http://www.pcgamer.com/gallery/the-best ... -all-time/ So PC Gamer did this thing. I think they focus too much on the recent history of RPGs. Skyrim at #6?
[strike]jesusfuckingchristwhatsortofgoodfornothinghalfwitpulledthatstinkingpileofmanureoutoftheirarseihopetheygetabductedbyaliensandprobedliketheydeservefuckallofthemyeahimeanseriouslywhatisfuckingmasseffectdoingonfifthplacewhatistheworldcomingtoandwhatisanexpansionofaweakinstallementofafuckingdungeoncrawlerevendoingthereokaythishasgonefarenoughiamgoingtostopnowandheynoarcanumwhatisupwiththat?[/strike] I disagree with their list.
Skyrim was always going to make any list whatever number it is put at; Financially its the most successful RPG in years afterall. Besides I'm sure PC Gamer need access to Elder Scrolls ONline plus whatever Bethesda is doing next I think they are tied into Doom 4. Divinity Original Sin has been pretty good so far (I got a cheap e-copy from that Kickstarter DivinePonies linked to a while back) but its been out for a month or so at most excluding beta time I think its mainly on the list as its freshest in peoples minds. I would definitely agree that Fallout: New Vegas is much better than Fallout 3 but placing it on the list over the icon of gaming that is the first game seems foolhardy. Fallout 2 made it much higher up the list so I'll let it pass. Ultima has a good representation and I'm sure its in no way affected by PC Gamer wanting beta access to Shroud of the Avatar and is only because these were some very good games. I'm also certain that Spoony's Ultima review series has helped bring back interest to this series as honestly it seems far better known now than it was 10 years ago. Knight of the Old republic 2 is just not superior to the first game in the series for one thing they actually finished the first game and it had already done the whole relearn to use the force thing because apparently its pretty common for Jedi's to forget about the force. Again I'm certain that this is not on here along with Stick of Truth (which I have not played) because they are Obsidian games and the Pillars of Eternity release is coming up. Although if they went with the first game which was made with Bioware they could have got a premium position on their knees in front of Bio for the release of Dragon Age: Inquisition Mount & Blade: Warband :thumbup: Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines yeah I know we all wish that Arcanum was on here but thanks to the ready availability of sex and nude mods for this game it was the most popular of all the Troika games; They even mention it in the review "This is truly a cult classic of an RPG, and the fanbase has been patching and improving the game ever since release". Glad to see Dragon Age Origins on here from an RP perspective it was great fun but it was a little to on rails for a lot of peoples taste in an RPG. At times it really felt like more of an adventure game. In all it seems like they made a list with safe choices for the top 3 and then built a list with the odd game that would be agredd with by the community spread in between a wish list of devlopers they want to whore themselves for.
This sort of thing is always why I thought numerical reviews were stupid. The best sort of game recommendations come from you friends, yeah? I don't need to know if this was a 7.8 or something, I just need to know if you think it's worth playing or not. A big list for something as subjective as "fun" is going to be controversial no matter how they do it, someone will always wonder why their personal favorite title didn't make the grade. Also, Vorak, I find your constant suggestions regarding list placement vs. future beta access for a company the likes of PC Gamer to be amusing.
I already poured hundreds of hours into Skyrim. It's a very enjoyable game, no denying that. I can say things about Fallout 3, too. That being said, I cringe every time I hear someone refer to those as RPGs. What makes one for me are decisions + choices-and-consequences, which admittedly both of those game have near none. A new genre needs to be named, the definition of which would boil down to "Role Playing Games, just without playing a role".
I've always thought of Fallout 3 and Skyrim as action RPG, in the same way that Diablo II is an aRPG; they only really offer player choice in terms of combat customisation, and narrative choices tend to be of the binary variety. That doesn't mean to say that they aren't enjoyable, just that you don't get that level of player agency you have in a true RPG. It does however seem like there's a trend that newer gamers seem to continually fail to make that distinction and think that that is what an RPG is.
Very few titles these days could be called RPGs by our standards. When all games that get released are fundamentally action RPGs that "action" soon loses its meaning since there are no contemporary releases to lend any meaningful distinction between subgenres. Thus you get angry old men like us masturbating like PTSD-afflicted chimpanzees on amphetamine to decades-old titles and backing projects like Grimoire* with our hard-earned money hoping that industry standards will change or to, at the very least, rage against the dying of the light. This is why I sincerely hope that Pillars of Eternity becomes what I wish it to be. Now, I admit to liking Fallout 3 and Skyrim, but they lack that RPG flavour Troika gave us and it's about damn time a game as immersive as Arcanum was hit the shelves. *I haven't. But I am crazy enough to be tempted to.