Any1 know a good rpg game?

[ChickenSoup]

PS don't believe anything drew says about Skyrim

[Chozon1]

There are so many worthy titles... Final Fantasy is just the easiest fallback, and the most mainstream.

Final Fantasy is just the easiest fallback, and the most mainstream.

the most mainstream.

When did everyone go hipster and leave me uninformed as to the change? O_o

Still, I want to play Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey something awful, and am happeh to see a Drewrep for 'em. And you really can't go wrong with an FF Tactics game, which surprised me with it's depth and fun. I think I logged around 30 hours into the GBA version.

Let us not Shining Force either, if you happen to have a Wii and can get it off the VC; or a GBA and can grab the remake. Oh, and Golden Sun. Dunno about the DS iterations, but aside from some troubling mythos (which is, to be fair, generally an RPG standby. ) those games were amazing (also on the GBA).

Mmm...now that I think about it, The Mario and Luigi Superstar series is one of my favorites too. Epic games with a pretty unique battle system. Similar to the Paper Mario series.

[Drewsov]

PS don't believe anything drew says about Skyrim

It's the best game ever!

[Chozon1]

Drew: +1

[blacksinow]

There are some big flaws in Skyrim, especially if you have a PS3 and your computer can't run it all that well. The only nice thing about the map, is that it looks nice. For those who want to follow the travel routes, good luck.

[Chozon1]

It's been my experience that playing a Bethesda game on a console is asking for heart ache and rage quits.

One of the few good things about PC's: You can usually fix it with the console.

[Drewsov]

Has nothing to do with the games being released on consoles.

It has everything to do with Bethesda having the worst QA and testing department in the industry. I'm sorry, but when Rockstar and Volition Lionhead and numerous other companies are able to create massive worlds with hundreds of hours of gameplay - and arguably more complex game systems than Bethesda - and still manage to have less blatant technical issues than Bethesda's do, even with patched PC releases, then the issue is not so much with the system that the game is played on, as it is the developer of the title.

Not to mention the fact that the writing is mostly terrible (Fallout 3 was just... ugh... New Vegas on the other hand, wasn't developed by Bethesda, and so it suffered from its publisher's QA problems, but not its myriad other technical issues) while the worlds sprawl with the possibility of possibility. This never seems to actually be realized.

What truly cripples Skyrim, though, is the combat, which is so clunky as to be unplayable. This is a constant issue with Bethesda titles as well, and one that they never seem to fix. Bethesda, and specifically Todd Howard (the main developer at the studio), seem enrapt with the quixotic notion that they are at the top of the heap in the industry, based on sales and reviews that ignore substantial flaws and issues with their games. They never change a thing, and come up with excuses for lazy programming (famously stating that the reason they don't allow you to climb ladders in their games is the technical challenge with the engine, something that other titles utilizing the series regular Gamebryo engine don't seem to have. Yet now, with the custom Creation Engine used to power Skyrim... same thing. Guess it was too difficult to program into their own engine. So was natively running DirectX 11 on the PC) which doesn't excuse the flaws.

Excuse me while I play something - anything - worth my time.

[Chozon1]

Bethesda, and specifically Todd Howard (the main developer at the studio), seem enrapt with the quixotic notion that they are at the top of the heap in the industry, based on sales and reviews that ignore substantial flaws and issues with their games.

Probably because some reviewers--myself included--look past tech issues and pay attention to whether or not a game is fun and enjoyable. Crippling glitches aside (And really, there were a few that cost me several hours of hard work and left me stranded and unable to do anything but reload and redo the incredibly complex quest) Morrowind is likely my favorite game ever.

Who cares about the writing when you're charging a demon with a magic sword you personally crafted in your hand? It's not supposed to be a heart breaking mythos tale, it's supposed to be a fantasy realm that's fun to play in. I can live with that, since for the most part, it succeeds. Not, mind you, that I'm excusing the glitches and quirks that should've been ground out by even a substandard testing team. I understand what you're saying, I just ignore it and play the game.

Also, for the record, when I said 'console' I meant 'console commands' on the PC. You can usually unbreak whatever weird glitch has broked using it. That's why "I never play a Bethesda game on a console", because it doesn't have one.

Also, there's a mod for Skyrim that turns your dragon shouts into farts. You can't tell me that's not awesome. XD

[ArchAngel]

I honestly liked the combat system. It was basic, simple and fit well with the point of the game, and the point of the game is immersion.

I get that not everybody will like or even understand the game. RPG's have become an incredibly broad category as of late and people play different rpg games for different reasons. A jRPG gamer goes in with vastly different expectations and desires than someone loading up Diablo. And you know this.
And Skyrim isn't the best combat rpg around and if you judge it by that, of course you'd dislike the game, especially with all the hype around it.
What it is is an amazing role-playing game; the depth of immersion is better than just about any other game I've played. While the combat is simplistic enough to enhance the immersion; it doesn't feel like the game is playing it for you. I've quite enjoyed the combat in this context, and I know I'm not alone in this. Perhaps I had a better experience since I was on a PC, though.

And about technical issues, there were a good amount on launch, but nothing I found rehabilitating. I've seen worse. Maybe you speak overly strong to bring a point across, but sometimes I wonder if you're playing an entirely different game.

[ChickenSoup]

I honestly liked the combat system. It was basic, simple and fit well with the point of the game, and the point of the game is immersion.

I get that not everybody will like or even understand the game. RPG's have become an incredibly broad category as of late and people play different rpg games for different reasons. A jRPG gamer goes in with vastly different expectations and desires than someone loading up Diablo. And you know this.
And Skyrim isn't the best combat rpg around and if you judge it by that, of course you'd dislike the game, especially with all the hype around it.
What it is is an amazing role-playing game; the depth of immersion is better than just about any other game I've played. While the combat is simplistic enough to enhance the immersion; it doesn't feel like the game is playing it for you. I've quite enjoyed the combat in this context, and I know I'm not alone in this. Perhaps I had a better experience since I was on a PC, though.

And about technical issues, there were a good amount on launch, but nothing I found rehabilitating. I've seen worse. Maybe you speak overly strong to bring a point across, but sometimes I wonder if you're playing an entirely different game.

[neilestuye]

Alright, Skyrim's cool, and Ima let you finish, but Call of Duty is the best RPG of all time.

Of ALL time.

Lol

[Drewsov]

Bethesda, and specifically Todd Howard (the main developer at the studio), seem enrapt with the quixotic notion that they are at the top of the heap in the industry, based on sales and reviews that ignore substantial flaws and issues with their games.

Probably because some reviewers--myself included--look past tech issues and pay attention to whether or not a game is fun and enjoyable. Crippling glitches aside (And really, there were a few that cost me several hours of hard work and left me stranded and unable to do anything but reload and redo the incredibly complex quest) Morrowind is likely my favorite game ever.

My issue is more that it felt like work after 20-some hours, and I do enough of that anyway.

Who cares about the writing when you're charging a demon with a magic sword you personally crafted in your hand? It's not supposed to be a heart breaking mythos tale, it's supposed to be a fantasy realm that's fun to play in. I can live with that, since for the most part, it succeeds. Not, mind you, that I'm excusing the glitches and quirks that should've been ground out by even a substandard testing team. I understand what you're saying, I just ignore it and play the game.

Some people can't do that all the time.

I'm one of those people.

Also, for the record, when I said 'console' I meant 'console commands' on the PC. You can usually unbreak whatever weird glitch has broked using it. That's why "I never play a Bethesda game on a console", because it doesn't have one.

For the record, I know what "console" means when you're referring to a PC. I'm around computers all day long, I troubleshoot tech for a living, give me the benefit of the doubt, yeah?

I mean, I know I have a reputation around here for only playing console games, but I actually do own a fair number of PC games. I'm dualbooting Windows 7 with Mac on a i7 processor. I have to know a bit.

Also, there's a mod for Skyrim that turns your dragon shouts into farts. You can't tell me that's not awesome. XD

No.

That's worse than orange soda.

I honestly liked the combat system. It was basic, simple and fit well with the point of the game, and the point of the game is immersion.

I get that not everybody will like or even understand the game. RPG's have become an incredibly broad category as of late and people play different rpg games for different reasons. A jRPG gamer goes in with vastly different expectations and desires than someone loading up Diablo. And you know this.
And Skyrim isn't the best combat rpg around and if you judge it by that, of course you'd dislike the game, especially with all the hype around it.
What it is is an amazing role-playing game; the depth of immersion is better than just about any other game I've played. While the combat is simplistic enough to enhance the immersion; it doesn't feel like the game is playing it for you. I've quite enjoyed the combat in this context, and I know I'm not alone in this. Perhaps I had a better experience since I was on a PC, though.

And about technical issues, there were a good amount on launch, but nothing I found rehabilitating. I've seen worse. Maybe you speak overly strong to bring a point across, but sometimes I wonder if you're playing an entirely different game.

It isn't especially the combat that bothers me, though I wish I could for example heal myself without putting my weapons away. It isn't even the unbalanced enemies (why are trolls and giants so much more difficult to kill than dragons?).

And it's not that I don't understand the game. I do. I dropped twenty-someodd hours into it.

The problem is that it felt like work. I had to talk myself into playing it, over and over again. It got to the point where I just set it aside and didn't think about it, because I wanted to play other games more, and dreaded the thought of playing Skyrim. And I don't know why, except that when I loaded it up, it seemed tedious.

The problem wasn't immersion. The game's world is magnificent. The problem may have been that the method of conveying quests - the quest log or journal - seemed itemized, a list of chores. Exploring the world and uncovering new places is a wondrous thing, and it's not like I haven't had experience with these types of games before. I put a similar amount of time into Oblivion before hanging my hat up, put a solid 85 hours into Fallout 3 and around 40 into New Vegas (which I actually adored... even wrote an article about it here: http://bombadillo.net/?p=249).

And substantially, those games weren't different than Skyrim.

So maybe I changed as a gamer, or maybe something was off with Skyrim. Dunno.

[ArchAngel]

20 hours is pretty paltry for skyrim, but no sense of playing something you don't enjoy. I'm not trying to convince you that you were wrong and you actually like the game; there isn't a single game that appeals to everybody, and that's perfectly fine. But that doesn't mean it's objectively a bad game. Based on gamer appeal, it's been a great game. It kept me and many other enthralled for over 100 hours. Even in gaming as an art form, it did well, providing many people a medium to understand parts of themselves by interacting with both the story and various elements in the game. I would make the claim that Skyim is objectively a good or even a great game, but I would never argue that you have to like it.

[blacksinow]

When we start excusing every game because it looks fun, rather then huge glitches that need to be fixed, but aren't... it is telling the game companies that they excused from all the mistakes the game makes. I agree with Drew on what was said on so many levels. Because frankly... Mountain climbing should have been added, but didn't, because of outright lazyness. They need to do research on suitable map formats before they release another single player rpg to find something that works. I had the most aweful time navigating Skyrim, and always got frustrated when I lost my stupid curser towards the edges of the map (like with the dark brotherhood headquarters.) And the travel routes were the WORST! I know it's okay in the game to get lost and explore, but sometime it never hurts to know which way takes you to the stupid ruin. I honestly thought the dungeons were okay, when they aren't bugging out on you. And not everyone should have to conform to the standard of "PC VERSION OF NOTHING!".

Honestly, I thought Amalur's engine could have been perfect for Skyrim, but really needed to be perfected badly itself.

[jester747]

But Call of Duty amirite