I agree with most things said here also.

It sounds like, however, most of you have never gotten into Fallout 1 or 2. The reason they are rated so high is because they fulfill most of the requirements many of you have described. Exp. comes from using your skills. This can be diplomacy or shooting. You can even avoid combat by upping your scouting skills. I am sure there are many reviews you can read, but I would check it out if you havenft and try to play at least 3-6 hours before making any opinion (i.e. get past the in-story tutorials).

I think playing multple characters would seperate the player from the game too much. The process of "learning" a character is a chore, while "playing" one is what is fun.

Infiltration and disguise have also been done successfully in Hitman and Deus Ex to name two.

Deus Ex was a great roleplay game, presenting us with problems with multiple solutions instead of just one solution as most games do. Ive tried to include that idea in my own RPG Necrotech.

However, Deus Ex (and so is my RPG) is still victim to too much combat I think.

Im beginning to realise that if we ever want people to think of computer games as anything more than an immature pastime we have to think more creatively about their content, and who are we trying to appeal to.

Spectre Software - RPGs, strategy, puzzle games, programming

Well, actually, I did play Fallout 1 and 2(and even Tactics, but since that is a game in which violence is necessary, that doesn''t matter), but I found Fallout 1 and 2 to be pretty violent. Because getting better was very hard, without getting violent, but it was your choice, and that''s all I''m saying, give players a choice for wha they want to do. If they want to solve a problem violently, fine, let them do it, but you should also give them the option to do it in a non-violent way(maybe gaining a better reward), for instance, they could solve a political problem by killing the problem(Bush style), or by talking, or putting(non-violent) pressure on the people who oppose you(Un style).

While i agree that giving players lots of options
is a good idea, but i think its a flawed idea that
these options should always have a different outcome.
Consider playing roleplaying without a computer. Usually
the game master or whatever you want to call him,
has labored to create a plot for the session to follow.
Lets say he has the players approached by a key person in the plot who wants to hire them, it would be unnatural not to allow them to turn down the offer, but on the other hand, he cant just let go entirely of the plot, so perhaps he lets them get involved in the exact same story in another way, the party/main character might get kidnapped or something.
For me, when playing its more important that i have choices so i can roleplay my character, but i feel that it is up to the game/game master to decide what happens based on what i do and say.
So there is nothing wrong with a linear plot really, even if it is combat heavy, as long as you can convince all players why the plot is happening as it is.

Lets say the player meets some bad guys, in addition to giving him the choice of saying "Im the good guy, ill beat the shit out you", its natural to allow him to say "Hey, can i join you?".
The outcome can still be the same, the bad guys get pissed and attack, but at least you have allowed the player to choose his behavior.
Of course you cant get away with making the game 100% linear, because then the reactions of the NPC''s will eventually seem unnatural.

Just a thought anyway

I thought rpg stood for role playing game. lets break that down shall we. Role playing game I.E to play a role. so rpg''s can really be any sort of game where you take the role of a character in the game. I would be more interested in playing a role in a game where the character and story progression took priorty over an outdated combat system. The combat systems I mean are those of games like FF. as for conflict resoultion well this could work via you trying to find someone or paying someone to take care of said problem or finding another way round it.