[QUOTE=DocCathode]
I’d say Gabriel Knight isn’t really an RPG though
[/QUOTE]
Why not?
[QUOTE=DocCathode]
In fact all the bugs in the second game have prevented me from trying the third.
[/QUOTE]
Must admit i skipped the second, but loved the third. Do give it a try. It has the most entertaining puzzle I’ve ever come across in a game like this (the one for getting Gabriel a motorcycle, if you do try). It’s one of my favourites.
OTTOMH An RPG must have
ability stats, levels, party members who can be acquired or removed, equipment which can be discarded for better stuff as the game goes on, and shopkeepers who sell and buy gear, healing etc.
Superhero League Of Hoboken has all these things. An ace bandage can be discarded for titanium kneepads for example. Gabriel Knight has none of the things listed. You don’t have stats. The don’t level up. You don’t buy or use armor, weapons, or healing potions. You don’t lead a party while exploring territory.
I’d class Gabriel Knight as an adventure game rather than an RPG.
[QUOTE=DocCathode]
OTTOMH An RPG must have
ability stats, levels, party members who can be acquired or removed, equipment which can be discarded for better stuff as the game goes on, and shopkeepers who sell and buy gear, healing etc.
[/QUOTE]
That’s the standard list of attributes most people expect from an RPG. It’s always bothered me that “role-playing” almost never makes the list, though. You’d think that would be sort of key to a “role-playing game.” Of course, the problem there is, if you try to define “role-playing game” as “a game that involved role-playing,” you’ve got a genre with maybe fifteen games in it, tops.
To me, a role-playing game ought to include, as part of the gameplay, the option to decide what sort of person your character is. That’s what makes Planescape the greatest CRPG ever made. Fallout, Baldur’s Gate, and Deus Ex are other good examples. Games like Final Fantasy X, on the other hand, would not be RPGs, because the characters’ personalities, goals, motivations, etc. are all on rails. You don’t play the character, you control him between pre-scripted cutscenes. Great game, don’t get me wrong. One of my favorites. But it bugs me just a little that this is what’s considered an RPG these days.
By that same standard, of course, the Gabriel Knight games (and I think the second one was one of the best adventure games I’ve ever played) aren’t RPGs, either, because the personality of Gabriel Knight is pretty much set. And, of course, it doesn’t fit the standard definition of an RPG you provided, either. I’m curious, Septima, why you consider it an RPG?
[QUOTE=Miller]
That’s the standard list of attributes most people expect from an RPG. It’s always bothered me that “role-playing” almost never makes the list, though.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve yet to find a computer RPG that really lets me roleplay- tackle problems based on the personality of my character, respond to problems in strange and unexpected ways, and there are never enough dialogue options for my taste.
True enough, and that’s probably a big part of why they’re so rare. It’s a lot easier to write a straight forward narrative and let the player handle the action parts, than it is to create a game that changes its narrative in response to the player’s actions. But I think the games I mentioned above do a decent job of allowing the player to tackle obstacles in different ways based on broad generalizations of character types. It’s nothing close to the flexibility of a table-top game with a human GM, of course, but giving players a choice between, “big dumb dude with giant guns,” and “smart alec who can talk his way out of anything,” and making them both viable gameplay choices goes a long way towards realizing a real role-playing experience in a digital enviroment.
I’m pretty certain Kingdom Hearts doesn’t make the RPG cut either. Yes, it’s a good game. It’s also not in the least bit an RPG. You make an obscure and largely meaningless choice near the beginning of both games, which does actually influence your character’s specific abilities, but not to a serious degree. You do have a party, but they all more or less just hit the enemy with different animations. There is, however, much choice about your armor and weaponry.
Don’t forget Secret of Mana. Not much more to say about it - its greatness is immediately evident, and everyone who’s ever played it has fond, fond memories of it.
This thread seems to be pretty comprehensive to this point. A few of the things that haven’t come up yet, or that deserve another mention:
If I think of more old-school stuff I’ll probably be back… I sort of assume other people can do the recent generations better than me, but frankly a lot of the old stuff is better if you don’t put a premium on graphics
On preview, I’d put Kingdom Hearts in the “Easy Mode Console RPG” category along with the Mario RPGs. Can be a lot of fun, definitely nearer the console RPG category than anything else, not really in-depth enough to be a true classic of the genre. I should also note that the RPG-snobs who get into naming arguments about what we call console RPGs (the older ones of which, in particular, are generally on rails) should just deal with it, because that’s what we call them 
On second preview, dammit, someone just beat me to Secret of Mana!
[QUOTE=Brainiac4]
Oh my goodness, and how could I forget one of my all-time favorites – Darklands!
It came out in 1992, and was, um, a bit buggy. But it rocked! Character creation a bit like Traveller, and the setting was medieval Germany. No magic, but you could do alchemy and pray to the saints for miracles. Lovely watercolor-style menus for city interactions, cheesy pixel sprites for combat.
[/QUOTE]
This was what I was going to mention. Hell of a game screwed up by being rushed out what appeared to be a year early. I seem to recall there were something like 17 patch disks. This was, of course, prior to the 'Net. They MAILED patches to me, seemingly every other week, fixing things.
Never did find that damn dragon.
[QUOTE=Miller]
I’m curious, Septima, why you consider it an RPG?
[/QUOTE]
Because you get to play a role. You get to steer an actual person around, one whose actions are not always logical, sometimes hilarious, and mostly consistent. Granted, you don’t get to create him, or change him (or her - Grace is playable too), but you do get to play him.
That’s a lot more roleplaying than you get in many other RPG’s, where the little avatars may have different stats, but are, for all intents and purposes other than pure game-mechanics, exactly the same.
Guess I’m screwy like that.
I suppose adventure-game would be a more accurate label, but I never realy started using that term.
[QUOTE=Septima]
Because you get to play a role. You get to steer an actual person around, one whose actions are not always logical, sometimes hilarious, and mostly consistent. Granted, you don’t get to create him, or change him (or her - Grace is playable too), but you do get to play him.
That’s a lot more roleplaying than you get in many other RPG’s, where the little avatars may have different stats, but are, for all intents and purposes other than pure game-mechanics, exactly the same.
Guess I’m screwy like that.
I suppose adventure-game would be a more accurate label, but I never realy started using that term.
[/QUOTE]
So you’re of the opinion that every game out there save the most abstract of titles is a role-playing game then?
If you say that a role-playing game is only defined by playing a role then the role-playing game genre loses all definition. There’s no point is asking for “role-playing games” because everything is a role-playing game.
[QUOTE=Septima]
Because you get to play a role. You get to steer an actual person around, one whose actions are not always logical, sometimes hilarious, and mostly consistent. Granted, you don’t get to create him, or change him (or her - Grace is playable too), but you do get to play him.
That’s a lot more roleplaying than you get in many other RPG’s, where the little avatars may have different stats, but are, for all intents and purposes other than pure game-mechanics, exactly the same.
Guess I’m screwy like that.
I suppose adventure-game would be a more accurate label, but I never realy started using that term.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but by your definition, there are almost no games which are not RPG’s. You can argue your definition is nice and all, but it’s useless.
Never claimed it was usefull.
And no, there are very few games where the avatar is not a complete blank, personality-wise.
Errr… so your deliberately changed a useful definition into one which has no meaning? 
Since we’re dipping into the old-school games a bit, perhaps I can recommend Starflight? While the graphics will suck compaired to anything made in the last 20 years, the gameplay is exceptional. First computer game I ever played, and I still have a system that I configured to allow me to play it.
Oh Jeez…will you guys get off my back? I was asked to clarify my opinion and I did. I never claimed this was a better definition. It is simply the one I use, and that works for me.
I saw an OP asking for RPG’s, so I went and rummaged trough the box in my head marked “RPG”. Gabriel Knight popped out. I’m sorry. I made a mistake, since that game is obviously not what was asked for. Now get off my case.
My absolute favorite recent one is Tales of Symphonia. The replay value is very high, too.
It’s an odd thing, but all my favorite RPG’s were 7’s:
Might and Magic VII tops the list. I liked all of the MM series from 4-8, but I liked 7 the most. It has the best balanced character development system of 6-9, graphics as good as the two that came after, but didn’t have the flaws that 9 had. 8 was good, but smaller (less gameplay) than 7, and you only got to create one character. 6 suffered from some large, overpowered dungeons, and 7 had better replay value.
Ultima VII is my favorite ultima, and again, I liked all of 4-8. (Surely an odd coincidence). I think the game peaked with Ultima VII and part 2 to it, but those were my favorites.
I played the Final Fantasy series, and liked some better than others, but I think I liked 7 the best by a narrow margin. Certainly the game was more and more scripted with more and more unwieldy character development after that, although the graphics are pretty and the stories are interesting.
Even Wizardry 7 makes the cut in my book.
Non-sevens I really enjoyed were: Planescape:Torment, Fallout 2, and even Temple of Elemental Evil.
[QUOTE=Atrael]
Since we’re dipping into the old-school games a bit, perhaps I can recommend Starflight? While the graphics will suck compaired to anything made in the last 20 years, the gameplay is exceptional. First computer game I ever played, and I still have a system that I configured to allow me to play it.
[/QUOTE]
I had that game for the C64. I had completely forgotten about it until now. I don’t remember much about it except that in the beginning of the game you had to somehow go mining for minerals to sell for upgrades to your ship.
The wiki article mentions something about not being able to play the game on modern computers. I don’t see why that would be a limitation, what with emulators and all.