Sorry for the double-post, but I didn't getto see this response and I have things to say about it.
I admit i never understanded this argument about "not having enough time" ...
I mean its not like you can play only one game, and only once in whole life ... is it?
You will play other things, right?
So ... quite obviously i would dare to say ... you DO have time, so that is not the real issue here.
🤔
Maybe you just dont want to play the same game twice?
That would be understandable ...
Except, the more distinct consequences the game have, tje more different it is ... so again, you should be arguing for branching and strong consequences ... shouldnt you?
I mean have you tryed to play trough EA by joining the Druids and then joining Goblins?
Or play as a Fighter or a Wizard?
Arent those experiences different enough?
🤔
The issue, such as it is, is that there are more games coming out now than ever before, and people feel a pressure to get to all of them. Especially since more and more, every big release is a "conversation" and folks will want to be on top of it or even just want to keep up with their friends who play the games, as well as jut wanting to play games they're excited for. Look at the people who were lamenting BG3 and Starfield coming out so close together. Especially since games, big releases especially, are getting longer as well, by the time you finish a game the first time, there's another new game to get to. And then another, and another, and before you know it, you're kinda forgetting about that one game you said you wanted to replay. I also think part of this is kind of unhealthy, part of a sense that turns finishing games into an obligation, like if they don't have something "tangible" to show for playing the game then the time was somehow "wasted" but that's a whole other can of worms.
As for those examples you provided ... those are heavily railroading games ... Skyrim even goes so far, it makes important NPCs litterally imortal ...
It may suit somebody ... i guess ... but its beyond me how this can still be called RPG. :-/
The simple fact is that the less your choices matter, the easier the game is to write. So many studios pick this way to make the game cheaper ... but its rarely good thing for gameplay. :-/
So firstly, the genre of RPG has been diluted to the point of being almost meaningless. Just look at the number of games described as rpgs to see that. I think with skyrim in particular though, they made a deliberate, not wrong choice. The story is there to provide a context, to provide an excuse to go and explore, and exploration is the POINT of the game. It's not a game about the politics and complexities about the region, really. Choosing imperials or stormcloaks, it's not actually important, the important part is going out and doing stuff, exploring dungeons. You can go off and ignore the plot for long stretches when you feel like it. So they decided "nah, we're not gonna try and make a complex branching narrative here." Instead they focused on creating a vast world worth exploring.
