Polygon's open-letter to BioWare regarding their open-world-like games.

It's a role they're playing in a game.  The fact that it's essentially a single role doesn't make it less of one, really.

Well I meant that it's not a huge deal to call it an RPG whether a person thinks a JRPG qualifies or not.  That's why we qualify them as a JRPG instead of just an RPG.

I remember playing Ubisoft games that were basically just a single character, with very limited choices, and they were still called RPGs.

Ummmmm (it's been a while)  Dragon Riders of Pern was an Ubisoft game.  Prince of Persia, the earlier Zelda games, and some others.

Heck, Betrayal at Krondor and Return to Krondor are completely linear games and they're considered RPGs.

If I'm making his decisions, then I'm not playing a set role. If I'm not making his decisions, then I'm not roleplaying.

I can see how the earliest versions of Dragon Quest would count, but that came well after the first CRPGs from the 1970s.

A good test of whether a game is an RPG is whether two playthroughs can have markedly different character personalities. Even if it's the same starting point, can the character behave differently or have different objectives or form different relationships?

Yeah, you might not consider it an rpg.  That doesn't change the fact that you're still Playing a Role in a Game.  That the Role is singular and limited doesn't change that it's a Role.

Western RPGs are defined as having a lot of different choices on how to play the Role.  JRPGs are defined as having very few (if any) choices.  They're both still considered RPGs as a genre.

I mean tell me how Betrayal at Krondor was or wasn't an RPG?

Or Return to Krondor?

Ummmm please explain how it's not playing? You're playing the game, right?

Just a question - How are statements like the above not "going after me."  The entire focus of your posts is to just try to put me down.  They have nothing to do with discussing the topics at hand nor do they in any way focus on providing "well-reasoned critiques of what we liked and didn't like about this type of open world."  In several of my previous posts I have added to my arguments, pointed to evidence that supports that others also dislike the same parts of TW3 that I don't like, and made suggestions directly to Bioware towards helping them find a balance between open-world style and deep character development.  You've proceeded to just call me a 12-year-old, etc.  Where is your well-reasoned critique for Bioware?... because I'm certain they really don't care whether or not you call me a 12-year-old, etc.

To restate... I think they can improve by backing away from the open-world concept a bit... not going whole hog.  Why... because, IMO, TW3 is far too long and the story become too disjointed as the player gets more and more mired in a jumble if side quests.  I don't think the side quests are all that well done.  Rise of the Tomb Raider handled it's side quests in a much better way.  There were fewer of them to start with, but all of them gave worthwhile rewards and were very involved with the archaelogical themes of the story.  All Rise of the Tomb Raider lacked, as far as RPG-ness goes, is the ability to mold the personality of Lara Croft (i.e. there were no dialogue selections).  TW3 allowed one to make dialogue selections, but they really did not "mold" Geralt's personality or character.  His character is basically as set as Lara's.  As I said, really all the decisions are geared towards just deciding which NPCs die.  Mass Effect has never about that.  The Trilogy was about shaping Shepard's character and personality as either a renegade or a paragon.  ME:A steps away from that, but the dialogue focus is still more about shaping the PC in some way rather than just deciding who lives and who dies.  To me, that character shaping has been what Bioware has done that other companies are not doing... and because of that... it is, IMO, what they should focus on continuing to do.

It handles the subject better than the alternative threads. It is something we do think about when we select the games to pay for and play. It is also a conceptual clash that will likely play out in the next few years. For me the test will be the Bio's new IP and CDPRs Cyberpunk's direction. It will show if we are likely to see more games with character customization/party play or is it deemed unnecessary and prohibitive, and how the games will be structured in terms of hrs per dollar invested.

I agree with you 100%.  The open worlds are beautiful.  The writing just isn't good.

I agree... it is a question, in the end, of hrs per dollar invested on both sides.  For developers, spending huge bucks and taking years to develop content that players are not shy aobut asking for but that few will ever bother to even see seems like a big waste to me.  Developers might be better advised to produce games that are not quite so huge and produce more different ones.  I found one article online that indicated TW3 had a completion rate of only 12.6% and another one written 3 months after its release that pegged it at 21.6%.  Conversely, I found an article that pegged ME2's completion rate at around 52%.  Note, that's just reflecting those who made it to the ending... including those who just did not do the vast majority of the side quests to get to the ending.  Also, it doesn't take into consideration, players like myself who have completed ME2 multiple times since only the first time counts for the achievement and that is what these figures are generally based upon.

From the player's point of view... I think I would rather invest $40.00 in a shorter game that I'll at least experience in its entirety than fork out $100 for game content that I'll likely wind up only doing 30% or less of... even if I technically complete the game.  Making the games smaller would mean the developer's could devote a larger budget to polishing what is there... making sure that everything ties into the main story as it should, doing more thorough testing before release, etc.

You've got too much time on your hands...