I miss the old RPG style.

[Blood Brain Barrier]

I have to laugh at anyone trying to defend the new action "RPGs" as being complex -or even more laughable, more complex- than the old, proper RPGs. If this is your opinion, you're just plain wrong and it's 99% certain you haven't even played a proper RPG. No doubt some 14 year old will come along now and accuse me of elitism, which is the usual response of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about to someone who does.

How old are we talking here? I'd say Skyrim was far more complex than Pool of Radiance, even though they are essentially the same game. Also streamlining is not always a bad thing. That's why people prefer a good GUI for their OS over typing in algorithms manually, even if the latter can offer more vesitility. Complexity is a matter of taste and function, not necessarily a requirement for quality.

Skyrim more complex than Pool of Radiance? Only in a parallel universe where the rules of logic do not apply could that be true. Just admit your fawning admiration for Skyrim is obscuring your sense of reason. You're already somehow hurt that I've accused less complex games like Skyrim for being lower quality, which I have not done.

 

[OrpheusTelos]

Me, too, OP. Me, too. >_<

I do think we'll see a few more in the coming years, though. Quite excited for Ni no Kuni, hoping Level 5 can redeem themselves for White Knight Chronicles.

EDIT: Incidentally, this thread makes me happy. So many awesome RPGs and RPG fans. :'D

 

[Bertylicious]

VTM: Bloodlines and Fallout 2 were very special games. They were funny and they were fun. They were also profoundly flawed which made them rather niche.

Morrowind, Baldurs Gate, all the rest were alright, they were good. Lets not get carried away though.

Let us also not forget the enormous achievements more recent games have made.

 

[Kahunaburger]

-Difficult combat system that explained little to nothing.
-Normal difficulty was too hard for a lot of people

It does boggle my mind that Dragon Age: Origins was too hard for people. It requires you to master exactly one tactic to beat anything in the game (two if you count kiting.)

I think alot of ppl tried to play it like an action rpg (on normal prob) Not pausing, just running around with their character only/mostly, and relying on the scripts for fellow party members. So naturally it's gonna be alot harder like that, then if you were playing with scripts off, commanding everyone on your own, pausing often..

Haha, sadly true. If that Bioware Command and Conquer game was being made by the same Bioware that made Dragon Age: Origins, I would half expect David Gaider to try and design the game so that playing it as a one-unit action game and playing like an RTS were (supposedly) equally viable options. And, of course, to fail miserably and wind up with an easy RTS with a wonky control scheme.

How old are we talking here? I'd say Skyrim was far more complex than Pool of Radiance, even though they are essentially the same game. Also streamlining is not always a bad thing. That's why people prefer a good GUI for their OS over typing in algorithms manually, even if the latter can offer more vesitility. Complexity is a matter of taste and function, not necessarily a requirement for quality.

I wouldn't really call Skyrim that complex (certainly not compared to a gold box game) because the actual level of player involvement is very simplistic. A tight, balanced, challenging experience that requires you to use all your options requires more complex gameplay decisions than a game that gives you a variety of options but never really tests your mastery of them.

Compare:

 

[Kahunaburger]

You can't get anywhere by using the same tired formula.

I agree. That's why I don't get the whole "turn all RPGs into non-threatening action games with familiar control schemes" nonsense.

The old has to be done away to make room for the new.

 

[Don Savik]

Mass Effect may have an engaging storyline (gather a ragtag bunch of antiheroes to save the world from overmind aliens *hurr hurr*) and memorable-ish characters, but the gameplay is Gears of War. In fact, I prefer Gears of War. All the special skills don't add any unique strategy to the game, its just different colors of damage (which you could do with gun headshots more effectively). The storyline/character emphasis and lack of deep gameplay make the series a very cinematic and flashy game......and it doesn't have much lasting appeal.

Considering a lot of gamers are in their 20s-30s I don't know why companies want to dumb down difficulty to appeal to a "wider" audience.

Edit: I see a hate for people nostalgia crying, and to me its that old games weren't generally better all the time, its just that the genre was ripe with games back then. To be honest, there aren't that many rpgs these days, and not even that many action oriented rpgs. We're seeing a lot of mmos, fighters, shooters, and puzzle-platformers and less rpgs and rts. Its more of an issue of what genres are popular at the time, and rpg fans feeling a bit left out.

 

[CAPTCHA]

Skyrim more complex than Pool of Radiance? Only in a parallel universe where the rules of logic do not apply could that be true. Just admit your fawning admiration for Skyrim is obscuring your sense of reason. You're already somehow hurt that I've accused less complex games like Skyrim for being lower quality, which I have not done.

A little hostile there dude. Just for the record, I'm not really that big a fan of Skyrim beyond it's use as a remedy for insomnia. However there's no denying Skyrim is the more complex game. Crafting, NPC interaction, the radiant quest system, all these are far more complexe concepts than anything found in a Gold Box game (and that's not going into mods which add the need for suvivalism and nutrient managment or whatever else people have drempt up).

Mechanically Skyrim is suprerior, therefore I must assume that you are suggesting Skyrim is inferior strategically. Well there is a lot to do in Skyrim in order to succed, much more than in a GB game. In regards to the combat system, they are two different from one another to truly compare. It's be like comparing chess to paintballing (mousetrap to tiggy?). The only common ground is the rules system behind it all. I can guarantee that Skyrim has a system more complex than a D20 running it. It's just a matter of transparancy. Like I said in my original post, its the flashy GUI compared to the basic command line. Both get the same job done, one just has a measure of tedium removed.

 

[Kahunaburger]

A little hostile there dude. Just for the record, I'm not really that big a fan of Skyrim beyond it's use as a remedy for insomnia. However there's no denying Skyrim is the more complex game. Crafting, NPC interaction, the radiant quest system, all these are far more complexe concepts than anything found in a Gold Box game (and that's not going into mods which add the need for suvivalism and nutrient managment or whatever else people have drempt up).

Although I think there's a distinction that needs to be drawn here between mechanical complexity and gameplay complexity. Skyrim lets you do a lot of things with a lot of variables, but the core gameplay is very simplistic - you hit things with basic attacks (or use your "I win" buttons) and chug potions.

Mechanically Skyrim is suprerior,

I also don't think Skyrim has very good mechanics. The RPG elements are the perfect example of mechanical complexity/gameplay simplicity, and the action elements are, if anything, even more simplistic in practice.

 

[Ranorak]

These older games surely had a lot more options.

But more options doesn't always mean more complex.
And it also doesn't make it better.

Now, before someone tells me that I must be a ADHD kid, as someone so delicately and totally un- generalizingly put, I play EVE-Online.
A game known for it's complexity and difficulty curve.

But in the end, I rather have a fun game with loads to do, and epic quests, then spend 15 minutes pondering if I should use a short sword, or a Kukri.

Complexity is more then just the number of skills, spells or weapon types.
People say that Morrowind is more complex then Skyrim.
I disagree. I have found plenty of fun and original ways to kill things in Skyrim, while in Morrowind the environment was static.

Besides EVE-Online, I play DnD.
I prefer the 3.5 version, but my party had never heard of a level up, or a D20 when I started playing. And I know they would have had a harder time learning 3.5. So I introduced them to 4.0. Far less "complex" but equally fun, because for them it was easier to get into.

 

[scorptatious]

I don't what it is with these nostalgia threads, but they just bug the hell out of me.

.

I know how you feel...it actually makes me angry for some reason

while I can understand the apeal of all this complex RPG type stuff....I think I'd still take a game Like Mass effect 2 or 3 any day (and come on..ME1 wasnt even that good, admit it)

actiony fun with "talky/cinematic/story" fun

I loved Fallout NV as well

I actually liked ME1. But hey, that's just me.

Which brings me to something I'd like to talk about in what makes a good RPG. I've been thinking about this thread for a little while, so I decided to give my feelings on them.

To me it's all subjective. RPG's are a very broad genre of games. There are games like say, FFIX, and then there are games like Dark Souls. Both games couldn't be more different and yet they are both considered RPG's.

I like both kinds of games myself, but there are most definitely people who prefer one over the other.

The same could probably be said about stories and characters in said RPG's. A lot of people on here state that stories and characters just aren't as good as they used to be in games. Again, subjective. To me, I found the characters and story in Mass Effect more interesting than the story and characters in say, Final Fantasy IV. Again though, that's just me.

My point is, people seem to be confusing opinion with fact when it comes to what makes a good RPG. While some people may not enjoy action RPG's and feel they don't work, others may feel the opposite.

At the same time though, I probably wouldn't mind seeing more games like FFIX.

 

[Weaver]

I have to laugh at anyone trying to defend the new action "RPGs" as being complex -or even more laughable, more complex- than the old, proper RPGs. If this is your opinion, you're just plain wrong and it's 99% certain you haven't even played a proper RPG. No doubt some 14 year old will come along now and accuse me of elitism, which is the usual response of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about to someone who does.

I'm 20 and you sound pretty elitist to me

but seriosuly....examples of a "real" RPG?

I guess, for some of us, the definition of an RPG used to mean "here, memorize these 3 rulebooks totalling 900 pages; then we'll play the game".

 

[Kahunaburger]

Complexity is more then just the number of skills, spells or weapon types.
People say that Morrowind is more complex then Skyrim.
I disagree. I have found plenty of fun and original ways to kill things in Skyrim, while in Morrowind the environment was static.

They're both pretty bad examples of RPG design, IMO. Morrowind is better because the exploration aspect is actually a lot of fun, but it's not like it succeeds as an RPG or anything. As you said, having a bunch of options does not translate into complex gameplay.

 

[CAPTCHA]

Although I think there's a distinction that needs to be drawn here between mechanical complexity and gameplay complexity.

But if the mechanics of the game allow for greater variety in gameplay it introduces a new dimensions and thus complexity through greater choice.

Skyrim lets you do a lot of things with a lot of variables, but the core gameplay is very simplistic - you hit things with basic attacks (or use your "I win" buttons) and chug potions.

To be fair that's pretty much what you do in older RPGs too.

I'm starting to feel a little silly comparing old games and new games against each other anyway. They're just too different, CRPG were designed to emultate the rule systems of tabletop games, action RPGs are something else entirely. This whole topic is about as pointless as comparing Microsoft Flight Sim to R-Type because you fly a plane in them both.

 

[Weaver]

I guess, for some of us, the definition of an RPG used to mean "here, memorize these 3 rulebooks totalling 900 pages; then we'll play the game".

Hmm, over exaggerating a little much there ?

Yes, I am.
But really, I mean how big is shadowrun 20th? 300ish pages?
You don't need to, say, memorize every possible thing your character can buy and such but there is still a large set of core rules (combat, the matrix, magic, basic role-playing) that pretty much all players should know. It's a sizeable set of rules.

This is compounded if you're a GM as there's more on top of that to know and deal with.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Although I think there's a distinction that needs to be drawn here between mechanical complexity and gameplay complexity.

But if the mechanics of the game allow for greater variety in gameplay it introduces a new dimensions and thus complexity through greater choice.

Team Fortress 2 has hats, accessories, paint, and nametags, but they don't actually increase gameplay depth/complexity - they're just cosmetic variation. Mario Party has a variety of mini-games, but the vast number of mini-games available don't mean that a particular mini-game (or Mario Party as a whole) is particularly deep/complex. Same principle.

Skyrim lets you do a lot of things with a lot of variables, but the core gameplay is very simplistic - you hit things with basic attacks (or use your "I win" buttons) and chug potions.

To be fair that's pretty much what you do in older RPGs too.

Depends on the RPG. There are RPGs from pretty much any time period that also offer non-simplistic gameplay.