Support NeoGAF

[kswiston]

Since now I have an account here, I would like to ask: just why you guys do this list every year?

Wouldn't it make more sense to just do a "Best of the Year" voting and a place where you can see the results from every year? What's the point in every year rechecking the entire history of RPGs? I.e., last year PS:T was the #1 WRPG. Now it is #3. So what? (Expect for the horrible decline, of course.)

If anything, you're just replacing old games for new ones. Especially since there's nothing to compensate for popularity. Sure, Mass Effect is popular as hell, but how many gave it 3 points? Is it really fucking awesome, or just a game that everyone played and enjoyed?

I know I'm biased, being the guy who did the past RPG Codex votings, but I know how much trouble it is to do these... I really don't get the point of it.

Also, Arcanum was #5 at the Codex Top RPG list... yet sits at #130 on NeoGAF's 2013 poll. Shame on you all. :-(

GAF has 100k+ members and a lot of turnover. Many GAF members are actually pretty casual gamers (in the old sense of the word, not the new Wii/smartphone gamer definition) and don't have much exposure to titles outside of the blockbuster AAA games. These threads are supposed to act as an inspiration or guide to discovering new things to play. Gamers newer to the genre are going to get more use out of it than veterans of course, but even established gamers could do with a reminder of certain titles occasionally. Years old threads get buried and are never seen by new members. Hence the refresh. That said, this is the first list in 2 years, and I have no idea if anyone has interest in picking up where I left off in future years.

 

[Almighty]

Sure, yet Planescape: Torment and Baldur's Gate were GAF's top WRPGs last year... this "we love PST and BG2, but never tried Arcanum!" thing that puzzles me.

Arcanum is the Alpha Protocol of its day as far as I am concerned. What it does well it does pretty damn well, but it also does a few things pretty damn terribly. So yeah I gave it an honorable mention in my list, but I can see why some people assuming they played it might not list it very high if at all.

 

[foxtrot3d]

Mass Effect doesn't even come close to The Witcher 2 regarding story.

Um, yes it does. Although, I wouldn't directly compare the two as they are vastly different stories. ME1 and I'd say generally for the most part ME2 follows the typical Hero's Journey whereas TW2 attempts a more "realistic" style of story. It's like trying to compare Lord Of The Rings to Game of Thrones. Neither type of storytelling is better than the other the only thing that can be compared is there execution. And, for the most part I'd say they both execute their respective stories very well, though TW2 falls flat at a couple areas. For instance, TW2 is pretty bad overall when it comes to writing supporting characters. While there are standouts like Roche and Iorveth, characters like Triss, Dandelion, and Zoltan all fall flat. In addition, the way that lore is woven into the game isn't particularly well done and the last chapter feels a bit disjointed. The game also makes frequent references to events that happened in the books which a non-book reading player would have no knowledge of.

I personally think that ME1 and 2 executed their stories better both I think TW2 did a pretty good job overall and was a massive step up from TW1.

 

[gngf123]

GAF has 100k+ members and a lot of turnover. Many GAF members are actually pretty casual gamers (in the old sense of the word, not the new Wii/smartphone gamer definition) and don't have much exposure to titles outside of the blockbuster AAA games. These threads are supposed to act as an inspiration or guide to discovering new things to play. Gamers newer to the genre are going to get more use out of it than veterans of course, but even established gamers could do with a reminder of certain titles occasionally. Years old threads get buried and are never seen by new members. Hence the refresh. That said, this is the first list in 2 years, and I have no idea if anyone has interest in picking up where I left off in future years.

I think it would be cool if the votes were analysed in a few different ways to counteract the fact that people mass vote for common AAA options like Mass Effect.

Like for example, you mention a guide to discovering new things to play. You could count 3 point votes and compare them against the total number of votes to find highest rated uncommon entries, which would help that a lot.

 

[felipepepe]

GAF has 100k+ members and a lot of turnover. Many GAF members are actually pretty casual gamers (in the old sense of the word, not the new Wii/smartphone gamer definition) and don't have much exposure to titles outside of the blockbuster AAA games. These threads are supposed to act as an inspiration or guide to discovering new things to play.

Sure, I think that's a noble goal. But the current system has the casual gamers voting on what casual gamers should play. There's nothing to compensate for popularity, like using a Bayesian average, different categories, sorting by year or something similar.

In the end, you get a bunch of casual players that think Mass Effect is the best game evar making a list that reinforces their views. :/

 

[kswiston]

I think it would be cool if the votes were analysed in a few different ways to counteract the fact that people mass vote for common options.

Like for example, you mention a guide to discovering new things to play. You could count 3 point votes and compare them against the total number votes to find highest rated uncommon votes, which would help that a lot.

If someone wants to tally the 3 point votes by game, I can add that into the eventual OP. I unfortunately do not have the time to go back and do it myself. It would be easier if I had a standardized ballot and automated script to do tally analysis, but I did things the old fashioned way, and did not keep track of that.

 

[MisterShine]

I honestly wish SMT had more votes generally. Nocturne is cool and I gave it the 3 points to push it up a bit more since I knew that was the one people would vote for, but almost nobody mentioned IV or Strange Journey.
...

That's because 4 is inferior to 3 in every way. I sadly still cannot comment on SJ.

And the reason why P4/P3 get so much more love is because they actually care about having an interesting story and characters. The mainline SMT games (at least 3 and 4, haven't played the first 2) have no real interest in that. Everything and everyone are 2 dimensional avatars for their chosen ideology or movement. I thought this worked really well in Nocturne as it made everything seem more warped and alien, but made 4 just kinda lame. Persona games are much easier to get into and invest in because they have that 3 dimensional, real world focus which makes them more popular.

...Also, Arcanum was #5 at the Codex Top RPG list... yet sits at #130 on NeoGAF's 2013 poll. Shame on you all. :-(

PS:T at least hits you with the good stuff right away in terms of story and character, etc, that slowly open up more and more as you put more effort into them, but has bad mechanics otherwise attached. It's not that difficult to get sucked in, since it starts you off on the proper footing. Arcanum meanwhile hits you with bad mechanics and takes its sweet old time to make things really interesting. Once you dig far into it I believe it is incredibly rewarding, but there's a pretty significant investment I believe that wards off anyone but the most hardcore of enthusiasts.

Maybe I'm just projecting my personal experience with the game, but that's what I think.

 

[gngf123]

If someone wants to tally the 3 point votes by game, I can add that into the eventual OP. I unfortunately do not have the time to go back and do it myself. It would be easier if I had a standardized ballot and automated script to do tally analysis, but I did things the old fashioned way, and did not keep track of that.

I can't guarantee that I'll do it, since a proper underdog vote would also need for me to count every game mention so I have something to compare against and that will take a while, but I'll have a go.

If you have something like that, it'll help.

 

[kswiston]

Sure, I think that's a noble goal. But the current system has the casual gamers voting on what casual gamers should play. There's nothing to compensate for popularity, like using a Bayesian average, different categories, sorting by year or something similar.

In the end, you get a bunch of casual players that think Mass Effect is the best game evar making a list that reinforces their views. :/

That is partially why I recommend reading through the actual submissions. Find posts from people with similar gaming priorities as yourself, and try some of those titles. The big list is mostly for fun. A couple of years ago I asked a number of posters if they would prefer an unranked final list and got an overwhelmingly negative response.

Also, when it comes down to it, I don't think that having a final list that is heavy on games that are accessible, newer, or that aged well is a horrible thing. Betrayal at Krondor, Daggerfall, or Pool of Radiance might be great games of historical significance, but you are going to have a hard time convincing someone who isn't even sure they like RPGs to try them. I've seen enough people complain about the Infinity Engine titles being archaic. If someone is already heavily invested in the genre, and wants to go back and play some of the games they missed (probably because they released before they were born), than sure, a more curated list is where they should be heading.

I can't guarantee that I'll do it, since a proper underdog vote would also need for me to count every game mention so I have something to compare against and that will take a while, but I'll have a go.

If you have something like that, it'll help.

I would just start with the 3 point votes. There are less than 200 of those since they were 1 per list. If you have time and want to do something more involved after that, you could do so (like total mentions vs total points). Much appreciated if you get around to it.

 

[gngf123]

I would just start with the 3 point votes. There are less than 200 of those since they were 1 per list. If you have time and want to do something more involved after that, you could do so (like total mentions vs total points). Much appreciated if you get around to it.

I'm going to be doing the 3 point tally, but sadly I think that's susceptible to some of the same issues as just counting normally. Will be worth posting though probably.

I could just take your results and use that as a comparison point to find uncommon games, which would be easier and less time consuming than doing a full recount. Although statistically maybe not the best way of doing things.

 

[terrisus]

Since now I have an account here, I would like to ask: just why you guys do this list every year?

"Since now I have an account here, I would like to ask: Just why you guys give people who now have an account here a chance to have input on this list?"

>.>

 

[Jamix012]

If you wanted to make an underdog list where preferred RPGs get more limelight you could simply re-weight everything. Instead of 3 points, 2 points and 1 point for favoured, listed and honourable mention respectively, if you gave them 5 points, 1 point and 0 points respectively, you should end up with something that more highly weights preferred votes.

 

[Taruranto]

There is also the issue that

Spoiler

Arcanum gameplay sucks.

I mean yeah, it's an amazing role play experience and what you want, but when the game is such a chore to play, ugh. I always described Arcanum as "a great RPG, but an awful videogame".

 

[Jisgsaw]

Shin Megami Tensei IV getting practically no love in most people's lists was surprising (and disappointing) to me. It's one of the very best games ever made for me.

Well, Nocturne got a few votes, and it's mile sbetter than SMT IV anyway.

I think TW2 did a pretty good job overall and was a massive step up from TW1.

Completely desagree here too.
The fights got a bit more interesting, sidequests are a tad better, the graphics too of course, but I'm missing almost all the charm of the first game.

 

[FluxWaveZ]

I think some need to realize their opinion isn't fact, and that others' opinions can diverge from their own.

 

[terrisus]

I think people need to realize their opinion isn't fact, and that other opinions can diverge from their own.

Except Chrono Trigger being the best game ever.
That is, in fact, fact.

 

[FluxWaveZ]

Except Chrono Trigger being the best game ever.
That is, in fact, fact.

I dislike Chrono Trigger.

 

[terrisus]

I dislike Chrono Trigger.

:þ

 

[Bebpo]

Are Chapters 4/5 of The Witcher 1 worth it? I played up to Ch.4 three years ago and reloaded my save and have no idea what's going on

Spoiler

I'm on an island

. Would have to read the wiki summary to refresh on all the events up to that point and then at that point should I just read a summary of ch.4/5 and move on to W2? Or does W1 have a really strong finish that should be seen firsthand?

 

[Jisgsaw]

I think some need to realize their opinion isn't fact, and that others' opinions can diverge from their own.

I didn't think it necessary to explicitely say it was my own opinion, as I find that highly obvious.
If someone takes me up on that, I can gladly expand on my opinion of course.

Are Chapters 4/5 of The Witcher 1 worth it? I played up to Ch.4 three years ago and reloaded my save and have no idea what's going on

Spoiler

I'm on an island

. Would have to read the wiki summary to refresh on all the events up to that point and then at that point should I just read a summary of ch.4/5 and move on to W2? Or does W1 have a really strong finish that should be seen firsthand?

Chapter 4 is a complete change of pace, atmosphere and location from the rest of the game.
Chapter 5 wraps up all the intrigues.

If the game didn't interst you that much in the first 3 chapters, I'd say to skip the end, as you wouldn't understand much anyway. There are by far the shorter chapters of the game though (especially chap. 5, which must barely be more than a couple hours).

 

[Bebpo]

Chapter 4 is a complete change of pace, atmosphere and location from the rest of the game.
Chapter 5 wraps up all the intrigues.

If the game didn't interst you that much in the first 3 chapters, I'd say to skip the end, as you wouldn't understand much anyway. There are by far the shorter chapters of the game though (especially chap. 5, which must barely be more than a couple hours).

The game interested me a bunch! (although I remember Ch.2 dragged and the swamp area sucked). Just I got distracted and put it down 3 years ago. The hardest part about picking it back up now is that I have no idea how the combat/gameplay systems work anymore. :|

Really want to play W2/3 in 2015, so just trying to figure out if it's worth finishing W1.

 

[FluxWaveZ]

I didn't think it necessary to explicitely say it was my own opinion, as I find that highly obvious.
If someone takes me up on that, I can gladly expand on my opinion of course.

I wasn't referring to you, but those that it clearly applies to or who feel it applies to.

 

[Giran]

Are Chapters 4/5 of The Witcher 1 worth it? I played up to Ch.4 three years ago and reloaded my save and have no idea what's going on

Spoiler

I'm on an island

. Would have to read the wiki summary to refresh on all the events up to that point and then at that point should I just read a summary of ch.4/5 and move on to W2? Or does W1 have a really strong finish that should be seen firsthand?

Chapter 4 is my favorite. Love the relatively calm "countryside witcher" feeling compared to the politicking and the goddamn swamp. 5 is pretty bad though.

 

[Jisgsaw]

The game interested me a bunch! (although I remember Ch.2 dragged and the swamp area sucked). Just I got distracted and put it down 3 years ago. The hardest part about picking it back up now is that I have no idea how the combat/gameplay systems work anymore. :|

Really want to play W2/3 in 2015, so just trying to figure out if it's worth finishing W1.

Yeah those swamps suck.
I'd say it's worth it. Combat won't be a problem (you just have to click in rythm with the icon; just be sure to always have regen potions activated in combat, and you should be alright), but story-wise, you could be a bit lost. Chapter 4 won't be too much a problem as it's largely separate from the rets of the game, but chapter 5 basically closes all story points from the first 4 chapters, so...
I don't know of any good story recap either.

 

[Dresden]

It's in the margins that you'll find the interesting stuff, and that's true for most polls of this nature (the cool stuff in the rpgcodex vote were titles like King of Dragon Pass, as an example). Popular things are popular~

Shin Megami Tensei IV getting practically no love in most people's lists was surprising (and disappointing) to me. It's one of the very best games ever made for me.

I'm really fond of SMT4 (it was my favorite game two years ago), but not enough to put up on a top ten list, especially with Nocturne occupying a slot. Kinda wish I'd had room for stuff like MotB and Alpha Protocol, too.

As for Divinity: OS or Wasteland 2 - I guess the former could go up on some top twenty thing. It's a goddamn great foundation for part 2 in whatever Larian is cooking up.

 

[gngf123]

Okay, so I took a tally of the 3 point votes and got an unofficial top RPG list of sorts. Not sure if it is counted perfectly, but if someone wants to do a recount they can.

Once OP's official results are out, I want to turn this into an discovery/underdog list of uncommon games for people to try, but not sure what rules I'm going to use for that yet. Here are the top 8 most commonly considered essential RPG's:

1. Suikoden 2
2. Persona 4
3. Final Fantasy VI
4. Planescape: Torment
5. Earthbound
6. Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen
7. NieR
8. SMT3: Nocturne

Recommendations of how best to calculate the underdog games would be good. I was thinking most 3 point mentions/total votes. So a game that got mentioned twice and both of them with 3 points would probably be right at the top of the list.

EDIT: Also, if OP wants me to PM him the full list, I can.

EDIT2: Also, fun fact. Mass Effect was a long way down the list, and Mass Effect 2 right at the bottom. They both did get at least one 3 point vote though.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

My last two posts: "Tis not prophecie, tis historie!"

GAF has 100k+ members and a lot of turnover. Many GAF members are actually pretty casual gamers (in the old sense of the word, not the new Wii/smartphone gamer definition) and don't have much exposure to titles outside of the blockbuster AAA games. These threads are supposed to act as an inspiration or guide to discovering new things to play. Gamers newer to the genre are going to get more use out of it than veterans of course, but even established gamers could do with a reminder of certain titles occasionally. Years old threads get buried and are never seen by new members. Hence the refresh. That said, this is the first list in 2 years, and I have no idea if anyone has interest in picking up where I left off in future years.

Sure, I think that's a noble goal. But the current system has the casual gamers voting on what casual gamers should play. There's nothing to compensate for popularity, like using a Bayesian average, different categories, sorting by year or something similar.

In the end, you get a bunch of casual players that think Mass Effect is the best game evar making a list that reinforces their views. :/

You see that above I bolded from Kwiston's post? THAT I feel is the best benefit of this list is (which is backed up by conversation in this and in previous threads). This thread opens doors, opens windows, opens wallets, opens minds; an extremely valuable tool in this downloadable age where more and more classics everywhere from every time and system are available for dirt cheap world-wide.

You see what you wrote there? THAT'S why I mentioned Codex. If I may be so blunt, that kind of attitude is rampant over there. Every glance and link to that site has that on unavoidable display. Too fixated on complexity, too fixated on seminal efforts from bygone eras, too exclusionary of any felt not "h@rdc0r3 enough".

Burning the bridges with everyone not in that CRPG clique did nothing beneficial, as there was an electric shitton more pulling RPG game design towards that "Press 'A' for Awesome" morass over the last decade. There is no maintenence of respect or appreciation for complexity, indifference to success, or breadth of player agency in RPG design. Those people were left with whatever echo chambers PR campaigns whipped up for the latest AAA RPG, and surprise! It was stuff you show you hate so.

The very reason grognard-ass grognard RPGs (and the complex ends of other genres as a whole) have gotten healthier in these last few years has been that jettisoned mid-core gamer gaining access to that discipline and those daring to tread those waters to meet them teaming up and finding out the two sides of this supply and demand are still out there. It CERTAINLY wasn't from sniffing at the rabble outside and going back to a dusty horde of old classics.

Look, I know that was ugly, but it's the truth. Reach out. Share that love and you'll get new stuff tailor-made just for you, just like how it was in ye olden days. Open their minds, open YOUR mind. We can't have another Gen 7, we just can't. We're in a new, better world.

 

[Ralemont]

Yeah, I can live with this. Mass Effect 1 isn't the best in the series IMO, but it's Mass Effect after all, my favorite video game franchise. Justice was done.

The love for Mass Effect 1 is good news for how Dragon Age: Inquisition will age, since the strengths and flaws of both are very similar.

Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen

I really tried to love DD, but the damn weight mechanic ruined it for me. I felt like I was treading the encumbered line every time I picked something up and suddenly I'm slower than a Grandma with a cane.

 

[Jisgsaw]

Okay, so I took a tally of the 3 point votes, and got an unofficial top RPG list of sorts. Not sure if it is counted perfectly, but if someone wants to do a recount they can.

Once OP's official results are out, I want to turn this into an discovery/underdog list of uncommon games for people to try, but not sure what rules I'm going to use for that yet. Here are the top 8 most preferred RPG's:
/list
Recommendations of how best to calculate the underdog games would be good. I was thinking most 3 point mentions/total votes. So a game that got mentioned twice and both of them with 3 points would probably be right at the top of the list.

Holy crap, how comes that's almost only jRPGs?
Not sure for your method for the underdogs. That'd mean the top sport will be for a game only one person put in his top, and happens to be his top choice...

Well, that'd be an underdog actually, but I don't know how relevant it'll be to do the list that way.

 

[gngf123]

Holy crap, how comes that's almost only jRPGs?
Not sure for your method for the underdogs. That'd mean the top sport will be for a game only one person put in his top, and happens to be his top choice...

Well, that'd be an underdog actually, but I don't know how relevant it'll be to do the list that way.

Well I was thinking of putting a 2 vote minimum on it as well, that way it would be less prone to silly results because of just that one guy voting for something crazy.

As for JRPG's, no idea. Maybe because GAF is mostly filled with console players and JRPG's were very popular on consoles back in the SNES/PS1 eras.

 

[kswiston]

If you want an underdog vote, you could stick to the games that made the top 100 cut off which had a minimum of 12 points (or the games that received at least 10 points, since that was my actual cut off for recording near the end). That was, you are at least looking at titles with 4-5 recommendations minimum. I remember one year, two dudes really loved Harvest Moon 64. They both gave it their 3 point spot, but they were also the only ones who voted for the game. Would that really deserve top billing as an underdog?

I'll give you my spreadsheet after I have had a chance to write up the official results. Counts might vary a bit from what you or others calculates because I disqualified certain votes for rule breaking. It is also entirely possible that I made some minor mistakes. There were over 5000 points to tally!

 

[His Majesty]

The very reason grognard-ass grognard RPGs (and the complex ends of other genres as a whole) have gotten healthier in these last few years has been that jettisoned mid-core gamer gaining access to that discipline and those daring to tread those waters to meet them teaming up and finding out the two sides of this supply and demand are still out there. It CERTAINLY wasn't from sniffing at the rabble outside and going back to a dusty horde of old classics.

Look, I know that was ugly, but it's the truth. Reach out. Share that love and you'll get new stuff tailor-made just for you, just like how it was in ye olden days. Open their minds, open YOUR mind. We can't have another Gen 7, we just can't. We're in a new, better world.

The demand has always been there and until the rise of Kickstarter it was the supply that was lacking. It's the same old story. Publishers don't want to take any risks and aim for an audience as broad as possible. Take Larian for example. They had always dreamed of making a turn-based Divinity game yet they were forced by their publisher to make Divinity II an action game. Kickstarter gave them the possibility to go their own way and their project was heavily supported by the Codex, both financially and development wise. Look, you can share your love with the world all you want but when no one is listening and games like Baldur's Gate II, Fallout 1 and Morrowind are being replaced by Mass Effect, Fallout 3 and Oblivion then I don't blame the Codex for returning to the good old classics.

 

[gngf123]

If you want an underdog vote, you could stick to the games that made the top 100 cut off which had a minimum of 12 points (or the games that received at least 10 points, since that was my actual cut off for recording near the end). That was, you are at least looking at titles with 4-5 recommendations minimum. I remember one year, two dudes really loved Harvest Moon 64. They both gave it their 3 point spot, but they were also the only ones who voted for the game. Would that really deserve top billing as an underdog?

I'll give you my spreadsheet after I have had a chance to write up the official results. Counts might vary a bit from what you or others calculates because I disqualified certain votes for rule breaking. It is also entirely possible that I made some minor mistakes. There were over 5000 points to tally!

So, basically just a higher cut off point than what I was going for.

I kind of feel like the underdog mentions should have a lower cut off point than that though, but I'd be happy to do a 7 point minimum to avoid cases like that Harvest Moon one. I feel like a list designed to show off highly rated discovery games should have a lower cut off point than the main list, since only maybe 3-4 people here might have actually played them.

 

[SatoAilDarko]

If you want an underdog vote, you could stick to the games that made the top 100 cut off which had a minimum of 12 points (or the games that received at least 10 points, since that was my actual cut off for recording near the end). That was, you are at least looking at titles with 4-5 recommendations minimum. I remember one year, two dudes really loved Harvest Moon 64. They both gave it their 3 point spot, but they were also the only ones who voted for the game. Would that really deserve top billing as an underdog?

I'll give you my spreadsheet after I have had a chance to write up the official results. Counts might vary a bit from what you or others calculates because I disqualified certain votes for rule breaking. It is also entirely possible that I made some minor mistakes. There were over 5000 points to tally!

I wonder. Were my votes disqualified because under honorable mentions I put a single explanation for the first two Paper Mario games and then one for the Xenosaga games? They weren't short, I just felt better summarizing them that way.

 

[kswiston]

I wonder. Were my votes disqualified because under honorable mentions I put a single explanation for the first two Paper Mario games and then one for the Xenosaga games? They weren't short, I just felt better summarizing them that way.

No, yours are fine. I mostly threw out single votes, not entire ballots. Typically because someone tried to cram several games into a single spot (while still voting for 9 other games)

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Sounds like your "underdog" calculations are going to completely and intentionally disregard my 3-point vote to NetHack, which was the only mention it got. Isn't that the definition of an underdog? A game that almost no one mentions, but someone feels strongly enough about to give max points to?

I would think Vote Total/Total Mentions would give be a more accurate "underdog" calculation.

 

[gngf123]

Sounds like your "underdog" calculations are going to completely and intentionally disregard my 3-point vote to NetHack, which was the only mention it got. Isn't that the definition of an underdog? A game that almost no one mentions, but someone feels strongly enough about to give max points to?

That's pretty much the problem with deciding if a cutoff point on these lists would be a good idea or not, and where it should be. That's why I was asking for people's suggestions, nothing is set in stone yet.

There was another person who voted for ZHP, and as far as I can tell is the only person to have mentioned it. That and NetHack are the exact kind of things I want on the list.

At the same time, not having any cut off at all could make the list a little too volatile. That said, I don't see any 3 point votes that sound completely ridiculous to me so maybe it could be done.

Do people really want criteria that if kept in the future, could make Sonic Chronicles or something one of GAF's most underrated RPG's, simply because one crazy person thinks it is the best game ever made?

 

[Finalow]

You can give it a try, and if you do just jump straight into P4.

That said, it is one of GAF's most overrated series, at least when it comes to P3/4. The pacing is bad, the dungeons are terrible, and the story in P4 is average at best. The only things saving it are good characters.

P4 and P3P at least give you full party control.

I have to agree with gngf123 about P3/4 being highly overrated here. (feels like a déjà vu~, I might have posted this already)
also Persona 2

Spoiler

best Persona game

gets almost no love in this type of threads. not cool.

Because people think it is a really good game?
Seriously, at what point does it become clear that your personal opinion that ME (specifically ME2) is not a great series represents a small minority? Every major gaming critic and review site has given it the highest scores, it far outsold ME1, it won many GOTY awards, it consistently ranks high in every best RPG list, and now even the majority on NeoGaf considers it Top 5 material.

You may not think highly of ME and ME2, but pretty much everyone else does. Either everyone else on the planet is wrong or you simply have a different opinion.

I doubt I'm the only one being disappointed, or rather, laughing, at a top 5 best wrpgs ever with 2 ME games in it, as you can clearly see in this thread. this small minority might not be as small as you think, I'm sure you can find some threads about the series, regarding the games as bad (!!) or at least as very far from being one of the best rpgs, or shooters, if you prefer. so "but pretty much everyone else does" couldn't be more wrong.
again, if the whole - most of the reviews (lol) regard it as a great game - is your yardstick for judging games, you're doing it wrong. that "majority" that here voted for ME 1/2 top 5 probably has no idea what a Planescape or BG2 is.

 

[zero shift]

Shin Megami Tensei IV getting practically no love in most people's lists was surprising (and disappointing) to me. It's one of the very best games ever made for me.

IV was my top pick. Fewer people played it than III as it was a 3DS game.

Being honest, mainline Megaten was rarely mentioned.

Sure, yet Planescape: Torment and Baldur's Gate were GAF's top WRPGs last year... this "we love PST and BG2, but never tried Arcanum!" thing that puzzles me.

Arcanum is a mess. Sure the actual role playing is fantastic but everything else from the pacing, to the dungeons, to the combat, to the inconsistent (albeit unique) setting really drags down the game. Also the game has tons of bugs even after over a decade of fan patches.

 

[terrisus]

Sounds like your "underdog" calculations are going to completely and intentionally disregard my 3-point vote to NetHack, which was the only mention it got. Isn't that the definition of an underdog? A game that almost no one mentions, but someone feels strongly enough about to give max points to?

I would think Vote Total/Total Mentions would give be a more accurate "underdog" calculation.

Psh, I was the only one to give any vote at all to the game that got my top spot and 3 points - a MUD (possibly the only MUD mentioned), Legends of Terris <3

 

[foxtrot3d]

I doubt I'm the only one being disappointed, or rather, laughing, at a top 5 best wrpgs ever with 2 ME games in it, as you can clearly see in this thread. this small minority might not be as small as you think, I'm sure you can find some threads about the series, regarding the games as bad (!!) or at least as very far from being one of the best rpgs, or shooters, if you prefer. so "but pretty much everyone else does" couldn't be more wrong.
again, if the whole - most of the reviews (lol) regard it as a great game - is your yardstick for judging games, you're doing it wrong. that "majority" that here voted for ME 1/2 top 5 probably has no idea what a Planescape or BG2 is.

So once again all I see is someone insulting the majority which includes all of the users on NeoGaf who voted, every gaming critic/review site, and even those individuals that have proven to played all the classic RPGs, whilst simply countering that "you know best." Yeah...

Let me give you an example, I don't like "2001: A Space Odyssey." I just personally find the movie to artsy and boring. However, my personal opinion doesn't change the fact that it is consistently considered one of the greatest movies of all time and a cinematic masterpiece. I may not like the movie but I do understand and respect its cinematic reverence. But, if I were to start rallying against the movie calling it "trash" or "overrated garbage" unworthy of respect, whilst simultaneously claiming anyone who likes or respects the movie as fools, well I'd be wrong. Either that or the collective population and cinema critics who believe the movie to be great are all wrong and I, the enlightened purveyor of all things great, am correct. Somehow I don't think the latter is likely.

 

[Arulan]

So once again all I see is someone insulting the majority which includes all of the users on NeoGaf who voted, every gaming critic/review site, and even those individuals that have proven to played all the classic RPGs, whilst simply countering that "you know best." Yeah...

Let me give you an example, I don't like "2001: A Space Odyssey." I just personally find the movie to artsy and boring. However, my personal opinion doesn't change the fact that it is consistently considered one of the greatest movies of all time and a cinematic masterpiece. I may not like the movie but I do understand and respect its cinematic reverence. But, if I were to start rallying against the movie calling it "trash" or "overrated garbage" unworthy of respect, whilst simultaneously claiming anyone who likes or respects the movie as fools, well I'd be wrong. Either that or the collective population and cinema critics who believe the movie to be great are all wrong and I, the enlightened purveyor of all things great, am correct. Somehow I don't think the latter is likely.

Because people think it is a really good game? Seriously, at what point does it become clear that your personal opinion that ME (specifically ME2) is not a great series represents a small minority? Every major gaming critic and review site has given it the highest scores, it far outsold ME1, it won many GOTY awards, it consistently ranks high in every best RPG list, and now even the majority on NeoGaf considers it Top 5 material.

You may not think highly of ME and ME2, but pretty much everyone else does. Either everyone else on the planet is wrong or you simply have a different opinion.

Don't take this the wrong way, but your responses have consisted of fallacies, and you haven't once attempted to actually argue the merits of the game(s) you're trying to defend.

 

[Dracandros]

That's pretty much the problem with deciding if a cutoff point on these lists would be a good idea or not, and where it should be. That's why I was asking for people's suggestions, nothing is set in stone yet.

Do people really want criteria that if kept in the future, could make Sonic Chronicles or something one of GAF's most underrated RPG's, simply because one crazy person thinks it is the best game ever made?

As someone who probably has a lot of single votes (and whether others agree with some of my choices or whether they were thrown out or not is fine), I would have to wonder if most of my choices should be on an underdog list.

I guess my thinking is this - would someone reading an underdog list get much out of seeing games that truly inspired other games that are much more well-known? Is that much better than Sonic Generations making it on?


Another big problem is that many of the older games out there are still not available on online services like GOG or Steam. Wizardry 6-8 are available on GOG and the SNES versions of EotB 1 and Wizardry 5 are still cheap for example, but Pool of Radiance is more expensive to buy and install and I wouldn't suggest the NES version.

Should price be a factor in any of that?

 

[foxtrot3d]

Don't take this the wrong way, but your responses have consisted of fallacies, and you haven't once attempted to actually argue the merits of the game(s) you're trying to defend.

I don't see where I made any logical fallacies, Mass Effect 2 has a meta critic score of 96 (one of the highest scores for a game). It also won numerous GOTY awards when it came out. This high opinion of the game has also been reflected in this poll since it was apparently voted into the Top 5 Essential RPG's, again this is a poll conducted by NeoGaf users. So where as I wrong?

As for arguing for the merits of the game that would be an entirely separate thread, although I'm thinking I'll make that thread soon. However, the proof is pretty ample that a great majority of people believe ME2 to be a great game and a top tier RPG.

 

[Arulan]

I don't see where I made any logical fallacies, Mass Effect 2 has a meta critic score of 96 (one of the highest scores for a game). It also won numerous GOTY awards when it came out. This high opinion of the game has also been reflected in this poll since it was apparently voted into the Top 5 Essential RPG's, again this is a poll conducted by NeoGaf users. So where as I wrong?

As for arguing for the merits of the game that would be an entirely separate thread, although I'm thinking I'll make that thread soon. However, the proof is pretty ample that a great majority of people believe ME2 to be a great game and a top tier RPG.

Specifically argumentum ad populum, basically appeal to the masses, whether that be NeoGAF, critics, or any other group of people, that doesn't give it any base to stand on in an argument.

I really don't think another thread is necessary. After all this thread is not just about the list, and expressing our opinions on the essential RPGs, but to discuss and argue about them. Whether that consists of the quality of their writing, discussing individual combat mechanics, or simply trying to argue for why you feel a certain RPG is great. I think that is where the OP's intentions lie (correct me if I'm wrong).

 

[kayos90]

In all honesty kswiston, I think it'd be great if we added 2-3 personal blurbs from certain users on GAF about the top 10 games and why they're on there. I'm sure people like myself of Schala would love to right about Dark Souls and Suikoden II respectively.

 

[felipepepe]

The very reason grognard-ass grognard RPGs (and the complex ends of other genres as a whole) have gotten healthier in these last few years has been that jettisoned mid-core gamer gaining access to that discipline and those daring to tread those waters to meet them teaming up and finding out the two sides of this supply and demand are still out there. It CERTAINLY wasn't from sniffing at the rabble outside and going back to a dusty horde of old classics.

Look, I know that was ugly, but it's the truth. Reach out. Share that love and you'll get new stuff tailor-made just for you, just like how it was in ye olden days. Open their minds, open YOUR mind. We can't have another Gen 7, we just can't. We're in a new, better world.

I think you are largely mistaken.

Games like Underrail, Age of Decadence, M&M:X, Legend of Grimrock, Paper Sorcerer, Blackguards, Heroine's Quest and D:OS and Wasteland 2 are there precisely because a bunch of angry cunts were still bitching about how modern RPGs suck and how they wanted a old-school experience. Tools became cheaper, crowd-funding happened and we backed the hell out of it. That's why every time you boot up Divinity:Original Sin you see "Thank you Kickstarter Backers, RPG Codex and RPG Watch."

Read the interviews from Larian and you'll see how the press was just "eh, no one cares for this anymore". How Swen had to taught players how to think again. How many publishers, journalist and gamers told him to go real-time 'cause turn-based "was a technological limitation". That's what your "mid-score" gamer wants, because he doesn't know any better. Legend of Grimrock used fantastic graphics to fool people into trying out a genre that "died" 20 years ago, FFS.

People that got tired of yet another TR00 RPG EXPERIENCE that is multi-platform. accessible and streamlined (but still 100% hardcore - we promise). They took matters in hands. Read their interviews or talk with then in forums an you'll see how it usually comes down to "there were no games like the ones I like to play available."

And I've done a hell of a lot of work to share my love. The RPG Codex Top 70 RPGs is my work, I organized the voting, gathered the reviews and prepared the screenshots & box arts, all just so those really into RPGs could have a handy guide. Now I'm making a goddamn free book on CPRG history, with guys like Chris Avellone, Scorpia, Ian Frazier and hordes from the Codex & Watch. We released a 100-page preview a couple of weeks ago and had more than 10k downloads without any media coverage.

But I will not praise Mass Effect as teh best shit ever just so I can grab the attention of those seeking validation of their limited knowledge. You have EA's PR department for that.

 

[foxtrot3d]

Specifically argumentum ad populum, basically appeal to the masses, whether that be NeoGAF, critics, or any other group of people, that doesn't give it any base to stand on in an argument.

I really don't think another thread is necessary. After all this thread is not just about the list, and expressing our opinions on RPGs, but to discuss and argue about them. Whether that consists of the quality of their writing, discussing individual combat mechanics, or simply trying to argue for why you feel a certain RPG is great. I think that is where the OP's intentions lie (correct me if I'm wrong).

Well, the point of critics is to remove judgment based on the sheer majority opinion. A true critic is supposed to be someone, like a scholar, closed off in their ivory tower who is unmoved by outside forces and able to judge a piece of medium on its own based on his/her "superior" knowledge. Hence why although the Transformers movie or say Justin Bieber's music may have a massive following but is universally panned by critics. Now, whether or not someone believes or trusts that gaming critics are on the same level as other artistic critics is another debate but universal praise from gaming critics and the general population do mean something.

In addition, the game did win GOTY at the 14th Annual DICE Awards and 2011 British Academy Video Games Awards; in addition to receiving the award for "Best Writing" at the 11th Annual Game Developers Choice Awards. Those are awards shows presided over and voted on by industry professional and developers in the gaming industry.

Anywho, I'm too tired right now to argue on the merits of ME2 so that'll probably happen tomorrow. That said, I don't know if sticking in my input and discussion into p.9 of this thread is conducive for a good argument, hence why I think I should make a new thread on just the game.

 

[vocab]

Didn't bother to vote. Last years thread turned me off.

 

[terrisus]

Well, the point of critics is to remove judgment based on the sheer majority opinion. A true critic is supposed to be someone, like a scholar, closed off in their ivory tower who is unmoved by outside forces and able to judge a piece of medium on its own based on his/her "superior" knowledge

...

So, what does this have to do with the majority of people reviewing video games again?

Especially when you're just talking about an isolated number.