My Top RPGS? What are yours?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Arin Matthews
  • Start date Start date
A

Arin Matthews

Guest
1. Fallout 3
2. Fallout 2
3. Fallout New Vegas
4. Morrowind
5. Oblivion
6. Two Worlds
7. Dragon Age Origins
8. Two Worlds 2
9. Dragon Age 2.
10. Super Mario Rpg
 
Uhmm Elder Scrolls are hiking simulators and Mass Effect are Third Person Shooters with dialogue options.
 
Wrong. Mass Effect has many endings (and ways to finish/complete) for nearly every quest, and small actions done in one game can have large effects and consequences in another. Read up. Do your homework.
 
Last edited:
And so does Heavy Rain, does that make Heavy Rain an RPG? You are not describing an RPG yo uare describing a shooter with multiple endings, the rpg elements in those games are pretty superficial, XP points and bonuses to damage. The first one was more RPG-esque than the other 2, but had a terrible combat system.
 
Generally, the most important thing an RPG needs to offer is to allow the player many solutions to a single problem, and many outcomes for these problems. It also needs to allow the character to be able to freely pick what solution to take on each problem. Another big thing an RPG needs to offer is that, everything or nearly every "solution" they choose to "fix" their problems has some kind of effect or consequence on further and future gameplay.

These are the things that make, or break RPG's.

Mass Effect provided all of this in spades.
 
Last edited:
MAss Effect is big on the Binary solutions, no application of skills or character building is needed to achieve the different solutions except for the odd Karma dependant Glowie Insta win colored choice. It doesn't matter if your character is an engineer, a ninja, a soldier or an Adept, all of the quest paths are exactly the same for everyone, not even race or gender affect anything except for who you get to bone. That's why it's a Shooter with multiple endings, not an actual RPG.
 
True, but these things are optional for RPG's, not a requirement.

To make an RPG, it isn't a know requirement that point allocation and skills have an immediate effect on outcomes.

This is just something that is expected of RPG's from Fallout fans.

EDIT: Also I should point out that point allocation and classes are a part of Mass Effect (and matter highly for combat). However they are just relatively simple, instead of being as complex as First-Generation Fallout games.
 
Last edited:
But having a lot of points on your grendes doesn't give you an alternate path to use them on an option, you still get the binary choice, and the odd Color coded Insta win option that both do the same thing.

In all cut scenes Shepard always uses his pistol to confront every enemy that eventually gets away, what were you an engineer and you have an ability to freeze people or send a robot after them? You have the Biotic Charge and you could've used it to end the chase? Well tough shit, follow the story, you only have a class during combat and in some flavor dialogue.

That's hardly an RPG, it's a shooter with a Karma system and binary choices.
 
I understand that.

But what I'm trying to tell you is this isn't an absolute requirement for an RPG, it is completely optional. Your saying that point allocation and classes are absolutely required in an RPG, otherwise no matter how many RPG elements such a game has, and without this it fails to qualify as an RPG. But the truth is, that as said it is completely optional. Why? Because even though this attribute in a game is nice, its not 100% required to make an RPG.

You've got to understand that this is something Fallout fans (and sometimes other old-school RPG fans) expect of an RPG, but many times do not absolutely require. Its true that it plays a big part in RPG functionality, but like I said these things are completely optional when making an RPG. Look at Daggerfall. It was a great RPG (and is considered so among many old-school RPG fans), however point allocation didn't play as big an effect on it as it did in Fallout.

Otherwise, imo Mass Effect marks all the requirements an RPG needs. Imo RPG's are all about player freedom in the game and to decide for himself, and having those decisions come back to either haunt or help the player, or simply remind the player in some way that that was what he chose to do. Their decisions on one mission should effect the outcome of another, even if thats in an entirely different game.
 
Last edited:
Except Mass Effect doesn't give you freedom, it gives you choices in specific parts of the game, but yo uare always forced to a narrative path with no escape. Also msot of the time the Consequences" for their actions only mean a character with a different name will do the same thing another one that died was gonna do. Wrex - Wreav is a very good example of it, they have differentiating personalities but it hardly will play into your success chances. You will still make it to the Citadel, to the Collector base or to the Star Child speech. TIM will always end up dead.
 
The plot points you identified are important plot points in the game, and without them the game's story wouldn't matter.

Its kind of like saying "Fallout should give you the freedom to completely avoid the Cathedral. It doesn't because you always have to end up there anyways to finish the game."

EDIT: Also, if you put points into Charm in Mass Effect 1, you have the option to clam Wrex down on Virmire. If not, he will most likely rush you, and you will be forced to kill him. Mass Effect DOES incorporate skill allocation that has effects on some factors outcomes, in some cases, just not as in as many as Fallout did/does.
 
Last edited:
No because Fallout let's you fart around before going to the cathedral and every skill can open up a new way of completing a quest, you weren't stream lined int oset peices that ignored your character build.
Also Charm and Intimidation were the only skills that had any effect. So that's just showing how poorly implemented the skill system was.

To put it short ME is not an rpg unless the concept of what an RPG is has decayed that much....
 
And Mass Effect didn't? If I remember correctly, if you DIDN'T do many of the optional quests and just decided to charge right into the Collector Base, your team (and possibly even you) ended up dying. Because I had Mordin Solus and LEGION die in the collector base.

Many of the things your pointing out are completely optional, not absolute requirements.

EDIT: Wasteland 2 just finished downloading. I will catch up with this in the morning.
 
Last edited:
The suicide Mission is actually one of the few instances in that game were choices mattered for mroe than flavor text. Still to get the everyone dies ending you would need to be deliberatedly incompetent and the next game doesn't even register it.
And of all the characters that can die in the suicide mission only 2 play any major role in the next game and another is a squad member T'ali, Legion and Garrus.
EVEN THEN, Legion's role would be replaced with an exact VI copy of him, and T'ali's would just be a generic Quarian scientist. Garrus didn't have impact on the plot and all of the choices all became points that worked on a threshold system rather than actually having independent effects on the final battle. Every character regardless of actions and class gets to the same plot points the same way, by fighting a bunch of dudes.

Not even Squad Member selection had any effect on missions, they were only muscle and had some occasional flavor dialogue.

I like playing the games, but I would never ever call them RPGs.
 
Last edited:
I'm never wrong either.

Anyway,
Fallouts
Baldur's Gates
IWDs
Deus Ex
VTM:B
Ultima Online
Arcanum
Both KotoRs
 
Walpknut said:
The suicide Mission is actually one of the few instances in that game were choices mattered for mroe than flavor text. Still to get the everyone dies ending you would need to be deliberatedly incompetent and the next game doesn't even register it.
And of all the characters that can die in the suicide mission only 2 play any major role in the next game and another is a squad member T'ali, Legion and Garrus.
EVEN THEN, Legion's role would be replaced with an exact VI copy of him, and T'ali's would just be a generic Quarian scientist. Garrus didn't have impact on the plot and all of the choices all became points that worked on a threshold system rather than actually having independent effects on the final battle. Every character regardless of actions and class gets to the same plot points the same way, by fighting a bunch of dudes.

Not even Squad Member selection had any effect on missions, they were only muscle and had some occasional flavor dialogue.

I like playing the games, but I would never ever call them RPGs.
Click to expand...

I see where your going, but I personally believe the character thing is optional for RPG's.

I consider Mass Effect 3 a RPG, because it operates by the standards of what I consider an RPG to be, and so my list remains the same. Same goes for the Elder Scrolls. Just because you have a personal vendetta against it, doesn't mean its not an RPG. You know?
 
I agree with Mass Effect. But Elder Scrolls is an RPG even if it's an easy one, it's still an RPG.
 
You liked Two Worlds? Gameinformer made it out to be much more than it was, and for that I was disappointed. Not because it was a bad game, but just because Game Informer made it sound like it was going to be the RPG of the year. And then after all the hype, when it came out nobody was really buying it. I know because when I tried to turn my into Gamestop about a month after, Gamestop told me they could old give me half the price the other new games were getting on return because no one (not literally, but as in realitvely small numbers of people) was buying the game
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top