Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
To even think that this shithole can call itself "inclined" when JRPG console garbage like DS gets a spot on a CRPG list. Might as well put shit like Assassins Creed Origins at top 10 next refresh of the list if that's considered RPG by now.
Minor order-related complaints aside, this is the most beautiful and close-to-accurate list of classic RPGs ever devised, one that only a cesspool of truly rarefied autism could come up with, and one that no other community could ever do with as much justice.
While I look forward to the inevitable update where Age of Decadence makes it into the top 10 and Underrail makes it into the top 20, I will simultaneously be sad to see Betrayal at Krondor and Darklands fall out of the top 20 as late millennials start to weigh in more, so we should value what we have here.
It's funny how I thought exactly that about Dark Souls...until I actually played it and realized I've NEVER seen anything like it in my 25 years of gaming, in terms of level design, systems, itemization, narrative, attention to detail and even the action combat which I hated before (rightly so since all action combat before Demon's Souls was utter trash).
None of the people ITT hating on DS gave it a real chance, I'm 110% sure of that. It's impossible to walk away from the game without being in awe of at least some of its aspects.
I both agree and disagree with you, cvv. Dark Souls (the first one) is indeed a very impressive game, with a lot of great stuff in it. On the other hand, I can also understand someone who hates it, just because theoretically, a game shouldn't be this punishing. So it's a game that can be both loved and hated. To me, it's a very interesting game, but not quiet on the same level as the true all time greats, which can be enjoyed in a more straightforward way.
It's funny how I thought exactly that about Dark Souls...until I actually played it and realized I've NEVER seen anything like it in my 25 years of gaming, in terms of level design, systems, itemization, narrative, attention to detail and even the action combat which I hated before (rightly so since all action combat before Demon's Souls was utter trash).
None of the people ITT hating on DS gave it a real chance, I'm 110% sure of that. It's impossible to walk away from the game without being in awe of at least some of its aspects.
I finished solo Dark Souls, Dark Souls 2, Bloodborne (and Lords of the Fallen, hah).
Are they good? Yes. Are they god's gift to mankind? No. Are they glorified 3D Diablo with cool lore and monster design? Yes.
They are good for what they are - combat focused hack and slash games.
But what they are will never be as interesting to me as games like Fallout, Bloodlines, Arcanum, Witcher, Gothic or KCD.
Paul bro, didn't expect this level of inability to look past the action combat from you. Glorified Diablo? Seriously, omg.
This is on the level of reading LotR and Silmarillion and concluding it's just a low-brow fodder fantasy like Forgotten Realms or Wheel of Time. Like saying Beethoven's 9th is just glorified banging drums and squeeking fiddles. You seriously missed all that depth and detail and dozens of utterly groundbreaking design elements?
Paul bro, didn't expect this level of inability to look past the action combat from you. Glorified Diablo? Seriously, omg.
This is on the level of reading LotR and Silmarillion and concluding it's just a low-brow fodder fantasy like Forgotten Realms or Wheel of Time. Like saying Beethoven's 9th is just glorified banging drums and squeeking fiddles. You seriously missed all that depth and detail and dozens of utterly groundbreaking design elements?
I'm waiting for a Funny Old Man™ to get offended because you're comparing video game to a "masterpiece literature", ignoring the point of your comparison.
Paul bro, didn't expect this level of inability to look past the action combat from you. Glorified Diablo? Seriously, omg.
This is on the level of reading LotR and Silmarillion and concluding it's just a low-brow fodder fantasy like Forgotten Realms or Wheel of Time. Like saying Beethoven's 9th is just glorified banging drums and squeeking fiddles. You seriously missed all that depth and detail and dozens of utterly groundbreaking design elements?
I will grant that Fromgames have some interesting design elements (the souls system, way MP works, weapon movesets, poise) as well as high quality level design (esp. DS1 and BB). And they are well designed from difficulty standpoint.
But it is my preference that games that are purely about combat can never be as interesting/enjoyable as games that try to do much more than just combat.
Considering Souls-likes, stuff like Nioh or Darksiders 3 is just about combat. The lore, "plot" or level design are there only because if the entire game took place in one huge arena it could get stale after a while (altho combatfag retards like Sully prolly wouldn't mind).
DS is different. I like the combat but I play DS primarily for the level design and the delightful details. That's what's most important for me. That's why I don't play Nioh because THAT game is just a glorified Diablo. Yes the combat is phenomenal but ultimately it's just beat-them-up loot game. And that's why I hate Dark Souls 3 - the combat is the best in the series but everything else is boring, disinterested and sloppy.
Dude you're so consistently retarded it's remarkable. I have never seen you saying anything marginally intelligent. The only reason you're not in my ignore is bc I wonder how long you can keep at it. One day you'll break, say something smart and boom, in the ignore you go.
Dark Souls has excellent world design. The way the different zones and shortcuts loop around on themselves is really awe-inspiring. And it is a decent action game, but I don't think I'd ever call it a great role-playing game. I don't know what within Dark Souls warrants it a place on the pantheon with games like Torment, Deus Ex, System Shock, etc.
The covenants reflect each "slot" of the D&D alignment system. How? That is up to you and your interpretation of their actions.
There are few that can be considered "set in stone". Like the Chaos Servants being Chaotic Neutral, but the point is: there are 9, and each one of them suits a played role. (as best as it can - nothing is perfect)
I know it is hard to roleplay (at first) due to the layout of the game, but consider these examples:
1. roleplaying as an evil character you...
can kill Oscar for the Estus
kill Petrus (thus indirectly saving Reah)
kill the Male Undead Merchant for his blade (arguably one of the best weapons in the game)
kill Solaire
kill Oswald
sparing Lautrec because evil cohorts with evil
... and so at this point, unless you're playing stupid evil, you should have the Crestfallen Warrior and Andre as the main quest givers/indicators. And (maybe) Griggs and Laurentius until they've served their usefulness.
You journey onward spreading darkness and despair, killing left and right. Ring 2 bells. Kill the Chaos Witches. Learning what happened in Blighttown.
Optional: Seeing Quelana. Learning more from (arguably) the only NPC in the game to give you 1st hand recollection and information about the world.
So now you're back to Firelink. Lautrec has done his dirty deed. You don't care. You speak to Andre and he says:
"This is the old church.
It was abandoned in favour of the church that you passed through.
There are paths leading from here to two forbidden planes: Sen's Fortress, and the Darkroot Garden.
They attract all sorts of lunatics, no-one as cultured as yourself.
It's fine to be Undead, but keep a level head, eh?
Hah hah hah! "
And here is the moment where Dark Souls gives you an option:
- you can be a lunatic: head onwards to either Sen's Fortress (kill the Golem, reach Anor Londo, become the Chosen Undead - and so setting on the path to becoming a hero).
or
- Darkroot Garden (explore its dark, twisted and chaotic ways, kill Sif and Ingwald - and so definitely setting on the path to becoming a murderer).
- OR you could choose the 3rd option left: Catacombs. Deal with Pinwheel and lifting the cap on the bonfires. Proving that you are level headed.
2. roleplaying as a force of law (a cop, if you will)
You can tell the sunrays when reaching Anor Londo are the wrong angle (because you remember them how they were when meeting Solaire)
Reading everything and patching things together from the Ring of the Sun Princess and the Darkmoon Seance Ring.
The Princess of Sunlight Gwynevere left
Anor Londo along many other deities,
and later became wife to Flame God Flann.
The Dark Sun Gwyndolin is the only remaining
deity in Anor Londo. His followers are few,
but their tasks are of vital importance.
Choosing to serve and maintain a lie, to be a force of law and good, to punish the wicked - and ultimately to have the best weapon augment in the game.
This is just the beginning. I could number at least 7 or 8 more just off the top of my head. You can be almost whatever you want to be.
These are choices and consequences. These are actions are reactions. Story telling both direct and indirect. World building. Direct and indirect characterization, both in rapport to the setting, world and its inhabitants *and* you (the player).
I'm not saying Dark Souls is perfect. There is no perfect game. It has failings. Actually more than I would like to admit. But more often than not, it's not where most people point them out to be. And we can discuss that, if you wish, too.
We should probably leave a detailed DS discussion for the DS thread.
As for whether it's an RPG...uh...no it's a racing game. Jesus, wtf.
And as for whether it's one of the greatest, well, it revolutionized the entire aRPG genre, uplifting it from a pulp entertainment for dumb plebs into prestigiousness and respectability. Plus it has introduced several groundbreaking RPG features (stamina based action combat, all the online stuff, covenants, unique wraparound open-world design and many other details) or put a unique spin on existing systems like dying/saving/loading, healing, gaining XP, questing, narrative through lore etc. It's one of the most revolutionary and influential games of the genre and one of the most well-known games period. Still wondering why it should be on the list?
Dude you're so consistently retarded it's remarkable. I have never seen you saying anything marginally intelligent. The only reason you're not in my ignore is bc I wonder how long you can keep at it. One day you'll break, say something smart and boom, in the ignore you go.
You don't play Action games so you make retarded statements about them. Not surprising, most people on the codex have no clue about anything concerning action games.
I don't think it's worth it to sperg about the order these games should be in. It's best to simple look at the list as a whole. I'm fond of chronological lists myself.
Plus it has introduced several groundbreaking RPG features (stamina based action combat, all the online stuff, covenants, unique wraparound open-world design and many other details) or put a unique spin on existing systems like dying/saving/loading, healing, gaining XP, questing, narrative through lore etc. It's one of the most revolutionary and influential games of the genre and one of the most well-known games period. Still wondering why it should be on the list?
This is the actual reason for its inclusion on the list (although much of this is owed to Demon's Souls).
Trying to argue Dark Souls' RPG merits in terms of its "choices and consequences" whichares often arbitrary and binary with only one satisfactory conclusion is foolish. Killing Oscar at the start is not meaningful roleplaying. He dies when you leave the room anyway, so it's functionally the same, even preferable since you save a few seconds not listening to dialogue. Killing just about any NPC in the game is not a meaningful mechanical choice. You are either locking yourself out of content, or just crippling yourself in a really boring way. "I decided Lautrec was cool and evil so I don't care that he locked me out of using Firelink Shrine", OK, cool, but that's fucking retarded. Literally any character is logically pissed off because they now no longer have a central hub. You're mechanically crippling yourself for no reason. It's like saying that getting yourself cursed and never curing it, forcing yourself to play at 50% max HP, is roleplaying. It's not. That's a challenge run. Covenants are arguably a method of roleplaying, but they also rely on online multiplayer (for which they all serve a distinct function, meaning the mechanical choice overrides any RP choice), or the player has to spend time farming dozens of items that have a 3% drop rate.
What's the RP reason for the Chosen Undead farming 6,000 Chaos Bugs in order to get Great Lightning Spear?
Trying to argue Dark Souls' RPG merits in terms of its "choices and consequences" whichares often arbitrary and binary with only one satisfactory conclusion is foolish. Killing Oscar at the start is not meaningful roleplaying. He dies when you leave the room anyway, so it's functionally the same, even preferable since you save a few seconds not listening to dialogue. Killing just about any NPC in the game is not a meaningful mechanical choice. You are either locking yourself out of content, or just crippling yourself in a really boring way. "I decided Lautrec was cool and evil so I don't care that he locked me out of using Firelink Shrine", OK, cool, but that's fucking retarded. Literally any character is logically pissed off because they now no longer have a central hub. You're mechanically crippling yourself for no reason. It's like saying that getting yourself cursed and never curing it, forcing yourself to play at 50% max HP, is roleplaying. It's not. That's a challenge run
I disagree with all of this. For all intents and purposes, doing a retard run in Fallout and Fallout 2 constitutes a "challenge run". A lot of roleplaying in RPGs ends up with "cripping yourself" for no reason other than "that's what my character would do". "Roleplaying" is an extremely bastardized term as we have seen with Oblivion's famous "roleplaying advice". I am of the mindset that "roleplaying" is such a bastardized term that Wizardry is the best roleplaying game when I think of it: the world is so limited, the interactions are so limited, that you are barely at odds with who your characters are meant to be, and they end up being defined by nothing but their class, stats, and whether you decide to run away or face certain enemies, being a very pure roleplaying game in that regard.
Sure, you can try to roleplay a science guy in Fallout, but truth is the game is really barebones on its roleplaying. It offers different options, but combat options aside you never actually FEEL like you are the person you are roleplaying as. In my experience, "build roleplaying" is far more nebulous than "morality roleplaying". When you have Boone murder his best friend in New Vegas and then kill him as well, there's no doubt in my mind you are playing as a sadistic psychopath, whereas using two or three Barter checks doesn't make me think of the character as a "trader" or "master salesman". Like it or not, by killing Oscar you are expressing your character. It is roleplaying, whether it has a meaningful consequence or not. You decide to kill an unarmed character who is not trying to hurt you for fuck's sake, how is that not meaningful roleplaying?
A question to ask is: is roleplaying an action or a mindset? If someone plays Fallout just for the fun of it, are they roleplaying or just "playing the game"? I can tell you the first (and only) time I played Fallout 3 I didn't give a shit about roleplaying, so was I actually roleplaying or just playing the game?
Trying to argue Dark Souls' RPG merits in terms of its "choices and consequences" whichares often arbitrary and binary with only one satisfactory conclusion is foolish. Killing Oscar at the start is not meaningful roleplaying. He dies when you leave the room anyway, so it's functionally the same, even preferable since you save a few seconds not listening to dialogue. Killing just about any NPC in the game is not a meaningful mechanical choice. You are either locking yourself out of content, or just crippling yourself in a really boring way. "I decided Lautrec was cool and evil so I don't care that he locked me out of using Firelink Shrine", OK, cool, but that's fucking retarded. Literally any character is logically pissed off because they now no longer have a central hub. You're mechanically crippling yourself for no reason. It's like saying that getting yourself cursed and never curing it, forcing yourself to play at 50% max HP, is roleplaying. It's not. That's a challenge run
I disagree with all of this. For all intents and purposes, doing a retard run in Fallout and Fallout 2 constitutes a "challenge run". A lot of roleplaying in RPGs ends up with "cripping yourself" for no reason other than "that's what my character would do". "Roleplaying" is an extremely bastardized term as we have seen with Oblivion's famous "roleplaying advice". I am of the mindset that "roleplaying" is such a bastardized term that Wizardry is the best roleplaying game when I think of it: the world is so limited, the interactions are so limited, that you are barely at odds with who your characters are meant to be, and they end up being defined by nothing but their class, stats, and whether you decide to run away or face certain enemies, being a very pure roleplaying game in that regard.
Sure, you can try to roleplay a science guy in Fallout, but truth is the game is really barebones on its roleplaying. It offers different options, but combat options aside you never actually FEEL like you are the person you are roleplaying as. In my experience, "build roleplaying" is far more nebulous than "morality roleplaying". When you have Boone murder his best friend in New Vegas and then kill him as well, there's no doubt in my mind you are playing as a sadistic psychopath, whereas using two or three Barter checks doesn't make me think of the character as a "trader" or "master salesman". Like it or not, by killing Oscar you are expressing your character. It is roleplaying, whether it has a meaningful consequence or not. You decide to kill an unarmed character who is not trying to hurt you for fuck's sake, how is that not meaningful roleplaying?
A question to ask is: is roleplaying an action or a mindset? If someone plays Fallout just for the fun of it, are they roleplaying or just "playing the game"? I can tell you the first (and only) time I played Fallout 3 I didn't give a shit about roleplaying, so was I actually roleplaying or just playing the game?
Problem is that every game that has a leveling system or drops loot is considered a roleplaying game. And most of the RPGs out there have nothing actually to do with roleplaying at all.
Problem is that every game that has a leveling system or drops loot is considered a roleplaying game. And most of the RPGs out there have nothing actually to do with roleplaying at all.
Yes, but it also has an entire set of dialogue options and responses from NPCs which offer a unique experience. It doesn't just stop the game from happening. Playing a Mage in Oblivion is effectively crippling yourself in a mechanical sense due to how level scaling works, but it's absolutely part of what makes Oblivion a (bad) RPG. Take a look at a DnD campaign - all of your friends have picked tier 1 or 2 classes (Wizards, Cleric, etc.), and the DM is preparing a campaign for such a party. You then rock up and say "I'm playing a Monk". You have probably crippled yourself, but its the very essence of roleplaying in this case.
A lot of roleplaying in RPGs ends up with "cripping yourself" for no reason other than "that's what my character would do". "Roleplaying" is an extremely bastardized term as we have seen with Oblivion's famous "roleplaying advice". I am of the mindset that "roleplaying" is such a bastardized term that Wizardry is the best roleplaying game when I think of it: the world is so limited, the interactions are so limited, that you are barely at odds with who your characters are meant to be, and they end up being defined by nothing but their class, stats, and whether you decide to run away or face certain enemies, being a very pure roleplaying game in that regard.
LARPing is obviously different to roleplaying, and most people on this forum would agree. No sane person wants to "get inside [their] character's head" by sitting on a chair and eating Bread for an in-game hour. Roleplaying is largely dictated by what your character can and cannot do in terms of combat or exploration, but it's also in terms of social interactions. How well do you barter or persuade? Perhaps the game has different forms of Speech which are important for different parts of society (Etiquette/Streetwise in Daggerfall or Age of Decadence, Common/Latin in Darklands). I'd argue that "roleplaying" is, at its most basic, being presented with a problem and then being forced to ask "how would my character deal with this?", which the mechanics and systems of the games (such as skills, attributes, etc.) then reinforce.
Sure, you can try to roleplay a science guy in Fallout, but truth is the game is really barebones on its roleplaying. It offers different options, but combat options aside you never actually FEEL like you are the person you are roleplaying as. In my experience, "build roleplaying" is far more nebulous than "morality roleplaying". When you have Boone murder his best friend in New Vegas and then kill him as well, there's no doubt in my mind you are playing as a sadistic psychopath, whereas using two or three Barter checks doesn't make me think of the character as a "trader" or "master salesman".
Which gets more to the heart of the problem with CRPGs than anything else. No game with as much mechanical depth as even New Vegas can provide meaningful choices for every skill, at least not in the same way that a DM and player can in a traditional PnP. It tries very hard to do so, but it's 100% right that my character never "feels" like a Scientist, or a Trader. Part of that is because no matter what, you're the Courier first and foremost. I'd argue that rather than "morality roleplaying" the game best expresses itself through the different factions and people that the player can associate with. Deciding to side with the Legion or NCR, House or the Yes Man - these are meaningful roleplaying choices which allow the player to project a certain philosophy onto their character. They are certainly more meaningful than killing every NPC in the game because you're a psycopath, and then saying "well shit, I'd better reload because now I have nothing else to do".
minor edit here: I said previously something to the effect of "locking yourself out of content isn't roleplaying" but obviously that isn't true if there are mutually exclusive portions of content depending on what your character does, ala New Vegas' faction-based main quest, or Age of Decadence. This is why I like Morrowind too. You are only able to join one of the Dunmer Great Houses, and your position in these houses as well as other factions will dictate your reputation with other characters. Of course that system is poorly implemented, but it's the thought that counts.
Like it or not, by killing Oscar you are expressing your character. It is roleplaying, whether it has a meaningful consequence or not. You decide to kill an unarmed character who is not trying to hurt you for fuck's sake, how is that not meaningful roleplaying?
It's not meaningful because there's no point to any of it. It's a video game. Like it or not, most of this shit needs to be expressed through incentives. Oscar ends up hollowed when you return to the Asylum, and you have to kill him (well I guess you can just run away forever, but for what purpose?). If the player's previous interaction with him somehow played into how this new encounter plays out, then yes, it would actually be meaningful roleplaying and would potentially be interesting. Let's suppose that either way, he hollows out, but maybe if the player just talked to him, etc. he only aggroes when you enter the room and never chases the player out of it, almost as if a small part of his memory is still there and he's trying to ward you off. He's protecting you from himself. If however, the player killed him, he just aggroes and chases you to the ends of the earth until you kill him. This is a hypothetical, but it takes a "choice" and turns it into something that is slightly more meaningful in terms of how the player experiences the game.
A question to ask is: is roleplaying an action or a mindset? If someone plays Fallout just for the fun of it, are they roleplaying or just "playing the game"? I can tell you the first (and only) time I played Fallout 3 I didn't give a shit about roleplaying, so was I actually roleplaying or just playing the game?
As stated, my definition of "roleplaying" would be something along the lines of solving problems according to your character's skillset - a skillset which the player has likely explicitly selected at the beginning of the game (class system) or one which they plan to grow into (build as you go). This probably doesn't apply to Fallout 3, because the game doesn't ever allow the player to solve problems intelligently.
