Cats are not ducks, and Skyrim isn't a goddamn RPG (no 56k)

Oh god, I can see your eyes rolling now, as you pop your heads like weasels from sewer grates into this thread, expecting, no doubt, another tired retread of the same endlessly protracted argument which has, unfortunately, occupied more than fifteen minutes of my, and probably your, time, at some point or another on this forum.

I'll be brief.

Skyrim isn't a role playing game. It's an action-adventure game, and a fun one, with neat dungeons and lots of cool sights and sounds to see as you hike across a enormous landscape dotted with nifty little dungeons and damp holes to poke around in, but it isn't a goddamn role playing game, not even close, and I can explain this to you, and I'm going to. Call it a public service.

A role playing game, by necessity, must have portions of its content left inaccessible to one character or another on any given playthrough. If it doesn't then there are no roles being played, get it? You're just adventuring, and that's what Skyrim's all about: adventure, freedom, accessibility, fighting monsters. Nothing wrong with that ( I've certainly enjoyed it more than The Witcher 2, which remains dull and ****ing linear in the extreme, despite the "radical plot branches"!11!!! Ugh).

But that's all it is, really, there's no reason to even play a second character, save to level up again, and with a different focus to start with, or to play a different race, or to LARP, which seems to be the usual recourse with Bethesda games.

Let me give a helpful, perhaps moron-proof example (I say perhaps because of the forum we're on; the locals are ingenious):

BASIC ROLE PLAYING GAME

Oh hello there **** I'm the character creation screen! Who do you want to be?

1. Fighter

2. Diplomat

3. Thief

Option 1 - Oh, you chose a fighter, splendid, here's the start of the game! There's a gate with a dude blocking it. You're a fighter so you cut his nuts off and feed them to him, or maybe tear his spine out, you know, something really gory, and then you take the key off his corpse and continue to the city.

Option 2 - A diplomat, how nice, you come up to the gate and talk your way through, you svelte-tongued bastard you, he hands you the key and gives you a coupon for one free blowjob at the local inn and pub. Very nice.

Option 3 - You're a thief. You climb the wall into the city, steal some apples and some pornography and creep down into the nearest sewer to make a night of it. Welcome to paradise.

/BASIC ROLE PLAYING GAME

So you see, it's not very hard. Role playing games have roles in them, and you have to choose a role, and that role actually means something in terms of the game content. You actually have to decide what kind of character you want to be, and not just in your head, as with Elder Scrolls games, as with Mass Effect, as with Dragon Age, as with the Witcher, as with all these adventure games that, good or bad (mostly bad) have nothing at all to do with the genre that some of us know and love.

To summarise, and in such away that even Mass Effect fans will get it (they'll at least know their basic animals at that stage, right?):

Cats are not...

And Skyrim isn't...

Thanks for tuning in everybody!

I hope this puts some kind of dent in the wave of mother f*cking idiocy which has swept this board, gaming journalism, and the entire planet, everywhere, over the past few years (but kind of doubt it). If you think you can counter my argument without pissing yourself and/or ignoring what I've said entirely then please, come with it; I always welcome a good debate.

actually i would argue it is not an action rpg.

it is a non-action rpg.

That was a refreshing read.

So in your opinion Skyrim isn't a RPG game?

wait i got a better one.

there was plenty of roleplaying in that game. i saw tons of people come on sw and say their ps3 version was running fine.

And there goes my "The Oregon Trail is as much of an RPG as Skyrim" thread.

/sigh

Well played, Jethro, you magnificent bastard.

I roleplayed as a guy that only used his fists, why does that not count?bobbetybob

Because it's in your head, essentially. I could play a character that runs up against walls because of a birth defect but that isn't an in-game role, it isn't provided for in the game content, it's just an option, just like you can choose this sword or that one, or one spell or some other, or you can jump up and down in one place for three hours, etc.

If, as in the example in the OP, there were significant game content rendered inaccessible unless you played a hand to hand fighter, then yeah, it would be, but that isn't the case, now is it?

So in your opinion Skyrim isn't a RPG game?

super600

Yeah man, that's about the sum of it.

I could play a character that runs up against walls because of a birth defect

jethrovegas

I LOL'd Hard :lol:

So, Jethro, let me ge this straight:

You're essentially saying Skyrim is a better version of Fable? :o

So, Jethro, let me ge this straight:

You're essentially saying Skyrim is a better version of Fable? :o

DarkLink77

That's a pretty low bar everyone is praising then. :lol:

Sweet Jesus of Nazareth....

A role playing game, by necessity, must have portions of its content left inaccessible to one character or another on any given playthrough.

jethrovegas

I guess I'll bite. This is pretty much the reason why I think New Vegas is the best RPG of the last few years, I don't know if I'd say that RPG's hinge on this schematic.

Are you referring to quests being inaccessible or certain play styles?

That's a pretty low bar everyone is praising then. :lol:

mmmwksil

Fable 2's a better RPG than any Final Failsty could ever be :o

Stats, Imagination, Dice Rolls(rng), the core of Pen and Paper games, I hereby rename Skyrim's genre to be! PnPPG! (wow, dark/demon's souls, eve... fall into this category as well!)

RPGs require more focus on the ROLE part of the game, even Mass Effect2, many scoff at it as an 'rpg' since it lacks stats, but I say stats=/=role, it's core mechanics are that of Role and Third Person Shooting, therefor: TPSRPG.

Actually, according to the definition of a role playing game, it is. Long post was not worth your time man, just get over it. Ghost_702

BASIC ROLE PLAYING GAME

Oh hello there **** I'm the character creation screen! Who do you want to be?

1. Fighter

2. Diplomat

3. Thief

Option 1 - Oh, you chose a fighter, splendid, here's the start of the game! There's a gate with a dude blocking it. You're a fighter so you cut his nuts off and feed them to him, or maybe tear his spine out, you know, something really gory, and then you take the key off his corpse and continue to the city.

Option 2 - A diplomat, how nice, you come up to the gate and talk your way through, you svelte-tongued bastard you, he hands you the key and gives you a coupon for one free blowjob at the local inn and pub. Very nice.

Option 3 - You're a thief. You climb the wall into the city, steal some apples and some pornography and creep down into the nearest sewer to make a night of it. Welcome to paradise.

/BASIC ROLE PLAYING GAME

jethrovegas

Ah the cl.ass selection theme. It's completely immersion breaking, not to mention presumptious, to make the player determine his end game character before he even gets to his first challenge. You can do all those things in Skyrim, without having to shoehorn yourself into a vague archetype 5 minutes into the game. There's no reason you can't do that without resorting to that damn character creation screen. It basically screams you're too lazy to come up with a compelling gameplay mechanic that subtly eases a character in a profession, so you just go for the "ENTER ****HERE" window and try to blow past it as quickly as possible.

But as for multiple ways to complete quests, I agree. Though I felt most Skyrim quest gave you the option to kill, sneak, or talk your way out of a handful of situations, it would have been nice if it was closer to New Vegas level of possibilities.

[QUOTE="mmmwksil"]

That's a pretty low bar everyone is praising then. :lol:

Slashless

Fable 2's a better RPG than any Final Failsty could ever be :o

I won't be biting that piece of bait, Slashy. :P

A role playing game, by necessity, must have portions of its content left inaccessible to one character or another on any given playthrough

jethrovegas

You can either side with the Imperials or the Stormcloaks. When you side with one of them, the other's quests become inaccessible. If you want to play them, you would need to do another playthrough

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

So, Jethro, let me ge this straight:

You're essentially saying Skyrim is a better version of Fable? :o

mmmwksil

That's a pretty low bar everyone is praising then. :lol:

Actually, according to the definition of a role playing game, it is. Long post was not worth your time man, just get over it. Ghost_702

Whose definition? Yours? GameSpot's?

Do you have any actual arguments to make or did you only ooze your way into this thread to leave us the slime of regurgitated mass opinion?

I guess people have different definitions of RPG.

[QUOTE="Ghost_702"]Actually, according to the definition of a role playing game, it is. Long post was not worth your time man, just get over it. jethrovegas

Whose definition? Yours? GameSpot's?

Do you have any actual arguments to make or did you only ooze your way into this thread to leave us the slime of regurgitated mass opinion?

Man that was a great read. The ME jab made me lol hard too.

Also, besides the Imperials and Stormcloaks, is there any ingame lore that says a member of one guild can't be a member of another. I only did the Companions, so I don't know how much the other groups had interacting quests arcs.

If there isn't any ingame reason the Archmage of Winterhold can't be the underground leader of the Thieves Guild, there doesn't really seem to be any reason not to allow the player to double-dip into various factions.

Also, besides the Imperials and Stormcloaks, is there any ingame lore that says a member of one guild can't be a member of another. I only did the Companions, so I don't know how much the other groups had interacting quests arcs.

If there isn't any ingame reason the Archmage of Winterhold can't be the underground leader of the Thieves Guild, there doesn't really seem to be any reason not to allow the player to double-dip into various factions.

Kickinurass

Yeah I wish the game did limit how many factions you could be the head of so it would actually make me want to do multiple playthorughs. They should have just made some factions have alliances with others where you can interact with both of them while other groups will hate you for interacting with certain groups (similar to New Vegas). They do mention that the Dark Brotherhood and the Thieves Guild have somewhat of an alliance so it would have been cool to see more stuff doen between the 2 of them

Also, besides the Imperials and Stormcloaks, is there any ingame lore that says a member of one guild can't be a member of another. I only did the Companions, so I don't know how much the other groups had interacting quests arcs.

If there isn't any ingame reason the Archmage of Winterhold can't be the underground leader of the Thieves Guild, there doesn't really seem to be any reason not to allow the player to double-dip into various factions.

Kickinurass

Not really

As for missing out on faction missions, off the top of my head you can kill the entire Dark Brother Hood losing out on the entire quest line for them.

Yeah I wish the game did limit how many factions you could be the head of so it would actually make me want to do multiple playthorughs. They should have just made some factions have alliances with others where you can interact with both of them while other groups will hate you for interacting with certain groups (similar to New Vegas). They do mention that the Dark Brotherhood and the Thieves Guild have somewhat of an alliance so it would have been cool to see more stuff doen between the 2 of them

BPoole96

new Vegas certainly did do its Core RPG Mechanics extremely well :3

[QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

BASIC ROLE PLAYING GAME

Oh hello there **** I'm the character creation screen! Who do you want to be?

1. Fighter

2. Diplomat

3. Thief

Option 1 - Oh, you chose a fighter, splendid, here's the start of the game! There's a gate with a dude blocking it. You're a fighter so you cut his nuts off and feed them to him, or maybe tear his spine out, you know, something really gory, and then you take the key off his corpse and continue to the city.

Option 2 - A diplomat, how nice, you come up to the gate and talk your way through, you svelte-tongued bastard you, he hands you the key and gives you a coupon for one free blowjob at the local inn and pub. Very nice.

Option 3 - You're a thief. You climb the wall into the city, steal some apples and some pornography and creep down into the nearest sewer to make a night of it. Welcome to paradise.

/BASIC ROLE PLAYING GAME

Kickinurass

Ah the cl.ass selection theme. It's completely immersion breaking, not to mention presumptious, to make the player determine his end game character before he even gets to his first challenge. You can do all those things in Skyrim, without having to shoehorn yourself into a vague archetype 5 minutes into the game. There's no reason you can't do that without resorting to that damn character creation screen. It basically screams you're too lazy to come up with a compelling gameplay mechanic that subtly eases a character in a profession, so you just go for the "ENTER ****HERE" window and try to blow past it as quickly as possible.

But as for multiple ways to complete quests, I agree. Though I felt most Skyrim quest gave you the option to kill, sneak, or talk your way out of a handful of situations, it would have been nice if it was closer to New Vegas level of possibilities.

If Skyrim had a major division of content according to the kind of character you "ease" into over time, then you might have a faint glimmer of an argument somewhere in that dimness.

We both know that is doesn't, which brings me to...

You can either side with the Imperials or the Stormcloaks. When you side with one of them, the other's quests become inaccessible. If you want to play them, you would need to do another playthrough

BPoole96

Meager stuff, man. Even with the aforementioned instance, along with any others that may be hiding in there (it's a big game) the fact remains that no matter what kind of character you develop, your character build simply does not affect the game's division of content.

That's the real point here, the character system; it isn't about what choices the player makes (hell, GTA IV had branching decisions), it's about the actual build of your character defining the game content, defining your character's role.

Also, besides the Imperials and Stormcloaks, is there any ingame lore that says a member of one guild can't be a member of another. I only did the Companions, so I don't know how much the other groups had interacting quests arcs.

If there isn't any ingame reason the Archmage of Winterhold can't be the underground leader of the Thieves Guild, there doesn't really seem to be any reason not to allow the player to double-dip into various factions.

Kickinurass

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

Also, besides the Imperials and Stormcloaks, is there any ingame lore that says a member of one guild can't be a member of another. I only did the Companions, so I don't know how much the other groups had interacting quests arcs.

If there isn't any ingame reason the Archmage of Winterhold can't be the underground leader of the Thieves Guild, there doesn't really seem to be any reason not to allow the player to double-dip into various factions.

BPoole96

Yeah I wish the game did limit how many factions you could be the head of so it would actually make me want to do multiple playthorughs. They should have just made some factions have alliances with others where you can interact with both of them while other groups will hate you for interacting with certain groups (similar to New Vegas). They do mention that the Dark Brotherhood and the Thieves Guild have somewhat of an alliance so it would have been cool to see more stuff doen between the 2 of them

Yeah, there were a few missed opportunities lore-wise. I would have liked to see the Companions have a growing distaste for the Dark Brotherhood - maybe following an assassination attempt on one of the Comapnion's allies. And maybe the increased number of assassinations starts to draw to much attention to the Thieves Guild, straining/ building that relationship based on the player's action. And considering the general distrust of mages in Skyrim, I couldn't believe there wasn't a faction directly opposed to the College of Winterhold. I'm hoping the mod community fixes the creative gaps Bethesda left, unless of course Bethesda is saving this content for DLC.

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

[QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

jethrovegas

Meager stuff, man. Even with the aforementioned instance, along with any others that may be hiding in there (it's a big game) the fact remains that no matter what kind of character you develop, your character build simply does not affect the game's division of content.

That's the real point here, the character system; it isn't about what choices the player makes (hell, GTA IV had branching decisions), it's about the actual build of your character defining the game content, defining your character's role.

so wait are you saying a real rpg is a game that lets say I pick to be a stong man(just making up class) that I can never ever use my words to get out of something or into something. I would have to rely on what the strong man class has. I cant mix and match skills like high stength and speech. I mean if thas what you mean I never want to play what you call an rpg.

Oh god, I can see your eyes rolling now, as you pop your heads like weasels from sewer grates into this thread, expecting, no doubt, another tired retread of the same endlessly protracted argument which has, unfortunately, occupied more than fifteen minutes of my, and probably your, time, at some point or another on this forum.

I'll be brief.

Skyrim isn't a role playing game. It's an action-adventure game, and a fun one, with neat dungeons and lots of cool sights and sounds to see as you hike across a enormous landscape dotted with nifty little dungeons and damp holes to poke around in, but it isn't a goddamn role playing game, not even close, and I can explain this to you, and I'm going to. Call it a public service.

A role playing game, by necessity, must have portions of its content left inaccessible to one character or another on any given playthrough. If it doesn't then there are no roles being played, get it? You're just adventuring, and that's what Skyrim's all about: adventure, freedom, accessibility, fighting monsters. Nothing wrong with that ( I've certainly enjoyed it more than The Witcher 2, which remains dull and ****ing linear in the extreme, despite the "radical plot branches"!11!!! Ugh).

But that's all it is, really, there's no reason to even play a second character, save to level up again, and with a different focus to start with, or to play a different race, or to LARP, which seems to be the usual recourse with Bethesda games.

Let me give a helpful, perhaps moron-proof example (I say perhaps because of the forum we're on; the locals are ingenious):

BASIC ROLE PLAYING GAME

Oh hello there **** I'm the character creation screen! Who do you want to be?

1. Fighter

2. Diplomat

3. Thief

Option 1 - Oh, you chose a fighter, splendid, here's the start of the game! There's a gate with a dude blocking it. You're a fighter so you cut his nuts off and feed them to him, or maybe tear his spine out, you know, something really gory, and then you take the key off his corpse and continue to the city.

Option 2 - A diplomat, how nice, you come up to the gate and talk your way through, you svelte-tongued bastard you, he hands you the key and gives you a coupon for one free blowjob at the local inn and pub. Very nice.

Option 3 - You're a thief. You climb the wall into the city, steal some apples and some pornography and creep down into the nearest sewer to make a night of it. Welcome to paradise.

/BASIC ROLE PLAYING GAME

So you see, it's not very hard. Role playing games have roles in them, and you have to choose a role, and that role actually means something in terms of the game content. You actually have to decide what kind of character you want to be, and not just in your head, as with Elder Scrolls games, as with Mass Effect, as with Dragon Age, as with the Witcher, as with all these adventure games that, good or bad (mostly bad) have nothing at all to do with the genre that some of us know and love.

To summarise, and in such away that even Mass Effect fans will get it (they'll at least know their basic animals at that stage, right?):

Cats are not...

And Skyrim isn't...

Thanks for tuning in everybody!

I hope this puts some kind of dent in the wave of mother f*cking idiocy which has swept this board, gaming journalism, and the entire planet, everywhere, over the past few years (but kind of doubt it). If you think you can counter my argument without pissing yourself and/or ignoring what I've said entirely then please, come with it; I always welcome a good debate.

jethrovegas

so wait are you saying a real rpg is a game that lets say I pick to be a stong man(just making up class) that I can never ever use my words to get out of something or into something. I would have to rely on what the strong man class has. I cant mix and match skills like high stength and speech. I mean if thas what you mean I never want to play what you call an rpg.

finalfantasy94

It would depend on the particular game, but yes, in general the point is to keep separate character skill from player skill and make the player define a particular role for their character that differs from other potential roles in non-superficial (that is, content-based) ways.

The example in the OP was extremely simplistic; you play something like Arcanum, for instance, and you're going to have a hell of a lot more (I mean a sh*t ton of) options at your disposal.

[spoiler] Dark Brotherhood - do as Astrid says and kill one of the hostages, start Dark Brotherhood quests. Kill Astrid, begin mission "Destroy the Dark Brotherhood!" [/spoiler]

/thread

I also think it's high time the term "role-playing game" is scrapped entirely. It is too broad of a definition and arguably could be applied to any game.

If Skyrim had a major division of content according to the kind of character you "ease" into over time, then you might have a faint glimmer of an argument somewhere in that dimness.

We both know that is doesn't, which brings me to...

jethrovegas

Had nothing to do with what I said in that post. The character selection screen is leftover from earlier RPG's - it doesn't have a place in an RPG like Skyrim. The way Skyrim handles leveling and class differentiation is ideal - it's invisible, it's subtle, its immersive. It's realistic. I agree completely that I wish there was division of content, I just hate the character creation screen. My dual-wielding Redguard has no interest in magic, so I can't use magic and expect to be effective. I haven't leveled sneak at all and my alchemy skill is lackluster, as are the rest of my stealth skills. My character is a warrior, but that was the result of 40 hours of gameplay, not a brief selection before I escaped the tutorial dungeon.

Oblivion had the class selection menu, and it didn't have division of content either. Division of content has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that developers should be looking for more immersive ways of defining the character instead of making them choose "Warrior, Mage, and Thief" at the beginning of every RPG. Its just a sucky way of presenting a defining gameplay element, no matter how you slice it. Wouldn't you rather play a gameplay segment that represents that screen, than choosing from an abstract list of possible choices.

And I'm aware the Standing stones represent that choice - so Skyrim hasn't escape the system completely. But it's definitely a better system than Bethesda's experiemented with in Oblivion.

[QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

If Skyrim had a major division of content according to the kind of character you "ease" into over time, then you might have a faint glimmer of an argument somewhere in that dimness.

We both know that is doesn't, which brings me to...

Kickinurass

Had nothing to do with what I said in that post. The character selection screen is leftover from earlier RPG's - it doesn't have a place in an RPG like Skyrim. The way Skyrim handles leveling and class differentiation is ideal - it's invisible, it's subtle, its immersive. It's realistic. I agree completely that I wish there was division of content, I just hate the character creation screen. My dual-wielding Redguard has no interest in magic, so I can't use magic and expect to be effective. I haven't leveled sneak at all and my alchemy skill is lackluster, as are the rest of my stealth skills. My character is a warrior, but that was the result of 40 hours of gameplay, not a brief selection before I escaped the tutorial dungeon.

Oblivion had the class selection menu, and it didn't have division of content either. Division of content has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that developers should be looking for more immersive ways of defining the character instead of making them choose "Warrior, Mage, and Thief" at the beginning of every RPG. Its just a sucky way of presenting a defining gameplay element, no matter how you slice it. Wouldn't you rather play a gameplay segment that represents that screen, than choosing from an abstract list of possible choices.

And I'm aware the Standing stones represent that choice - so Skyrim hasn't escape the system completely. But it's definitely a better system than Bethesda's experiemented with in Oblivion.

1. I don't have a dog in the whole "immersion" fight, alright man? I get immersed in X-Com as soon as Skyrim or any other major new release, so I don't really care about that. It's a nebulous concept. If you think Skyrim is the way forward then jolly good, have fun with all that. Not the point of the thread.

2. Skyrim's handling of class differentiation, as you put it, isn't ideal and it's invisible because it doesn't f*cking exist. Not being able to use certain skills as well as others at a late point in the game because you didn't develop them doesn't really matter if the content remains the same no matter what, right?

1. I don't have a dog in the whole "immersion" fight, alright man? I get immersed in X-Com as soon as Skyrim or any other major new release, so I don't really care about that. It's a nebulous concept. If you think Skyrim is the way forward then jolly good, have fun with all that. Not the point of the thread.

2. Skyrim's handling of class differentiation, as you put it, isn't ideal and it's invisible because it doesn't f*cking exist. Not being able to use certain skills as well as others at a late point in the game because you didn't develop them doesn't really matter if the content remains the same no matter what, right?

jethrovegas

1) If you look above, you'll see another posts that is the point of this thread. Have at it, you'll find I actually agree.

2) You're confusing two different issues. Just because you are not cut off from content doesn't mean there isn't a ton of class differentiation. You can approach all the same events regardless of your class, a flaw. But you approach each event dependent on your class - which is a pro.

As I said, I didn't do anything but the Companions quest because I was roleplaying and that's the way my character rolls. It's sad Bethesda didn't lock you out, but it bothers you that much do it yourself and stop whining about it.

for me how you call it dont matter that much ,anyway its my personal game of the year,by the way my ps3 version run fine im 120 hours in it no lag issue:)

It's more of an RPG than Demon's/Dark Souls and Mass Effect 2 is, so why complain?

Hello Jethrovegas. The 80's called to say, "I've gone away and I'm NOT coming back. So please stop following me and trying to bring me back. I accepted that I had to relegate my antiquated design philosophies to the 21st century. Why can't you?"

Seriously already, what is it with this backwards thinking notion that if an RPG isn't modeled after a 30 year old model, it can't be an RPG. By your criteria this is the only genre that can't evolve. Oh perish the thought, that an RPG can create a story experience driven by the player and even employ the means for him to progress his character with anything other than the standard set of numeric stats.

No no no no nooooooooo, developers that try new approaches should be shot on sight before they actually advance the game design for players to role play in an RPG :roll::roll::roll:

[QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

A role playing game, by necessity, must have portions of its content left inaccessible to one character or another on any given playthrough

BPoole96

You can either side with the Imperials or the Stormcloaks. When you side with one of them, the other's quests become inaccessible. If you want to play them, you would need to do another playthrough