Remmirath

I find this an interesting question, partly because we clearly have rather different ideas about how the evolution of CRPGs has been going. To my mind, if anything they have been becoming more linear and have more set characters than they used to. I don't see this as in any way a good thing, but if you compare recent roleplaying games to older ones, you tend to end up with much more set characters and at least as much linearity. To answer the question, for me at least they can be fun, but I don't see them as roleplaying games and won't enjoy them as such. Playing a character I haven't created feels more akin to acting than to roleplaying to me, and while also enjoyable, it is neither the same thing nor as enjoyable. Some games fall into a sort of grey area where I do consider them roleplaying games, but only barely -- Planescape: Torment, for instance, has enough of being able to determine what the character is like now that it feels like a roleplaying game to me, but still one cannot actually create the character completely. Mass Effect and Dragon Age II enter the grey area from the other direction, where technically you can create the character, but the terrible dialogue and the voicing then proceed to hijack them frequently. Honestly, I don't even consider the Final Fantasy games and similar games to be roleplaying games. I know they fall into the category, but they don't feel as though there's any roleplaying to them at all when I play them. I'd just as soon consider a strategy game to be a roleplaying game. Again, I don't consider set characters to be the old system -- more the new system -- but either way I don't consider it viable for a roleplaying game. I think it's viable for games in general, certainly, but a different sort of game. A huge part of my definition of roleplaying involves creating and playing a character, and fully half of that is gone with a set character. Feels more like acting to me then; you get a character, you're playing them, and you have to figure out how they would act based on what you've seen of them thus far. As to why I think that characters have become more set rather than less, well, as a general trend I find it fairly obvious. All the older RPGs I can think of (Arena, Daggerfall, Darklands, those sorts) have you creating characters. The next set (Icewind Dale, Icewind Dale II, Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate II, Morrowind, Fallout, Fallout 2, Arcanum, and so forth) also do, with the exception of Planescape: Torment. Some newish ones (Neverwinter Nights, Neverwinter Nights 2, Knights of the Old Republic, Knights of the Old Republic II, Oblivion) do, but some newer ones also don't (The Witcher, for example). Very recent ones mostly have you creating the character, but with large restrictions that weren't previously there, with the main exception being Skyrim. Dragon Age: Origins wasn't too bad about that, but even then it was worse than most of the older ones. To point number three, even if I do assume that the first is true (which I don't), the game would still be less fun for me. I might get some enjoyment out of it, but I play roleplaying games because I want to play a character or characters in the game. If I just wanted a good story and interesting characters, I would read a book. If I just wanted combat, I'd play a different type of game. If I assume the second is true (which I do), and even if I don't, it is more fun for me. The most fun for me personally is if the entire party is player-created. I think there could be a third option, although it might be an annoyingly large amount of work for the people making the game. I'm sure it would be possible to have the option of playing through with a default character and of making your own character, and there have already been games there there's the option of a default party of NPCs and of making your own other characters. There is also middle ground between completely making your own character and having them completely set, but that tends to satisfy very few people -- it certainly does not usually satisfy me. In summary, I find that creating a character and playing that character is a very large part of the fun of a roleplaying game, and also a very large part of the definition of it. The more that ability is removed or hampered, the less fun I find the game (assuming it is supposed to be a roleplaying game at all, of course), and the less I find that it even fits into the category of being a roleplaying game.

In Icewind Dale and Icewind Dale II, I don't believe most people would have much luck playing through on Heart of Fury mode without either a party of characters who had been levelled up to where they would have been had they ended a game, or an imported party who had ended the game. That sort of thing is fine with me, and I'm for the import/export ability and such. However, my understanding is that New Game+ isn't quite the same thing as that, and so I'm not sure that I would want it. Unless the difficulty also spikes up a great deal, it seems fairly pointless. Even taking into account what I said to begin with, I'm fairly neutral on the issue. I do think that being able to import previously used characters is nice with a harder mode, but it's hardly necessary. I certainly don't think it should unlock anything except perhaps higher level items (that was a nice thing about the Heart of Fury mode in Icewind Dale II).

The way I define things, an action or adventure game is all about the action and there is no support in the game for roleplaying. An action RPG has a focus on the action and a limited ability to create your character, and an RPG has full character creation and a reasonably large amount of focus on the roleplaying as well as the action, tyically manifesting in such things as dialogue options and choices. Like all such definitions, there can be exceptions and games that blur the lines. It's very difficult to define what makes a roleplaying game, because many people seem to have quite different definitions of what it means to roleplay. Character creation and control is very important to me, but some only want one or the other. Some other things that are important to me in a face to face game are by necessity limited in a computer game. You can't have the NPCs really reacting to what your character does in a computer game -- it would be insane to program in a response for every possible thing, and so we end up with dialogue options. When it gets to the point of extremely limited dialogue options (most of the time having only one or possibly two) or not being able to imagine how the character is saying it, then I start to think of the game as less of an RPG. Choices and consequences and changing the state of the world are all bonuses to me, but so long as it doesn't seem like the character should very much have been able to effect the thing in question but couldn't it doesn't bother me if it isn't there. Combat is also something that I'm quite fond of and like to have in RPGs, but I don't consider it a part of the definition. I suppose basically I define whether something is an RPG or not by the amount of character creation and roleplaying potential there is, and then if that is lacking, define it by whatever else remains primarily. I consider the Infinity Engine games to be some of the best examples of RPGs there are, because for me, they allow great freedom in character creation and control. There are enough diaogue options usually that I can find one that fits, I can make any characters I choose to, and the only real limits are the limits of 2nd edition AD&D (I could well do without the racial class restrictions, as I always did in face to face games, for instance). There is nothing as a particular obstacle to roleplaying. And, while I in many ways prefer the Baldur's Gate series, the Icewind Dale games come up higher on the roleplaying scale for me because there isn't even the hurtle of a partially defined background. I'm also of the opinion that combat that depends on the characters statistics and such is more about roleplaying than combat where you control everything they do, because then the outcome is based off of your characters abilities and not your own, and they certainly meet that requirement. I have not yet got around to playing The Witcher 2, but for several of the others on the list I would say the problem lies in not enough freedom of character creation or of roleplaying choice. I don't know how much you can choose about your character in The Witcher. I'm guessing at very best it would fall into the same category for me as Planescape: Torment does (as in, enough sheer choice in how you play the character that the fact that you can't create the character to begin with doesn't keep me from thinking of it as a roleplaying ame), and at worst it would be severely limited and so I'd categorise it as an action RPG. You do roleplay a certain character or characters. Roleplaying more than one character at a time doesn't make it less of roleplaying. Granted, bringing an entire party of NPCs makes it a little shakier, but you still very much create and control the one PC you have then. I'd say that Arcanum, Fallout, and the Elder Scrolls games are all real RPGs. I haven't played The Witcher yet, so I can't say for sure my opinion on it. Mass Effect skirts the line to me, because there is that dialogue wheel strongly limiting the ability to roleplay the character. As the series progressed, it took a nosedive into not being much of an RPG at all.

Honestly, while I can see that could be done in an interesting way, I think that I would prefer not to have such a thing and leave it up to the imagination if I do wonder about what would've happened had they died. Even the skeletalising hand animation in Baldur's Gate can get annoying if the Bhaalspawn ends up dying in a fight several times in a row, and that's not a very long animation. Sure, you could skip it, but I'd rather not have it at all. Now, for a game mode where you can't reload and any time you die it is the end, there I might like to see something like that.

Combat in Dragon Age II was simply awful. I'm assuming that they're referring only to Dragon Age: Origins, which at least to my mind had decent combat. For a 3d game, I think that Origins had the best full party combat that I've encountered so far. It's highly impractical to actually individually control each party member in a 3d game (part of the reason I don't prefer them), and so having the whole tactical setup thing did help a good deal. However, I found that it worked fine for some things (healers, fighters) and worked distinctly less well for others (mages, anything specialised and requiring careful aiming or timing). Yes, you do have to pause often in some tougher fights in Baldur's Gate II, but I have no problem with that. Mostly I don't even need to pause when I'm playing; I pretty much only do it at the start of a fight to give orders, for spell choosing, and if things start to go wrong. And that's only for the large fights. Not being able to block anybody in combat was a large annoyance in Origins, as was how sometimes their attacks would follow you even once you had moved quite out of range. Overall I liked Origins well enough, and the combat wasn't bad, but I would hardly call it exemplary either. Basically, I feel that combat is more tactically interesting and much easier to control in Baldur's Gate II than it is in Origins (and beyond that combat is a poor jest in Dragon Age II, I've nothing to say about that).

You are most definitely wrong. There are a wide variety of historical two-handed weapons (longswords, spears, halberds, some battle axes, quarterstaffs, katanas, just to name a few). I think you may have meant two weapon fighting, but in that case you're still wrong; rapier/small sword/et cetera and parrying dagger was pretty common for a while, for instance. No, there was none of using a bastard sword in each hand, or any other pair of large weapons, but two weapon fighting definitely did exist -- and that's even without taking into account that most of the time, if one had a shield, they would be using it for offense as well as defense. And why not keep them close to real medieval armour? Particularly if the male armour is? No, it isn't necessary. Many people, however, would prefer it that way. I surely would. See, a choice is not a problem, although I do think the more ridiculous/fantastical armour should be the rarity and not the rule as it tends to be in games where is some of both. And, if there is such a choice, there should be an equivalent choice for male armour. If there is no choice, I strongly believe that it should land on the realistic side and not the ridiculous/fantastical side.

I think that would be pretty cool as outlined there, and would certainly add a level of realism to cities. It's not as important to me as other things, but I agree that it would certainly be a nice feature to have, particularly if we're to be spending a large amount of time in cities. Even just a little bit of such schedules would go a long way, I think; people just going somewhere different, even if it was mostly the same place, at night would still be more realistic than them not moving at all.

Personally I prefer it when resting is not limited except by the consequences of it. Resting freely and safely I believe should be limited to inns, strongholds, and other such safe or guarded areas, but it always bothers me at least a small amount if it is simply impossible to even try to rest in a certain location. I believe that random encounters and/or a reduced rate of healing should be enough of a deterrent for resting out in the wilderness, and in such situations, I'll usually head back to the nearest town to rest unless it feels as though it would take too long with the current plot. I like Nonek's list there. I think that doing more things with resting, rather than forcing it to be less frequent, is the way to go. Yes, some people might take advantage of it and reload over and over so that there is no combat or such (although they wouldn't be able to get around many of those requirements like that), but I'd say that's their problem. Nobody's making them do it, and nobody's making the rest of the people do it either, so they're perfectly free to just take what comes. I also like the idea of not being able to fully rest in many areas. It makes sense. I'm not so sure about not being able to rest soon after just resting -- if you're injured enough, that is actually fairly likely to work, although maybe then that rest would be even less useful than the standard dangerous-area rest.

Breastplates that are sculpted such that they aren't functional any more make my teeth grit, but I find the concept art to be just fine. Both versions look like entirely reasonable and practical armor, and that's all I ask of it. I don't care if they are precisely the same. No two people's armor would be precisely the same anyhow, so I'm completely willing to accept that there's a different standard model for male and female characters, so long as it looks more or less the same and both are functional. I don't care at all if I can't tell the gender of the PCs just by looking at them if they're armored. The only thing I would need to be able to tell is which one is which, and other specifics of equipment or color schemes (I like the tabard and device idea) do that nicely. I think that Dragon Age did a decent job of keeping the armor the same between male and female characters, particularly with the massive armors -- there were some issues in my opinion with the armors lighter than that -- but the armor designs as a base were a bit on the ridiculous side, especially in the area of the pauldrons. While on the one hand I might like it if plate had to be fitted to the individual wearer in game, I suppose it would likely get tiresome (and costly) after not very long. I expect that's one of those realistic things that it would be a deal more trouble than it's worth to implement, particularly since when you get down to it most equipment shouldn't fit right off the bat (I certainly wouldn't be able to wear the same gauntlets or boots as most people I know either, let alone other types of armor). I do realize that suggestion was not serious, but it's something I've thought from time to time might be interesting to have, only to usually come to the same conclusion that it really wouldn't be that interesting.

While I do agree that cities in games are often too small, I've never actually taken much notice of it while playing. When I think about it, the city sizes in Baldur's Gate and Arcanum do certainly come across as oddly small, but when playing the games I've just enjoyed exploring them. It bothers me when one has large cities but can't go into almost any of the buildings, but I apparently don't tend to notice small cities so much. Athkatla and Sigil certainly did feel like much larger and more active cities, though, and I do think that's generally the better way to go about things when making a very large city.

I'm rather tired of having to deal with dogs everywhere in games as well as in real life, so I would greatly prefer some other manner of animal. Still, assuming that familiars/animal companions are optional, I'm fairly unlikely to end up using them anyhow, so for that reason I don't care all that much -- though I do think having at least one non-dog option there would be a good thing.

I like having that, especially the most powerful enemy killed and how long they've been with the party and such things. Favoured weapon and spell are usually pretty obvious anyhow. To me, it's interesting to look back on every now and then, and it's an interesting record of what a character had done in the group when they die. The other kind of record keeping could also come in handy. I don't usually take notes myself, but I know that some people do, and there have been one or two times that I might have done so had it been readily available.

Personally, I find it a bit annoying when such things are narrated. It takes a good deal longer to listen to somebody read aloud the text than it does to read it yourself, and it always makes me wonder exactly where this voice is supposed to be coming from. It was even one of the (quite numerous) things that bothered me about Mass Effect, even though it did make some sense there. I don't always read through books when I find them lying around in games -- only if they look interesting at the time I pick them up -- but I'd find it obnoxious if somebody started speaking every time I opened one.

Top ten games? Baldur's Gate trilogy, Icewind Dale, Icewind Dale II, Planescape: Torment, Neverwinter Nights, Morrowind, Arcanum, Dragon Age: Origins, Unreal Tournament 2004, Neverwinter Nights 2. Well, ignoring the completely odd one out (Unreal Tournament), and the somewhat odd one out (Planescape: Torment), they've all got a lot of character creation possibilities, such that I can create a great variety of different characters. The ones at the top have the most, being the ones where one can create a full party. The gameplay isn't very similar between them all, but this makes it clear that I tend to prefer an isometric view and also tend to prefer older D&D rules to newer ones. Other than that? Interesting story is a common thread, and interesting world seems to come in a little bit secondary (I've personally never found the Forgotten Realms all that interesting, tending to think of it as being almost as default as Greyhawk, but the others all have settings I consider interesting). I know why Neverwinter Nights 2 is at the back there. In many ways I like it just as well as or better than Neverwinter Nights, but for me the camera is almost completely unmanageable, and I find it more difficult to make the kind of characters I want because of the head-choosing system instead of portrait choosing. Those are, I suppose, both gameplay problems; I do care a fair amount about gameplay, although if it comes down to it, I'll choose story and background and such over it in the case of an RPG.

I think it should probably require something to use particularly effectively. Any armor that is going to be much protection will have an effect on the way you move, and if you aren't used to compensating for that, it can through you off. A proficiency point system is probably the simplest way to go with it that makes sense. There is, it seems to me, only so good that you can get at moving in any armor; it starts to get a bit odd if somebody knows only how to move well in plate, but not when not wearing armor. Having no penalty to anything would presumably be the best thing there. On the other hand, I think that having a general maneuvering skill in fact makes the most sense, with applying some penalties to it from the armor. I think that dexterity or agility would generally be the stat to use for it, but that strength could then go against the armor penalty, since it's largely weight that would be generating the penalty in the first place (and some stiffness and such, but strength could have some effect against that as well).

Replayability for me has the most to do with the variety of characters I can make in the game. If I can make any sort of character I like for all six (or however many) characters, that is the best. So, for that reason, the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale games have the most replayability to me. They also have the advantage of having no elements I much dislike, and a great many that I am fond of. Any game where NPCs are the only option for the rest of the characters decreases the replayability somewhat for me, because I like to have an entirely different party each time I go through the game, and that inevitably runs out with NPCs, even if I end up actually liking them all enough to want to take them along. Still, Dragon Age: Origins had pretty good replayability for that, and I can see the possibilities for high replayability in Neverwinter Nights 2 -- unfortunately, I've never been able to get past the camera in the game enough to feel like playing it more than once thus far. Other than variety of characters, a large enough number of quests that the same thing doesn't have to be done each time helps, as does a few different endings or ways that things can go differently through the course of the game. A goodly amount of history and setting information scattered about also helps, as I like discovering that kind of thing and continuing to do so when I replay the game. Really, I suppose the character thing is by far the most important to me in terms of replayability. Planescape: Torment certainly has all the other things I'd consider important, and only lacking that, I replay it on the same sort of schedule I'd reread a book -- once I've forgot most of what happens. I love the game, but it has relatively little replayability to me. And Icewind Dale is fairly short and non-variable, but I've played it enough times I don't recall the number right now.

A game mode for something that I'll likely do eventually anyhow, although I may or may not use the actual mode (I like to make many saved games even if I'm only ever going to reload them in case of a crash or to look back on where that party was at a particular point). The more I play various games, the more I like to challenge myself while playing through them. For Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale and such, this has mostly come in the form of allowing myself only a certain number of reloads throughout the whole game or per chapter. I haven't quite made it to none at all yet, but I intend to, and eventually I expect to get to that point with Project Eternity also. It can be frustrating at times, but it feels more satisfying in the end to me to complete a game with minimal to no reloads.

There has likely been some example of every kind of quest that I've enjoyed. Which ones I enjoy the most tend to have something to do with what character I'm playing at the time as well; if I'm playing a thief, I'll enjoy sneakier quests a lot more than if I wasn't, and if I'm playing a character who would be particularly invested in the quest then I tend to enjoy it more. Generally speaking, fetch and carry quests are my least favorite (I cannot think of any of those that haven't had something else to them also that I've liked), followed by quests that consist of learning some skill (for the most part, I wonder why those are quests at all). I am fond of combat-related quests, but I also like ones that have more of an element of investigation to them. I do particularly like quests that reveal something about the history of the setting, and ones that have more than one possible outcome are always a bit more fun to replay. Diplomacy or stealth-based quests can also be very interesting to me.

I think it sounds like a pretty good idea, actually. I'm all for more variety of dialogue options. I'm also guessing, though, that it would be much more difficult (or at least time consuming) to implement than the usual system, because then the amount of dialogue needing to be written would be multiplied by the number of different tones available, and then likely further multiplied by the variety of reponses to those different options and the further options that would come of that.

I think that unique or exotic cultural weapons could be interesting, but it seems odd to me that other cultures wouldn't be able to use them at all. At a penalty until they've learned how, that makes sense; but there are very few weapons that somebody couldn't pick up and make at least some use of, even if not the proper intended use. I do think it would make sense for people from that culture to not have the penalty, because presumably when receiving weapons training they would've received some training with their cultural weapons, or at least have seen them in use at some point.

I would prefer an "attack" option myself, but I agree that it's rather annoying when you get drawn into a long and inescapable conversation and have to watch the buffs slowly go away. Having an "attack" option is more realistic, and also would give you some consequence for being maximally prepared. Being able to both interrogate the enemy indefinitely and be as prepared as possible sometimes strikes me as a bit much, but so does being forced to interrogate the enemy (or listen to their grandstanding) rather than attacking. I'm fine with the old pause-on-conversation method as well, though. It's worked just fine in the past; it just sometimes comes off as a little odd. I also like the option for any character in the party to talk. Sometimes it makes more sense to choose someone other than the party leader. Having the combat formation broken up and transported can be particularly annoying.

It only has anything to do with the lore if the lore is such that it would make sense to have those different names, and so far at least, that doesn't seem to be the case. Wizard/Witch and Barbarian/Amazon at least are similar (though not identical), but Paladin and Priest typically at least end up being rather different -- a case of fighter and spellcaster. Of all of those, Amazon is the only one that stands out to me as being a gendered word in the usage it sees today. I don't see the need for different class names between the genders, and I think many (myself included) would find it a bit annoying. For one thing, even if they were actually identical, to begin with it would seem to imply that they aren't, which would cause initial frustration. Then, if they are identical, why differentiate them?

Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale are the ones I prefer stylistically. I don't really care all that much about the colour coding, but I have a slight preference towards Baldur's Gate's colour coding, so I voted for it. The most important things to me is that they be easy to access and distinctive. I do like more stylised spell icons better than less stylised ones, in general.

I basically like all random encounters, combat or no. Non-combat ones can be interesting just as combat ones can. Odd things, fights, odd things that turn into fights, people just going about their business -- it's all good.

I don't like having a respec option. I would certainly never use it, personally. Changing the stats and abilities of a character around completely or even mostly just feels very odd to me, and I prefer the initial decisions made to be final. Suddenly changing from being strong but frail to being weak but tough, for instance, isn't going to happen without some magic involved; similarly, completely unlearning one fighting style in favor of another. I suppose it might be harmless as an easy-mode sort of option, so long as it didn't have any effect on anything else (as in, if gameplay was not balanced around it and documentation didn't assume you were going to use it). I still don't see it as necessary or even desirable, though.