Please recommend rpg with a class system.

[Exdeath]

Has anybody already suggested Morrowind or Oblivion? Not JRPGs, but they're quite good, imo.
EDIT: don't be picky or assume so much, or you'll never find anything you actually like.

[Laddy]

Has anybody already suggested Morrowind or Oblivion? Not JRPGs, but they're quite good, imo.
EDIT: don't be picky or assume so much, or you'll never find anything you actually like.

Agreed, but Morrowind is rather better, imho.

[Exdeath]

I found Oblivion easier to pick up and get going, plus quests were more organized.

[Madame Adequate]

I found Oblivion easier to pick up and get going, plus quests were more organized.

Agreed, but I found Morrowind more engaging, and that it had a far better world, more original and interesting.

[ShunNakamura]

By the way, people play games for challenge. Go look up a definition for "game". Yes, enjoyment is a huge part, but I just wanted to clarify.

Incorrect. Most games these days pose no challenge whatsoever. And what challenge they may possess can easily be circumnavigated. People play games for a form of interactive entertainment.

Without challenge, there is no game. Either way,

Really? How about most visual Novels? They are games and very enjoyable ones at that. However, a good number of them posses the challenge rating a of a crippled infant in a no holds bar fight.


Whether or not a game is bad depends entirely on the context that is being discussed. DemonicDragon here I am sure is talking about games primarily on their entertainment value. Therefor, for the sake of his argument all a game needs to do to be bad is fail to entertain.

Now if were were talking about a game as a piece of software, or as a piece of art, or as a piece of whatever it would be different. However, if we are talking about it as a piece of entertainment(which I think DemonicDragon is) then its entertainment value is the bit that is being contested. The rest are merely small subcategories that more or may not impact the entertainment value.

The same goes for books or just about anything else. If you talk about it for its entertainment value than that is what is important. If you are talking about its form THAT is what matters. If you are talking about the way it implements its style than that is what matters.



It depends entirely on the context in which the game is being discussed. I suppose I could be completely off on DD's context, however, I can only go by what I have garnered from his posts.

[Rostum]

Incorrect. Most games these days pose no challenge whatsoever. And what challenge they may possess can easily be circumnavigated. People play games for a form of interactive entertainment.

Really? How about most visual Novels? They are games and very enjoyable ones at that. However, a good number of them posses the challenge rating a of a crippled infant in a no holds bar fight.

Visual novels are not games, they just aren't, I don't even know what you're trying to get at here. What you're talking about is completely wrong. Games require challenge to be considered games, whether you think they are challenging enough or not is irrelevant. Yes, they are classified as a part of interactive entertainment, but there's more to it than just that.

"An active interest or pursuit, especially one involving competitive engagement or adherence to rules: "the way the system operates, the access game, the turf game, the image game" (Hedrick Smith)." - Dictionary

The last bit you said, well, it has nothing to do with what I was saying. What has this got to do with other forms of media? I was specifically talking about video games. Not only that, it didn't address any main point I was trying to make. If something is well built, just because a few people don't like it doesn't mean it's a bad game. There's a lot of subjectiveness in there, but there are a lot of established rules and techniques in game design now that you just can't argue with. Basically, whether someone or a few people find a game entertaining or not, does not have any relation to the quality of the game.

[demondude]

This thread is a monument to incompetence. And not just yours, DD.

DemonicDragon is banned from my initials.

[ShunNakamura]

Visual novels are not games, they just aren't, I don't even know what you're trying to get at here. What you're talking about is completely wrong. Games require challenge to be considered games, whether you think they are challenging enough or not is irrelevant. Yes, they are classified as a part of interactive entertainment, but there's more to it than just that.

Last I checked a good many Visual Novels are considered Games. Utawarerumono is a visual novel but it can NOT be contested as not being a game. Fate/Stay Night is a game last I checked. As is the X-Change series. Need I go on? They are marketed and sold as games. They are interactive.

True games are more than interactive. But if you define games by challenge, than a good number of games are apparently not games. After all, I don't find the vast majority of them to be challenging these days. So is NWN2 not a game because it has no real challenge?

Anyhow, I gotta fly to work and will respond to the rest later since the other points should have been clear enough from my previous posts with a bit of reading in between the lines and connecting that to what I was responding to. That or since I was tired I failed to input one of the important in reading lines.

[Iceglow]

NWN2 may not be challenging for an accomplished gamer but for someone who has never played an RPG of the same style as the forgotten realms games might struggle to play it. Personally I think there is little challenge with many games but it does not change the fact they are challenging to others.

The debate over what makes a game good is a big one many say graphics or game play some say storyline I'd like to think that it's a combination of story, world and gameplay as long as a game has those it's got more than a game which has beautiful graphics but no challenge or engaging world. My proof of this is actually a game I work on, it's browser based so it's graphics are virtually non-existent even fights between players take the form of:

You attack < insert player name here > for xxx damage.
< insert player name here > attacks you for xxx damage.

until someone gets the message they're waiting to see:

You attack < insert player name > for xxx damage, killing < insert player name > xx < insert race name > meat fall to the ground.

how simple is that fight? However players get addicted to the game because it is challenging beyond belief.

The world is entirely shaped by players, every character they meet outside of a specified capitol or npc area will be another player of the game, if they kill this player the person can call their friends to help them and avenge them, the players start with 180 skill and can train up to 1340 skill total in any one of 14 weapon classes from unarmed to crossbows. theres a bunch of general skills allowing players to build their own towns and make armour or weapons or potions ect so every item in the game above a certain point has been made by players, every town has been made by players bar the capitol cities where no pvp is allowed. The players can be mayors of these cities and ban people from them and vote new mayors in if they choose. It is with the most rudimentary combat and interface system and yet people who play are absorbed in to the challenge of it. Dying loses all the items you held on you, all your money you were carrying and when you ressurect your character between 1 and 5 skill in your main weapon and a secondary weapon (next highest weapon skill) Dying means a lot in this game perhaps more so than in any other game because death penalties whilst temporary can be hard a player can lose their best armour, weapon and items to another person and unless they get someone to intercept the person kill them they could lose them forever. (the safest place for your valubles is in a town therefore it goes without saying that should the agressor player escape to their town death will be of little use since your items are inside their town and it is up to a member of the agressor's group to withdraw the items and be killed holding them to get them back) Still people forge top items, they build anything up to level 6 runes to place on these items and when they lose them well they lose them and the chase is on.

Now I've played many games and I will point out that in games where death means nothing players lose interest quickly and that in many games where there is no challenge players lose interest just as quickly even if the graphics are fantastic it doesn't matter.

PS. if anyone fancies a try on the game I work on the link is in my sig.

[ShunNakamura]

Let me address the challenge issue. It isn't that I don't think challenge is important. Rather that I think it is a factor instead of the main focus. For example challenge is a factor effecting a games entertainment, its balance, its gameplay, etc. In addition most play I know don't play the game for the challenge. The Fourth Coming isn't really challenging anymore, but people who don't find it challenging still play it. It is entertaining to them for whatever reasons. Challenge is just one of many factors that can make or break a game for many people(and this crosses all boundaries, no matter 'why' you play games challenge will most likely color your likings/dislikings of the game).

First if you want to throw definitions around I hold Merriam-Webster higher than most other forms of dictionaries.

1 a (1): activity engaged in for diversion or amusement : play (2): the equipment for a game b: often derisive or mocking jesting : fun , sport <make game of a nervous player>
2 a: a procedure or strategy for gaining an end : tactic b: an illegal or shady scheme or maneuver : racket
3 a (1): a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other
(2): a division of a larger contest
(3): the number of points necessary to win
(4): points scored in certain card games (as in all fours) by a player whose cards count up the highest
(5): the manner of playing in a contest
(6): the set of rules governing a game
(7): a particular aspect or phase of play in a game or sport <a football team's kicking game>
3 b plural : organized athletics
3 c (1): a field of gainful activity : line <the newspaper game>
(2): any activity undertaken or regarded as a contest involving rivalry, strategy, or struggle <the dating game> <the game of politics> ; also : the course or period of such an activity <got into aviation early in the game>
(3): area of expertise : specialty 3 <comedy is not my game>
4 a (1): animals under pursuit or taken in hunting ; especially : wild animals hunted for sport or food
(2): the flesh of game animals
4 b archaic : pluck
4 c: a target or object especially of ridicule or attack —often used in the phrase fair game

Basically if we try to argue definitions we likely won't get to far. Games simply put can be a very wide category, or a very narrow category.

My whole point is that you should simply argue within the vein that the game is being discussed in. If you are discussing game balance you should come in saying a game is horrible because you didn't enjoy it. Nor should you say it is great because you enjoyed it. If the game is being evaluated on basis of its balance or whatever mechanic(s) or whatever is under discussion you should discuss it based upon those values. Of course if it is a free form discussion(in other words an open ended 'what did you think of the game') than a discussion based on anything related to the game would work.

Anyways going on I believe Demonic Dragon here was discussing games based on their entertainment value(quite likely the most subjective but yet most common way to judge a game based on). Which is why I jumped in. I could be wrong, however, I am almost willing to bet that I am right.



However, what really grinds my gears is when people make a Game 'x' sucks, without quantifying it. If you don't give me a reason(even if it is a it failed to be entertaining) than I don't really count the opinion as valid. After all, there are so many different ways a game could be great or horrible in that such a statement is really kinda pointless. I mean talk about empty.



And I don't really consider myself a seasoned gamer. In fact I practically never play real time games. In other words I am pretty horrible at anything resembling a battle system like NWN2. Thus, the fact that the game doesn't truly challenge me is a very bad sign as far as I am concerned. Only people who ave only played stuff like Wii Sports would probably have any trouble with it. Games in general these days seem to be made so that anyone can get through them with only a little bit of difficultly at most. Of course this screws anyone who can actually play games over... thank goodness for difficulty settings. A big boo for difficulty settings that think just multiplying enemy hp/damage is a good way to increase difficultly.

Why can't Western game companies do a Utawarerumono game difficulty selection? Where the enemies get smarter, stronger(in this case the peons which on normal only take a single blow or two(and in turn your characters are all apparently supermen can now take a few extra hits and make it appear that you have an army of elite soldiers rather than an army of supermen(which following the storyline your soldiers are better than the average grunt, and late game grunts can just be impossible))) and more complicated game mechanics are introduced?

[Mirage]

You'll need two months at least in FF11 before you'll get a chance to do the fun parts :p.

Really? Cause they just started a free two week trial thing. :P What a waste of time.

Yeah, that's what I thought too. A month would have been somewhat ok, but a two month trial wouldn't really be hard for S-E to do, as they'd profit massively on the players that stuck. More than it'd cost to have them play two months for free anyway.

[Exdeath]

I found Oblivion easier to pick up and get going, plus quests were more organized.

Agreed, but I found Morrowind more engaging, and that it had a far better world, more original and interesting.

Well, I think the OP may need something that he/she can instantly recognize as being good, as well as current-gen graphics.

[Levian]

Have you tried FFX-2? It may look ridiculous, but the job system is so good that everything else really doesn't matter.

[Old Manus]

[Mercen-X]

No Western RPGs. Have you even played them? JUST PLAY THEM.

Do you realize how many J-games are often deemed not-to-par or not-to-one's-taste? (InuYasha RPG & YuYu Hakusho RPG come to mind, as well as YGOotR

Just because it's western doesn't mean it'll automatically be bad (maybe avoid anything based on TV shows/movies).

I've played quite a few J-games that I didn't like mostly because of sub-par quality (I tend to give any genre a run and would gladly try Einhander if I could find it).