What makes an RPG matter?

[Whiny-Butthurt-Liberal]

Honestly, Dark Souls has more c&c than 90% of "old-school" RPGs.

 

[Edija]

I've always found that immersion is a top priority. For me immersion was feeling as an organic part of the world and the groups and factions. Therefore the whole savior of the World scenario isn't really the best possible case but I guess it's hard to avoid. For me at least Gothic 1 & 2 were the most successful in that regard. Joining a faction felt like you're really a part of a group with specific goals, interests and strategies. Not to talk about the little details like ordering around Paladins if you're a fire mage and all the special faction specific dialogue you can encounter. 3 and Elex did a good job at it as well but I feel like the writing around a specific faction you choose was a little bit toned down.

 

[Covenant]

I always thought 'C&C' being important was pretty much just a meme. I mean, what's the point? It's still just narrative. Visual novels have plenty of C&C, but they're still closer to books than games. And I like books, but I don't need alternate endings to enjoy them. No one's clamouring for a version of A Christmas Carol where if you turn to page 450 Scrooge decides to dismiss the spirits as a dream and in the morning he fires Bob Cratchit. Or maybe they are; I guess that's what fanfiction is about, in a way? Are all the storyfags here massively into fanfiction? I'm curious to know.

A good plot can really enhance a game and I certainly appreciate a nice atmosphere and immersion but for me, the mechanical systems are prime. I want something where I'll be forced to make tactical and strategical choices, preferably involving a robust character creation/development system, and where as I progress I'll be encountering new threats and gaining new rewards. All I want the plot to do is provide a nice bit of flavour to go on top of that.

I don't care whether I can pick a certain action (or, more likely, befriend a certain faction) and thereby choose an alternate ending. So long as the plot is engaging, I'll happily take it as a enhancement to the murdering and character development. But the idea that the plot suddenly becomes better/more important simply because you can branch it off into one of a few variants... I don't get it. Sure, it can be done well - but so can a fixed plot. Why would one intrinsically be better than the other?

 

[Delterius]

going by this thread I think we can narrow the important parts to 'basically everything'

 

[Micormic]

1. fun factor
2. story
3. exploration, not necessarily a wide open world but alot of people to talk to and stuff to find
4. combat and char cration roughly equal.


I'm generally not picky with music, I actually can't think of an rpg aside from maybe Mass effect and DA:O where I disliked the music, and even in those 2 it was tolerable but felt tryhard.



Graphics are a mixed bag, sometimes I don't mind if a game looks like shit, I replayed the fallouts a year or two ago and they were still enjoyable. I started pc gaming in the early 90's though. Sometimes games look like complete shit and I just can't get into them, I tried the avernum 1-2-3 and exile games at different points in the early 2000's and just found them too dull. Geneforge was bad too but made up for it with other strengths.




I generally don't care about C&C because almost no game actually have it. Maybe the fallouts and arcanum, and AOD recently.

Then you have little side quests in the baldurs gate games, maybe 2-3 quests per game with a real choice, same with the Kotor games, you gonna be a super good guy or a douchebag.


So yea, choices are more of a bonus if anything, some of the best games I've played had zero C&C.

 

[Jason Liang]

I would arrange this as a pyramid:

TOP - Fun Factor
NEXT - Combat + Graphics
MIDDLE - Character Creation + Exploration ---> Without decent combat, these fall apart. What's the point of character creation/ character progression/ looting if combat is shit?
BOTTOM - Story + C&C

On paper story is important but 99% of rpgs have a shitty story so in practice who gives a shit about story. If you want a good story play an adventure game.

Don't even get me started on C&C for 99% of rpgs that just means a different slide in the ending.

Combat is a little overrated since some of the best rpgs have shitty combat, including jrpgs. I can count the number of rpgs with great combat with my dick and your dick: ToEE and Dragonfall. Still it's worth drawing the line between-

GREAT combat - ToEE, Dragonfall
GOOD combat - Pool of Radiance, Wizardry 7, Rance X
SERVICEABLE combat - Baldur's Gate 2, Final Fantasy games, Phantasy Star games, Dragon Quest games, Darkest Dungeon, NWN, Bloodlines, Rance VI, AoD
ATROCIOUS combat - Fallout, Arcanum, Pillars

Graphics is somewhat underrated. Music is also underrated. Let's not kid ourselves, Baldur's Gate 2 wouldn't be itself without the spell animations and soundtrack. And much of the joy in Darkest Dungeon is the way the characters express themselves through the graphics and voice acting.

 

[Alkarl]

I would arrange this as a pyramid:

TOP - Fun Factor
NEXT - Combat + Graphics
MIDDLE - Character Creation + Exploration ---> Without decent combat, these fall apart. What's the point of character creation/ character progression/ looting if combat is shit?
BOTTOM - Story + C&C

On paper story is important but 99% of rpgs have a shitty story so in practice who gives a shit about story.

Who gives a shit about pyramids?

Apparently not you since you made the "least important part", in your opinion, the base. You know, the broadest, widest, most sturdy part. The thing holding everything else above it up.

 

[TemplarGR]

These threads are pointless, since 99% of the gaming public and at least 70% of this forum don't understand what an RPG truly is... Just see the various "best of" lists codexers have voted for over the years for proof. In a forum where action/3d metroidvania games like Dark Souls are considered "rpgs", there is nothing to talk about...

The problem with the RPG definition and its misconception is that many elements that are required for a game to be defined as an RPG are shared with other genres. For example C&C can be a part of point & click adventure games. Character stat development can be a part of a game like Assassin's Creed. Most games have a story and dialogues these days, etc. So people tend to mistake a game with RPG elements to a true RPG, and just call everything RPG. Even Super Mario is an RPG these days...

So, to answer your question, for me the most important thing for an RPG is to have a meaningful stat system with skills that matter no matter what stat development you choose, and the ability to influence the world differently (not just combat) based on the character you build. Ideally it should be turn based and entirely stat-dependent. That is what a true RPG, you create an avatar to explore an imaginary world, and control his decisions but not his actions, that is, your avatar is an extension of your will, not of your hands... Essentially, RPGs should be strategy games on a smaller scale, instead of controlling armies or platoons you control a person or a small party of persons... You get to decide what they do at every single time but the success or failure depends on their stats. That is what an RPG truly is.

And that is what is mostly important, and what is mostly lost in modern times.At best we get stellar Action-RPG hybrids, games like Witcher 3 which while introcuding player-skill into the fantasy world, at least they still have good overall quality and stats do matter somewhat, at worse we just get garbage like FO4. We rarely if ever get true RPGs these days.