P.S. Bethesda's games aren't RPGs.
Well you can't really say you're trying to have an objective discussion and claim an obviously subjective opinion as fact, but maybe I missed something, and I'm curious as why you'd say Bethesda's games aren't RPGs?
We need clear distinction between RPGs and hiking simulators aka TES. For that we need to define what an RPG is, hopefully I don't need to go into much detail because TES (especially Oblivion and Skyrim) don't even fit the basics. They have the superfluous elements, like character creation and items, but they don't have the core. RPGs have three distinct features -
1. Reactive world - this is often shortened to C&C, I kinda dislike that, but whatever. This basically means that the world reacts naturally to your actions and you exist in it. Fallout 1 and 2 did a great job with this. Telling random strangers where your vault is hidden in the mountains which has valuable pre-war tech is obviously a stupid idea and bandits start raiding it soon after. This is good. Make me paranoid that my choices will have real, logical consequences. The game world will possess mechanics that recognise and respond to your character's intrinsic qualities, such as an ability or inability to use certain items, or dialogue options based around your character's intelligence (for example). Multiple solutions to problems are expected. This also means that a coherent, consistent world is preferable, because it allows your character to be a part of it and interact with it, without 4th wall breaking. *Roleplaying* basically, but done right.
It isn't the Mass Effect kind of reactivity where a choice affects something COMPLETELY unrelated to that choice. Like the loyalty missions in 2 affecting whether someone will die in the suicide mission. This isn't about making a reactive and immersive world and it's about sticking it in the back-of-the-box blurb. Basically marketing and faux-replayability.
2. Menu-driven combat - auto-attack, selecting abilities from the interface, your character's stats and skills are way more important than your personal motor skills. This is what people mean by "character progression" basically. It also means that you aren't playing a mere avatar of yourself, but a completely separate entity. This comes directly from pen and paper gaming and translated well into video games because of the quick calculation of computers. Anything that isn't menu-driven and isn't character-centric is the action genre. That's why Diablo 2 is an ARPG and not a straight up RPG.
3. Mostly party-based. This is a tough one to sell, I know, but bear with me. I can't think of a single RPG which has the above-mentioned points but isn't party-based. Even NWN had at least 1 slot for a party member. Those that aren't are MMOs (even though they, too, are party-based to some extent) and they have wildly different logic and systems than single-player RPGs. It, too, is a borrowed concept from pen and paper gaming. Party members not only serve the plot, but also contrast or complement your character with their personalities and abilities. This is the most wobbly point, I admit, but 3 sounds like a well rounded number :p
Those 3 points are historically what is considered a single-player RPG. VTMB is an ARPG, leaning heavily on the RPG btw. You might have noticed that the TES games, especially post-Morrowind (but it too) have none of these qualities. Skyrim is also a game of excess and shallowness. It promises a vast open world, but in the end it turns out it has the breadth of the ocean, but the depth of a puddle. It doesn't react to anything (killing the last boss, but the Companions NPCs are asking who you are, come on!) , it doesn't have C&C , level scaling basically negates any kind of character progression etc. Bethesda also aren't aware what purpose RPG mechanics are supposed to have. Like I mentioned in the second point, in an RPG you aren't playing as an avatar of yourself, you are playing as a completely separate entity. That means that interactions with the game world are governed by HIS/HER/THEIR skills, HIS/HER/THEIR qualities, HIS/HER/THEIR abilities, not the player's. Thus, any RPG system will possess mechanics that separate your character's abilities from yours, such as the STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA of Dungeons & Dragons, or Fallout's S.P.E.C.I.A.L. system.
Don't get me started on doing whatever you want, no matter the logic behind it. A game in which you can do anything, focuses on nothing. This pretty much covers it, but I can go way deeper than that if need be, but I think you get the point.
This is however down to how I perceive cRPGs, and RPGs. Let's be a bit blunt and say there are two ways of playing a RPG :
- Spreadsheet and dices with little place to imagination, where things are ruled by the Natural 20 ( have a look at
http://tabletitans.com/ , stories from tabletop RPG players, are almost always dear remembrance of natural 20 and dice-determined victories ( or failures )).1
- Roleplaying and discussion, where outcomes are determined by talking, decisions, argumentation, and as little dice-casting as possible.
The natural 20 is just a representation of your attempt at something, it was never perfect, but it was service-able. It also prevented the game from being too stale and rigid, and promoted more creative solutions after a failure.
Now, before you say I'm off-topic, my point is that there are at least two types of players who do not share the same expectations and therefore the same views on thing. I love the ES games, I love what they did with housing, even if doesn't have any meaningful impact on the gameplay and content of the game. I make it meaningful because of the way I play. This is, I believe, called Emergent Gameplay - taking elements of the game and making use of them in a way that is meaningful and relevant as well as problem-solving.
Now, I perfectly understand that someone playing a cRPG ( or RPG ) mostly for monster slaying would find such a housing system perfectly useless and irrelevant. Not the way they play. They'd rather have it provide at least combat bonus, wield some strategic importance, something that would make the rest of the game experience better at the very least.
Emergent Gameplay is mostly for sandboxes and sandbox mmos (mainly EVE online). In a single-player RPG hand-crafted content is preferable, mostly because of that consistency and reactivity point. You also can't design for Emergent Gameplay, you can only give your players deep mechanics and let them go wild.
And, yes, PoE stronghold clearly succeeded in being neither and being completely, utterly useless, pointless and boring
Yeap.
I agree with everything after that.
Just a last, slightly off topic thing : sadly, today's art isn't backed anymore by most of what you say. More and more the charisma of the artist and their ability to self promote are the keys to a piece of art being recognized as masterpiece / good art. Same goes with videogames, but it's actually worse : a "good" game doesn't need to be good if you have enough money to push it forward and get yourself some good critics. Of course, if the game is actually very bad, the backlash will be violent. Or will it ? Blizzard latest games ( starcraft 2, hearthstone, Diablo3 ... ) are quite bad, but they are a huge success.
[/offtopic]
That only happens if you mistake popularity and commercial success with quality. 20th century art that is relevant is still backed by the things I said. Don't get me started on Blizzard's recent abortions.
/phew
