Total nerd here. I would probably play both of these games.

So, does it come with the blood-stained sock with magic powers, or is that reserved for the expansion packs?

When a video game gets a lot of hype I'm willing to give it a try, but I didn't see what the excitement was all about for Oblivion. It was a pleasant game but couldn't touch a much less lauded game such as Wheel of Time for making complex play as straightforward as possible without sacrificing depth, for richness of storyline, or for variety of characters and villains. What did I miss?

Not A-rod? Really?? It's a fantasy role-playing game.

Oblivion was masterful at hitting the very lowest point in the uncanny valley, what with the almost-realistic graphics, the oddly wooden voice acting, and the characters who tended to stand half-behind walls and stare at you.

I enjoyed the thrill of waking up NPCs and then running away, just to watch them chase me, Terminator-style, their dead eyes and slow, mindless stroll belying their robotic determination.

What did I miss?

Two console generations and piles of money dumped into bloated pretty graphics/physics engines.

All the cool kids were playing Gothic 2.

by it's very definitions, a solo player, rpg is nearly impossible, the next time they come up with a good one will be the first time.

mind you diablo and others have claimed to be rpgs, but they were far from it, the first rule of an rpg(non-computer version) is a world in which the player is allowed to make their own decisions, and it's pretty much impossible to create an rpg and an entertaining game.... I keep hoping that some day there will be a game out there that is able to create the joy of playing an rpg, but it hasn't happened yet, and I doubt it will happen in the next decade....heck next 30 years is unlikely due to the market being simplified for the masses.

please
curt shilling
UCK

hows about let me know when grady sizemore and brad ausmus and matt kemp decide to, uh, put out (ahem) this fantasy role-playing game. because i'm THERE

by it's very definitions, a solo player, rpg is nearly impossible, the next time they come up with a good one will be the first time.

I thought the first two Fallouts were quite good. That was a while ago, but...

by it's very definitions, a solo player, rpg is nearly impossible, the next time they come up with a good one will be the first time.

Go play the Baldur's Gate series. Baldur's Gate 2 is simply fantastic, and combines the rpg and fun elements brilliantly. It's far more of an RPG than most MMOs - certainly infinitely more than World of Warcraft. The "fun" element is of course subjective but it was a consistently very highly rated game, and one that kept a thriving community around it years after release.

And at completely the other end of the scale, some of the Zelda games were good. Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time on the N64, for example.

role playing game requires completely clear decisions by the players, and baldurs gate wasn't remotely close to that, it emulated the concept of experience and other crap, but the fact that you were still shoe-horned into a particular storyline, by it's very definition is not a role playing game.... unfortunately the crap of mmorpg is the closest to true role playing (and when garbage like world of warcraft is the best example of a genre, then that genre hasn't been truly realized)

Mass Effect is great and an RPG. Fallout 3 is good and an RPG. The Dragon Quest games are good and RPGs... etc.

And although I don't play WoW anymore, it's not garbage.

You just don't like video games or something. Your definition of single-player RPG is not technologically feasible, or at least, no company is willing to front the massive amount of money it would take to develop something like that now and make a profit.

Games like Mass Effect and KOTOR allow the player some semblance of choice (hell, even Crono Trigger did), but they were all "still shoe-horned into a particular storyline." But they were great games. And single player. And mostly RPGs. You ask for the impossible -- some kind of RPG that dynamically updates the world and context for every single decision one makes, and tailors an ending, or never ends, based upon the role you take? It's 2010. Gaming has only been serious business for 30 years. Why don't you try enjoying what's out there now?

Or you could play the Sims, since that's exactly the kind of malleable single player role-playing narrative with no conclusion you are looking for.

And I don't play WoW, but that game is a marvel of design and usability. It's Albert Pujols. You just said Albert Pujols is garbage.

it's not about the quality of the games, it's about whether they are rpgs or not, by the loose standards of computer games, I'm sure plenty of these qualify as rpgs, but by the pure definition of Role Playing games, none of them quality as an rpg..... computers define rpg as a game in which you gain levels based upon violent actions(more or less---not one single computer rpg that I've ever seen has given xp for completing a mission without involving violence, for using negotiating skills to get out of a situation etc.... a true rpg allows free decision for the player and gives equal experience for negotiating an obstacle no matter how they get around it, whether it's combat, debating, or just outrunning them. All of the games out there push for combat as the primary solution(if not the only solution) and that is not roleplaying.

14....I like games, I loved Starcraft, and even loved Diablo 2... but I disagree with the classification of the games. Diablo is a combat game, not a roleplaying game, regardless of the level component. A role playing game requires and is designed to give a player full options, and those type of games do not currently exist in the computer world and probably won't for a few decades.

All of the games out there push for combat as the primary solution(if not the only solution) and that is not roleplaying.

But if you look at, for example, Baldur's Gate, there are frequently different ways to solve problems (good way and evil way, normally, and occasionally a neutral way). Yes, it may often transpire that both ways involve violence, but then, you're in a violent world - as are almost all RPGs (it's called sword and sorcery for a reason). If your objection is to RPGs being set in violent worlds, then by all means play Hello Kitty Adventure Island.

my objection is that role playing isn't about combat, but for the sake of computer enjoyment it is focused on combat... until a game exists that gives you the exact same reward for getting out of a tough situation, whether it involves combat or talking, it's not an rpg.... as a gm, the best events my parties have ever had, that we talked about years later involved the party surprising the gm with a situation that isn't predictable....that is the heart and soul of role playing, computer programming isn't currently up to snuff to do true role playing, so they go with bastardized versions of it, lowering expectations so that stuff like baldurs gate can be called role playing when it really isn't.

Do you object to sports games being called that sport?

Sr. Fan Boy

If that's the case you might enjoy Heavy Rain. It's not an RPG in the traditional video game sense, but it provides the player more opportunities to "play the game they want to play it," to avoid combat, to resolve issues by various means... not a clear definition on what is "evil" or "good" or "neutral" (but it tugs on emotions... so, you don't know, but you pretty much know).

Of course, these choices are reduced to either button events or simply "not doing anything," which is frustrating, but it gives a pretty satisfying conclusion to each pivotal choice made. Once again, it ain't an RPG in the armor and aliens sense, but it works. And hopefully with enough support more studios will pick-up on the mechanics. Hell, I just assume Hollywood movies will be Heavy Rain or Metal Gear within the next 30 years -- interactive experiences that the viewer decides rather than being strapped to whatever pee-brained ######## George Lucas can come up with (relatively speaking, it's still up to the designer).

But, I consider Mass Effect an RPG as much as I consider Sigur Ros a post-rock band. The categorization doesn't mean anything other than an easier way to compare -- and there have been some pretty brilliant "single-player RPG's." Perhaps you suggest a new genre -- Post-RPG. Start staring at your shoes, "RPG" fans.

yes... golf, bowling, figure skating, and nascar are all not sports.... and I am a bowler.... it's not an insult, saying star wars is not a western is no more an insult than saying that wwe is not a sport. It's all about proper identification....

there has never, and there is a damn good chance that there will never be a true role playing video game. Nothing wrong with that, it's just a label, but it's a label I'll defend.

No, you misunderstood me. Should we not call it a Madden a football game because we aren't required to dodge physical linemen?

edit: I think it is reasonable to have the same label mean different things in regards to different mediums.

a football game would be a reasonable extension of a football game, same with any other sport etc.....

I understand the concept of it meaning different things under different medium, but calling a computer role playing game an rpg is just such a massive difference in format that it's akin to calling the three stooges a drama in my head.... Again I have no problem with the games themselves, I've played many of them for enjoyment and will argue that some of the best video games are in the pretend rpg genre, but they are not rpgs... the computer field considers a game to be an rpg based upon the primary character gaining levels.....(how they gain levels is irrelevant, but the point is that actions equal levels.....which is a very simplified version of an rpg.....again computers just can't do rpgs properly, they are still too complicated for them....and I'm speaking from the point of view of a computer programmer who is also a game master)

I hear it's going to be called Ken Griffey Jr.'s Winning Run Gaiden.

the computer field considers a game to be an rpg based upon the primary character gaining levels.....(how they gain levels is irrelevant, but the point is that actions equal levels.....which is a very simplified version of an rpg.....again computers just can't do rpgs properly, they are still too complicated for them....

Ultima IV is the game you have been waiting for :-)

Cardsfanboy,

I really think you'd like Fallout 1 and 2 and despise everything else in the series. You do indeed get lots of benefits from non-combat missions (and can in fact complete the games without throwing a punch or firing a bullet; I know you can in 2, not sure about 1). The graphics are dated a bit, but it doesn't seem like that's an issue for you. They both were a little buggy, but if you can live with that, they're a lot of fun and about as replayable as games get. You can be evil, good, smart, dumb, a brawler or a diplomat and the game changes substantially as you make those choices. Playing at least one game with an intelligence score of 3 or less is a must for anyone who plays; the comedy virtually never ends. Some of the artwork is just priceless.

Most interesting is that if there are any skills that are gimped in the game and not very useful, it's usually random combat ones (like big weapons on thrown weapons). Things like doctor and science and speech are all extremely useful and help you see more of the game.

A warning: the beginning of Fallout 2 is kind of stupid, but once you get past that it picks up pretty quickly from there. Fallout 1 is a bit darker, but also a little less silly at times. It is also much shorter.

I love these Schilling 38 Studio threads, because I know that the only posts that make the least bit of sense to me are BBC's.

ULTIMA THULE!

It sounds like what cardsfanboy might actually want is an open MMO. Eve Online probably best fits his description, and there is in fact an enclave of 'true' RPGers within it. A single, persistent universe with no real 'progression path' or storyline (some are offered, but they're entirely optional and aren't the 'heart' of the game.

CFB reminds me of my father 10 years ago (roughly) insisting that Alicia Keys wasn't R&B, because it didn't sound like R&B;from the 60's. He was wrong too.

not one single computer rpg that I've ever seen has given xp for completing a mission without involving violence, for using negotiating skills to get out of a situation etc.... a true rpg allows free decision for the player and gives equal experience for negotiating an obstacle no matter how they get around it, whether it's combat, debating, or just outrunning them

Someone in this thread needs a copy of Planescape: Torment. It's maybe an even better suggestion than the first two Fallouts, which I also think you'd probably like.

not one single computer rpg that I've ever seen has given xp for completing a mission without involving violence, for using negotiating skills to get out of a situation etc....

That's just weird, because almost all the rpg's I know on pc have at least some non-violent quest solutions somewhere. Of course, most people opt for the violent solutions, because they are more fun (and typically give more loot, loot rolz!). But just sticking with a game mentioned in the article, most f the Oblivion Thieves Guild quests specifically require you to not use violence...

Is it necessary to read the whole thread to gain an understanding, or can I just go ahead and smash Schilling in the head with a mushroom already?

Someone in this thread needs a copy of Planescape: Torment. It's maybe an even better suggestion than the first two Fallouts, which I also think you'd probably like.

I should probably note that both Planescape and Fallout 2 had the same lead designer.

Playing at least one game with an intelligence score of 3 or less is a must for anyone who plays; the comedy virtually never ends.

They're supposedly bringing this back for Fallout: New Vegas.

I'm not a huge RPG fan (more action-RPG, like the Diablo series, Torchlight, etc), but my friend is a big fan.
He says that Fallout 3, Dragon's Age and Mass Effect 2 are definitely worth the hours he's put in.

Personally, every video game that is out or is coming out in the next year is just wasting my time until Portal 2 is released.

Based on the headline, this could get furry.

Planescape: Torment, in addition to being a magnificent game, probably comes closest to Cardsfanboy's ideal of a single player RPG. IIRC, the entire game can be completed with you only resorting to violence twice. A brilliantly original masterpiece of a game that has never successfully been duplicated.

Eve Online probably best fits his description, and there is in fact an enclave of 'true' RPGers within it. A single, persistent universe with no real 'progression path' or storyline (some are offered, but they're entirely optional and aren't the 'heart' of the game.

EVE Online is a true sandbox game, or as close to one as a successful MMO could/has offered. Because it's the only MMO that imposes significant consequences for failure, there's a richness to the gameplay that makes other MMOs appear pale and empty. In comparison, World of Warcraft is a pie eating contest where the reward for winning is more pie.

While you've opened the door to console gaming discussions I want to interject to say finally after waiting years I have a very good baseball game for my Xbox.

MLB2K10 has a mode that lets me start as a AA prospect and try to work my way up to the pros (like a lot of other sports games have been doing). The great thing is when I am in this mode the game advances to the next play I am involved in - so I only play when I bat or when the ball gets close to Centerfield. I find my heart racing when I am moving station to station in a close game. I also sometimes curse myself for bonehead moves like forgetting there were two outs and not running on contact.

For the record I tried my best to like MLB2K8 but ended up shelving it and refused to buy MLB2K9 after reading the reviews.

Pretty much any game in what I would call the 'Black Isle Family' (games made by Black Isle, Bioware, or Obsidian) gives you XP for non-combat options and often encourages you to take them. In fact, it's probably one of their defining features.

Chris Avellone is the man. Can't wait for Alpha Protocol or New Vegas.

Is there any way for me to play Planescape: Torment today? Is it available anywhere?

While you've opened the door to console gaming discussions I want to interject to say finally after waiting years I have a very good baseball game for my Xbox.

I've been seriously contemplating picking up MLB 10 The Show for PS3. I haven't owned a baseball video game since probably like Tony Larussa Baseball for the PC way back when...I've just never found that baseball has translated all that well to video games. But man, i was watching MLB 10 The Show the other day in Best Buy..and reading the reviews. Game looks amazing..

Planescape: Torment, in addition to being a magnificent game, probably comes closest to Cardsfanboy's ideal of a single player RPG.

Morrowind is probably also in the running, although it doesn't swing as strongly to permitting nonviolence. It does have a huge open world that allows you to go in lots of different directions. Mrs. MH#1F, who is not at all a violence junkie, spent a vast amount of time playing that game.

Is there any way for me to play Planescape: Torment today? Is it available anywhere?

Well, there are plenty of copies on ebay. And, well there are always ways to download games, if you don't want to pay for them...

The first Fallout game you can win without killing anything (not directly at least, destroying the military base and the cathedral would certainly kill most of whoever was left inside), Fallout 2 you have to kill the end boss, but you can just hide and turn his own turrets against him if you don't want to fight.

Of newer single player games, Dragon Age is very good. There is more emphasis on killing and combat (I've never tried build a stealth/traps character though might be able to do something interesting with that, the bosses would be tough though) but you are still given chance to play politics, build relationships with your team, and make decisions that effect the game world.

Ultimately none of these games give you the full amount of freedom of a pen and paper game though; they however do still give you the ability to create distinct characters that interact with the world in their own ways.

Yeah, there's tons of computer RPGs that routinely reward nonviolent actions(maybe even most?) and some that even allow you to go through the entire game without any violence. Cardsfanboy is clearly not familiar with the genre.

Is there any way for me to play Planescape: Torment today? Is it available anywhere?

It's certainly easily "available" although I'm not seeing it in downloadable form, in a legal fashion. If/when you do track it down I recommend checking these out;
http://www.shsforums.net/index.php?app=downloads&showcat=14
Here's an article describing them;
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.81317-Planescape-Torment-Gets-A-Facelift

not one single computer rpg that I've ever seen has given xp for completing a mission without involving violence, for using negotiating skills to get out of a situation etc.... a true rpg allows free decision for the player and gives equal experience for negotiating an obstacle no matter how they get around it, whether it's combat, debating, or just outrunning them. All of the games out there push for combat as the primary solution(if not the only solution) and that is not roleplaying.

Steve Jackson wrote a guide to roleplaying a few years ago and one of the chapters was a discussion of all the different types of roleplayers there are out there. There is no one 'correct' path to roleplaying. I played literally hundreds of hours D&D;in junior high and high school and I can't remember a time we got XP for doing something other than killing things. Maybe happened a handful of times.

Some people play RPGs for the ability to shape the virtual world they inhabit.
Some people play RPGs to develop their own character's personality based on his or her experiences.
Some people play RPGs to kill things and gain loot.
Some people play RPGs to socialize with others and don't really care what happens in the game.
Some people play RPGs to dick with the other players.
Some people play RPGs as a competition between the party and the GM, with the objective being to sniff out the puzzles and traps laid by the GM.
Some people play RPGs as a sort of immersive literary experience.

When I GM'ed, I designed my campaigns as sort of extended novels. The main plot points and outlines were set out ahead of time. One campaign revolved around the players chasing a wizard who had stolen a magic MacGuffin. So the first encounter had the level 4 party surprised by the level 15 wizard, who swooped in theatrically and seized the MacGuffin. The idea was that the party didn't have the strength to stop him at the beginning, but would gain power and experience over the course of the campaign. However, when we played the party was very angry that there was no way to stop the magician stealing the MacGuffin. They came up with many clever ways to try and prevent him getting away, but the plot required him to get away and they seemed very unwilling to accept that literary requirement.

Once they grudgingly acknowledged the wizard got away, they were given a prophecy that cryptically indicated the location of the other MacGuffins the wizard was going for. The idea was that they would get a sort of heads-up when they were near another such item. However, the party decided to short-circuit the entire quest by going to the last place on the list. Of course, the clues were deliberately so cryptic that there was no way of puzzling them out ahead of time, and in fact the last place on the list was in another plane of existence which they had no way of accessing. Nevertheless, they convinced themselves they knew where the last place was and were determined to go there and wait.

Another campaign, using another system, required the party to escort a supply train to a destination several hundred miles away. There was a deadline (four weeks or something), to prevent them dawdling, but the idea was that they would have various entertaining encounters along the way. Boy, was I wrong. They made a beeling for the destination and wouldn't stop to talk to anyone along the way, nor would they make any detours at all.

In short, you have to know what kind of players you are dealing with, what they want out of the game, and then give it to them, rather than expecting that they want the same thing you do and will cooperate with you in achieving that goal. By the same token, just because you want something out of a game doesn't mean that a game that doesn't deliver that isn't an RPG.

MLB The Show has become a great, great series. I played the hell out of MLB 09 The Show. I would argue that for playing an action game of baseball (as opposed to DMB or something), the recent iterations are the best ever.

It is a lot of fun, but because of licensing issues is only available on the Playstation consoles. MLB 2K10 has the license on everything else.

The experience [46] describes eerily mirrors the one & only time I tried to DM, tho I also managed to not scale the adventure to the characters' levels, so I had them inadvertently fighting a creature about 20 levels above their paygrade.

& I'd just like to cosign the love being given to the Bioware games mentioned -- loved both KOTORs, recently finished (& adored) ME2 (a VAST improvement on the first one), & (corny-as-hell sex scenes aside) (yes, Grandpa, they're having sex in video games now) currently playing through Dragon Age for the 2nd time while eagerly awaiting the Dragon Age add-on that's due later this month.

(yes, Grandpa, they're having sex in video games now)

First Game I can remember this was Baldur's Gate II, where you could get some of your companions into your tent. Nothing graphical tho. IIRC the main plot pretty much required you to submitt to the Matron* in the underground Drow city, where she would use you as an S&M;toy for a night. Fun times.

*at least for male characters...

(corny-as-hell sex scenes aside) (yes, Grandpa, they're having sex in video games now) currently playing through Dragon Age for the 2nd time while eagerly awaiting the Dragon Age add-on that's due later this month.

I'm a little annoyed that it seems people are putting more effort into programming add-on sex scenes than add-on quests/items.

Say what you will about Oblivion, but there's a *lot* of great add-on content for it.

I'm a little annoyed that it seems people aren't putting enough effort into programming add-on sex scenes! Either do it right, or (please please please) don't do it. The makers of ME2, to their credit, cut away right before things get sexxxy (or, at least, that's what happened when my character was about to get some), so you get the character-interaction stuff w/out seeing the awkward polygonal friction.

The sex scenes in Dragon Age can be hilarious (but not at all sexy); a merciless bald female dwarf sharing a tender moment with Alistair and making stupid faces is a good time. The romances are of course optional though, my first character abstained completely, there were more important things going on; they aren't forced on you like many games.

Once they grudgingly acknowledged the wizard got away, they were given a prophecy that cryptically indicated the location of the other MacGuffins the wizard was going for. The idea was that they would get a sort of heads-up when they were near another such item. However, the party decided to short-circuit the entire quest by going to the last place on the list. Of course, the clues were deliberately so cryptic that there was no way of puzzling them out ahead of time, and in fact the last place on the list was in another plane of existence which they had no way of accessing. Nevertheless, they convinced themselves they knew where the last place was and were determined to go there and wait.

You fool! Rule number one for GMs everywhere is to never, ever in a thousand years give your players *anything* resembling a red herring.