RPGs with awful endings *spoilers*

I guess you will not get any answer here that can be used as "definition". The term RPG was once an umbrella where you could throw some games in. Like Baldurs Gate, Fallout 1, and many older titles. But even there you had distinctions. Its clear that Dagerfall was a different kind of RPG then lets say Wasteland or some of the DnD games.

To make the situation worse though, today pretty much anything can be sold as "RPG" where the term "action RPG" has become the most popular term. Because any game even if it is not an RPG can be sold as "action" RPG. Like Fallout 3 and Oblivion - which are in my eyes no RPGs at least.

I personally think for an RPG the interaction between the character and the world is very important. Take Oblivion as example. What ever you do is not important. The world has pretty much no reaction to it.
 
Crni Vuk said:
I guess you will not get any answer here that can be used as "definition". The term RPG was once an umbrella where you could throw some games in. Like Baldurs Gate, Fallout 1, and many older titles. But even there you had distinctions. Its clear that Dagerfall was a different kind of RPG then lets say Wasteland or some of the DnD games.

To make the situation worse though, today pretty much anything can be sold as "RPG" where the term "action RPG" has become the most popular term. Because any game even if it is not an RPG can be sold as "action" RPG. Like Fallout 3 and Oblivion - which are in my eyes no RPGs at least.

I personally think for an RPG the interaction between the character and the world is very important. Take Oblivion as example. What ever you do is not important. The world has pretty much no reaction to it.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the insight. I haven't played many RPGS so I don't really know their qualities.
 
Crni Vuk said:
I guess you will not get any answer here that can be used as "definition". The term RPG was once an umbrella where you could throw some games in. Like Baldurs Gate, Fallout 1, and many older titles. But even there you had distinctions. Its clear that Dagerfall was a different kind of RPG then lets say Wasteland or some of the DnD games.

To make the situation worse though, today pretty much anything can be sold as "RPG" where the term "action RPG" has become the most popular term. Because any game even if it is not an RPG can be sold as "action" RPG. Like Fallout 3 and Oblivion - which are in my eyes no RPGs at least.

I personally think for an RPG the interaction between the character and the world is very important. Take Oblivion as example. What ever you do is not important. The world has pretty much no reaction to it.
Click to expand...
It comes down to subjective preferences, rather than a absolute fact of what a RPG is. It seems most hardcore gamers defines it as staying true to PnP rules, and having choices aswell as repercussions. Whereas the industry limits it to character stats and leveling. In reality most RPGs from the golden era offered as few/much options for the player as the games of today.
 
The ending to NV was a bit pants partly because you can't get back into the game with the big ass sord you get from the letgit. And then the thing with the followers narrating.. found it a little soppy and cheesy
 
We have had that discussion many times before, NV like most Fallout games has a closed ending because after you have finished the last campaign the world has changed to much for you just to start wandering around in it again.

It would have required several more months to change the world to reflect the changes you have caused during the game.
 
For NCR said:
Since this game is relatively old, I won't bother to hide it. DIABLO has a rather disappointing ending. While I have not played the original completely, I do remember the end. The whole game was about you going to kill the king of evil, Diablo, and take his red jewel, which gives him power. After hours of play and grinding, you take on Diablo and kill him. What follows is a cutscene showing you becoming the new Diablo, who is the boss in Diablo 2. Really? C'mon, you just spended the whole game trying to kill the guy that you have just turned into! What a waste...
Click to expand...
What the fuck?

You fight your way to Diablo, you kill him, you extract the soulstone, his body becomes that of the kidnapped/sacrificed prince again, and to contain the evil of the soulstone, you insert it into your own head.

You then travel east, in the hope of learning how to destroy the soulstone fast enough before it consumes you whole.
(which it obviously does in Diablo 2)

How is that a bad ending? It's perfectly in line with the dread of the game...

Also, Diablo 1 does have a story, but it does not push you into it if you don't want to learn it. Obviously it was a hack & slash, so its focus is on combat, but that does not mean the story isn't a good part of what made it worthwhile for many people.
 
I think Diablo 1 and 2 are one of those few games that actually have a decent story. If not "RPG" or super deep. But its entertaining. And it never felt like the story was more important compared to the gameplay. A pretty huge change to diablo 3 which makes playing coop a chore sometimes ... click.click, cutscene!, click click, another one ... dialogues here! meaningless cutscene again! ... and so on. Wtf.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top