What is the Greatest Rpg that you have ever actually played

[Jarinor]

Actually, no, I never played JA2 or X-Com. FOT was the first tactical combat game I played, and so I had nothing else to judge it by.

 

[protobob]

Yeah I did enjoy the FOT multiplayer demo. There was a good bit of fun to be had there. Once the full game came out, it was much harder to find a comparable experience, it seemed like most of the players were all about power armor and rocket launchers, which didn't interest me at all.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I think the best thing about the game though is the Continuous Turn Based combat system, which can be abused in some ways, but I really like it.

Which is funny, because it has nothing to do with "Turn Based" at all. It's just real time that's heavily automated. In fact, in the "Continuous Turn Based" mode, Fallout Tactics plays a lot like Dungeon Siege. You just set your party on aggressive and march them around the map until win.

I can't remember who said it, but they were right when they said that the name of the game should be, "Fallout: Tactics Optional".

The story is weak. I mean, what does it boil down to? A stranded military group (lacking every shred of character they had in Fallout) expands its territory, supresses and recruits some locals.

How about that whole, "They're stranded" part of the story is never seen in the game? They're supposedly stranded, but they have amazingly high tech bunkers everywhere which rival the BOS base at Lost Hills from Fallout, for example. They have the ability to make Power Armor, even though the BOS in Fallout couldn't. They can use cars, even though the BOS in Fallout couldn't.

It's just pathetic that the "stranded" BOS in Fallout Tactics was just so much more well off than the BOS in Fallout.

You meet some ghouls and recruit them.

Yes, this is another thing I didn't like. You could recruit nearly every enemy in the game and have them as squad members, even deathclaws.

 

[Zogg]

This may date me, but the Quest for Glory series cannot be overlooked when it comes to RPGs. One may argue for Bards Tale or Ultima as the ground-breaking series, but for me Quest for Glory really brought me into the world of role-playing. Beautiful in it's simplicity and innovative in multi-tiered character development and quest solutions, the series really kicked major ass.

 

[triCritical]

Fallout 1, by a huge margin.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

This may date me, but the Quest for Glory series cannot be overlooked when it comes to RPGs. One may argue for Bards Tale or Ultima as the ground-breaking series, but for me Quest for Glory really brought me into the world of role-playing. Beautiful in it's simplicity and innovative in multi-tiered character development and quest solutions, the series really kicked major ass.

That's okay, I was always more of a fan of Questron than I was of Ultima.

 

[Greenskin13]

This may date me, but the Quest for Glory series cannot be overlooked when it comes to RPGs. One may argue for Bards Tale or Ultima as the ground-breaking series, but for me Quest for Glory really brought me into the world of role-playing. Beautiful in it's simplicity and innovative in multi-tiered character development and quest solutions, the series really kicked major ass.

While QfG isn't my favorite, I got to agree with you. Too bad Sierra isn't going to make anymore after the QfG 5 fiasco, I would like to see the return of my Paladin/Mage.

 

[DrattedTin]

Why isn't Torment on the list?

Everyone knows Planetscape is the best setting!

 

[Vault Dweller]

I believe the poll asks for series, not the best stand alone game. Besides, everybody knows that the best game in the world is Torment.

As for the series, i would stick with Fallout and its often questionable ethics of post-apocaliptic word that allow you to build a better plasma gun :D

 

[triCritical]

Everyone knows Planetscape is the best setting!

Two Words, Dark Sun! That is my favorite setting.

 

[Zogg]

Dark Sun was very cool indeed, though I only played half the first game. Oh, to be a mul gladiator again....

Perhaps one day in the next few years we will see a revisitation of the setting - once people get past the cookie-cutter 'save the village by entering the dungeon and killing the demon'...Ooops! :!:

 

[DrattedTin]

Too bad Calis isn't around.

I was hoping he'd maul me for calling it 'planetscape'.

 

[Hazelnut]

I have been lurking here for a bit and have detected a slight snobbishness about role-playing. I am not a hardcore RPG'er I guess, but FO1 & 2 are two of my best games of all time. Are there not different types and levels of role playing (and I do not refer to fantasy set games that are labeled RPG - al la Diablo, although it's a great Hack 'n slash game in it's own right).

I'll try and illustrate what I mean... Lasse's comment is a good starting point:

I still don't see why linear is used as a curse word, though, really there are good linear games and poor non-linear ones, it's all in how it's done.

Because when I play a role-playing game, I actually want to role-play. If it's all set in stone already, then what is there for me to do except than follow the story? Choices prevent a game from becoming a semi-interactive screensaver, especially if it's using a shitty combat system a'la NWN.

I agree that having a world that changes depending on the players choices is great, but is it neccessary for a RPG? Maybe it is for role-playing that allows you to design/select your particular character preference and play that role. But what about games that present you with a role? And a story? How you play that role is up to you, but you can't choose the role - is this not role-playing?? Seems to me a lot of ppl here dismiss it far too casually.

The Fallouts are great examples of the first kind of RPG, and I doubt I'll get much dissent there.

Good examples of the second type of RPG are PS:T & Deus Ex. You're given a role to play within a pre-written, linear, story. One that starts at a certain world state and ends in another world state. You play the role of a character within this greater story, deciding how to go about the things you need to do (as that char/role) and how you can achieve that. Role-playing on a smaller scale, as opposed to the grand scale? Still fun though.

For instance, Deus Ex was very linear - provided by the plot and story (which was okay but not PS:T) - but there were usually many ways to accomplish the objectives set for JC Denton and I loved coming up with my own solutions that the creators may not even have thought of. It was fun checking walkthroughs to see how other people had achieved the same aims... was this not role playing - playing a role?? OK I was given the role to play, JC Denton, UNATCO agent blah blah, but also given freedom to play the role and develop the char in my own way. A lot of the game was combat oriented, and IMHO the combat was good - and fitted the role given the player, but there were alternatives in some cases and lots of opportunities to change the initial settings of the combat which removed it a bit from the more 'advanced space invaders' feel of a lot of FPS's.

Am I alone in this opinion? I'd like to know.

Cheers,

Andy.

 

[Aldin]

I have been lurking here for a bit and have detected a slight snobbishness about role-playing.

Let's just say any site with the tag line 'putting the role back in RPG' is going to have a certain protectiveness toward the purity of the genre. As for the rest, frankly, games like PS:T can give hardcore RPGers fits. You don't pick the character, you don't pick the starting stats and skills, there are severe limitations to what you can do and how you can develop. And yet... it is a GREAT game. When you think about it, the only thing really necessary for a game to be 'role-playing' is to have the player identify with (become absorbed in the role of) the player character. Any RPG that fails in that basic function is a bad RPG.

That said, there are several things RPGers look for in an RPG. Some are juxtaposed to a certain extent. Take storyline and freedom of action for example. It is extremely difficult to have the storyline of a PS:T combined with the freedom of action of an Elder Scrolls. Fallout is revered so highly in part because it so miraculously combined freedom of action with strong storyline. Fallout also had an excellent combat system, which most RPGers look for.

Okay, enough for now 8)

~Aldin

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Let's just say any site with the tag line 'putting the role back in RPG' is going to have a certain protectiveness toward the purity of the genre. As for the rest, frankly, games like PS:T can give hardcore RPGers fits. You don't pick the character, you don't pick the starting stats and skills, there are severe limitations to what you can do and how you can develop. And yet... it is a GREAT game. When you think about it, the only thing really necessary for a game to be 'role-playing' is to have the player identify with (become absorbed in the role of) the player character. Any RPG that fails in that basic function is a bad RPG.

I thought you could pick the "stats" in PS:T. However, I rather liked the way it handled the classes in the game. You don't start off as one, but eventually become one due to external means. Gothic did this as well, when you think about it. If you're going to have classes, I really think that's a good way to go. Start off as an anything, then eventually become a tradesman.

 

[murraysku]

Hi, this is my first post on these boards, or any other for that matter, either html or usenet.

This question is not entirely easy to answer, as different games have different strengths and weaknesses.

The Elder Scroll Series perhaps represents the epitome of non-linearity in a single-player RPG. At the same time, however, they lack the role that's fundamental to role-playing-you have plenty of choices, but they simply seem to lack importance. In addition, while there's a huge game world to explore, with an intricate and involved history and society, from a gameplay experience it's dead. I had more fun reading the multitude of books in Daggerfall and Morrowind than actually playing the game, as the quests were for the most part fairly simplistic, and once you'd talked to one NPC you'd talked to pretty much every other one in the game. Morrowind was slightly better about this as you could do more than ask for directions or where to find subquests, or glean the occasional rumor from a passerby, but NPC's were still fairly lifeless.

Like many others on these boards, I would hardly consider the Baldur's Gate series to be a great, or even good RPG. I enjoyed it as a game, however. The munchkin teenage adolescent in me enjoyed the phat l00t and mad level-ups, and while the story wasn't groundbreaking in terms of suspense, plot twists, or moral dilemmas, I still enjoyed the idea of screwing around with the whims of deities. However, at the same time the story presented some serious issues(like, if I'm a demi-god, why the hell can some goblins swat my 7th level mage, and how can a thousand year old dragon share a father with a much shorter lived human?, just to begin) and the romances were, at best, childish. B-/C+ as a game-F as an RPG.

The value of a given game in general as opposed to value as an RPG conflict arises again in addressing another popular IE game-Planescape:Torment. Torment offered what I felt was a compelling story with deep and involved character development, yet as has been pointed out many times, fell prey to linearity and lack of replayability as a result. You were always the Nameless One; you always followed the same outline through the game. Yet at the same time you got to shape the most recent incarnation of your Nameless One; he could be a dumb brute fighter(although he probably wouldn't get very far) or a smooth talking diplomat; he could be desperate for an escape from life or merely curious to find out what his past was and who he was. Despite not being able to play a world-changing role in PST due to the personalized and detailed nature of the backstory, it was still quite possible to make a number of choices about your character which had a direct result on gameplay. Planescape:Torment is without a doubt in the upper echelon of computer games; yet its limited role-playing elements have always made me reluctant to call it the greatest RPG of all time.

Another game that deserves mention yet wasn't included in the poll(probably because it's not a series, sorry if this diverges off topic a bit) would have to be Arcanum. Arcanum had high ambitions, and a brilliant concept. Beyond the unique setting, the developers promised to make the player's choice paramount to the game, promised Fallout like non-linearity, and multiple solutions, including non-combat solutions, to many if not all the quests. I'd lurked on the Arcanum boards since it was first announced, and it was perhaps one of the games I have anticipated the most in my short experience. It motivated me to try FO 1 and 2 which I enjoyed greatly. Yet despite the great concepts behind the game, I felt it fell a little bit short in execution. Although I felt it was a great game in many respects, and perhaps the best commercial release in recent years, it felt rushed and unpolished. Perhaps more detrimental was the fact that it attempted to be all things to all people-the combat system was a mess due to the fact that real time was too damn fast, and I felt that turn based was constricted by the need to accommodate real time in the engine. In addition, I found the game to be poorly balanced; some types of characters were clearly inferior to others, and the admirable attempt to prevent munchkin style insane levels in a true RPG meant that once one path was started for character development it was difficult to digress.

That brings me to the Fallout series, which would have to be my pick after much consideration. Fallout 1 offered a great story with as much, if not more, moral complexity and ambiguity than Planescape:Torment. Fallout 2 failed to live up to its predecessor in this respect, but the story was still quite passable. The non-linear nature of the game matched Elder Scrolls, without being dead and lifeless. Different characters, and indeed, towns, had distinct personalities. More importantly, the myriad choices available to the player actually mattered; stats affected conversations, and it was possible to play a number of different types of viable characters, greatly enhancing replayability as different solutions and roads manifested themselves. And, in a matter which is somewhat peripheral, its combat system was the best I've ever seen. The clincher has to be the ending sequence however; it really highlighted the idea that the role you played in the game had a direct effect in the world. And I loved going to Vault City and New Reno after I beat the game to hear all the laudatory remarks. Thus, my vote has to go to Fallout for the best CRPG of all time.

If you've read this far- thank you! Sorry for the long, rambling and possibly ignorant nature of the post, but it's late(or early) and, as I said, I haven't posted much before.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Hi, this is my first post on these boards, or any other for that matter, either html or usenet.

Welcome aboard.

The Elder Scroll Series perhaps represents the epitome of non-linearity in a single-player RPG.

I really wouldn't say that. After all, Morrowind's plot was linear as hell if you followed it. The guild quests were mostly linear too, it's just at some point you had multiple guilds you could swap between, but each guild was a linear series in and of themselves.

I think Geneforge and Fallout probably do the best in this department.

At the same time, however, they lack the role that's fundamental to role-playing-you have plenty of choices, but they simply seem to lack importance. In addition, while there's a huge game world to explore, with an intricate and involved history and society, from a gameplay experience it's dead. I had more fun reading the multitude of books in Daggerfall and Morrowind than actually playing the game, as the quests were for the most part fairly simplistic, and once you'd talked to one NPC you'd talked to pretty much every other one in the game. Morrowind was slightly better about this as you could do more than ask for directions or where to find subquests, or glean the occasional rumor from a passerby, but NPC's were still fairly lifeless.

I think one of the reasons it felt so dead was the dialogue system that Morrowind used. It never felt like conversation, it felt like you were just working a web browser. Without conversation to bring people to life, you're left with a rather flat experience over all.

Like many others on these boards, I would hardly consider the Baldur's Gate series to be a great, or even good RPG. I enjoyed it as a game, however. The munchkin teenage adolescent in me enjoyed the phat l00t and mad level-ups, and while the story wasn't groundbreaking in terms of suspense, plot twists, or moral dilemmas, I still enjoyed the idea of screwing around with the whims of deities. However, at the same time the story presented some serious issues(like, if I'm a demi-god, why the hell can some goblins swat my 7th level mage, and how can a thousand year old dragon share a father with a much shorter lived human?, just to begin) and the romances were, at best, childish. B-/C+ as a game-F as an RPG.

Yup, I agree totally here. For having a godly ancestry, there was no sign of it. You were just as weak as every other human, so the only reminder you had that you were Bhaalspawn was that people occationally told you that you were Bhaalspawn. You had the frailty of humans, you had to advance like humans, and so on.

And I loved going to Vault City and New Reno after I beat the game to hear all the laudatory remarks. Thus, my vote has to go to Fallout for the best CRPG of all time.

I wish they'd spent more time implimenting things that mattered, like Sulik's sister, instead of all the end game easter eggs.

 

[davmonster]

I have to admit preferring Baldur's Gate II over the Fallout Series. At least with BG2 you could basically skip the annoying combat by sliding the difficulty setting over to easy. However Fallout 2 did rock, and I would play it again if I hadn't deleted all my saved games.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I have to admit preferring Baldur's Gate II over the Fallout

Infidel!!!!

if I hadn't deleted all my saved games

You did WHAT ?!!!!!!

 

[davmonster]

God its like the cult of the vault dweller in here! For my part, I did try and reinstall F2 but for some reason it didn't work, muttering something about "Fonts not found". Oh well.

 

[rocagil]

Fallout

Hi all!

Well, Fallout is easily the greatest.
But one shouldn't forget about Planescape: Torment, that's also a really good crpg.

 

[ManglerII]

Wasteland is not the very 1st RPG (one of the first handful though) and probably only a few people on the board have ever played it. Wasteland is available on the net. It is 1.3 megs and packs a larger adventure then most games today. Wasteland has many unique features including a nice combat interface. Quests are non-linear. You don't even know what the goal of the game is until you're over halfway through. Quests/encounters/exploration is solely to get better equipment so you can explore more areas of the map. Wasteland progress smoothly and is very engrossing. If you want to play one of the best games of '87 give it a shot. It will put many games of today to shame...forget the graphics...just play Wasteland the way it was meant to be played...as an adventure. Glitter isn't always better.

 

[HanoverF]

Wasteland progress smoothly

Have to disagree with that bit.

 

[Ðrâktøn]

Ultima Underworld, Shadows Over Riva, Stonekeep, Anvil of Dawn, Daggerfall, M&MVI, Lands of Lore II. All these were great games to me, and each was the greatest in its time. No recent game has managed to hook me like those old games, and I was thinking the other day that I'm not sure what's true: either 'they don't make them like that anymore' or I'm just getting old
Ð

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

That's pretty much why I've turned to the shareware market. The games that publishers put out, for the most part, really don't hook me and reel me in anymore. If you look at Wasteland, you're talking about a game that allowed you to use attributes on objects as well as skills.. You're talking a more complex system than we see today!

It kind of amazes me that we have these uber processors and vast quantities of memory and disk storage now, and the gameplay mechanics are less complex than they used to be. The graphics has gotten better... And that's about it, really.