I would also mention the only console RPG I’ve finished (OMG the boredom factor of loading battles on consoles…)–Summoner for the PS2. While there was a lot of stock in trade fighting, there were some twists that made it engaging enough to work through that boredom factor. Plot twists (wow, this game is short, *aaaaaargh* no it’s not) and odd things like completing part of the game with only certain members of the party. (It is available for the PC, too.)

The only other console RPGs that engaged me enough to keep me involved for more than a few hours were Wild Arms (though ultimately the ocean going portion killed it for me) and Legends of Dragoon (again, an unexpected plot twist).

I disagree entirely with the person claiming that face to face RPGs are also either “rail road the players” or “pull garbage out of your butt”. A good GM (yes, they are rare), knows that plot development can’t be rigid. As a GM what I try to do, and as a player what I look for in a GM/game, are elements that a) aren’t so wrapped up in mechanics that they over-shadow the game and players, and b) more of a plot *concept* than a *plotting*. The latter suggests prescription. The former is an idea, a frame that the game can hang on–as the players act as their characters.

Sure, it’s a lot tougher than point A->point B, but it’s a great deal more memorable for everyone. It means that the GM has to be light on their feet, and willing to throw their own stuff in the trash in favor of working out new developments between games. But as with most things–you have to invest to reap rewards.

As a player, this is why I prefer a point-based character generation where I can flesh out my character concept in a more collaborative fashion with the GM–it gives the GM things to stick into that framework for the rest of the game.

Amusingly, I just told Chris at “Only a Game” blog that using the argument “this makes the game easier to design” was bogus (in the case of savepoints) if it improved the game, but I’m going to use that argument here: the reason most games don’t put in a lot of content that is hard to find or not relevant is that there’s an issue of diminishing returns. Creating content is a lot of hard work, and if most (or a substantial portion) of the players are never going to see a given side quest, haven’t you just wasted a lot of precious development time and effort?

That being said, I think the The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind comes very close to what you’re describing.

The best RPGs, with rare exceptions, are those with the best battle systems. I loved the Grandia games, because I could get into a rhythm where I could make decisions intuitively. The battle systems were so well-designed you could get a feel for them, like driving a car. An exception would be KOTOR, a game with (IMO) a somewhat clunky battle system; but the story and the graphics were so good, and the dialogue was so well written, you hardly noticed.

Being a bit of a Japanophile, I’m more forgiving of Japanese games. I like the cultural distance ó I can never really tell whether dialogue is bad, or there’s some cultural reference I’m not getting. Often, there are lines which I assume are supposed to be funny but for me are just mysterious. I like the mystery. With North American games, I know when the writing is bad ó which it usually is. And Japanese games don’t feature the ridiculously inflated, tiresome, tiresome, tiresome boobs that American games are afflicted with (Bioware is particularly guilty on this one).

Anyway, RPGs could be less repetitive if more production work was put into essentials (the battles, the writing) and less into frills (cut scenes. cut scenes. cut scenes. If I wanted to watch anime, I’d rent a DVD. I want to play, not watch!)

Anyone else like it?

Consider: WWE Smackdown: Bring The Pain. It’s a pro wrestling game, which I guess means it’s somewhere between a fighter and a sports game. The character creation system allows a shocking amount of flexibility with respect to creating a character’s build, clothing (both in and out of the ring), entrance, music, pyrotechnics, and wrestling moves, that even someone like me (who has participated in game design and who doesn’t care a pile for pro wrestling anyway) forgets that, fundamentally, none of this changes the inevitable, linear progression of the character’s wrestling career.

But pro wrestling is a world of style over substance, and we all harbor fantasies of glamor and badassery. Giving users the ability to make any likeness they desire and empower it with a customized buttkicking style makes the creation and management of style far more fun than anything else.

Outside of that, the game sucks. I’ve still had many a fun evening with friends making wrestler avatars of each other and giggling when we strut into the ring.

Your complaints about CRPGs can pretty much be used to sum up most issues with, say, fantasy novels. I mean, hell, you could generalize more and just say “The problem is that every story is about some protagonists that must overcome some set of obstacles in order to achieve their goals”. =)

I also disagree that there was really that much freedom in pnp RPGs. If your DM has just spent two weeks lovingly hand crafting an adventure to take place in the Mountains of Zorflor and the PCs first action is “We jump on a ship to the Deserts of Tybizia!”, well, one of two things happen:

1. A sudden storm comes up that destroys all ships and the PCs are forced to go through the Mountains of Zorflor.

2. The DM creates an ad hoc adventure on the fly that will, invariably, suck more than most DM adventures already do.