever boring, tactical led tripe that constitutes a PC RPG these days), rather they can be imprinted on top of practically every other video game genre. I don't see what the problem with that is.

There's always someone who has a distaste for critically acclaimed games. I'm not having a go because I think the Persona games (3 and 4 anyway) are the biggest rip-offs and most frustratingly unplayable RPG's of the past decade, despite everyone thinking they're all that.

And Luneth is right: you can try pushing that all games are RPG's argument all you like. No one is going to buy it

You have misunderstood me. I have not said that all games are RPGs. You are putting words in my mouth. What I said was that if the definitions that define the genres aren't applied, any game could potentially be an RPG, which is false. What I have said is that RPG elements could be put into virtually any game of any genre, and it would still not be an RPG if you don't have the underlying mechanics that define RPG gameplay.

I also have little against console RPGs. In fact, a lot of the early and great RPGs resemble console RPGs in a lot of ways. Even though a lot of console RPGs have little replay value and are highly linear, a lot of them are still fun to play (even the jap ones). Hell, one of the first RPGs I ever completed was Chrono Trigger, and I still say that it's a lot of fun to play, and that it is an RPG (since it has RPG mechanics and gameplay, of a type).

And also, not all RPGs are good and not all non-RPGs suck. ME sucks for completely different reasons than lack of RPG mechanics. It sucks because for a game that prides itself on choice, it offers you a completely linear experience which is basically full of non-choices (superficial choices that barely affect more than just a few conversations in game). Basically, no matter how many times you play the game, the experience is going to be close to the same (only allowing you to choose between the two stupid good and evil extremes that always seem to have the same outcome). Such a game is not heavy on dialogue/choice on anything more than a superficial level, and ME doesn't have much else going for it. Combat is mostly dull, and the story is iffy at best. The visuals might be the one thing going for it, but that doesn't make up for all the other mistakes that were made. It has nothing to do with it being an RPG or not. If it was made as an RPG, it would have sucked anyway (unless this would have imparted an aspect on it that was excellent, which I doubt).

As for Septerra Core and Anachronox, I thought Septerra Core had some interesting parts (mostly connected to puzzle solving and comedic dialogue since the combat basically was as basic as it could get) and that it is a worthy contender for it's own types of RPGs (where combat oftentimes is very basic). My memories of Anachronox are quite vague since it's been quite a few years since I've played it (still have it lying around somewhere though), but most of those memories are centered around an iffy turn based combat system, easy and infrequent puzzles and some occaational decent comedy. Maybe I'd play it again if I didn't have anything else to do, just to pass time doing near braindead stuff.

The point is, I can live with linearity. Some great games are completely linear. Even if I see it as a flaw, as opposed to non-linearity (at least when it comes to games of this type), I can live with it. Basically, I can live with most bad or limiting aspects of a game if the game has something going for it (you know, something that makes me actually enjoy playing it, and visuals are not a factor for me if the rest sucks). That has nothing to do with whether the game is an RPG or not. ME, on the other hand, has nothing going for it at all. Neither does DA. Combat? Nothing good or memorable (not the worst I've seen, just very generic). This is bad, since it is what you actually spend most of the play-time doing. Boring and monotonous combat makes the game drag on. Non linearity? Pretty much non-existent. You get a few non-choices every now and then, but that's it. Level design? Again, not the worst I've seen, but not that good either (if you feel trapped even in open areas, it usually points to bad level design). Characters and story? This is actually where it gets really, really bad. The script is horrendous. In fact, it contains some of the worst writing I've ever seen in a game at times. The characters are also really bad. They are either derived from lame stereotypes, reused from earlier titles or complete cases of blatant fan service (looking in Morrigan's direction). So, I ask myself, what is enjoyable about these games? The combat and actual exploration of areas is dull, and the segments that forward the story are directly painful.

On the other hand, would I like a game of a similar layout with better execution? I am open to the possibility that I might, but in ME's case, it would still not be an RPG.

Written by Guest on 08.01.2011 at 16:25

Maybe so, but most people will agree that the Japanese cultivated the genre in the early 90's. Wizadry is very esoteric in the RPG genre, whereas something like Final Fantasy isn't. Dragon Quest is the product of the Japs fascination with Wizadry? I think it's more a case of inspiration, Wizadry was the stepping stone needed to create DQ perhaps, but the birth of Final Fantasy a year later puts Wizadry out of the picture in my view.
Speaking of the science fiction elements, Phantasy Star has been around since the early 90's, so is a lot earlier than Ultima. The Japs may not have been the pioneers, but they are certainly the notable source for RPG Association.

You are however assuming that the later western RPGs were derived from the Japanese ones when this is not the case. The JRPGs are a lineage of their own, derived from the first western RPGs, but the later western RPGs were also derived from the earlier turn-based western of western RPGs, such as Might and Magic and Wizardry (or more notably, the ones based of D&D rules such as Eye of the Beholder and Bard's Tale, which none of the jap games were). This can be easily ascertained by looking at the mechanics, which came to differ greatly between western and japanese RPGs quite quickly.

And yeah, Ultima has been around since the early 80s, spanning 9 titles up to Ultima IX, which was pretty dismal in most ways. The early Ultima games are largely too hardcore for me though.

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 08.01.2011 at 17:00


You have misunderstood me. I have not said that all games are RPGs. You are putting words in my mouth. What I said was that if the definitions that define the genres aren't applied, any game could potentially be an RPG, which is false. What I have said is that RPG elements could be put into virtually any game of any genre, and it would still not be an RPG if you don't have the underlying mechanics that define RPG gameplay.

I also have little against console RPGs. In fact, a lot of the early and great RPGs resemble console RPGs in a lot of ways. Even though a lot of console RPGs have little replay value and are highly linear, a lot of them are still fun to play (even the jap ones). Hell, one of the first RPGs I ever completed was Chrono Trigger, and I still say that it's a lot of fun to play, and that it is an RPG (since it has RPG mechanics and gameplay, of a type).

And also, not all RPGs are good and not all non-RPGs suck. ME sucks for completely different reasons than lack of RPG mechanics. It sucks because for a game that prides itself on choice, it offers you a completely linear experience which is basically full of non-choices (superficial choices that barely affect more than just a few conversations in game). Basically, no matter how many times you play the game, the experience is going to be close to the same (only allowing you to choose between the two stupid good and evil extremes that always seem to have the same outcome). Such a game is not heavy on dialogue/choice on anything more than a superficial level, and ME doesn't have much else going for it. Combat is mostly dull, and the story is iffy at best. The visuals might be the one thing going for it, but that doesn't make up for all the other mistakes that were made. It has nothing to do with it being an RPG or not. If it was made as an RPG, it would have sucked anyway (unless this would have imparted an aspect on it that was excellent, which I doubt).

As for Septerra Core and Anachronox, I thought Septerra Core had some interesting parts (mostly connected to puzzle solving and comedic dialogue since the combat basically was as basic as it could get) and that it is a worthy contender for it's own types of RPGs (where combat oftentimes is very basic). My memories of Anachronox are quite vague since it's been quite a few years since I've played it (still have it lying around somewhere though), but most of those memories are centered around an iffy turn based combat system, easy and infrequent puzzles and some occaational decent comedy. Maybe I'd play it again if I didn't have anything else to do, just to pass time doing near braindead stuff.

The point is, I can live with linearity. Some great games are completely linear. Even if I see it as a flaw, as opposed to non-linearity (at least when it comes to games of this type), I can live with it. Basically, I can live with most bad or limiting aspects of a game if the game has something going for it (you know, something that makes me actually enjoy playing it, and visuals are not a factor for me if the rest sucks). That has nothing to do with whether the game is an RPG or not. ME, on the other hand, has nothing going for it at all. Neither does DA. Combat? Nothing good or memorable (not the worst I've seen, just very generic). This is bad, since it is what you actually spend most of the play-time doing. Boring and monotonous combat makes the game drag on. Non linearity? Pretty much non-existent. You get a few non-choices every now and then, but that's it. Level design? Again, not the worst I've seen, but not that good either (if you feel trapped even in open areas, it usually points to bad level design). Characters and story? This is actually where it gets really, really bad. The script is horrendous. In fact, it contains some of the worst writing I've ever seen in a game at times. The characters are also really bad. They are either derived from lame stereotypes, reused from earlier titles or complete cases of blatant fan service (looking in Morrigan's direction). So, I ask myself, what is enjoyable about these games? The combat and actual exploration of areas is dull, and the segments that forward the story are directly painful.

On the other hand, would I like a game of a similar layout with better execution? I am open to the possibility that I might, but in ME's case, it would still not be an RPG.

It's a conversation I've had with many a people but you talk about the linearity in games such as Mass Effect but that's what a lot of people prefer: the illusion of freedom that it offers, as opposed to the open ended vagueness of sandbox games and such. It's no better or worse, it's just different, but by limiting certain aspects you can amplify or add others, in the case of Mass Effect it's the story and gameplay and perhaps most importantly the high level of presentation it offers. Of course if you don't like either then you certainly aren't gonna appreciate it. I for one see no issue with either the mechanics (vastly improved over the first one) or the story (epic space opera that fulfills audience expectation). I don't see the characters as being overly ripped off especially, there may be a few stereotyped characters thrown in but this at the end of the day is multi-million dollar endeavor with a mass audience in mind. To expect them to spend so much money and have it based around esoteric and off-kilter story and characters would be a commercial catastrophe. I'd love to see such an undertaking taken to the "games as art" level but it's just not going to happen with a game like this. As it stands the vast majority feel that it strikes a pretty good balance in most respects, no more so than myself so I don't ascribe to any overt negative criticism over the game itself.

Anyway you're continually losing me with the RPG-definition talk. I, as am most, am quite happy to identify Mass Effect as an action-RPG (pretty much it's official tag which suits it perfectly).

Written by Guest on 08.01.2011 at 17:23

It's a conversation I've had with many a people but you talk about the linearity in games such as Mass Effect but that's what a lot of people prefer: the illusion of freedom that it offers, as opposed to the open ended vagueness of sandbox games and such. It's no better or worse, it's just different, but by limiting certain aspects you can amplify or add others, in the case of Mass Effect it's the story and gameplay and perhaps most importantly the high level or presentation it offers. Of course if you don't like either then you certainly aren't gonna appreciate it. I for one see no issue with either the mechanics (vastly improved over the first one) or the story (epic space opera that fulfills audience expectation). I don't see the characters as being overly ripped off especially, there may be a few stereotyped characters thrown in but this at the end of the day is multi-million dollar endeavor with a mass audience in mind. To expect them to spend so much money and have it based around esoteric and off-kilter story and characters would be a commercial catastrophe. I'd love to see such an undertaking taken to the "games as art" level but it's just not going to happen with a game like this. As it stands the vast majority feel that it strikes a pretty good balance in most respects.

Anyway you're continually losing me with the RPG-definition talk. I, as am most, am quite happy to identify Mass Effect as an action-RPG (pretty much it's official tag which suits it perfectly).

Well, about the RPG definition talk. All I'm saying is that if the gameplay cannot be traced back to the original definition, being that an RPG game is a digital adaption of pen and paper campaigns, which run with a certain kind of game mechanics based on the skills of the characters and the tactical interpretations of the player, then the game is something else than an RPG.

An RPG isn't mostly based on player skills in the way that a shooter is, but more around using the characters in a tactical way. The characters are supposed to be doing the work, you just give them orders. An example of implemented RPG mechanics would be the melee combat in Morrowind. You are ordering your character to hit a mudcrab, but regardless of how you aim the mouse cursor (as long as it is in the vicinity of the mudcrab) the chance to hit and the damage dealt is determined by RPG mechanics based on the skills of your character. You are not doing the work, the character is, and you are just ordering him/her around. That is the definition of an RPG, you play the role of the character (or characters), and thus assume your characters attributes, and your impact on the outcome of a situation comes down to tactical decisions made by you. You are deciding to hit the mudcrab, since that seems like a good idea, but your character is doing the work. This is the definition of RPG mechanics.

In ME, only a few elements resembling these mechanics in some ways have been exported from the genre to complement 3rd person shooter mechanics. The gameplay runs on shooter mechanics, and not RPG mechanics. There are traces of RPG elements in the game, but since this integral part is not there, and replaced by a groundwork coming from another genre, a game which has taken this evolutionary turn is no longer an RPG.

DA, on the other hand, runs on RPG mechanics. That still doesn't make it good though.

Another rhetorical question. If I was so sure that my opinions would be so adamant about this type of game (been playing RPGs since I was 6 years old or so and played Might and Magic VI, so yeah I know my stuff), why would I try ME (both 1 and 2) and DA (bought it upon release, which meant I was hoping for something) in the first place?