Because of old RPG's, I still save potions of all kinds in my inventory just in case I may need them. 5% resistance to frost even when my character is pretty much already immune to it? Sure, it doesn't weight much. Potion of strength even though I'm a mage? Sure, I may need it at some point to lift something. Potion of archery even though I have neither a bow nor arrows in my inventory? Why not, I may pick one up and it'll be crucial for a possible upcoming puzzle.
lol, I only have max, 5 potions of each (which I think are useful for my character). i just finished playing Kingdoms of Amalur. Built and OP tank, so I didn't require alchemy/mage potions and ditched em.
I usually struggle in the first part of every game, im saving up money, runes, any potions. Just using what i find and make the best use of it, spending sometimes hours defeating a strong enemy, and trying to get something valuable or interesting. And after the second half of the game i realize i dont even need to use any of the stuff i saved up, and i only get the best stuff, because it looks cool. I completed the witcher 2 on hardest difficulty with the first weapons and armor you start in. Just for fun. :D
I'm okay with a mix of Action & RPG elements and I love Skyrim and the last 3 Fallout games, but I agree that results of your choices need to be more long lasting & consequential. Attacking places that were formally neutral to you should cause the residents to remain hostile. Said hostility should either be permanent, or difficult to atone for. In Fallout 3 if you made Paradise Falls hostile it was irreversible. Fallout New Vegas' reputation system also worked just fine. I think that RPGs should have some enemies that stay weak in many areas of the game, others that level with you, others that are introduced as you level up, and others that level up permanently with you. Some locations should be guarded by dangerous enemies that will kill you quickly if they see you. Fallout New Vegas had enemies north of Goodsprings (where you start) that you didn't want to face as a low level player. Following the road south was the best bet if you wanted to survive. Deathclaws were nearby, close enough to see you, if you went down one of the roads north (you're repeatedly warned by NPCs & signs), Cazadores are guarding the other road north from Goodsprings. Both could kill a low level player quickly, were faster than you, South were Powder Gangers that wouldn't bother you if you hadn't pissed them off, and keep your distance. Powder Gangers also were weak enough to be killed by a low level player. Geckos were also south, but a low level player could handle them as there weren't enough to realistically swarm the player.
Finally someone who also thinks that most AAA RPGs don't deserve the title "role playing game" any more! When some people said about the upcoming Cyberpunk game that it makes no sense to have a character creator in a first person game I was once again reminded that most people don't roleplay in role playing games. When I play MMORPGs I am part of a tiny minority as a Roleplayer. RPGs are not RPGs any more. They are not supposed to be about combat, they are supposed to be about immersing yourself in a fictional universe, play a character separate from yourself with their own personality and backstory in that universe and just roleplay. To me Leveling and stat systems shouldn't be what makes a game an RPG, it should be role playing.
There is a BIG difference from a character creator than customizing the looks of that character which will be played in FP, so I think there is some confusion when the game has been criticized in that aspect. For the cutscreens, the player will have ZERO control. On top of that is the player interested in playing the game or watching it as if it were a movie? Personally I find it rather difficult to roleplay a certain character when forced to play it in FP. The only immersion I get is if myself is personally in it; not the character I create, if that makes any sense. Instead I have to utilize the imagination I once used back when I played tabletops during the late 80s/early 90s. Small world, GURPS was one of the games our; my friends & I, DM took us through shortly after it's release. Also played D&D, Marvel, Star Wars, Top Secret, & my favorite Ghostbusters. Great DM, great times! The first PC RPG I played; which I also defeated, was the mighty Baldur's Gate. That game measured up to the tabletops I once played, which I tend to use as reference when comparing video games set in the genre. Both Fallout 4 & Witcher 3 failed when compared. Folks these days think all you need is a good story, but a RPG needs all the components, not the cherry picked sections. Baldur's Gate just like the tabletops I once played all had a character; using Dr Evil's finger quote "CRE-A-TOR", Witcher 3 simply did not... DID IT? Fallout 4 had poor dialogue. Personally I think the last title that took video games to the next level was Fallout New Vegas. Such as providing an open world, great story, FPP/TPP, mods, etc... It did it ALL! Honestly I thought RPGs; especially those released after FNV, would take things to the next level... But it seems I have been wrong; instead, they have been dumbing down in one way or another... Never played Torment, but I have heard about it. ATM I been engaged in the orginal TES5; not the best, but it's decent... Good video!
Did they ever? Most of the so-called classic RPGs are made of 5% story nad 95% stats based, boring combat. Your characters journey thru the world. Whether it is Nameless from Torment or Mason from Call of Duty. Basically, every game is a role you play.
@@kofola9145 There is a difference to play a role and playing an Role Playing Game . Roleplay is just having the name or title and act like such a person as a reflection in real life but in a Role playing game you play a role which must be set in the rules of the world that is created . You cant be a crimelord with an uzi and some 2000s crackwhores in a fantasy setting because the rules dont support such ways . And every action in the world react logical to your behaviour . Action and Reaction . Everything has a consequence and that makes a role playing game so interesting . Especially what action you choose and what is the outcome from the unexpected.
@@Snyperwolf91 That is your definition. And that is what I am talking about. "most AAA RPGs don't deserve the title "role playing game" any more" Who is the judge? Well, you. And you have your own definition of what constitues RPG. "most people don't roleplay in role playing games." No, they are roleplaying as their character. Are you telling me you run BG 2, pick paladin and then roleplay it like... make up your own story inside the game? Well, maybe you do. Anyway. The game is a dungeon master and you role play according to the game/dungen master. That is RPG. And that is the case with almost every game. The game is a dungeon master and you role play according to the game/dungen master. Ergo, it is RPG. You are Shepard, you save the galaxy, you role play saving the galaxy as Shepard. It is a role playing game, RPG.
It seems to me that true RPG games go against all the principles of AAA marketing. An AAA game is supposed to impress you with fancy trailers and make you want to instantly buy the game and play it. You just can't sell an rpg like that. RPG games (to me at least) is something I'm supposed to randomly feel like playing, investing some time in it and letting it grow on me. While an AAA game chooses it's players, an RPG game is chosen by players themselves.
This sort of bias against AAA games just seems to me like another version of the ubiquitous bias against all big things -- big governments, big companies, big data, big pharma, whatever. I personally like really big things -- they aren't all great, but they are the only entities with the power to do something really monumental. And it's the monumental that is intoxicating and sublime.
Wait Fallout had a mechanic where I could shoot someone in the nuts? Why the F was this removed? I mean it's an m-rated game there was no reason to remove this. people were already exploding into Gore how would that hurt anything? there is literally a perk that allows you to make people explode into Gore.
M-rated games back then would probably all be AO rated games now. The age-rating is less of a warning of some sorts as much as it is just another marketing tool. It's no secret that all the age rating organizations (who are all under one single age-rating organization) are in bed with the gaming industry. IIRC the age rating associations were made up of members of the AAA gaming industry.
Cus if you can shoot a guys balls then are you gonna shoot a girls vagina, and if the game allows u to do that then femenist would stir up a shit storm. It's just easier to not have genital mutilation that to have it.
I hate it, but you're right man. I just hope that for the small niche of us that still love RPG's, they'll still be made. Your insights are truly invaluable though man. Much appreciated.
I'm part of that niche unfortunately......and even worse I'm afflicted by the There is no girl on internet syndrome(yes I'm a woman and proud to say it) so my tastes as a girl don't make friendship making easy with other girls that...by the way am I alone as a girl loving RPG and gaming in general,feeling lonely as a quiet minority.
Yeah, I'd imagine it'd be difficult to make friends with other girls as a female gamer. I haven't the slightest as to why more women are not into RPGs and gaming.
My fiance loves JRPG's. She's really big into the Xenoblade series and fire emblem. Also likes the Tales of series and Final Fantasy. Currently playing The witcher 3. I see lots of women gamers and many tend to gravitate towards RPG's. Hell, the female fanbase for persona 5 is crazy. Just gotta look I guess, there's a lot of you out there.
An article? Probably not, But I'd say 50% or more of persona fans I know are all women. It's not a small number either. JRPG's really seem to resonate with female audience. Xenoblade too I've noticed has a very large female audience.
Flexibility. The problem is that unless we concentrate on the things that make RPGs great, RPGs will always be stale and bereft of choice. To think that RPGs have not improved in 30 years in terms of role playing is unthinkable. No other industry could get away without evolving for 30 years.
Just make sure you play with the right group haha. Some D&D groups are really just kill and loot, kill and loot. That's fine and all but when you try to role play in a group like it most likely will be a bad experience for everyone lol
Unfortunately, computer gaming will never achieve the unpredictability of tabletop gaming because a computer game must map out all possible interactions within a limited space (a CD/DVD/hard drive/whatever), whereas tabletop can allow for anything the players can imagine. Which is where the illusion of choice comes in. Also, the latest editions of D&D seem to be suffering from a similar case of dumbing down to appeal to a larger market.
The problem with games today is that most of them work on the fast food principle: get right to the good stuff, have lots of mindless fun and don't retain anything meaningful from the experience. Telling the average gamer that a game "gets good 20 hours in" is like asking him to break his back doing hard labour for 40 years to get a high paying pension on retirement. I understand the sentiment. It is all about escapism, and I fall prey to the craving for fast food games often myself, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize the damage that this expectation of games being all fun all the time does to the thesaurus of games today. This time when the market will crash again, it will be the indie devs that save it...
Well 20 hours until it gets good is pretty horrible now as it was then, Kotor games, Dragon Age Origins, Mass Effect, Chrono Trigger, Persona franchise hell even heavy text games like Planescape Torment are all games that hook you in from the very begining. On the other side of the coin, you have "new Old school" RPG's like Pillars of Eternity, Divinity Original sin and wasteland 2 that even after hours into the game have failed to make me care about the story or world.
I think the issue what a lot of people now want from RPG simply isn't possible with current technology. People want to be immersed in a world and feel a part from it. Not read text or just listen and click from a bunch of options. When we have AI in games which you can talk to like a person and reacts like a person and worlds that are truly dynamic and alive, 'RPGs' will likely make a huge comeback.
@@Isythos Curiously those are the RPG games I certainly don't want to play. Much like everything else, I'm a defender of the Ideaa that there has to be a limit even to immersion. The promise of full dive VR don't impress me. ALthough yes I would play some VR games because they can be fun. But what's the fun in customizing a character you'll never get to look at? When I play RPG for the immersive role playing aspect of it, I play the tabletop version. When I'm playing a RPG video game I'm not making avatars, I'm making sons and daughters.
I think we agree on sentiment but you're word choice is somewhat unfortunate. Even games and stories with a slow start need to be good from the start. Rarely is the time you spend killing rats in the basement looked upon as the highlight of the game. But that part still needs to be engaging the story still needs to have hooked you to slowly start reeling you in.
I've found that some people play RPGs for role-playing, i.e, they make a character with a backstory and try to act how they think that character would act; while others play RPGs for expression, i.e, they make an avatar for themselves in the gameworld and they respond to events and characters as they would, if they were in that situation. This is something that players and developers should be aware of. I don't mind RPGs that force you to play a character, like The Witcher, I find it easier to role play when someone else has developed my character and their place in the world. But when I get to design a character, I make myself. Also, and maybe this is just me, but I feel like "RPG elements" (e.g, leveling and progression) make real role playing difficult. Like if I want to play a badass cowboy in New Vegas who doesn't afraid of anything, and then I head north from Goodsprings and encounter Cazadors and have to immediately run away like a chump... well that sort of makes it hard to play that character then. I understand that these elements are inherited from tabletop RPGs. I just think lots of games would get better if we could divorce the idea of progression from role-playing. Because then we'd find role-playing where we didn't expect it. I remember playing GTA4 with my brothers and my older brother actually made a persona. He got himself a nice black suit, got a baseball bat, and went around the ghetto beating up suspicious looking people. He engaged in role-playing in GTA at a higher level than many people do in Skyrim or Fallout... I've just been rambling... but I'm going to leave it.
Without character progression they would need another way to give you that endorphin hit every handful of minutes. That's why you see progression systems in nearly every game because it is a super easy and unimaginative way to reward the player. I wouldn't mind seeing a RPG without character progression.
Yeah I noticed with my nephews, nowadays roleplay is done in sandbox games because that's basically what kids do when playing with figurines in their room. So they kinda do light roleplay in MineCraft, GTA, ArmA and a whole bunch of online games in which you're free to do what you want. Still without the online elements and the social interactions of make-believe, the game world itself doesn't react much to player's actions as there's no persistent world and these games are just not tailored for that. Character progression is dual in RPGs, you have the classic character development in the story but also the one in the actual game mechanics, which reflects its ability to interact with the world and overcome its challenges in some ways. You can do without the second one, sure, just as P&P RPGs can tend more towards storytelling or game mechanics, but it's still something that's exclusive to the medium of games.
That's a really great observation. I think kids have better imaginations, so they have an easier time roleplaying in any game, even, like you said outside of games with figurines or playing with their friends. However, I think that as we get older our motivations/methods of play change. I might be wrong in this assumption, but I think most teens/adults play games with a power fantasy moreso than any other motivation. And unfortunately, this has made it so game design has bent to cater to that fantasy. Thus, rather than promoting true roleplaying (expression), most RPGs tend to cater to a progression system that fulfills a power fantasy. Unrelated side note, but I really feel like this is the cause of frustration in competitive multiplayer games. Players' strongest motivation might not be a desire to compete, but a power fantasy, i.e, a desire to dominate. This inevitably leads to frustration because in any MP game there can only be one victor and so in 50% of games those players aren't getting what they want.
There are many ways to recreate a sense of character progression in rpgs The most obvious of course are the stats which rewards the gamer with a more effective characters performance-wise. Basically it is progression based on the game mechanics. Another one is through "karma/reputation" system in which it create a sense of character progression via notoriety and having the world to adapt to your character instead of the other way around. Basically it is progression based on narrative flavor. Powergamers prefer the former and this is why they enjoy games like Fallout 4 where stats progression are streamlined and much of the flavor-based "trash stats" had been pruned out of the mechanics. Role-players on the other hand prefer the later and this is why they complain about Fallout 3-4 having zero soul or a "dumbs down" rpgs because they severely lacks the flavor aspect of role-playing. As far as my opinions on the originals OP comment, i tend to agree, this is why i welcome cheat mods like character editors because it allows me play characters that i like to role play.
As an indie dev I agree with a lot of the points here, and it is a topic I have been thinking about. I think the real reason is a design issue and the traditional limits of bottom up design. From a computational perspective top down design is much easier and cheaper. Information, including video games, has a flow to it. Multiplication is easier than long division, because of that a story that branches is infinitely complex and takes creativity to solve each new scenario as it arises. Something a conscious DM can do, but not something an unconscious system can do.
@@massv953 Because AI aren't good enough yet. The closest we have ever gotten is AI dungeon. That one free game. If you ever take the chance to play it, it's pretty hilarious in how the AI can mess up sometimes but at the same time, there are basically no rules. It is the most freeform a freeform game could be. With no limits it gets pretty stale. AI don't know how to make interesting lore, they don't know when to challenge or make easy encounters for the player. It'll happen eventually but that takes time
This is why I really don't play or buy AAA games anymore. Honestly, when the skills required are reflex-based, I know one thing: it's going to be a pain. When the skills required are more the type of strategy you use, THEN I know I'll have fun. And I really couldn't care less about games like FO4. On the other hand, I own the entire Divinity series as well as Tyranny, and hopefully soon Pillars of Eternity and Torment, because I have so much more fun with those games.
+Wicked Voxel If you like turn-based combat and playing with friends you should have a look at Atlas Reactor, it's basically turn-based 4v4 battle arenas.
I love that Divinity Original Sin and OS2 are going back to Divinie/Beyond Divinity Style. I loved Ego Draconis and was sceptical when D:OS1 was announced, but the results are great. Larian implemented some of my ideas and thoughts into D:OS2 as I was kickstarting both games. They respond to feedback, criticism and they even make constant Updates to show of current Updates on their UA-cam Channel. Larian Studios does not only make great games - they also show, HOW they should be made. Also: Give Dragon Age Origins a try. Or Ori and the blind forest if you like Plattformers.
you can wear your enemy, eat your enemy, break all his limbs by wrestling and smear the blood all over yourself while drinking it and puking, then climb a nearby tree an jump on him to finish. yep its all in df.
Hey, Strat-Edgy. A bit of friendly advice, I found your videos by chance one day while looking through my recommended section and I'm really enjoying your content so far. The criticisms and ideas you share are very insightful, and it's refreshing and entertaining to hear them. But, I feel the music you use doesn't really suit the content you make. I feel it's a little bit too loud and in your face compared to what it should be. but besides that, keep up the good work!
Already under advisement. Changed the music with the latest video I released, and I feel like it works much better. Go check it out when you can and let me know what you think.
Man, I love your vids. I agree on everything you mentioned. In my opinion, the only companies that rpg players can rely on nowdays are Obsidian and inExile, mostly because they consist of people responsible for best titles of the genere. I just can't understand, where are fresh new minds in this developer environment? I love those guys, but who would make good games, when they retire? I'm beginning to fear that. "Go play some video games", well screw you sir, I just going out for work...
Yeah, Obsidian has made and been responsible before their studio opening, for some of my favorite games ever made. It's a shame that budget is such a problem for them. Titles like KoToR 2 could have been so much better if the well didn't run dry. Tyranny though... Da fuq? That game is amazeballs.
For hack and slash would had Crate(old members of the company who made Titan Quest) and of course Grinding Gear for Path of Exile(don,t like the free2play model though)
Hasn't most of Obsidian's good creative team left the company? Also thanks for reminding me about inXile, I completely forgot that Bard's Tale 4 was coming out.
"Where are fresh new minds in this developer environment?" Okay then. Video games, like any other medium, change. They aren't what they were thirty years ago because the medium has grown, changed, evolved. There's a reason we still don't make movies like we did in the 1940s (the "Golden Age" of Hollywood). There's a reason TV shows are vastly different than they were in the 1950s (the "Golden Age" of Television). There's a reason jazz music is different than it was in the 1950s. That reason is because the people who came after were not the people who came before. It's not out of spite that people change things in the medium; it's out of a desire to do different things, to experiment, to try something new. It's why we have games like Mass Effect, which took the things it wanted from old school RPGs (dialogue choices, strong narrative and characters) and blended it with more modern conventions and technology. I'm not saying Mass Effect is a perfect game--it isn't--but it is certainly is an important one. When the guys at Obsidian retire, they'll be replace by new blood who have their own ideas of what to do. They'll experiment in their own ways, try new things, go different directions than the guys at Obsidian would now. And whether or not you like what they do isn't important. There will always be people who prefer old school over new school, and that's fine. Like whatever you want to like. But in order for the medium to grow, we can't recycle what we did with Baldur's Gate or Fallout 1 or Final Fantasy 1 over and over again. We have to innovate, we have to change, we have to grow.
I'll share this classic video brother. Also I'm thinking about starting my own gaming journalism. Why? A lot of gaming journalism lost their passion and love. They went over to mainstream gaming. But if my Gaming Journalism company works... I would love you to join the ride. Why ? Because you have intelligence and passion in your videos. It tells me you truly love what your doing. But please think about joining and creating something amazing. If you join....... you will have a dun ride with me friend and our adventures.
Kingdom Come Deliverance dude....small studio with big heart and one goal: a true RPG world with freedom, choices, consequences, challenging battle based highly on tactics, planning, proper equipment AND skill, and no matter your "OP" end game build you still respect a small group of enemies' power in numbers unless u want slaughtered. You're just a nobody, never becoming god mode hero, and become somebody by actions and choices...good or bad. You can actually break the game by being an evil s.o.b. and killing the wrong important people. World is beautiful with the most realistic forrests/woodland areas ive ever saw in any game, not necessarly because of superior graphics but because much effort went into detail as if every tree, shrub, flower, rock, stream, bush, etc was placed by hand one by one instead of randomly generated from a pallet... Im not saying the game is perfect, none are, but it was created as a real rpg period; love it or hate it thats all it is. But for those of us missing the real thing, by far this game blows away anything ive touched in nearly 10 years as far as properly designed evolving free world with real decisions, real consequences, and a great main narrative along with loads of sidequests (meaningful ones too, not "go here, get this item, come back, heres exp and gold. Ready for the next quest exactly like the last??) some of which can be a bit sketchy or gruesome if you find your way into the wrong crowd. Cant sneak into the enemy camp?? Thats cool, wait till night and catch a stray patrol out alone taking a piss (all npcs do their daily routines as you would work, eat, drink, sleep, etc....oh and make sure to put ur torch away ) quietly take him out. After scavaging anything useful, grab his clothes and armor and put them on and walk in like you own the place...works a lot better if he's got a face covering helmet and you talk to as few ppl as possible that are sober (make sure you carry his body into the grass/woods and hide it so not to be seen, also helps to clean kill or do when raining as a large pool of fresh blood on the dirt path might raise an eyebrow too...and dont forget and equip his more powerful sword if the duel got bloody as a bloody blade on ur belt also raises questions). Yeah, its that detailed if you want it to be. All in all by the sound of this vid ur game values of rpgs are similar to mine...I HIGHLY recommend you look into this game and possibly give it a try i believe you would be quite satisfied
I backed this game on their kick-starter (think i still have the beta/teaser version installed on one of my drives) an interesting game to say the least and was impressed for what they wanted to accomplish. I still found it lacking in a lot of ways as an RPG. Class building was meh and there was almost no character diversity either. Good boy or kind of a dick/murderer. Great as a medieval simulator though, the combat and world were pretty historically accurate.(which i think was the whole point of the game rather than to make a Traditional RPG) I think its mostly due to the developers writing your background for you essentially. I had the same gripe with the Witcher series as an RPG, I mean, I love that game for the story and world/lore but no matter how many times I replay it I will always be Geralt of Rivia. Its just a matter of either compassionate, apathetic or selfish Geralt. Also the class system in the Witcher isn't the best either though I did like the Alchemist style build thought that was pretty unique and interesting.
@@CygnusX1123 Yeah when I think RPG I always end up circling back to CRPGs like the original Baldur's Gate and the more recent Pathfinder. Hell I dont even mind the real time with pause/ click to move. Baldur's Gate 3 seems promising but it's using some wierd Divinity style spin on the 5e D&D rules that I cant say I'm a huge fan of but we'll see when they get further into early access.
Still responsible for the worst horrid video game genre ever. The looter shooter. It combines few fun gameplay elements into a boring mess that shouldn't exist.
@ToveriJuri shaddap, diablo is the reason for that. Looter slasher was going to evolve to looter shooter sooner or later. And borderlands isn't even the worst looter shooter. What do you play fornite?
I've just discovered your channel and I'm amazed by the quality and effort put into your videos. One gripe though. The red bar at the bottom of all your thumbnails looks extremely similar to youtube's "Watched" bar. I would've discovered you much sooner had I not thought I'd already watched the videos I'd been suggested
Holy shoot, This video was fantastic and I learn from the education video. This will definitely help me on my first person science fantasy realistic tactical RPG open world game I'm currently working on. Will you make more videos like these mate?
O Wonderful World first person science fantasy realistic tactical RPG? way too ambitious for someone without a huge development company behind it. sorry bud. start small.
I would agree with Laura Gates, you'll never have the time and resources to see the end of it alone, even if you're highly skilled in multiple domains. Make an in-depth game design document and a prototype or vertical slice if you can, and pitch it to studios and editors and/or gather serious and motivated help to found your own studio and maybe push it through crowdfunding.
As much I love those they are JRPGs which I would argue focus on different core values than western RPGs. I do however agree and I hope that those games will usher in a resurgence of JRPGs which are undoubtedly my favorite genre
I love how people say that a AAA rpg is action game with rpg elements, yet their favourite rpgs are entirely gameplay-focused, their narrative is brought by text. hilarious.
I hope you don't actually expect them to. I've never heard of the first two, but Square's track record for RPG development has been moving in the exact opposite direction.
@@milesbrien6867 persona? Really? I mean if you know the genre, you must be aware that final fantasy isn't the standard for jrpg's these days after xiii. As far as square enix goes, dragon quest is now their go to when it comes to jrpg
Eh, Its a little limited. I loved my first shadowrun returns experience, but it doesn't deliver too much complexity in terms of combat, dialogue and plot choices etc. Its kinda action oriented. I think dragonfall is the best of the bunch though, for story. Try tyranny or numenera for a more classic experience IMO.
Again late to the party, but just discovered your channel. I have always enjoyed RPGs that allow me to create my own character and create my own backstory. Since I was young I was fascinated with stories, I been writing since I was in the 4th grade. And what I loved about RPGs and what got me in them was the way I could construct my own stories, and play the character they way I want. I don't mind an illusion of choice as long as the choice affects the world around me and people respond to those decisions I made. What I mean is take for example FNV, Where's the Beef. There are multiple ways of beating the quest and you can go about it in different ways, but someone still had to construct all those different avenues. Difference is the world responds to you and your actions. You can go into the quest as an honorary member of the white glove society if you have a high enough Fame in the strip. Cool the game responds to me actually being famous. Or its the way older fallout games, even FNV, responds to my skills of choice. I have High Science and High Intelligence, I want the world to react to that. Instead of a game like Fallout 4 that completely ignored the fact that maybe I didn't want to play a soldier in the pre war. But a scientist who helped create the nuclear weapons that creates the wasteland they now must survive in ooo. I want to be in charge of my own stats, skills, personality, and character backstory in any RPG.
“Rarely in a game like Skyrim do you ever feel like a super badass knight decked out in full armour mowing through hordes of creatures.” Most people’s last Dragonborns laugh hysterically as they one-shot everything in sight with daedric or dragonbone swords, or a wooden spoon which is more powerful than the other two, obviously.
Thing is, it really does get super easy at some point. Skill based games when it gets easy, it's because you've become a lot better. In RPGs where numbers and stats determine your character, when it gets easy, the game is doing something wrong. It should constantly challenge you.
@@alephkasai9384 If you're into skyrim but want something constantly challenging, try Enderal. Free to play on Steam, you just need to own a copy of skyrim. the world doesn't scale with your level like in skyrim so some areas are hard AF / borderline impossible till you get good.
Strat-Edgy Productions I just found your channel because I was hoping to make a nonprofit RPG and I have to say, you have some of the most high-quality, and enlightening game-design videos I've seen! Keep up the good work!
Two issues are being mixed up. Mechanics are mechanics, and role playing is simply story that you play through where you get choices that meaningfully impact the world. Though one could argue a linear story is also roleplaying. Regardless, any kind of game mechanic can be RPG. Which would make many "adventure games" also RPG. And take say a game like Beyond: Two souls, I would say that's a RPG. But it's not turn based, no stats or equipment.
I would argue that choices don't need to have a meaningful impact on the world. The choices in an RPG should be there to allow you to react, and behave as the character you are roleplaying as. Instead of having a small handful of drastic chocies, have lots of choices with smaller, but diverse outcomes.
@@firstlast-cs6eg sort of. Action requires reaction, what you do would need to have consequences, but they don't have to be on a grand scale. They can be smaller, and more down to Earth.
You explained what makes BG combat so great so well (~13:50) I still remember how I barely managed to enter Durlag's Tower and ***barely*** made it alive - heavily pushing my party beyond its skill level.
Exactly why i became detached from Dragon Age, Mass Effect and Fallout...... The Witcher 3 is the only AAA game i played in the last several year (and i actually enjoyed it, despite it not being an RPG in the true meaning of the word)
The way your dad played sounds really fun. We’re tge rules for that version simple since it was the start of the craze. I always wanted to get into dnd and rpg is general. Do they still make the printouts by this dave arnesson? It sounds like a great way to get into the game. I loved this video, your dad sounds awesome.
Hey Stat, I'm about to play Fallout 1 & 2 and the first Baldur's Gate. I'm having great expectativas for them, and I'd like to know if you could recommend me more RPG games to play (I've already played and replayed New Vegas btw).
Whelp, first I would play through Baldur's Gate 2 the minute you finish the first one, and try the expansions as well, they add a little something to the lore, and aren't great, but at least entertaining. Planescape:Torment is next on the list, and once you are done with that, I suggest you try out Neverwinter Nights 2, and the Mask of the Betrayer expansion. Once you hit the classics, hit the unknowns. Here's the short list: Arcanum (fallout in steampunk fantasy) Gothic 1 and 2 (and if you like them, definitely give part 3 a go) Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines Shadowrun: Returns Shadowrun: Dragonfall Wastelands 2 Dark Sun (www.gog.com/game/dungeons_dragons_dark_sun_series) Tyranny (like whhaaat) Torment: Tides Of Numenera
ah fallout 1 and 2 games so loved and praised and a part of peoples childhoods that people can't take of the nostalgia goggles and see them for how clunky, poorly designed, generic, and over all low quality they are
Icewind Dale, classic Dragon Warrior on NES, Final Fantasy 1-10, Chrono Trigger, Ogre Battle, and Secret of Mana. Many of these are easily available on emulators. Just don't buy DLC Age Origins (Dragon Age.)
Frozium If I could give u 1 more recommendation Its :Dragon Age Origins(Don't touch the sequels, they suck balls) Story, Companions,Choices. The game nails it.
Hey thanks for this video. I especially appreciated the story about your dad's RPG group. Makes me miss the old days of playing BG 1 and 2, and the first two Fallout games. I think the easiest way to explain the difference between old and new RPGs is that the old RPGs were more like simulations where the consequences of decisions would eventually be clearly laid out to you, while the new RPGs are more like linear movie experiences. Sure the new RPGs give you some intense thrills for a moment, but once the game is over there's no replayabilty except some shallow collectibles. With old RPGs, you could try a completely different route, with totally different results. Anyway, this video was great. Keep it up!! Just subscribed.
How to fix this terrible industry for 2019: 1) Never buy anything from Activision, EA, Konami, Ubisoft, nor Warner Bros (if there is any other publisher you don’t like, add them to this list). Any game from them now will have ruined potential and will always be badly designed on purpose to sell microtransactions, lootboxes, and cheat codes. Create the stigma that anything with these publisher’s name on it is a lesser product because it’s true. If you absolutely NEED to have one of their games but still want to get it legally, wait about a year until the game is on sale with included DLC or (preferably) buy a used copy. 2) Never pre-order any game. Waiting until the game comes out to give them money will force them to make sure it’s a functioning, bug-free (as possible), complete game. 3) Wait until said publishers are downscaled/bankrupt from lack of sales. Even if they change their ways after suffering financial struggles, they’ll just go back to their current agenda once they’re back on top again. Let them burn in bankruptcy. They never cared about you. Don’t give them the satisfaction. 4) Wait until they’re forced to sell IPs and franchises to better publishers in order to cut costs from going under. Developers let go from this should also be given employment opportunities from said publishers. This is, unfortunately, the only drawback to this plan as there’s no telling what will happen to said franchises and developers. 5) Support indie creators and lesser known studios who might not be creating the most visually impressive games but clearly have passion for the product they put on shelves rather than creating games for the sake of earning money. 6) Spread. This. Message. Feel free to copy/paste this comment anywhere it’s relevant! Anyone who says “this won’t work” is doing EXACTLY what these publishers want. The moment you give up and think uniting against exploitative and terrible business practices is fruitless is the moment you lose. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. This has worked before and it will work again.
warner brothers constantly delivers good games from good develops Ubisoft makes a good game every so often same for conami and activition blizzar while they are not my kinda thing make good games that a lot of people like and there are a lot more publishers that could be included in that list or that shoyld nor be trusted actually most publishers fall on that list agree with 2 sure but all the developers they own will disappear as well 4 sure i guess the indie market has alower ratio of good games to bad games if say aaa makes a classic per 1000 games indies will make 1 per 10000 theres just a lot more indie games and its really easy to ignore the sitty ones but yeah innovation always comes from small studios always been like that yeah i guess if it was more accurate but it wont work cuz shit head casuals dont care that call poopy 20: the return of boredom is shit and bad for the industry they only care that it has zombies and that it looks ever so slightly in and irrelevant way better
Vincent Valentine fuck off, ubisoft makes some good games, and warner brothers has mortal kombat so yeah, fuck the other 3 though, all fhey make is trash, except call of duty
@@InhabitantOfOddworld Unity is the best assassin's though, even to this day, i hate the rpg elemnts and the hilariously huge maps that kill time for no good reason, which is why i use trainers, i got no time for stupid grind
2:57 We totally have the ability to make persistent worlds, as many roguelikes have such a thing as "world saves". I'd recommend playing Dwarf Fortress, especially in Adventure Mode, as it's very much a world simulator and the world persists after your death. Plus, it has other things you mentioned, like damaging specific body parts for different effects (it has realistic damage, so that a sword can cut off a hand, while a mace will just beat it to a pulp). Or you can wrestle to keep them from using certain body parts, or, if you don't want to fight yourself, you can just make a character that's good at making music and use your bardic talent to form a murderous band to do your bidding. The game is constantly in development to add more features, you just have to be patient, and also be willing to put up with ASCII graphics.
This is so true... I really fell in love with the narrative driven RPG games of the SNES era, and I can say that as graphics have gotten better, story telling has gotten more convoluted and weaker.
I can remember in the mid 90s be awed by the graphics of the RPG games coming out on PS1. Parasite Eve and Final Fantasy VIII come to mind as ones that really blew me away, but when I think of how things have gone in just the Final Fantasy series, X seems to be the last one where they were able to tell a really compelling story AND have good graphics. Look at what a mess XIII was despite being visually beautiful. XV had a similar problem of "look how real this food looks! Also we forgot to add the actual story into the game, please see the anime series and box office movie"
This channel has the subscriber count of an amateur gaming commentator but is at the pinnacle of the UA-cam quality hierarchy. Really smart stuff and nicely presented.
Ironically, in The Elder Scrolls Online you can change the world, but you doesn't have too much choices of how to change it. Mostly what happens is that usually you arrive to a town infested by monsters and if you do a series of quests, the town is cleaned and people can prospere in that town. So you can perceive the change, but if you make the quests, you always end saving the town, I haven't seen any quest where your decisions can destroy a town permanently. Most of the decisions only have consequences on the dialogues or with the story of a single NPC, nothing world changing.
The old RPG's that will be remembered forever fondly were projects of love. Flawed, far from perfect, but with so much passion and enthusiasm poured out into them you cant miss it if you tried.
I got to play what ever games my older siblings bought and got really into the stories and big franchises. Then playing their older games it turns out were much better compared to their latest releases. Watching this makes sense why I can't find any new games that are true RPGs!! It's why I plan on buying old games because they seem like so much fun. Games with pretty graphics be dammed!! Bring back the variety!!
+Dal Ok, I'll bite. Explain to me how TW3, a game that offers multiple forms of progression (leveling, skill trees, passives, gear & upgrades, crafting & gathering), choice and consequence in even the seemingly most inconsequential sidequests, a huge focus on exploration, storytelling and characterization as well as having fantastic worldbuilding that you as a player can directly influence, is not an RPG.
@4:05, describing a dream game quote, "...where every door was enterable, every character had a routine, and the interactions were believable and life-like..." I realize that this video is about AAA games, but I think that... pretty much describes the Adventure Mode in Dwarf Fortress. It sounds to me like it is evolving into something that may one day be considered more of a world simulator and a work of art than a game. Despite the primitive ASCII graphics, it's easily one of (if not the) most complex game ever created. I suppose it's not a coincidence that it's about as far from an AAA game as you can get.
witcher 3 , their biggest project ever created is not even the best representation of a proper Role playing game. From what I seen with Cyberpunk 2077 that look like a proper RPG than witcher franchise. so yeah, they have long way to go to make a proper RPG with AAA standards.
Funny thing is, I hate online shooters because they're too slow. They're fucking boring because you spend so much time without the goal being in front of you. Most of the time, getting good enough at the game for it to be worth it means that your goal is somewhere you had no ability to predict shooting you in the back of the head. Boring. MOBAs are the same, only worse because you're locked in for 30 to 60 minutes. I don't understand why they get so much attention, while mortal kombat lags behind. Mortal Kombat is competitive play without the bullshit, because matches are quick enough that you can constantly be learning from your mistakes, and you cam actually see what's going on 100% of the time. Football players aren't blind folded half the time, so why do the most popular e sports so often revolve around just being lucky enough to actually get to see your opponent before they see you? Its dumb and a waste of time. But, in story driven, single player experiences, that stuff doesn't feel like a waste of time, because the space between you and your goal actually serves a purpose. So yeah, I like skill play, but I'm really impatient with it. But I have a lot more patience with a game that's going to reward me with an experience I'm going to carry with me. What kind of gamer does that make me then? Cause I'd love Telltale games to have some skill play thrown in, as long as the core experience didn't suffer. I love Ninja Gaiden Style interaction, Mario 64 is my favourite game because it's all about skill play and not feeling like you're walking in sludge the way some rpgs feel especially mmos like WOW. I don't think I easily fit into those categories.
just different audiences , I love RPG`s but shooters (some of them not all) have great intrinsic tactics that some use and some don`t , you can abuse this against people who don`t see it , and MOBA`s , well I played little LOL but I played lots of DOTA , and the strategic/building level of DOTA is extreme , you can to a fogged area and think ,FUCK! this guy was just luck that I didn`t see him , but acctually you shouldn`t go to somewhere where you have no visibilitiy of the area unless you know your enemies are up to something else instead of potentially being there , just an example.
Just found you on UA-cam. Love the video man! Especially this one. I've been saying for years. Once the graphics became the emphasis, the depth of the games suffered.
You're right about most of it, but Mass Effect WAS an RPG in every meaningful way an RPG is an RPG. No meaningful choices? You can wipe out one or all of 5 races, and let almost every one of your companions die. That's the most meaningful choices a game has ever had.
I agree, Mass Effect franchise, specially the first one were RPG's in every extension of the word, and for a heavily narrative driven story, the amount of choices were amazing, granted most of them didn't have a big impact, but the game still acknowledge even small choices and that is a big help when you want to immerse the player. Like in my favorite RPG of all time Vampire the Masqurade Bloodlines, sometimes the biggest reward is not a weapon or an upgrade, but the outcome dialog itself.
That's why I like level-less games, example: BotW, your own skill get better with time... you get more hearts and such, but nothing else... it's you getting better or just stop playing then...
One of the reasons why I like tabletop RPG's is because of how unpredictable they can be. Unless a rulebook or GM specifically says you can't do something, you can always attempt to do something. Likewise, aspects of the game can be discarded or added if the group finds that gameplay would be improved. When creating a video game, only so many options can be implemented because of technology, time/budget restraints, whether or not a developer thinks it's a good idea to include it, or simply the creator didn't think of that particular option. For example, if a quest says to get rid of a dragon, a video game would mostly likely interpret that as "kill the dragon", or in rare cases, allowing a player to persuade the dragon to leave in a limited amount of ways. In a tabletop RPG, however, since there are no technical limitations preventing the players from tackling the problem in a near infinite amount of ways, an open-minded GM may allow players to solve the dragon issue by slaying it, telling it to leave, paying it to leave, convincing it to live in harmony with the neighboring village, seducing it (I have tried this. It would have worked if the thief hadn't failed his sleight of hand while attempting to steal some of the dragon's gold while I was telling her how absolutely gorgeous her scales were.), teaming up with the dragon to solve other quests, teaming up with the dragon to burn down the village, or even ignoring the dragon problem entirely. Being as limitless as a tabletop RPG also creates obstacles that the creators weren't anticipating. In one game I played, we were traveling through a cave, and every time we crossed a bridge we burned it down, because why the fuck not? Well, after doing this for two sessions in a row, it is discovered that we had been going the wrong way, and had to backtrack. There was just a few slight problems: there were no more bridges, and we lacked the materials to build bridges. So, we had to figure out other ways to cross the gaps, which ended up making everything more interesting. Sometimes, you just can't beat your own imagination.
11:04 - 11:35 FO4 still does that, though. Playing on harder difficulties actually makes it almost mandatory. FO4 is absolutely an RPG, even if it's incredibly watered down and poorly written. Also, "true" RPGs? You mean that shit that can never *really* be ported to a purely digital format unless a developer can figure out how to make the perfect AI dungeon master? "RPG" is a vaguely-defined genre from the start, there is no such thing as a "true" RPG. Bethesda RPGs can be some of the best RPGs out there, if you actually go into them intent on roleplaying and not just playing an action game. Yes, they absolutely suffer from plenty of the issues outlined in this video; and yes, you pretty much HAVE to download two dozen mods to tweak the experience for your desired playthrough - but no other RPGs that I have *ever* played have allowed me as much freedom to roleplay with actions, rather than dialogue.
What you talk about in the beginning of the video is something that I've been saying fot some time, but the games you use to say "these are not RPGs" are in fact the BEST representations of RPGs on video games. If these aren't RPGs, well...no game is...actually, I do htink that there is not a single game released that really is an RPG. They only have some elements of it. And you are absolutely right about categorization.
I never got into videogames, what exactly can they do that you can't do in a tabletop? Story modules aren't even that fun. It's just more interactive when you are the creator of the world and story.
marshma llowsxoxo The one thing that video games can do that a tabletop experience can't do is give you a full-on visual representation of what you are interacting with. Tabletop stuff is great and better in many ways. I personally don't need a visual representation. But you usually don't get more than a few hours of the tabletop experience at a time because it's reliant on a game master who has to prepare stuff ahead of time. So big sandboxes with lots of content that you can consume for something like 6 or more hours at a time isn't something you typically get in a tabletop game.
also time constraints is a big issue , it is great if you DM and spend hours setting up an scenario, I don't always have time or friends able to play. So I pop in an video game RPG.
This is something I have noticed as of recent few years, thank you for putting this into words. With the rise of mobile gaming, mainstreaming gaming into lifestyles, e-sport.. and the large profits these mediums bring I do believe that traditional true to core game genres will die out, or soon be seen as indie or small scale. Much like films.
True words with the exception of CD Projekt Red. Look at how lazy Bethesda have become. Also look how they forced extreme left morality into Mass Effect Andromeda.
This was the comment I was looking for, heh. But sadly it's not a triple A title. Nothing by Atlus has ever been a triple A title. A, double A is pushing it. Sadly, oldschool RPGs/JRPGs tend to have middling budgets at best. Or they're Final Fantasy - which barely qualifies as real RPG anymore in recent titles. ..he said to a year old post..
RPG's have always been my favourite type of game. Your videos give me a lot of things to think about once I am skilled enough to make my own. As usual, glad for the insight.
Really weird how this video doesn't seem to think Japanese RPGs count as AAA. Not like they've had a good half dozen large-scale RPG releases in the past year.
omgcandy16Kimicari0 which JRPGs have you played that allow you to create and customize characters, controls them outside of combat, make decisions that drastically alter the outcome of the story? Without all the above elements I wouldn't call any game an RPG. I'm not saying that JRPGs aren't good games worth playing. I just don't think they fit into the RPG genre IMO.
Role playing games aren't that much different than they've ever been. The main difference really is how the game reacts when you make a choice. Moral or otherwise. The only true RPG ever made was called Alternate Reality (the city or the dungeon), almost every action you make causes the game to make a reaction. If you befriend one group you anger the other, if you act one way you piss off one guild and the other guild lets you join them. But beyond that, most games aren't really all that different today than they were in the early 80's. As long as you are playing the role of a character, and can interact in more than just combat, you're playing an RPG. Compare some of todays games with other RPG's in the early 80's. Can you consider Wizardry to be an RPG, using your criteria? What about Might and Magic, or The Bard's Tale? I don't think too many games would be considered an RPG if we looked at it this way. Besides AR, maybe Ultima....
No game is 100% RPG. But at least all games have >50% RPG. Being more close to a rpg that to any other. Today's RPG's have >50% action. They are closer to action games.
Now that we've had 30 plus years of refining mechanics, there ought to be some truly astounding RPGs out there. Yet it still seems like nobody ever got farther than Morrowind??? That's a trip
"AAA Don't Make RPGs Anymore" Game companies simply cannot afford it anymore, it would take too long to make, and kill machines to play. e.g Take the size of AC Odyssey, and make it truly RPG, even more so than New Vegas, and it would be the size of your whole ssd/hdd and need at least 2 cards in SLI or more to run. The issue is that 'graphically' the game companies can expand exponentially, given new hardware and new gen's. For FPS games (which are my choice), graphics are king and everything else is secondary (proof=BFV/FO4/FO76/). True RPG with stats/random balance/dialogue lines/choices/health/water/food/cleanliness/factions/consequences cannot be achieved in such graphically pretty games. We would have to go back to diablo II days graphically so to speak, to enable the RPG elements to run the game instead of how it works these days, where the 'prettiness' dictates the game. TL:DR Hardware/time/money can't keep up with RPG mechanics in today's ultra-pretty FPS games. It's FPS or RPG......choose 1 only.
Tell that to Witcher III. I don`t think "Food and cleanliness" are rpg elements though. Just something the rpgs of old implemented. Same way an rts perspective with grid based layout and tons of endless dungeons are not rpg elements.
First of all, I am so, SO glad that somebody out there is saying "there's no RPG if there is no roleplay". I'm so sick and tired of the entire "RPG elements" bullshit of leveling up weapons and skill trees with no real impact to story or world. Thank you for that. That said, it is kind of sad to see (again) Mass Effect not getting the credit it deserves. I do agree that some of the choices during the first and second games were basically ignored or underdeveloped in the sequels, but let's not forget they were there in the first place. I have no idea what happened with BioWare and EA during that time, but I do know their main writer left and there was some shit going on inside. It almost feels like those loose plotlines were supposed to have a follow up in ME2 and 3 but were dropped instead. My point being, ME1 did a lot of things right, it was a step in the right direction for AAA RPGs and had a lot of potential, and ME2 only followed partially. It went downhill from there, sure, but it proved that AAA RPGs could be a thing and, more importantly, that you could change the formula and combat and still have an RPG. It will never be as deep and detailed as an indie, classic inspired RPG, but it could've been great. Besides, it might be just me but I kind of want to see proper roleplay not attached to the isometric, turn based combat (as much as I love it). Ideas like top down camera, pause in combat, leveling up, inventories and looting, etc... we don't need any of those to make an RPG, you will never have innovative games if you stick to the same formula over and over. I grew up playing Neverwinter Nights non stop, and I loved it, but I kind of cringe when I see games like Pillars of Eternity, replicating a 20 year old game with no apparent innovations (I haven't played it, though, I might be wrong here). I have to say, though, Divinity: Original Sin was a breath of fresh air to me and it felt amazing. It still is quite similar to the RPGs of old and I'd love to see anybody try something new, but hey, it was well done.
Roleplaying games only mean they have roleplaying. Being an isometric, grid-based, strategy game has nothing to do with it, and if someone chose to make all decisions quickly and not think about what they say or do, and they skip dialouge, they still could be playing a roleplaying game, they just wouldn't be using the roleplaying part. It would be like if someone played CoD but only used knives. It's still a shooter even if they aren't using the guns. Mass Effect 3, the example you used repeatedly gives players choices that changed what happens, so it's an RPG. Also, I have to say, even though most people wouldn't think of it, Telltale games are a great example of an RPG.
One series that does do, at least to a degree, the type of world effecting gameplay you describe is Dragon Age. I love that as they've advanced the game series across console generations, they've now set up a site where you can log the decisions you made in various games and each subsequent game recognizes those choices made. For example, in my play through of the series, the Warden romanced Liliana, and he had sex with Morrigan at the end to save his own life. Then when I got to playing Inquisition, Liliana had entire conversations with me about the Warden and their love, and when I met Morrigan, she had a child. Additionally choices I made in Dragon Age 2 were talked about, and I had the ability to have Hawke look like the Hawke I played in that title when I ran into him. I would have enjoyed it being deeper and more complex, but I do think there's only so far that consoles can actually take it before it's too many variables to program into a game. However having the choices exist and having them make a different on not only the game world the inhabit, but every game following is the right direction and proves that it will be possible.
I personally think your looking at this too black and white. I love real time open world RPGs, Ive played probably nearly everyone ever made. There is a vast amount of people in the RPG genre who want this very specific role playing experience, and that makes you very opinionated. Stuck in the nostalgia of what first defined RPGs. I personally don't like "role playing", I dont create a backstory of my character. I think the long dialog choices and relentless detail of lore and backstory is fine for some. There is also other people like me who do appreciate it but would rather actually be playing the game making real time choices instead of being stuck in 5 mins of text box dialog. I believe the fast pace of new RPGs is the future. Overalll customizing the character and freedom in the world are the defining features that make RPGs what I love and different then every other genre. I embrace adding RPG elements to every game as long as its well thought out and implemented. We see this with racing games even, which would definitely not traditionally considered an RPG and yet you can actually make a racing game an RPG. I really think everyone should be embracing innovation instead of fighting for a very narrow genre. That being said I do think there is a point where they strip down certain elements too much. I do think Bethesda studios with the fallout and elder scrolls are doing a great job of innovating and making the largest amount of content that we've ever seen in the games industry. I think as long as they don't stray any further away and start adding features instead of streamlining them till they are bare-bones we will be in a good direction. so that is a point where I think we agree. Streamlining is good when it makes things easy while not taking away from the game play element itself. Bethesda needs to bring back a few things for sure but overall they aren't doing too bad. dragon age inquisition is a good example of a great innovation in the RPG industry. While it was lacking in some places was a great RPG. Open your minds guys, dont fight change, just promote improvements to the gameplay elements we love and realize that that its okay to make nearly anything an RPG.
No, he's talking about RPGs. Just because a few individuals won't acknowledge them as such, doesn't make them any less so. If a game has multiple forms of progression (leveling, skill trees, passives, gear & upgrades, crafting & gathering), choice and consequence, a focus on exploration, storytelling and characterization as well as a world you, the player, can directly influence, it's an RPG.
Some people confuse going left or right to reach the monster, kill the monster with a knife or a pistol, (action games choices) with a real game choice (let the monster devour the village). Even some choices out of combat are action based and not real choices. For example: You can kill the monster o persuade the monster to leave. Game effect: mission acomplish. No choice there, still an action game. New RPG's shouldnt be called rpg because they are a new breed of action games, not of rpg's.
I feel like the best way to merge skill/twitch-based gameplay with roleplaying would be a multiplayer roleplaying game, you make a party online and have to strategize between everyone in real time combat scenarios that both reward in game stats as well as quick thinking and reactionary combat with multiple players all working in tandem to use eachothers skills to topple something like a giant dragon or something. In a way its kind of like dark souls coop where you team up with other players to fight a boss but you go through the whole game world together, combining your character's skills and your knowledge as a player of the areas to gain advantages against enemies. even having a way for another player to a DM role, playing a RTS style game in order to defeat the main players while directly controlling the boss style enemies. I think all of this can bring back that feeling of older RPGs with turnbased combat where you can observe the situation and strategize but with real time action oriented gameplay. magic items and weapons would turn the tides of a losing battle to your side, could introduce more means of defeating opponents, and could even change the whole flow of gameplay (like how in Morrowind you start out only able to jog like 5 miles but by the end you fly around in the sky at like 500 mph)
0:08 "True RPGs are..." WOW. Video STARTS with a violation of the No True Scotsman Fallacy. I knew it'd happen, but I didn't think it would happen less than ten seconds in. Or in the very first sentence.
In reality, it's not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but a mistake in the choice of words. What he meant is that PURE RPGs are a niche market, and that is true. Nowadays, most RPG's are action-RPGs.
Exactly. The way it's phrased this video is completely wrong. You don't need loot drops or X Y gameplay thing to have an immersive ROLE-PLAYING game. It can be done in many different ways
"What he meant is that PURE RPGs are a niche market" I think what he meant is that 'AAA Don't Make RPGs Anymore', as the title of his video clearly states, yet there are over 100 RPGs scheduled for a 2017 release and it'll take more than a No True Scotsman fallacy to convince me that NONE of them are both AAA and RPGs. (source: www.rpgsite.net/feature/5170-rpgs-of-2017-every-rpg-set-to-be-released-this-year-and-their-dates) "In reality, it's not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy" And yet thirty seconds in he states "Mass Effect wasn't really an RPG...not a true one...". Replace the term 'RPG' with 'Scotsman'. Yes, in reality, this entire video is a TEXTBOOK example of the NTS fallacy. Claiming that games like Witcher 3 are not RPGs because they don't play like D&D is like claiming that Left 4 Dead isn't an FPS because it doesn't play like Doom. I mean, it doesn't even require keycards to get around. And it doesn't even have a maze. The zombies don't even shoot you. WTF?
I would say "AAA" games/RPG (or a lot games in general today) have less and less deep skill attribute xp systems (round based long gone) and this is what RPGs used to be or had when I played these games. I agree with a lot of it. Almost every RPG tagged game today is actually an action-"RPG" and skill-/attribute systems are very often less important, and playing very often like a first person shooter. I believe he had a few good points in the video about it. Strategic/round based, char stats driven vs. YOUR quick reaction and action skills. Bethesda Fallout games are a good example. F3 was ok, NV was ok and somewhere better/worse. Ironically the good mods for F3 also changed the game play "more like a shooter" to me, F4 pff. It plays more like a shooter with a few "RPG" elements. I did like Planescape: Torment (but missed a bit "action") and liked F1/F2 or BG and NWN more compared to it. Never played Icewind dale back then. I really liked Gothic/Gothic2 but not Morrowind. F3/NV/Skyrim with mods as GotY/Ultimate a few years later.
"Almost every RPG tagged game today is actually an action-"RPG" " So "almost" every RPG (not all) are, as you freely admit, RPGs. Glad to see that you agree the title of this video is objectively wrong.
Interesting monologue. I figured I'd offer my perspective as a programmer. I will say this will get a bit technical but, I'll keep it as simple as possible. One of the things you mentioned early in the video was about player choice and persistent worlds that are in essence derived by player choice. Over the years the biggest challenge that programmers have had with developing applications was predicting what the end users would actually do with the software you've made. With greater broadband penetration and the advent of patching being commonplace we've had to worry about it a little less but still it's a big problem. We can't predict what users will do, in terms of games choices have to be limited otherwise the size and scope of the application would be astronomical. Giving players infinite choice would also mean the scope of the game would be infinite and therefore the size would be infinite. With the technology we have now game developers can do little more than creating the illusion of choice. Even older narrative based games like Bauldar's Gate or Planescape Torment do little more than creating the illusion of choice by using branching path functions that use else if/else logic ladders. C++ opens a lot of doors for us like allowing us to use pointers to dynamically resize arrays during runtime but the amount of memory it consumes can get astronomical, not to mention it takes a skilled programmer to use pointers properly in a big application without causing memory management problems. We can also simulate limited branching paths by using a series of complex classes but it still only gives the illusion of choice since the choices would be limited and chances would be that in order to work within the parameters of the current technology the path branches would probably have to be collapsed towards the end, which would defeat the purpose. Even with quantum computers we just don't have the processing power to execute programs that offer true freedom of choice or persistent worlds. I wouldn't mind discussing this further, so feel free to contact me.
It's defiantly true that with quantum computers, we could broaden general scope far beyond what we're capable of now. Even with that kind of processing power however; their still has to be a cut off point on available choices. The best route would probably be limiting to relevant logical choices rather than infinite choices. With sufficient processing power it could be possible to create dozens or even hundreds of possible choices that branch x*10^16 or even grater at the end of the a completed logic chain. Even then I think that's more choices than most gamers really want, instead of unlimited choice. Rather a broader range of meaningful choices. I mean, you could have an event or quest where the player is asked to complete an objective but choosing the option to sit at home and watch TV would just end in a fail state. Eliminating branches that would obviously lead to fail states. Also do away with branches that are illogical to the scope of the game you're creating. Limiting the scope of possible choices leading to x*10^3 in total X being the integer of the number of first options and subsequent outcomes including fail states, distributing the remaining number of choices throughout the logic chain. I'm personally not a fan of games that collapse their branching paths and Ex-machina the ending by giving you a choice between endings at the end (Deus Ex Human Revolution comes to mind).
Sorry, but no. You are being a purist. You are bound to the idea of only pure breed RPGs getting to be called RPG. That's almost nazi. There are levels of control you can have over the character and story. For you, you can't roleplay unless you are the character basically. For me, I don't have to choose everything my character does to feel like I'm roleplaying. It's just that your concept of what is needed to feel like you are roleplaying is different from others. Also, yes, you can play these games like you don't care about whatever is happening. Actually, you can play any game like that, and if you get stuck because you didn't read anything, you can just get a guide. People won't roleplay if they don't want to, even in a pure breed RPG game, which means that by your phrasing that "if you can play it without roleplaying, it's not a roleplaying game", no true digital RPG has been ever made. So, your video is actually "AAA *Companies* Don't Make *pure-breed* RPGs Anymore". And to be sincere, I'm just fine with that. Pillars of Eternity and Tiranny were awesome games and I had a lot of fun playing them. Divinity OS 2's early acess/demo was *really good*. And if they make a great Dragon Age game, I will board that train right away, not because it would be AAA, but because it would be as good as the others. I just don't feel like whether Ubisoft makes pure-breed RPGs or not will ever be relevant to those who like the genre.
Rafael Calmon Yeah a true RPG is a game that has a lot of extremely meaningful choices that allow you to clearly define your character in many nuanced ways. If a game doesn't have design choices that allow you to choose what kind of person you are in meaningful ways while allowing you to define believable motivations for what you do, then it's not a true RPG. An action game can have RPG elements, and you could classify it as a sort of RPG, but not a true one. Just like Fallout 3 is not a true first-person shooter, because there's so many other elements that make it different from a true first-person shooter. But it is an FPS-like game. I don't see the problem with that, and comparing it to a Nazi ideology is just ridiculous and disgusting.
You are excluding RPGs that aren't pure RPGs, calling the latter RPGs and the rest non-RPGs. I'm comparing it to Nazi ideology based on the concept of denying a group or groups that don't fit a very restricted set of parameters, not relating it to the "evil" part of it, so saying it's disgusting makes no sense. So, "If a game doesn't have design choices that allow you to choose what kind of person you are in meaningful ways while allowing you to define believable motivations for what you do, then it's not a true RPG.". *Then there are no true digital RPGs out there.* According to that definition, a true RPG has to offer choices that allow you to choose what kind of person you are. I've played many RPGs, including the several of the ones shown in the video. I'd say I very rarely get to make a choice that I want to. For example, I have to either be an asshole and let the little thief kid be taken to jail because I'm too strict or stop the guards so he can run away. I hate both of those options, but out of the 6 to 8 options I get it's the closest to what I actually want to do: stop the guards from beating and arresting a child while also lecturing him, taking whatever he stole and returning it to the owner without giving the kid away. And someone else may want to do something different as well, and every player will too because we are all different. But, the best we allowed to do in these games is to pick a set words we did not say and accept it as the only option, because we can't handle it exactly as we mean to. That's not freedom to be what we want to be, it's just a lot more options to be a preset . Following that, RPGs like the ones mentioned are just like Fallout with a lot more choices to pick, but still the same principle, a story on rails. You want to know what a true digital RPG is supposed to look like? Don't play videogames, because our current technology can't create one. Instead, read novels. In The Legendary Moonlight Sculptor, "Royal Road" is a VRMMORPG the implements a system in which you can act as you like and the world and AI will react to it. Nothing is scripted, the content is generated proceduraly as the world interacts with itself and with the player. So, the overview is: *Every RPG game has a scripted story, branched or not. Each has their own decree of choice, being the ones based on classic board RPG flow those who would offer the highest number of options. Among those choices, some may have lasting consequences in the story, others in the current event, and some have very minor consequences. Although, not having any consequence or change at all kills the very purpose of having a choice, so in that case those aren't considered "choices". But then, an RPG would be but an adventure game, and many were actually labeled as that for a long time. So choices aren't enough to consider a game an RPG, it has to allow the player to customize their character's parameters. Together, both those concepts have to be the main purpose of the game, otherwise the RPG part is just second plane. Taking two examples, Fallout and Pillars of Eternity both offer choices and character's parameters customization. The former has first person exploration and real time combat while the latter has third person exploration and squad turn-based combat, but none of those is related to the concept of RPG. In the end, the only difference between the two from the perspective of the concept of RPG is that Pillars of Eternity has a much bigger amount of meaningful dialog options, which is what characterizes what you are calling "true RPGs". Also, try to reflect a bit on your concept, because following it you are also denying the "Classic JRPG" genre, so games like Final Fantasy VII, Chrono Trigger, Super Mario RPG, Breath of Fire and Tales are not only not RPGs, but much less of an RPG than games that allow the minimum bit of "allow you to choose what kind of person you are in meaningful ways while allowing you to define believable motivations for what you do" like Mass Effect.* And look, if you want to discuss game design concepts that much, at least read a book about it. I feel like I'm trying to explain why the area of a triangle is base.height/2. I'm bored already, and I'm supposed to be used to explaining things. So just know that if I don't answer it's not because I agree or have nothing to say, it's because I'm tired.
Rafael Calmon i agree i hate it when ppl say I'm not a rpg fan when the only games i play are cs go and nba2k17 which are both rpgs. I mean any game can be rpg if you want it to be you know? People are such nazis today.
KrOjah 1 Well, I already made my point. Whatever I add will just be meant to reinforce it, but I will refrain from that. But in the world where people who label games are that purist, there would be no difference between games like Fallout and Call of Duty. If you were in the game industry and had to label games that weren't pure RPGs, but had a deep focus in typical table RPG charater development or dialog flow, what would you label them?
I think that's why the Shadowrun games from Hare Brained Schemes succeeded as they did; HBS accepted that there would never be a AAA Shadowrun game, went with an isometric, turn-based RPG engine, *and* had a pretty deep, international fanbase. And that's pretty much going to be the limit of genuine RPGs, going forward, and it's not going to be what WotC are going to do with the D&D license. The Shadowrun license was cheap; the D&D one isn't. Unlike most, I don't think AAA games are dying; but they're going to be shooters, mostly, with maybe some RPG elements thrown in for spice. Levels, for a sense of achievement, unlockable stuff, like weapons and spells, that sort of thing. More of an interactive movie, really, with shooter levels to go from cutscene to cutscene. Not even Fallout 4, but something like Mafia 3, except without a defined protagonist. And that format, for me, got a little boring playing the Wing Commander games.
The Witcher 3 is as RPG as you can get and as AAA as you can get. Nice try though kid. Also, why do you pretend like RPGs were ever a HUGE market share for Console or PC? They were not actually. it seems like they were back in the 80's and early 90's but, nope. For every big budget CRPG there were 20 Big Budget other non CRPG gams. Also if you do some real research you will see that more RPGs come out yearly now then they did 10 or 20 years ago. However most are not AAA titles. Kind of like how most RPGs you think were AAA were actually not. AAA usually means high quality high budget massive resources ( people ) working towards the game. Baldur's Gate was for example a medium budget game handed off to a third party dev team ( Bioware ) and overseen by a TINY team at Interplay ( Black Isle ). the main person on it was Chris Parker and 90% of everything on the game was done in Canada. That is until it went into crunch time testing and then there were dozens of people at Interplay testing it and working on it. Including my team who for some lame ass reason did not get in the credits.I do agree that it would be nice if Ubisoft and Activision had franchises that they released as often as Call of Dookie and AssCreed. If Ubisoft would dedicate resources to an RPG franchise the way they do to AssCreed and Far Cry that would be nice. Sadly the last Ubisoft RPG was horrible despite what the Hipster gamers said.
Zapp - the oly thing that is UNRPG like in TW3 is that you are forced to play as Geralt. Other than that SINGLE thing, it's an RPG with real time combat. Also, Fallout 4 is shit and also an RPG. If TW3 did not have levels and just had skill points, I might agree with you. However as I said, other then not having accustom made character where you pick and choose stats, it's an RPG.
Meaningful choices? So is this about stat or story? Because either way, you are wrong. The story choices you make in TW3 matter in many ways small to huge. People live or die based on a story choice, the ending of the game changes based on story choice, the ending of the final DLC changes based on story choice. I guess you will name me other "RPG" games where the choices were more significant? Most people run to Chrono Trigger. As to the Stats not meaningful, have you actually played TW3?It could just be that you don't remember how many things changed in the game based on dialog choices and such. TW3 is actually one of the best games at making choices matter and have lots of alterations to the game world. Many RPGs just have a ton of different endings and nothing you do matters until the end of the game when your choices are checked to see which end movie you watch. TW3 is much more meaningful than that.
For those purists Chrono Trigger isn't an RPG either. Personally, the games with more meaningful choices that I have played are the Witcher series and the Mass Effect series (specially on ME3, but some choices starts on ME2 and ends on ME3, so I cannot see them as individual games) but I have seen some commentary of other games, and Fallout 1 & 2 had more meaningful choices by far.
Zapp Brannigan how about the village destroyed by the tree spirits when you release her to save the orphan? Or participating in the assassination of radovid?
not only options and the development of a ROLE is what defines a good rpg. but the ability to make you chain and emphasize with what the world around you in the game feels like. i played since childhood video game rpgs and real life D&D and would never forget how honestly worried i was for my teamates at times of trouble. or how awesome it felt to fight off an ambush by using you instincs knowledge and creativity. an RPG gives you more than 1 option to solve a problem. and should non stop make you adjust to new situations and enviroments. modern rpgs will give you the answer if you struggle , they have "difficulties" that make it a baby walk so you can "focus on the story" which there barely is some. if you need to play on the hardest difficulty to enjoy a modern rpg game , that is a bad rpg game. DA inquisition was the last game i played that almost gave me that feeling. still you're right. so much is missing now
The truth is that RPGs are shitty video games. No, it's not deep, it's an really easy ego booster and tactics game that can't get even close to a real tactical or strategy game, don't talk like xcom is in the same category as baldur's gate, it's much higher.
V Ito Strategy snob? Perhaps roleplaying games arent your cup of tea? Roleplaying games are about making a character that has various skills and abilities, as well as inabilities, say a Rogue who can pick locks and hide in shadows, but is not able to pass religion checks and cast clerical spells, something clerics, of course, can do. Your characters actions will have long reaching consequences, as described by stealing the Necropolis water chip, killing an entire city. A game like XCOM, part of another genre I enjoy, is you controlling a squad that levels up as the game moves along, but your squad doesnt have stories, their abilities dont open branching paths. They dont interact with NPCs, they dont make choices beyond where to move and what alien to feed lead. XCOM is a good game, but comparing it to rpgs and saying rpgs, all rpgs, are shittier than it is frankly idiotic. They're two different genres, and are barely comparable. They are comparable in their rpg elements, such as charscter customization and leveling, in which case I say that almost every rpg I have played is more of a customizable experience than XCOM. And to reverse your ill comparison back on you, by the logic that XCOM and every rpg are comparable, XCOM is shittier than almost every rpg in terms of its leveling and customization.
for me RPGs are about character development, item interaction ect, If i want a tactical game ill go play xcom or something(which i like btw) but xcom sucks if you like a crunch numbers and figure out item/skill combos ect or develop a story/plot for your character. How can you say a game like Dinvinity Original sin is not deep or is 'really easy' rofl its one of the hardest games I have ever played, its a mental challenge.
Good video. Completely agree, I love the old school titles. Planscape Torment is my all time favorite RPG. Tyranny is great. I wish it had taken off.. I've beaten it twice now. The different paths to take, the conquest at the beginning. It's such a fun game. I honestly hope they continue the game.
I found your channel yesterday, and have had a great time watching your videos. The different ways you know how to say "taking a shit" had me laughing pretty hard, man haha
I've always wanted a fully fledged rougelike rpg. And the story you told about your dad sounds a lot like what I was thinking. Someone needs to make that game!!!!
Strat-Edgy - I have only found Game Bliss in two games, Fable and Skyrim. I was also a D&D player way back in the day, so I deeply understand. I think that the MECHANICS are the way to get this done. What I mean is that the GAME would stay the same BUT the ENGINE would change. You'd start by choosing the MECHANIC and play the game through it. Shooters would shot and RPG'ers would ISO. You could choose ALL RPG or Mixed. Purchase a DEEP Dialogue pack, Download the Shooter Plus Engine or Port it through an Emulator that would push the graphics back and allow for completely different engine. I get that this is crazy hard, but I've seen how the industry is fighting against taste and globule appeal only to produce nothing for a bunch of Gamers who only play Video-Games as a past time.
This was enjoyable to watch, thank you. I think about making real RPGs computer games, but I'm always discouraged by all the time lines I would have to code for.
Because of old RPG's, I still save potions of all kinds in my inventory just in case I may need them.
5% resistance to frost even when my character is pretty much already immune to it? Sure, it doesn't weight much.
Potion of strength even though I'm a mage? Sure, I may need it at some point to lift something.
Potion of archery even though I have neither a bow nor arrows in my inventory? Why not, I may pick one up and it'll be crucial for a possible upcoming puzzle.
Exactly. I usually get over-encumbered by the sheer amount of potions alone. Lol
lol, I only have max, 5 potions of each (which I think are useful for my character). i just finished playing Kingdoms of Amalur. Built and OP tank, so I didn't require alchemy/mage potions and ditched em.
I usually struggle in the first part of every game, im saving up money, runes, any potions. Just using what i find and make the best use of it, spending sometimes hours defeating a strong enemy, and trying to get something valuable or interesting. And after the second half of the game i realize i dont even need to use any of the stuff i saved up, and i only get the best stuff, because it looks cool. I completed the witcher 2 on hardest difficulty with the first weapons and armor you start in. Just for fun. :D
maybe because of the new (currently terrible to me) design?
I'm okay with a mix of Action & RPG elements and I love Skyrim and the last 3 Fallout games, but I agree that results of your choices need to be more long lasting & consequential. Attacking places that were formally neutral to you should cause the residents to remain hostile. Said hostility should either be permanent, or difficult to atone for. In Fallout 3 if you made Paradise Falls hostile it was irreversible. Fallout New Vegas' reputation system also worked just fine.
I think that RPGs should have some enemies that stay weak in many areas of the game, others that level with you, others that are introduced as you level up, and others that level up permanently with you. Some locations should be guarded by dangerous enemies that will kill you quickly if they see you.
Fallout New Vegas had enemies north of Goodsprings (where you start) that you didn't want to face as a low level player. Following the road south was the best bet if you wanted to survive. Deathclaws were nearby, close enough to see you, if you went down one of the roads north (you're repeatedly warned by NPCs & signs), Cazadores are guarding the other road north from Goodsprings. Both could kill a low level player quickly, were faster than you,
South were Powder Gangers that wouldn't bother you if you hadn't pissed them off, and keep your distance. Powder Gangers also were weak enough to be killed by a low level player. Geckos were also south, but a low level player could handle them as there weren't enough to realistically swarm the player.
Finally someone who also thinks that most AAA RPGs don't deserve the title "role playing game" any more!
When some people said about the upcoming Cyberpunk game that it makes no sense to have a character creator in a first person game I was once again reminded that most people don't roleplay in role playing games. When I play MMORPGs I am part of a tiny minority as a Roleplayer. RPGs are not RPGs any more. They are not supposed to be about combat, they are supposed to be about immersing yourself in a fictional universe, play a character separate from yourself with their own personality and backstory in that universe and just roleplay. To me Leveling and stat systems shouldn't be what makes a game an RPG, it should be role playing.
Yiliacat 2000 They’re wrong about cyberpunk anyways, cuz you see your character in cutscenes
There is a BIG difference from a character creator than customizing the looks of that character which will be played in FP, so I think there is some confusion when the game has been criticized in that aspect. For the cutscreens, the player will have ZERO control. On top of that is the player interested in playing the game or watching it as if it were a movie? Personally I find it rather difficult to roleplay a certain character when forced to play it in FP. The only immersion I get is if myself is personally in it; not the character I create, if that makes any sense. Instead I have to utilize the imagination I once used back when I played tabletops during the late 80s/early 90s. Small world, GURPS was one of the games our; my friends & I, DM took us through shortly after it's release. Also played D&D, Marvel, Star Wars, Top Secret, & my favorite Ghostbusters. Great DM, great times! The first PC RPG I played; which I also defeated, was the mighty Baldur's Gate. That game measured up to the tabletops I once played, which I tend to use as reference when comparing video games set in the genre. Both Fallout 4 & Witcher 3 failed when compared. Folks these days think all you need is a good story, but a RPG needs all the components, not the cherry picked sections. Baldur's Gate just like the tabletops I once played all had a character; using Dr Evil's finger quote "CRE-A-TOR", Witcher 3 simply did not... DID IT? Fallout 4 had poor dialogue. Personally I think the last title that took video games to the next level was Fallout New Vegas. Such as providing an open world, great story, FPP/TPP, mods, etc... It did it ALL! Honestly I thought RPGs; especially those released after FNV, would take things to the next level... But it seems I have been wrong; instead, they have been dumbing down in one way or another... Never played Torment, but I have heard about it. ATM I been engaged in the orginal TES5; not the best, but it's decent... Good video!
Did they ever? Most of the so-called classic RPGs are made of 5% story nad 95% stats based, boring combat. Your characters journey thru the world. Whether it is Nameless from Torment or Mason from Call of Duty. Basically, every game is a role you play.
@@kofola9145 There is a difference to play a role and playing an Role Playing Game .
Roleplay is just having the name or title and act like such a person as a reflection in real life but in a Role playing game you play a role which must be set in the rules of the world that is created . You cant be a crimelord with an uzi and some 2000s crackwhores in a fantasy setting because the rules dont support such ways .
And every action in the world react logical to your behaviour . Action and Reaction . Everything has a consequence and that makes a role playing game so interesting . Especially what action you choose and what is the outcome from the unexpected.
@@Snyperwolf91 That is your definition. And that is what I am talking about. "most AAA RPGs don't deserve the title "role playing game" any more" Who is the judge? Well, you. And you have your own definition of what constitues RPG.
"most people don't roleplay in role playing games." No, they are roleplaying as their character. Are you telling me you run BG 2, pick paladin and then roleplay it like... make up your own story inside the game? Well, maybe you do. Anyway. The game is a dungeon master and you role play according to the game/dungen master. That is RPG.
And that is the case with almost every game. The game is a dungeon master and you role play according to the game/dungen master. Ergo, it is RPG. You are Shepard, you save the galaxy, you role play saving the galaxy as Shepard. It is a role playing game, RPG.
It seems to me that true RPG games go against all the principles of AAA marketing.
An AAA game is supposed to impress you with fancy trailers and make you want to instantly buy the game and play it. You just can't sell an rpg like that. RPG games (to me at least) is something I'm supposed to randomly feel like playing, investing some time in it and letting it grow on me. While an AAA game chooses it's players, an RPG game is chosen by players themselves.
That... I couldn't have said that better myself.
Шломи Кагерман I agree with you whole heartedly
Шломи Кагерман Wow! That was beautifully said!
No.
This sort of bias against AAA games just seems to me like another version of the ubiquitous bias against all big things -- big governments, big companies, big data, big pharma, whatever. I personally like really big things -- they aren't all great, but they are the only entities with the power to do something really monumental. And it's the monumental that is intoxicating and sublime.
Wait Fallout had a mechanic where I could shoot someone in the nuts? Why the F was this removed? I mean it's an m-rated game there was no reason to remove this. people were already exploding into Gore how would that hurt anything? there is literally a perk that allows you to make people explode into Gore.
FireFox64000000 yeah when you do that they said they dont need to have kid anyway
M-rated games back then would probably all be AO rated games now. The age-rating is less of a warning of some sorts as much as it is just another marketing tool. It's no secret that all the age rating organizations (who are all under one single age-rating organization) are in bed with the gaming industry. IIRC the age rating associations were made up of members of the AAA gaming industry.
Cus if you can shoot a guys balls then are you gonna shoot a girls vagina, and if the game allows u to do that then femenist would stir up a shit storm. It's just easier to not have genital mutilation that to have it.
You could target the eyes as well.
@tiago prates cowanThis is...probably not the reason.
Sounds like your father had a great dungeon master to build that consistency
You call that an RPG? This is an RPG, *pulls out a rocket propelled grenade*
Gold
*ARE PEE GEEEEEEEE!!!!!*
Both his types of gamers love RPGs. They just have very different meanings for the term.
Wack
You call that an RPG? This is an rpg, PULLS DICK OUT
I hate it, but you're right man. I just hope that for the small niche of us that still love RPG's, they'll still be made.
Your insights are truly invaluable though man. Much appreciated.
I'm part of that niche unfortunately......and even worse I'm afflicted by the There is no girl on internet syndrome(yes I'm a woman and proud to say it) so my tastes as a girl don't make friendship making easy with other girls that...by the way am I alone as a girl loving RPG and gaming in general,feeling lonely as a quiet minority.
Yeah, I'd imagine it'd be difficult to make friends with other girls as a female gamer. I haven't the slightest as to why more women are not into RPGs and gaming.
My fiance loves JRPG's. She's really big into the Xenoblade series and fire emblem. Also likes the Tales of series and Final Fantasy. Currently playing The witcher 3. I see lots of women gamers and many tend to gravitate towards RPG's. Hell, the female fanbase for persona 5 is crazy. Just gotta look I guess, there's a lot of you out there.
+Tark Gaunlets Are there really that many women/girls interested in P5.Can you link an article about that?
An article? Probably not, But I'd say 50% or more of persona fans I know are all women. It's not a small number either. JRPG's really seem to resonate with female audience. Xenoblade too I've noticed has a very large female audience.
Right off the bat he shows that scene from the beginning of Baldur's Gate and all I can hear in my head is, "Heya! It's me, Imoen!" haha
3:53 this is why pen and paper D&D is better then any game an AAA can make.
Flexibility. The problem is that unless we concentrate on the things that make RPGs great, RPGs will always be stale and bereft of choice. To think that RPGs have not improved in 30 years in terms of role playing is unthinkable. No other industry could get away without evolving for 30 years.
François Maspuche Depends on your DM but it needs rules or it ceases to be a game by definitiom
have a look at paranoia
Just make sure you play with the right group haha. Some D&D groups are really just kill and loot, kill and loot. That's fine and all but when you try to role play in a group like it most likely will be a bad experience for everyone lol
Unfortunately, computer gaming will never achieve the unpredictability of tabletop gaming because a computer game must map out all possible interactions within a limited space (a CD/DVD/hard drive/whatever), whereas tabletop can allow for anything the players can imagine. Which is where the illusion of choice comes in.
Also, the latest editions of D&D seem to be suffering from a similar case of dumbing down to appeal to a larger market.
The problem with games today is that most of them work on the fast food principle: get right to the good stuff, have lots of mindless fun and don't retain anything meaningful from the experience. Telling the average gamer that a game "gets good 20 hours in" is like asking him to break his back doing hard labour for 40 years to get a high paying pension on retirement. I understand the sentiment. It is all about escapism, and I fall prey to the craving for fast food games often myself, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize the damage that this expectation of games being all fun all the time does to the thesaurus of games today.
This time when the market will crash again, it will be the indie devs that save it...
Well 20 hours until it gets good is pretty horrible now as it was then, Kotor games, Dragon Age Origins, Mass Effect, Chrono Trigger, Persona franchise hell even heavy text games like Planescape Torment are all games that hook you in from the very begining. On the other side of the coin, you have "new Old school" RPG's like Pillars of Eternity, Divinity Original sin and wasteland 2 that even after hours into the game have failed to make me care about the story or world.
I think the issue what a lot of people now want from RPG simply isn't possible with current technology. People want to be immersed in a world and feel a part from it. Not read text or just listen and click from a bunch of options. When we have AI in games which you can talk to like a person and reacts like a person and worlds that are truly dynamic and alive, 'RPGs' will likely make a huge comeback.
@@Isythos Curiously those are the RPG games I certainly don't want to play. Much like everything else, I'm a defender of the Ideaa that there has to be a limit even to immersion. The promise of full dive VR don't impress me. ALthough yes I would play some VR games because they can be fun. But what's the fun in customizing a character you'll never get to look at? When I play RPG for the immersive role playing aspect of it, I play the tabletop version. When I'm playing a RPG video game I'm not making avatars, I'm making sons and daughters.
I think we agree on sentiment but you're word choice is somewhat unfortunate. Even games and stories with a slow start need to be good from the start. Rarely is the time you spend killing rats in the basement looked upon as the highlight of the game. But that part still needs to be engaging the story still needs to have hooked you to slowly start reeling you in.
what about the sims
After watching this I think I understand how Bethesda could have thought fallout 76 was a good idea.
Yes, it’s almost like it was a cash grab, not a product
You've become one of my favorite game analitists. Is that even a word? Keep up the good work.
Analyst?!
@@debmalyamitra353 good job.
Anal elitists?
@@anthonyburke4587 All the way down the rabbit hole my friend.
@@anthonyburke4587 wowww 😮 what the fuck🤣🤣
I've found that some people play RPGs for role-playing, i.e, they make a character with a backstory and try to act how they think that character would act; while others play RPGs for expression, i.e, they make an avatar for themselves in the gameworld and they respond to events and characters as they would, if they were in that situation.
This is something that players and developers should be aware of. I don't mind RPGs that force you to play a character, like The Witcher, I find it easier to role play when someone else has developed my character and their place in the world. But when I get to design a character, I make myself.
Also, and maybe this is just me, but I feel like "RPG elements" (e.g, leveling and progression) make real role playing difficult. Like if I want to play a badass cowboy in New Vegas who doesn't afraid of anything, and then I head north from Goodsprings and encounter Cazadors and have to immediately run away like a chump... well that sort of makes it hard to play that character then. I understand that these elements are inherited from tabletop RPGs. I just think lots of games would get better if we could divorce the idea of progression from role-playing.
Because then we'd find role-playing where we didn't expect it. I remember playing GTA4 with my brothers and my older brother actually made a persona. He got himself a nice black suit, got a baseball bat, and went around the ghetto beating up suspicious looking people. He engaged in role-playing in GTA at a higher level than many people do in Skyrim or Fallout...
I've just been rambling... but I'm going to leave it.
Without character progression they would need another way to give you that endorphin hit every handful of minutes. That's why you see progression systems in nearly every game because it is a super easy and unimaginative way to reward the player.
I wouldn't mind seeing a RPG without character progression.
Yeah I noticed with my nephews, nowadays roleplay is done in sandbox games because that's basically what kids do when playing with figurines in their room. So they kinda do light roleplay in MineCraft, GTA, ArmA and a whole bunch of online games in which you're free to do what you want.
Still without the online elements and the social interactions of make-believe, the game world itself doesn't react much to player's actions as there's no persistent world and these games are just not tailored for that.
Character progression is dual in RPGs, you have the classic character development in the story but also the one in the actual game mechanics, which reflects its ability to interact with the world and overcome its challenges in some ways. You can do without the second one, sure, just as P&P RPGs can tend more towards storytelling or game mechanics, but it's still something that's exclusive to the medium of games.
That's a really great observation. I think kids have better imaginations, so they have an easier time roleplaying in any game, even, like you said outside of games with figurines or playing with their friends.
However, I think that as we get older our motivations/methods of play change. I might be wrong in this assumption, but I think most teens/adults play games with a power fantasy moreso than any other motivation. And unfortunately, this has made it so game design has bent to cater to that fantasy. Thus, rather than promoting true roleplaying (expression), most RPGs tend to cater to a progression system that fulfills a power fantasy.
Unrelated side note, but I really feel like this is the cause of frustration in competitive multiplayer games. Players' strongest motivation might not be a desire to compete, but a power fantasy, i.e, a desire to dominate. This inevitably leads to frustration because in any MP game there can only be one victor and so in 50% of games those players aren't getting what they want.
How many good characters are static though? :P
There are many ways to recreate a sense of character progression in rpgs
The most obvious of course are the stats which rewards the gamer with a more effective characters performance-wise. Basically it is progression based on the game mechanics.
Another one is through "karma/reputation" system in which it create a sense of character progression via notoriety and having the world to adapt to your character instead of the other way around. Basically it is progression based on narrative flavor.
Powergamers prefer the former and this is why they enjoy games like Fallout 4 where stats progression are streamlined and much of the flavor-based "trash stats" had been pruned out of the mechanics.
Role-players on the other hand prefer the later and this is why they complain about Fallout 3-4 having zero soul or a "dumbs down" rpgs because they severely lacks the flavor aspect of role-playing.
As far as my opinions on the originals OP comment, i tend to agree, this is why i welcome cheat mods like character editors because it allows me play characters that i like to role play.
As an indie dev I agree with a lot of the points here, and it is a topic I have been thinking about. I think the real reason is a design issue and the traditional limits of bottom up design. From a computational perspective top down design is much easier and cheaper.
Information, including video games, has a flow to it. Multiplication is easier than long division, because of that a story that branches is infinitely complex and takes creativity to solve each new scenario as it arises. Something a conscious DM can do, but not something an unconscious system can do.
Why cant an AI DM do this?
@@massv953 Because AI aren't good enough yet. The closest we have ever gotten is AI dungeon. That one free game.
If you ever take the chance to play it, it's pretty hilarious in how the AI can mess up sometimes but at the same time, there are basically no rules. It is the most freeform a freeform game could be. With no limits it gets pretty stale.
AI don't know how to make interesting lore, they don't know when to challenge or make easy encounters for the player. It'll happen eventually but that takes time
This is why I really don't play or buy AAA games anymore. Honestly, when the skills required are reflex-based, I know one thing: it's going to be a pain. When the skills required are more the type of strategy you use, THEN I know I'll have fun. And I really couldn't care less about games like FO4. On the other hand, I own the entire Divinity series as well as Tyranny, and hopefully soon Pillars of Eternity and Torment, because I have so much more fun with those games.
I for one welcome our strategy game overlords.
Sega needs to bring back Shining Force games imo...best of both worlds, strategy and rpg! ;)
+Wicked Voxel If you like turn-based combat and playing with friends you should have a look at Atlas Reactor, it's basically turn-based 4v4 battle arenas.
matilija love shine force really good game
I love that Divinity Original Sin and OS2 are going back to Divinie/Beyond Divinity Style. I loved Ego Draconis and was sceptical when D:OS1 was announced, but the results are great. Larian implemented some of my ideas and thoughts into D:OS2 as I was kickstarting both games.
They respond to feedback, criticism and they even make constant Updates to show of current Updates on their UA-cam Channel. Larian Studios does not only make great games - they also show, HOW they should be made.
Also: Give Dragon Age Origins a try. Or Ori and the blind forest if you like Plattformers.
Im 100% sure this is just me but I had a hard time paying attention to anythinf you said here. The music was too distracting.
Talking about 'True RPGs' and *not* mentioning Dwarf Fortress adventure mode
Does it matter if i can throw a mangled cat corpse at my rnemy
you can wear your enemy, eat your enemy, break all his limbs by wrestling and smear the blood all over yourself while drinking it and puking, then climb a nearby tree an jump on him to finish. yep its all in df.
that's it, you are officially my fav essay channel regarding RPGs. All your observations are spot on, and vocalize all my thoughts perfectly.
Hey, Strat-Edgy. A bit of friendly advice, I found your videos by chance one day while looking through my recommended section and I'm really enjoying your content so far. The criticisms and ideas you share are very insightful, and it's refreshing and entertaining to hear them. But, I feel the music you use doesn't really suit the content you make. I feel it's a little bit too loud and in your face compared to what it should be. but besides that, keep up the good work!
Already under advisement. Changed the music with the latest video I released, and I feel like it works much better. Go check it out when you can and let me know what you think.
Agree, music is horrible. You better reedit and reupload the video.
the vocals in the background music sound like a mosquito buzzing around my ears (with headphones)
Other than that, great video.
Man, I love your vids. I agree on everything you mentioned. In my opinion, the only companies that rpg players can rely on nowdays are Obsidian and inExile, mostly because they consist of people responsible for best titles of the genere. I just can't understand, where are fresh new minds in this developer environment? I love those guys, but who would make good games, when they retire? I'm beginning to fear that.
"Go play some video games", well screw you sir, I just going out for work...
Yeah, Obsidian has made and been responsible before their studio opening, for some of my favorite games ever made. It's a shame that budget is such a problem for them. Titles like KoToR 2 could have been so much better if the well didn't run dry.
Tyranny though... Da fuq? That game is amazeballs.
Obsidian, inExile and Larian. Had to add that. Divinity: Original Sin and D:OS2 are pretty damn amazing too.
For hack and slash would had Crate(old members of the company who made Titan Quest) and of course Grinding Gear for Path of Exile(don,t like the free2play model though)
Hasn't most of Obsidian's good creative team left the company? Also thanks for reminding me about inXile, I completely forgot that Bard's Tale 4 was coming out.
"Where are fresh new minds in this developer environment?"
Okay then. Video games, like any other medium, change. They aren't what they were thirty years ago because the medium has grown, changed, evolved. There's a reason we still don't make movies like we did in the 1940s (the "Golden Age" of Hollywood). There's a reason TV shows are vastly different than they were in the 1950s (the "Golden Age" of Television). There's a reason jazz music is different than it was in the 1950s. That reason is because the people who came after were not the people who came before.
It's not out of spite that people change things in the medium; it's out of a desire to do different things, to experiment, to try something new. It's why we have games like Mass Effect, which took the things it wanted from old school RPGs (dialogue choices, strong narrative and characters) and blended it with more modern conventions and technology. I'm not saying Mass Effect is a perfect game--it isn't--but it is certainly is an important one.
When the guys at Obsidian retire, they'll be replace by new blood who have their own ideas of what to do. They'll experiment in their own ways, try new things, go different directions than the guys at Obsidian would now.
And whether or not you like what they do isn't important. There will always be people who prefer old school over new school, and that's fine. Like whatever you want to like. But in order for the medium to grow, we can't recycle what we did with Baldur's Gate or Fallout 1 or Final Fantasy 1 over and over again. We have to innovate, we have to change, we have to grow.
The background music starting at 3:53 annoyed me when it started the second time. It just doesnt fit the chilled way youre talking.
I'll share this classic video brother. Also I'm thinking about starting my own gaming journalism. Why? A lot of gaming journalism lost their passion and love. They went over to mainstream gaming. But if my Gaming Journalism company works... I would love you to join the ride. Why ? Because you have intelligence and passion in your videos. It tells me you truly love what your doing. But please think about joining and creating something amazing. If you join....... you will have a dun ride with me friend and our adventures.
O Wonderful World please do, we need actual journalism in this world.
Kingdom Come Deliverance dude....small studio with big heart and one goal: a true RPG world with freedom, choices, consequences, challenging battle based highly on tactics, planning, proper equipment AND skill, and no matter your "OP" end game build you still respect a small group of enemies' power in numbers unless u want slaughtered. You're just a nobody, never becoming god mode hero, and become somebody by actions and choices...good or bad. You can actually break the game by being an evil s.o.b. and killing the wrong important people. World is beautiful with the most realistic forrests/woodland areas ive ever saw in any game, not necessarly because of superior graphics but because much effort went into detail as if every tree, shrub, flower, rock, stream, bush, etc was placed by hand one by one instead of randomly generated from a pallet...
Im not saying the game is perfect, none are, but it was created as a real rpg period; love it or hate it thats all it is. But for those of us missing the real thing, by far this game blows away anything ive touched in nearly 10 years as far as properly designed evolving free world with real decisions, real consequences, and a great main narrative along with loads of sidequests (meaningful ones too, not "go here, get this item, come back, heres exp and gold. Ready for the next quest exactly like the last??) some of which can be a bit sketchy or gruesome if you find your way into the wrong crowd.
Cant sneak into the enemy camp?? Thats cool, wait till night and catch a stray patrol out alone taking a piss (all npcs do their daily routines as you would work, eat, drink, sleep, etc....oh and make sure to put ur torch away ) quietly take him out. After scavaging anything useful, grab his clothes and armor and put them on and walk in like you own the place...works a lot better if he's got a face covering helmet and you talk to as few ppl as possible that are sober (make sure you carry his body into the grass/woods and hide it so not to be seen, also helps to clean kill or do when raining as a large pool of fresh blood on the dirt path might raise an eyebrow too...and dont forget and equip his more powerful sword if the duel got bloody as a bloody blade on ur belt also raises questions). Yeah, its that detailed if you want it to be. All in all by the sound of this vid ur game values of rpgs are similar to mine...I HIGHLY recommend you look into this game and possibly give it a try i believe you would be quite satisfied
I concur! 10/10
I backed this game on their kick-starter (think i still have the beta/teaser version installed on one of my drives) an interesting game to say the least and was impressed for what they wanted to accomplish. I still found it lacking in a lot of ways as an RPG. Class building was meh and there was almost no character diversity either. Good boy or kind of a dick/murderer. Great as a medieval simulator though, the combat and world were pretty historically accurate.(which i think was the whole point of the game rather than to make a Traditional RPG) I think its mostly due to the developers writing your background for you essentially. I had the same gripe with the Witcher series as an RPG, I mean, I love that game for the story and world/lore but no matter how many times I replay it I will always be Geralt of Rivia. Its just a matter of either compassionate, apathetic or selfish Geralt. Also the class system in the Witcher isn't the best either though I did like the Alchemist style build thought that was pretty unique and interesting.
@@CygnusX1123 Yeah when I think RPG I always end up circling back to CRPGs like the original Baldur's Gate and the more recent Pathfinder. Hell I dont even mind the real time with pause/ click to move. Baldur's Gate 3 seems promising but it's using some wierd Divinity style spin on the 5e D&D rules that I cant say I'm a huge fan of but we'll see when they get further into early access.
Borderlands 1 had a lot of reading and some actually pretty entertaining dialogue. it kills me that they did away with that.
Still responsible for the worst horrid video game genre ever. The looter shooter. It combines few fun gameplay elements into a boring mess that shouldn't exist.
I think it's great for what it is
that genre may suck, but the game itself is one of the best co-op franchises out there up there with vermintide 2
@ToveriJuri shaddap, diablo is the reason for that. Looter slasher was going to evolve to looter shooter sooner or later. And borderlands isn't even the worst looter shooter. What do you play fornite?
I've just discovered your channel and I'm amazed by the quality and effort put into your videos.
One gripe though. The red bar at the bottom of all your thumbnails looks extremely similar to youtube's "Watched" bar.
I would've discovered you much sooner had I not thought I'd already watched the videos I'd been suggested
Holy shoot, This video was fantastic and I learn from the education video. This will definitely help me on my first person science fantasy realistic tactical RPG open world game I'm currently working on. Will you make more videos like these mate?
Absolutely. I'm probably going to make an indepth on Tyranny first, but after that I am probably going to dig a bit deeper into player segmentation.
O Wonderful World first person science fantasy realistic tactical RPG? way too ambitious for someone without a huge development company behind it. sorry bud. start small.
I would agree with Laura Gates, you'll never have the time and resources to see the end of it alone, even if you're highly skilled in multiple domains. Make an in-depth game design document and a prototype or vertical slice if you can, and pitch it to studios and editors and/or gather serious and motivated help to found your own studio and maybe push it through crowdfunding.
Kinda sad and ironic, that there's an ad for battlefront2 on this, when all I'm waiting for from star wars is a kotor3.
Lets just hope that persona 5, ni no kuni 2 and kingdom hearts 3, ff xii zodiac age become the door for the rpg genre to have a comeback.
As much I love those they are JRPGs which I would argue focus on different core values than western RPGs. I do however agree and I hope that those games will usher in a resurgence of JRPGs which are undoubtedly my favorite genre
I love how people say that a AAA rpg is action game with rpg elements, yet their favourite rpgs are entirely gameplay-focused, their narrative is brought by text. hilarious.
I hope you don't actually expect them to. I've never heard of the first two, but Square's track record for RPG development has been moving in the exact opposite direction.
@@milesbrien6867 persona? Really? I mean if you know the genre, you must be aware that final fantasy isn't the standard for jrpg's these days after xiii. As far as square enix goes, dragon quest is now their go to when it comes to jrpg
Am so tired of perks that give you 2% increase in damage in some elemental type that doesn't matter.
I got Shadowrun: Dragonfall from the Humble store.
I havent played many/any 'true' RPGs like this one. Hopefully its as good as the reviews say!
Stick with it, and I am willing to be that if you like story driven RPGs, you'll like this one.
thanks. the nearest thing I can think of that ive played is probably New Vegas..?
Looking forward to it!
Volcanus shadow run dragon fall is amazing.....
Eh, Its a little limited. I loved my first shadowrun returns experience, but it doesn't deliver too much complexity in terms of combat, dialogue and plot choices etc. Its kinda action oriented. I think dragonfall is the best of the bunch though, for story. Try tyranny or numenera for a more classic experience IMO.
Decent story though for sure.
Again late to the party, but just discovered your channel. I have always enjoyed RPGs that allow me to create my own character and create my own backstory. Since I was young I was fascinated with stories, I been writing since I was in the 4th grade. And what I loved about RPGs and what got me in them was the way I could construct my own stories, and play the character they way I want. I don't mind an illusion of choice as long as the choice affects the world around me and people respond to those decisions I made. What I mean is take for example FNV, Where's the Beef. There are multiple ways of beating the quest and you can go about it in different ways, but someone still had to construct all those different avenues. Difference is the world responds to you and your actions. You can go into the quest as an honorary member of the white glove society if you have a high enough Fame in the strip. Cool the game responds to me actually being famous. Or its the way older fallout games, even FNV, responds to my skills of choice. I have High Science and High Intelligence, I want the world to react to that. Instead of a game like Fallout 4 that completely ignored the fact that maybe I didn't want to play a soldier in the pre war. But a scientist who helped create the nuclear weapons that creates the wasteland they now must survive in ooo. I want to be in charge of my own stats, skills, personality, and character backstory in any RPG.
“Rarely in a game like Skyrim do you ever feel like a super badass knight decked out in full armour mowing through hordes of creatures.”
Most people’s last Dragonborns laugh hysterically as they one-shot everything in sight with daedric or dragonbone swords, or a wooden spoon which is more powerful than the other two, obviously.
Thing is, it really does get super easy at some point.
Skill based games when it gets easy, it's because you've become a lot better. In RPGs where numbers and stats determine your character, when it gets easy, the game is doing something wrong. It should constantly challenge you.
@@alephkasai9384 If you're into skyrim but want something constantly challenging, try Enderal. Free to play on Steam, you just need to own a copy of skyrim. the world doesn't scale with your level like in skyrim so some areas are hard AF / borderline impossible till you get good.
Strat-Edgy Productions I just found your channel because I was hoping to make a nonprofit RPG and I have to say, you have some of the most high-quality, and enlightening game-design videos I've seen! Keep up the good work!
Two issues are being mixed up. Mechanics are mechanics, and role playing is simply story that you play through where you get choices that meaningfully impact the world. Though one could argue a linear story is also roleplaying. Regardless, any kind of game mechanic can be RPG. Which would make many "adventure games" also RPG. And take say a game like Beyond: Two souls, I would say that's a RPG. But it's not turn based, no stats or equipment.
I would argue that choices don't need to have a meaningful impact on the world. The choices in an RPG should be there to allow you to react, and behave as the character you are roleplaying as. Instead of having a small handful of drastic chocies, have lots of choices with smaller, but diverse outcomes.
@@thelordelric8424 So as long as you have different response choices, even though they don't do anything, then it's RPG to you?
@@firstlast-cs6eg sort of. Action requires reaction, what you do would need to have consequences, but they don't have to be on a grand scale. They can be smaller, and more down to Earth.
You explained what makes BG combat so great so well (~13:50) I still remember how I barely managed to enter Durlag's Tower and ***barely*** made it alive - heavily pushing my party beyond its skill level.
God this is a bleak channel. I've been bingeing it since I found it today, and it is just so sad.
Why?
Exactly why i became detached from Dragon Age, Mass Effect and Fallout...... The Witcher 3 is the only AAA game i played in the last several year (and i actually enjoyed it, despite it not being an RPG in the true meaning of the word)
The way your dad played sounds really fun. We’re tge rules for that version simple since it was the start of the craze. I always wanted to get into dnd and rpg is general. Do they still make the printouts by this dave arnesson? It sounds like a great way to get into the game. I loved this video, your dad sounds awesome.
Hey Stat, I'm about to play Fallout 1 & 2 and the first Baldur's Gate. I'm having great expectativas for them, and I'd like to know if you could recommend me more RPG games to play (I've already played and replayed New Vegas btw).
Whelp, first I would play through Baldur's Gate 2 the minute you finish the first one, and try the expansions as well, they add a little something to the lore, and aren't great, but at least entertaining. Planescape:Torment is next on the list, and once you are done with that, I suggest you try out Neverwinter Nights 2, and the Mask of the Betrayer expansion. Once you hit the classics, hit the unknowns. Here's the short list:
Arcanum (fallout in steampunk fantasy)
Gothic 1 and 2 (and if you like them, definitely give part 3 a go)
Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines
Shadowrun: Returns
Shadowrun: Dragonfall
Wastelands 2
Dark Sun (www.gog.com/game/dungeons_dragons_dark_sun_series)
Tyranny (like whhaaat)
Torment: Tides Of Numenera
Many thanks :D
ah fallout 1 and 2 games so loved and praised and a part of peoples childhoods that people can't take of the nostalgia goggles and see them for how clunky, poorly designed, generic, and over all low quality they are
Icewind Dale, classic Dragon Warrior on NES, Final Fantasy 1-10, Chrono Trigger, Ogre Battle, and Secret of Mana. Many of these are easily available on emulators. Just don't buy DLC Age Origins (Dragon Age.)
Frozium If I could give u 1 more recommendation Its :Dragon Age Origins(Don't touch the sequels, they suck balls)
Story, Companions,Choices. The game nails it.
Hey thanks for this video. I especially appreciated the story about your dad's RPG group. Makes me miss the old days of playing BG 1 and 2, and the first two Fallout games. I think the easiest way to explain the difference between old and new RPGs is that the old RPGs were more like simulations where the consequences of decisions would eventually be clearly laid out to you, while the new RPGs are more like linear movie experiences. Sure the new RPGs give you some intense thrills for a moment, but once the game is over there's no replayabilty except some shallow collectibles. With old RPGs, you could try a completely different route, with totally different results. Anyway, this video was great. Keep it up!! Just subscribed.
How to fix this terrible industry for 2019:
1) Never buy anything from Activision, EA, Konami, Ubisoft, nor Warner Bros (if there is any other publisher you don’t like, add them to this list). Any game from them now will have ruined potential and will always be badly designed on purpose to sell microtransactions, lootboxes, and cheat codes. Create the stigma that anything with these publisher’s name on it is a lesser product because it’s true. If you absolutely NEED to have one of their games but still want to get it legally, wait about a year until the game is on sale with included DLC or (preferably) buy a used copy.
2) Never pre-order any game. Waiting until the game comes out to give them money will force them to make sure it’s a functioning, bug-free (as possible), complete game.
3) Wait until said publishers are downscaled/bankrupt from lack of sales. Even if they change their ways after suffering financial struggles, they’ll just go back to their current agenda once they’re back on top again. Let them burn in bankruptcy. They never cared about you. Don’t give them the satisfaction.
4) Wait until they’re forced to sell IPs and franchises to better publishers in order to cut costs from going under. Developers let go from this should also be given employment opportunities from said publishers. This is, unfortunately, the only drawback to this plan as there’s no telling what will happen to said franchises and developers.
5) Support indie creators and lesser known studios who might not be creating the most visually impressive games but clearly have passion for the product they put on shelves rather than creating games for the sake of earning money.
6) Spread. This. Message. Feel free to copy/paste this comment anywhere it’s relevant! Anyone who says “this won’t work” is doing EXACTLY what these publishers want. The moment you give up and think uniting against exploitative and terrible business practices is fruitless is the moment you lose. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. This has worked before and it will work again.
What if I want to play DDR at my local arcade? Should I stop just because "konami is bad"?
warner brothers constantly delivers good games from good develops Ubisoft makes a good game every so often same for conami and activition blizzar while they are not my kinda thing make good games that a lot of people like and there are a lot more publishers that could be included in that list or that shoyld nor be trusted actually most publishers fall on that list
agree with 2
sure but all the developers they own will disappear as well
4 sure i guess
the indie market has alower ratio of good games to bad games if say aaa makes a classic per 1000 games indies will make 1 per 10000 theres just a lot more indie games and its really easy to ignore the sitty ones but yeah innovation always comes from small studios always been like that
yeah i guess if it was more accurate but it wont work cuz shit head casuals dont care that call poopy 20: the return of boredom is shit and bad for the industry they only care that it has zombies and that it looks ever so slightly in and irrelevant way better
Vincent Valentine fuck off, ubisoft makes some good games, and warner brothers has mortal kombat so yeah, fuck the other 3 though, all fhey make is trash, except call of duty
"Ubisoft makes some good games"
Ha, people weren't saying that when Unity came out.
@@InhabitantOfOddworld Unity is the best assassin's though, even to this day, i hate the rpg elemnts and the hilariously huge maps that kill time for no good reason, which is why i use trainers, i got no time for stupid grind
2:57 We totally have the ability to make persistent worlds, as many roguelikes have such a thing as "world saves". I'd recommend playing Dwarf Fortress, especially in Adventure Mode, as it's very much a world simulator and the world persists after your death. Plus, it has other things you mentioned, like damaging specific body parts for different effects (it has realistic damage, so that a sword can cut off a hand, while a mace will just beat it to a pulp). Or you can wrestle to keep them from using certain body parts, or, if you don't want to fight yourself, you can just make a character that's good at making music and use your bardic talent to form a murderous band to do your bidding. The game is constantly in development to add more features, you just have to be patient, and also be willing to put up with ASCII graphics.
The Problem is, AAA titles focus on Graphical Fidelity over gameplay, and story.
This is so true... I really fell in love with the narrative driven RPG games of the SNES era, and I can say that as graphics have gotten better, story telling has gotten more convoluted and weaker.
@@anthonydelfino6171 I couldn't agree more - most AAA games today can't tell a decent story to save their lives...
@SeasonedGamer I remeber when games used to take skill, and challenge the player as well.
I can remember in the mid 90s be awed by the graphics of the RPG games coming out on PS1. Parasite Eve and Final Fantasy VIII come to mind as ones that really blew me away, but when I think of how things have gone in just the Final Fantasy series, X seems to be the last one where they were able to tell a really compelling story AND have good graphics. Look at what a mess XIII was despite being visually beautiful. XV had a similar problem of "look how real this food looks! Also we forgot to add the actual story into the game, please see the anime series and box office movie"
"the scroll of Taiwu" and “Shenmue” are basically the game(s) you wanted at min 5.
Because games like Mass Effect are "action" first "RPG" second.
The first Mass effect was more RPG than action, the rest I agree were more action orientated.
It is both
Even the third is a full rpg just with a good fightsystem :DD
Borderlands is a semi rpg not mass effect
This channel has the subscriber count of an amateur gaming commentator but is at the pinnacle of the UA-cam quality hierarchy. Really smart stuff and nicely presented.
So what are your opinions on the direction of the Elder Scrolls games?
I actually have a video that goes really indepth on this, but TL:DR, it's not promising.
Ironically, in The Elder Scrolls Online you can change the world, but you doesn't have too much choices of how to change it. Mostly what happens is that usually you arrive to a town infested by monsters and if you do a series of quests, the town is cleaned and people can prospere in that town.
So you can perceive the change, but if you make the quests, you always end saving the town, I haven't seen any quest where your decisions can destroy a town permanently. Most of the decisions only have consequences on the dialogues or with the story of a single NPC, nothing world changing.
The old RPG's that will be remembered forever fondly were projects of love. Flawed, far from perfect, but with so much passion and enthusiasm poured out into them you cant miss it if you tried.
Hence sub-genres. Action-Rpgs and such.
I got to play what ever games my older siblings bought and got really into the stories and big franchises. Then playing their older games it turns out were much better compared to their latest releases.
Watching this makes sense why I can't find any new games that are true RPGs!! It's why I plan on buying old games because they seem like so much fun.
Games with pretty graphics be dammed!! Bring back the variety!!
And The Witcher 3? what is your opinion on it?
Maybe in the next video :)
I'll be looking for it :D
Not an RPG in my opinion, just an adventure game with very little of RPG in it.
Dal True. Has a lot of fanboys but its not a real RPG at all. More like a story driven adventure
+Dal Ok, I'll bite. Explain to me how TW3, a game that offers multiple forms of progression (leveling, skill trees, passives, gear & upgrades, crafting & gathering), choice and consequence in even the seemingly most inconsequential sidequests, a huge focus on exploration, storytelling and characterization as well as having fantastic worldbuilding that you as a player can directly influence, is not an RPG.
Still holding true as much as it did 3 years ago. Preach on.
But where does Japanese style RPGs fit into this?
I think he only focuses on wrpgs.
Jrpgs are more like an completely different genre. They re derivated from rpgs but " not real rpgs"
@4:05, describing a dream game quote, "...where every door was enterable, every character had a routine, and the interactions were believable and life-like..."
I realize that this video is about AAA games, but I think that... pretty much describes the Adventure Mode in Dwarf Fortress. It sounds to me like it is evolving into something that may one day be considered more of a world simulator and a work of art than a game. Despite the primitive ASCII graphics, it's easily one of (if not the) most complex game ever created. I suppose it's not a coincidence that it's about as far from an AAA game as you can get.
I'd say CD Projekt Red are pretty on point when it comes to RPG + AAA
witcher 3 , their biggest project ever created is not even the best representation of a proper Role playing game. From what I seen with Cyberpunk 2077 that look like a proper RPG than witcher franchise. so yeah, they have long way to go to make a proper RPG with AAA standards.
Great video and don't you dare apologize for the length.
Funny thing is, I hate online shooters because they're too slow. They're fucking boring because you spend so much time without the goal being in front of you. Most of the time, getting good enough at the game for it to be worth it means that your goal is somewhere you had no ability to predict shooting you in the back of the head. Boring. MOBAs are the same, only worse because you're locked in for 30 to 60 minutes. I don't understand why they get so much attention, while mortal kombat lags behind. Mortal Kombat is competitive play without the bullshit, because matches are quick enough that you can constantly be learning from your mistakes, and you cam actually see what's going on 100% of the time. Football players aren't blind folded half the time, so why do the most popular e sports so often revolve around just being lucky enough to actually get to see your opponent before they see you? Its dumb and a waste of time. But, in story driven, single player experiences, that stuff doesn't feel like a waste of time, because the space between you and your goal actually serves a purpose. So yeah, I like skill play, but I'm really impatient with it. But I have a lot more patience with a game that's going to reward me with an experience I'm going to carry with me. What kind of gamer does that make me then? Cause I'd love Telltale games to have some skill play thrown in, as long as the core experience didn't suffer. I love Ninja Gaiden Style interaction, Mario 64 is my favourite game because it's all about skill play and not feeling like you're walking in sludge the way some rpgs feel especially mmos like WOW. I don't think I easily fit into those categories.
just different audiences , I love RPG`s but shooters (some of them not all) have great intrinsic tactics that some use and some don`t , you can abuse this against people who don`t see it , and MOBA`s , well I played little LOL but I played lots of DOTA , and the strategic/building level of DOTA is extreme , you can to a fogged area and think ,FUCK! this guy was just luck that I didn`t see him , but acctually you shouldn`t go to somewhere where you have no visibilitiy of the area unless you know your enemies are up to something else instead of potentially being there , just an example.
Just found you on UA-cam. Love the video man! Especially this one. I've been saying for years. Once the graphics became the emphasis, the depth of the games suffered.
You're right about most of it, but Mass Effect WAS an RPG in every meaningful way an RPG is an RPG. No meaningful choices? You can wipe out one or all of 5 races, and let almost every one of your companions die. That's the most meaningful choices a game has ever had.
Mass Effect had the most morally difficult and impactful choices out of all games ever
Kids... Go play a real RPG like Fallout. YES, kids, there were an actual Fallout RPGs before Fallout 3. Whole two of them, duh.
@@phobos2077_ F1 and F2 werent anymore RPGs then New Vegas. And what does that franchise has to do with Mass Effect anyway?
I agree, Mass Effect franchise, specially the first one were RPG's in every extension of the word, and for a heavily narrative driven story, the amount of choices were amazing, granted most of them didn't have a big impact, but the game still acknowledge even small choices and that is a big help when you want to immerse the player. Like in my favorite RPG of all time Vampire the Masqurade Bloodlines, sometimes the biggest reward is not a weapon or an upgrade, but the outcome dialog itself.
Billy The Bastard, my god, you really are a jerk, aren’t you.
That's why I like level-less games, example: BotW, your own skill get better with time... you get more hearts and such, but nothing else... it's you getting better or just stop playing then...
"Women would no longer mate with him" that's a weird way to say that...
One of the reasons why I like tabletop RPG's is because of how unpredictable they can be. Unless a rulebook or GM specifically says you can't do something, you can always attempt to do something. Likewise, aspects of the game can be discarded or added if the group finds that gameplay would be improved. When creating a video game, only so many options can be implemented because of technology, time/budget restraints, whether or not a developer thinks it's a good idea to include it, or simply the creator didn't think of that particular option. For example, if a quest says to get rid of a dragon, a video game would mostly likely interpret that as "kill the dragon", or in rare cases, allowing a player to persuade the dragon to leave in a limited amount of ways. In a tabletop RPG, however, since there are no technical limitations preventing the players from tackling the problem in a near infinite amount of ways, an open-minded GM may allow players to solve the dragon issue by slaying it, telling it to leave, paying it to leave, convincing it to live in harmony with the neighboring village, seducing it (I have tried this. It would have worked if the thief hadn't failed his sleight of hand while attempting to steal some of the dragon's gold while I was telling her how absolutely gorgeous her scales were.), teaming up with the dragon to solve other quests, teaming up with the dragon to burn down the village, or even ignoring the dragon problem entirely.
Being as limitless as a tabletop RPG also creates obstacles that the creators weren't anticipating. In one game I played, we were traveling through a cave, and every time we crossed a bridge we burned it down, because why the fuck not? Well, after doing this for two sessions in a row, it is discovered that we had been going the wrong way, and had to backtrack. There was just a few slight problems: there were no more bridges, and we lacked the materials to build bridges. So, we had to figure out other ways to cross the gaps, which ended up making everything more interesting.
Sometimes, you just can't beat your own imagination.
11:04 - 11:35 FO4 still does that, though. Playing on harder difficulties actually makes it almost mandatory. FO4 is absolutely an RPG, even if it's incredibly watered down and poorly written.
Also, "true" RPGs? You mean that shit that can never *really* be ported to a purely digital format unless a developer can figure out how to make the perfect AI dungeon master? "RPG" is a vaguely-defined genre from the start, there is no such thing as a "true" RPG.
Bethesda RPGs can be some of the best RPGs out there, if you actually go into them intent on roleplaying and not just playing an action game. Yes, they absolutely suffer from plenty of the issues outlined in this video; and yes, you pretty much HAVE to download two dozen mods to tweak the experience for your desired playthrough - but no other RPGs that I have *ever* played have allowed me as much freedom to roleplay with actions, rather than dialogue.
For me, Roleplaying has the need of the world actually changing with your actions...Fallout 4 and Skyrim are terrible at that.
What you talk about in the beginning of the video is something that I've been saying fot some time, but the games you use to say "these are not RPGs" are in fact the BEST representations of RPGs on video games. If these aren't RPGs, well...no game is...actually, I do htink that there is not a single game released that really is an RPG. They only have some elements of it.
And you are absolutely right about categorization.
I never got into videogames, what exactly can they do that you can't do in a tabletop? Story modules aren't even that fun. It's just more interactive when you are the creator of the world and story.
I agree. Not many experiences can compare to tabletops.
marshma llowsxoxo The one thing that video games can do that a tabletop experience can't do is give you a full-on visual representation of what you are interacting with. Tabletop stuff is great and better in many ways. I personally don't need a visual representation. But you usually don't get more than a few hours of the tabletop experience at a time because it's reliant on a game master who has to prepare stuff ahead of time. So big sandboxes with lots of content that you can consume for something like 6 or more hours at a time isn't something you typically get in a tabletop game.
Tabletop is great if u have a group to play with...... good luck during it by your self.
also time constraints is a big issue , it is great if you DM and spend hours setting up an scenario, I don't always have time or friends able to play. So I pop in an video game RPG.
This is something I have noticed as of recent few years, thank you for putting this into words. With the rise of mobile gaming, mainstreaming gaming into lifestyles, e-sport.. and the large profits these mediums bring I do believe that traditional true to core game genres will die out, or soon be seen as indie or small scale. Much like films.
True words with the exception of CD Projekt Red. Look at how lazy Bethesda have become.
Also look how they forced extreme left morality into Mass Effect Andromeda.
Drizzt Do`Urden and Guenhwyvar at thumbnail are instant like :D
Persona 5 is a AAA title......and an amazing RPG
Rpg of the year
This was the comment I was looking for, heh. But sadly it's not a triple A title. Nothing by Atlus has ever been a triple A title. A, double A is pushing it. Sadly, oldschool RPGs/JRPGs tend to have middling budgets at best. Or they're Final Fantasy - which barely qualifies as real RPG anymore in recent titles.
..he said to a year old post..
RPG's have always been my favourite type of game. Your videos give me a lot of things to think about once I am skilled enough to make my own.
As usual, glad for the insight.
Really weird how this video doesn't seem to think Japanese RPGs count as AAA. Not like they've had a good half dozen large-scale RPG releases in the past year.
omgcandy16Kimicari0 which JRPGs have you played that allow you to create and customize characters, controls them outside of combat, make decisions that drastically alter the outcome of the story? Without all the above elements I wouldn't call any game an RPG.
I'm not saying that JRPGs aren't good games worth playing. I just don't think they fit into the RPG genre IMO.
Please list the alternative genre that series like Dragon Quest or Shin Megami Tensei fit into if not your arbitrary definition of RPG.
There’s a reason that jRPGs are referred to separately from western ones.
I wish I knew what games you were showing during your monologue, some of them looked very cool.
Role playing games aren't that much different than they've ever been. The main difference really is how the game reacts when you make a choice. Moral or otherwise. The only true RPG ever made was called Alternate Reality (the city or the dungeon), almost every action you make causes the game to make a reaction. If you befriend one group you anger the other, if you act one way you piss off one guild and the other guild lets you join them. But beyond that, most games aren't really all that different today than they were in the early 80's. As long as you are playing the role of a character, and can interact in more than just combat, you're playing an RPG. Compare some of todays games with other RPG's in the early 80's. Can you consider Wizardry to be an RPG, using your criteria? What about Might and Magic, or The Bard's Tale? I don't think too many games would be considered an RPG if we looked at it this way. Besides AR, maybe Ultima....
No game is 100% RPG. But at least all games have >50% RPG. Being more close to a rpg that to any other.
Today's RPG's have >50% action. They are closer to action games.
amazing video man, it would be cool if you change the music or use it in a more cinematic way it would be damn amazing, you earned a new sub
If RPGs are going to turn out like Final Fantasy 13, I hope they disappear. That game is unplayable and the story sucks. Lightning was cool though.
“But first we need to do a history check.” I see what you did there!
what the fuck! what about jrpgs?
Space Ace Or visual novels for that matter.
Can you explain what really defines a j-rpg versus a western rpg like Baldur's Gate? I've never really understood.
Character customization on the main/central character.
I love them
Mike Liberty like Chrono Trigger
Now that we've had 30 plus years of refining mechanics, there ought to be some truly astounding RPGs out there. Yet it still seems like nobody ever got farther than Morrowind??? That's a trip
"AAA Don't Make RPGs Anymore"
Game companies simply cannot afford it anymore, it would take too long to make, and kill machines to play.
e.g Take the size of AC Odyssey, and make it truly RPG, even more so than New Vegas, and it would be the size of your whole ssd/hdd and need at least 2 cards in SLI or more to run.
The issue is that 'graphically' the game companies can expand exponentially, given new hardware and new gen's. For FPS games (which are my choice), graphics are king and everything else is secondary (proof=BFV/FO4/FO76/).
True RPG with stats/random balance/dialogue lines/choices/health/water/food/cleanliness/factions/consequences cannot be achieved in such graphically pretty games. We would have to go back to diablo II days graphically so to speak, to enable the RPG elements to run the game instead of how it works these days, where the 'prettiness' dictates the game.
TL:DR
Hardware/time/money can't keep up with RPG mechanics in today's ultra-pretty FPS games.
It's FPS or RPG......choose 1 only.
Tell that to Witcher III. I don`t think "Food and cleanliness" are rpg elements though. Just something the rpgs of old implemented. Same way an rts perspective with grid based layout and tons of endless dungeons are not rpg elements.
First of all, I am so, SO glad that somebody out there is saying "there's no RPG if there is no roleplay". I'm so sick and tired of the entire "RPG elements" bullshit of leveling up weapons and skill trees with no real impact to story or world. Thank you for that.
That said, it is kind of sad to see (again) Mass Effect not getting the credit it deserves. I do agree that some of the choices during the first and second games were basically ignored or underdeveloped in the sequels, but let's not forget they were there in the first place. I have no idea what happened with BioWare and EA during that time, but I do know their main writer left and there was some shit going on inside. It almost feels like those loose plotlines were supposed to have a follow up in ME2 and 3 but were dropped instead. My point being, ME1 did a lot of things right, it was a step in the right direction for AAA RPGs and had a lot of potential, and ME2 only followed partially. It went downhill from there, sure, but it proved that AAA RPGs could be a thing and, more importantly, that you could change the formula and combat and still have an RPG.
It will never be as deep and detailed as an indie, classic inspired RPG, but it could've been great.
Besides, it might be just me but I kind of want to see proper roleplay not attached to the isometric, turn based combat (as much as I love it). Ideas like top down camera, pause in combat, leveling up, inventories and looting, etc... we don't need any of those to make an RPG, you will never have innovative games if you stick to the same formula over and over. I grew up playing Neverwinter Nights non stop, and I loved it, but I kind of cringe when I see games like Pillars of Eternity, replicating a 20 year old game with no apparent innovations (I haven't played it, though, I might be wrong here).
I have to say, though, Divinity: Original Sin was a breath of fresh air to me and it felt amazing. It still is quite similar to the RPGs of old and I'd love to see anybody try something new, but hey, it was well done.
Roleplaying games only mean they have roleplaying. Being an isometric, grid-based, strategy game has nothing to do with it, and if someone chose to make all decisions quickly and not think about what they say or do, and they skip dialouge, they still could be playing a roleplaying game, they just wouldn't be using the roleplaying part. It would be like if someone played CoD but only used knives. It's still a shooter even if they aren't using the guns. Mass Effect 3, the example you used repeatedly gives players choices that changed what happens, so it's an RPG. Also, I have to say, even though most people wouldn't think of it, Telltale games are a great example of an RPG.
Logan Packard
You seemed to have missed the point of the video.
One series that does do, at least to a degree, the type of world effecting gameplay you describe is Dragon Age. I love that as they've advanced the game series across console generations, they've now set up a site where you can log the decisions you made in various games and each subsequent game recognizes those choices made.
For example, in my play through of the series, the Warden romanced Liliana, and he had sex with Morrigan at the end to save his own life. Then when I got to playing Inquisition, Liliana had entire conversations with me about the Warden and their love, and when I met Morrigan, she had a child. Additionally choices I made in Dragon Age 2 were talked about, and I had the ability to have Hawke look like the Hawke I played in that title when I ran into him.
I would have enjoyed it being deeper and more complex, but I do think there's only so far that consoles can actually take it before it's too many variables to program into a game. However having the choices exist and having them make a different on not only the game world the inhabit, but every game following is the right direction and proves that it will be possible.
I personally think your looking at this too black and white. I love real time open world RPGs, Ive played probably nearly everyone ever made. There is a vast amount of people in the RPG genre who want this very specific role playing experience, and that makes you very opinionated. Stuck in the nostalgia of what first defined RPGs. I personally don't like "role playing", I dont create a backstory of my character. I think the long dialog choices and relentless detail of lore and backstory is fine for some. There is also other people like me who do appreciate it but would rather actually be playing the game making real time choices instead of being stuck in 5 mins of text box dialog. I believe the fast pace of new RPGs is the future. Overalll customizing the character and freedom in the world are the defining features that make RPGs what I love and different then every other genre. I embrace adding RPG elements to every game as long as its well thought out and implemented. We see this with racing games even, which would definitely not traditionally considered an RPG and yet you can actually make a racing game an RPG. I really think everyone should be embracing innovation instead of fighting for a very narrow genre. That being said I do think there is a point where they strip down certain elements too much. I do think Bethesda studios with the fallout and elder scrolls are doing a great job of innovating and making the largest amount of content that we've ever seen in the games industry. I think as long as they don't stray any further away and start adding features instead of streamlining them till they are bare-bones we will be in a good direction. so that is a point where I think we agree. Streamlining is good when it makes things easy while not taking away from the game play element itself. Bethesda needs to bring back a few things for sure but overall they aren't doing too bad. dragon age inquisition is a good example of a great innovation in the RPG industry. While it was lacking in some places was a great RPG. Open your minds guys, dont fight change, just promote improvements to the gameplay elements we love and realize that that its okay to make nearly anything an RPG.
SacredTanakh You are talking about action adventure games. Not RPGs.
No, he's talking about RPGs. Just because a few individuals won't acknowledge them as such, doesn't make them any less so. If a game has multiple forms of progression (leveling, skill trees, passives, gear & upgrades, crafting & gathering), choice and consequence, a focus on exploration, storytelling and characterization as well as a world you, the player, can directly influence, it's an RPG.
Sure, let's bastardize the genre even more. What could go wrong, right guys?
Some people confuse going left or right to reach the monster, kill the monster with a knife or a pistol, (action games choices) with a real game choice (let the monster devour the village).
Even some choices out of combat are action based and not real choices. For example: You can kill the monster o persuade the monster to leave. Game effect: mission acomplish. No choice there, still an action game.
New RPG's shouldnt be called rpg because they are a new breed of action games, not of rpg's.
I feel like the best way to merge skill/twitch-based gameplay with roleplaying would be a multiplayer roleplaying game, you make a party online and have to strategize between everyone in real time combat scenarios that both reward in game stats as well as quick thinking and reactionary combat with multiple players all working in tandem to use eachothers skills to topple something like a giant dragon or something. In a way its kind of like dark souls coop where you team up with other players to fight a boss but you go through the whole game world together, combining your character's skills and your knowledge as a player of the areas to gain advantages against enemies. even having a way for another player to a DM role, playing a RTS style game in order to defeat the main players while directly controlling the boss style enemies. I think all of this can bring back that feeling of older RPGs with turnbased combat where you can observe the situation and strategize but with real time action oriented gameplay. magic items and weapons would turn the tides of a losing battle to your side, could introduce more means of defeating opponents, and could even change the whole flow of gameplay (like how in Morrowind you start out only able to jog like 5 miles but by the end you fly around in the sky at like 500 mph)
0:08 "True RPGs are..." WOW. Video STARTS with a violation of the No True Scotsman Fallacy. I knew it'd happen, but I didn't think it would happen less than ten seconds in. Or in the very first sentence.
In reality, it's not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but a mistake in the choice of words. What he meant is that PURE RPGs are a niche market, and that is true. Nowadays, most RPG's are action-RPGs.
Exactly. The way it's phrased this video is completely wrong. You don't need loot drops or X Y gameplay thing to have an immersive ROLE-PLAYING game. It can be done in many different ways
"What he meant is that PURE RPGs are a niche market" I think what he meant is that 'AAA Don't Make RPGs Anymore', as the title of his video clearly states, yet there are over 100 RPGs scheduled for a 2017 release and it'll take more than a No True Scotsman fallacy to convince me that NONE of them are both AAA and RPGs. (source: www.rpgsite.net/feature/5170-rpgs-of-2017-every-rpg-set-to-be-released-this-year-and-their-dates)
"In reality, it's not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy" And yet thirty seconds in he states "Mass Effect wasn't really an RPG...not a true one...". Replace the term 'RPG' with 'Scotsman'. Yes, in reality, this entire video is a TEXTBOOK example of the NTS fallacy.
Claiming that games like Witcher 3 are not RPGs because they don't play like D&D is like claiming that Left 4 Dead isn't an FPS because it doesn't play like Doom. I mean, it doesn't even require keycards to get around. And it doesn't even have a maze. The zombies don't even shoot you. WTF?
I would say "AAA" games/RPG (or a lot games in general today) have less and less deep skill attribute xp systems (round based long gone) and this is what RPGs used to be or had when I played these games. I agree with a lot of it. Almost every RPG tagged game today is actually an action-"RPG" and skill-/attribute systems are very often less important, and playing very often like a first person shooter. I believe he had a few good points in the video about it. Strategic/round based, char stats driven vs. YOUR quick reaction and action skills. Bethesda Fallout games are a good example. F3 was ok, NV was ok and somewhere better/worse. Ironically the good mods for F3 also changed the game play "more like a shooter" to me, F4 pff. It plays more like a shooter with a few "RPG" elements. I did like Planescape: Torment (but missed a bit "action") and liked F1/F2 or BG and NWN more compared to it. Never played Icewind dale back then. I really liked Gothic/Gothic2 but not Morrowind. F3/NV/Skyrim with mods as GotY/Ultimate a few years later.
"Almost every RPG tagged game today is actually an action-"RPG" " So "almost" every RPG (not all) are, as you freely admit, RPGs. Glad to see that you agree the title of this video is objectively wrong.
Interesting monologue. I figured I'd offer my perspective as a programmer. I will say this will get a bit technical but, I'll keep it as simple as possible. One of the things you mentioned early in the video was about player choice and persistent worlds that are in essence derived by player choice. Over the years the biggest challenge that programmers have had with developing applications was predicting what the end users would actually do with the software you've made. With greater broadband penetration and the advent of patching being commonplace we've had to worry about it a little less but still it's a big problem. We can't predict what users will do, in terms of games choices have to be limited otherwise the size and scope of the application would be astronomical. Giving players infinite choice would also mean the scope of the game would be infinite and therefore the size would be infinite. With the technology we have now game developers can do little more than creating the illusion of choice. Even older narrative based games like Bauldar's Gate or Planescape Torment do little more than creating the illusion of choice by using branching path functions that use else if/else logic ladders. C++ opens a lot of doors for us like allowing us to use pointers to dynamically resize arrays during runtime but the amount of memory it consumes can get astronomical, not to mention it takes a skilled programmer to use pointers properly in a big application without causing memory management problems. We can also simulate limited branching paths by using a series of complex classes but it still only gives the illusion of choice since the choices would be limited and chances would be that in order to work within the parameters of the current technology the path branches would probably have to be collapsed towards the end, which would defeat the purpose. Even with quantum computers we just don't have the processing power to execute programs that offer true freedom of choice or persistent worlds. I wouldn't mind discussing this further, so feel free to contact me.
It's defiantly true that with quantum computers, we could broaden general scope far beyond what we're capable of now. Even with that kind of processing power however; their still has to be a cut off point on available choices. The best route would probably be limiting to relevant logical choices rather than infinite choices. With sufficient processing power it could be possible to create dozens or even hundreds of possible choices that branch x*10^16 or even grater at the end of the a completed logic chain. Even then I think that's more choices than most gamers really want, instead of unlimited choice. Rather a broader range of meaningful choices. I mean, you could have an event or quest where the player is asked to complete an objective but choosing the option to sit at home and watch TV would just end in a fail state. Eliminating branches that would obviously lead to fail states. Also do away with branches that are illogical to the scope of the game you're creating. Limiting the scope of possible choices leading to x*10^3 in total X being the integer of the number of first options and subsequent outcomes including fail states, distributing the remaining number of choices throughout the logic chain. I'm personally not a fan of games that collapse their branching paths and Ex-machina the ending by giving you a choice between endings at the end (Deus Ex Human Revolution comes to mind).
Sorry, but no. You are being a purist.
You are bound to the idea of only pure breed RPGs getting to be called RPG. That's almost nazi.
There are levels of control you can have over the character and story. For you, you can't roleplay unless you are the character basically. For me, I don't have to choose everything my character does to feel like I'm roleplaying. It's just that your concept of what is needed to feel like you are roleplaying is different from others. Also, yes, you can play these games like you don't care about whatever is happening. Actually, you can play any game like that, and if you get stuck because you didn't read anything, you can just get a guide. People won't roleplay if they don't want to, even in a pure breed RPG game, which means that by your phrasing that "if you can play it without roleplaying, it's not a roleplaying game", no true digital RPG has been ever made.
So, your video is actually "AAA *Companies* Don't Make *pure-breed* RPGs Anymore". And to be sincere, I'm just fine with that. Pillars of Eternity and Tiranny were awesome games and I had a lot of fun playing them. Divinity OS 2's early acess/demo was *really good*. And if they make a great Dragon Age game, I will board that train right away, not because it would be AAA, but because it would be as good as the others. I just don't feel like whether Ubisoft makes pure-breed RPGs or not will ever be relevant to those who like the genre.
Rafael Calmon Yeah a true RPG is a game that has a lot of extremely meaningful choices that allow you to clearly define your character in many nuanced ways.
If a game doesn't have design choices that allow you to choose what kind of person you are in meaningful ways while allowing you to define believable motivations for what you do, then it's not a true RPG. An action game can have RPG elements, and you could classify it as a sort of RPG, but not a true one.
Just like Fallout 3 is not a true first-person shooter, because there's so many other elements that make it different from a true first-person shooter. But it is an FPS-like game. I don't see the problem with that, and comparing it to a Nazi ideology is just ridiculous and disgusting.
You are excluding RPGs that aren't pure RPGs, calling the latter RPGs and the rest non-RPGs. I'm comparing it to Nazi ideology based on the concept of denying a group or groups that don't fit a very restricted set of parameters, not relating it to the "evil" part of it, so saying it's disgusting makes no sense.
So, "If a game doesn't have design choices that allow you to choose what kind of person you are in meaningful ways while allowing you to define believable motivations for what you do, then it's not a true RPG.". *Then there are no true digital RPGs out there.* According to that definition, a true RPG has to offer choices that allow you to choose what kind of person you are. I've played many RPGs, including the several of the ones shown in the video. I'd say I very rarely get to make a choice that I want to. For example, I have to either be an asshole and let the little thief kid be taken to jail because I'm too strict or stop the guards so he can run away. I hate both of those options, but out of the 6 to 8 options I get it's the closest to what I actually want to do: stop the guards from beating and arresting a child while also lecturing him, taking whatever he stole and returning it to the owner without giving the kid away. And someone else may want to do something different as well, and every player will too because we are all different. But, the best we allowed to do in these games is to pick a set words we did not say and accept it as the only option, because we can't handle it exactly as we mean to. That's not freedom to be what we want to be, it's just a lot more options to be a preset . Following that, RPGs like the ones mentioned are just like Fallout with a lot more choices to pick, but still the same principle, a story on rails.
You want to know what a true digital RPG is supposed to look like? Don't play videogames, because our current technology can't create one. Instead, read novels.
In The Legendary Moonlight Sculptor, "Royal Road" is a VRMMORPG the implements a system in which you can act as you like and the world and AI will react to it. Nothing is scripted, the content is generated proceduraly as the world interacts with itself and with the player.
So, the overview is:
*Every RPG game has a scripted story, branched or not. Each has their own decree of choice, being the ones based on classic board RPG flow those who would offer the highest number of options.
Among those choices, some may have lasting consequences in the story, others in the current event, and some have very minor consequences. Although, not having any consequence or change at all kills the very purpose of having a choice, so in that case those aren't considered "choices".
But then, an RPG would be but an adventure game, and many were actually labeled as that for a long time. So choices aren't enough to consider a game an RPG, it has to allow the player to customize their character's parameters. Together, both those concepts have to be the main purpose of the game, otherwise the RPG part is just second plane.
Taking two examples, Fallout and Pillars of Eternity both offer choices and character's parameters customization. The former has first person exploration and real time combat while the latter has third person exploration and squad turn-based combat, but none of those is related to the concept of RPG. In the end, the only difference between the two from the perspective of the concept of RPG is that Pillars of Eternity has a much bigger amount of meaningful dialog options, which is what characterizes what you are calling "true RPGs".
Also, try to reflect a bit on your concept, because following it you are also denying the "Classic JRPG" genre, so games like Final Fantasy VII, Chrono Trigger, Super Mario RPG, Breath of Fire and Tales are not only not RPGs, but much less of an RPG than games that allow the minimum bit of "allow you to choose what kind of person you are in meaningful ways while allowing you to define believable motivations for what you do" like Mass Effect.*
And look, if you want to discuss game design concepts that much, at least read a book about it. I feel like I'm trying to explain why the area of a triangle is base.height/2. I'm bored already, and I'm supposed to be used to explaining things. So just know that if I don't answer it's not because I agree or have nothing to say, it's because I'm tired.
Rafael Calmon i agree i hate it when ppl say I'm not a rpg fan when the only games i play are cs go and nba2k17 which are both rpgs. I mean any game can be rpg if you want it to be you know? People are such nazis today.
I agree with jeremymd and also the term "nazi" shouldn't carelessly be used. Just my opinion.
KrOjah 1 Well, I already made my point. Whatever I add will just be meant to reinforce it, but I will refrain from that.
But in the world where people who label games are that purist, there would be no difference between games like Fallout and Call of Duty. If you were in the game industry and had to label games that weren't pure RPGs, but had a deep focus in typical table RPG charater development or dialog flow, what would you label them?
I think that's why the Shadowrun games from Hare Brained Schemes succeeded as they did; HBS accepted that there would never be a AAA Shadowrun game, went with an isometric, turn-based RPG engine, *and* had a pretty deep, international fanbase. And that's pretty much going to be the limit of genuine RPGs, going forward, and it's not going to be what WotC are going to do with the D&D license. The Shadowrun license was cheap; the D&D one isn't.
Unlike most, I don't think AAA games are dying; but they're going to be shooters, mostly, with maybe some RPG elements thrown in for spice. Levels, for a sense of achievement, unlockable stuff, like weapons and spells, that sort of thing. More of an interactive movie, really, with shooter levels to go from cutscene to cutscene. Not even Fallout 4, but something like Mafia 3, except without a defined protagonist.
And that format, for me, got a little boring playing the Wing Commander games.
The Witcher 3 is as RPG as you can get and as AAA as you can get. Nice try though kid. Also, why do you pretend like RPGs were ever a HUGE market share for Console or PC? They were not actually. it seems like they were back in the 80's and early 90's but, nope. For every big budget CRPG there were 20 Big Budget other non CRPG gams. Also if you do some real research you will see that more RPGs come out yearly now then they did 10 or 20 years ago. However most are not AAA titles. Kind of like how most RPGs you think were AAA were actually not. AAA usually means high quality high budget massive resources ( people ) working towards the game. Baldur's Gate was for example a medium budget game handed off to a third party dev team ( Bioware ) and overseen by a TINY team at Interplay ( Black Isle ). the main person on it was Chris Parker and 90% of everything on the game was done in Canada. That is until it went into crunch time testing and then there were dozens of people at Interplay testing it and working on it. Including my team who for some lame ass reason did not get in the credits.I do agree that it would be nice if Ubisoft and Activision had franchises that they released as often as Call of Dookie and AssCreed. If Ubisoft would dedicate resources to an RPG franchise the way they do to AssCreed and Far Cry that would be nice. Sadly the last Ubisoft RPG was horrible despite what the Hipster gamers said.
Zapp Brannigan It IS an RPG.. Just not in the traditional way of course.. What genre would you put the witcher into then if not it? Hmm?
Zapp - the oly thing that is UNRPG like in TW3 is that you are forced to play as Geralt. Other than that SINGLE thing, it's an RPG with real time combat. Also, Fallout 4 is shit and also an RPG. If TW3 did not have levels and just had skill points, I might agree with you. However as I said, other then not having accustom made character where you pick and choose stats, it's an RPG.
Meaningful choices? So is this about stat or story? Because either way, you are wrong. The story choices you make in TW3 matter in many ways small to huge. People live or die based on a story choice, the ending of the game changes based on story choice, the ending of the final DLC changes based on story choice. I guess you will name me other "RPG" games where the choices were more significant? Most people run to Chrono Trigger. As to the Stats not meaningful, have you actually played TW3?It could just be that you don't remember how many things changed in the game based on dialog choices and such. TW3 is actually one of the best games at making choices matter and have lots of alterations to the game world. Many RPGs just have a ton of different endings and nothing you do matters until the end of the game when your choices are checked to see which end movie you watch. TW3 is much more meaningful than that.
For those purists Chrono Trigger isn't an RPG either.
Personally, the games with more meaningful choices that I have played are the Witcher series and the Mass Effect series (specially on ME3, but some choices starts on ME2 and ends on ME3, so I cannot see them as individual games) but I have seen some commentary of other games, and Fallout 1 & 2 had more meaningful choices by far.
Zapp Brannigan how about the village destroyed by the tree spirits when you release her to save the orphan? Or participating in the assassination of radovid?
not only options and the development of a ROLE is what defines a good rpg.
but the ability to make you chain and emphasize with what the world around you in the game feels like.
i played since childhood video game rpgs and real life D&D and would never forget how honestly worried i was for my teamates at times of trouble. or how awesome it felt to fight off an ambush by using you instincs knowledge and creativity.
an RPG gives you more than 1 option to solve a problem. and should non stop make you adjust to new situations and enviroments.
modern rpgs will give you the answer if you struggle , they have "difficulties" that make it a baby walk so you can "focus on the story" which there barely is some. if you need to play on the hardest difficulty to enjoy a modern rpg game , that is a bad rpg game. DA inquisition was the last game i played that almost gave me that feeling. still you're right. so much is missing now
The truth is that RPGs are shitty video games. No, it's not deep, it's an really easy ego booster and tactics game that can't get even close to a real tactical or strategy game, don't talk like xcom is in the same category as baldur's gate, it's much higher.
V Ito Strategy snob? Perhaps roleplaying games arent your cup of tea? Roleplaying games are about making a character that has various skills and abilities, as well as inabilities, say a Rogue who can pick locks and hide in shadows, but is not able to pass religion checks and cast clerical spells, something clerics, of course, can do. Your characters actions will have long reaching consequences, as described by stealing the Necropolis water chip, killing an entire city. A game like XCOM, part of another genre I enjoy, is you controlling a squad that levels up as the game moves along, but your squad doesnt have stories, their abilities dont open branching paths. They dont interact with NPCs, they dont make choices beyond where to move and what alien to feed lead. XCOM is a good game, but comparing it to rpgs and saying rpgs, all rpgs, are shittier than it is frankly idiotic. They're two different genres, and are barely comparable. They are comparable in their rpg elements, such as charscter customization and leveling, in which case I say that almost every rpg I have played is more of a customizable experience than XCOM. And to reverse your ill comparison back on you, by the logic that XCOM and every rpg are comparable, XCOM is shittier than almost every rpg in terms of its leveling and customization.
for me RPGs are about character development, item interaction ect, If i want a tactical game ill go play xcom or something(which i like btw) but xcom sucks if you like a crunch numbers and figure out item/skill combos ect or develop a story/plot for your character. How can you say a game like Dinvinity Original sin is not deep or is 'really easy' rofl its one of the hardest games I have ever played, its a mental challenge.
true rpgs are tabletop rpgs. not video games lol
V Ito you, my man, have absolutely, literally, noticeable no clue about what you`re tryin to talk about here.
Good video. Completely agree, I love the old school titles. Planscape Torment is my all time favorite RPG.
Tyranny is great. I wish it had taken off.. I've beaten it twice now. The different paths to take, the conquest at the beginning. It's such a fun game. I honestly hope they continue the game.
Thought provoking stuff. Thanks for your in depth analysis, and hard work.
I agree. I hope more games start to cater to the niches that made them popular in the first place.
I found your channel yesterday, and have had a great time watching your videos. The different ways you know how to say "taking a shit" had me laughing pretty hard, man haha
I've always wanted a fully fledged rougelike rpg. And the story you told about your dad sounds a lot like what I was thinking. Someone needs to make that game!!!!
Man, watching this reminds me that I still need to play though shadowrun Hong Kong.
Strat-Edgy - I have only found Game Bliss in two games, Fable and Skyrim. I was also a D&D player way back in the day, so I deeply understand.
I think that the MECHANICS are the way to get this done. What I mean is that the GAME would stay the same BUT the ENGINE would change.
You'd start by choosing the MECHANIC and play the game through it.
Shooters would shot and RPG'ers would ISO. You could choose ALL RPG or Mixed. Purchase a DEEP Dialogue pack, Download the Shooter Plus Engine or Port it through an Emulator that would push the graphics back and allow for completely different engine.
I get that this is crazy hard, but I've seen how the industry is fighting against taste and globule appeal only to produce nothing for a bunch of Gamers who only play Video-Games as a past time.
This was enjoyable to watch, thank you. I think about making real RPGs computer games, but I'm always discouraged by all the time lines I would have to code for.