ok, quick question... a poll if you will. Which do you personally prefer or find more fun to play right off the bat. The new RPG's that are developed in the old console style, or the new ones designed with awesome graphics and complex gameplay. Personally, I think I prefer the console style ones just because they are simple, clear cut, and easy to see? What to you think?

Maybe you should clarify what you are thinking of when you divide RPGs into those categories. Personally I think there are a lot more categories. Are you thinking western or Japanese RPG and how old is old? There are old sidescroller RPGs, old top-down RPGs, old RPGs with only 1 playable character who fought arcade-style, or a large number of playable characters who fought in a turn-based part, and even old isometric RPGs which used a tactical combat system. Not to mention old RPGs which used still anime drawings vs. old RPGs which used sprites acting out cutscenes vs. old RPGs which used primitive 3D models and prerendered movies.

What kind of story are you trying to tell, because IMO good deep stories need detailed graphics whereas simple comedy or generic heroism is fine with cartoons or low-res pixel art.

I prefer the more complicated (gameplay, not mechanics) that allows you to adjust more and be more pick and choose. The graphics aren't too terribly important to me, but I do like it if the look of the game fits the play.

For simple RPGs, I prefer 2D games like Golden Sun and such. For more complex and immersive RPGs, I like 3D games like Oblivion and Fable. Hopefully I'm understanding your question correctly.

Well, shadowsun... or I forgot your name... that is a little more specific than I am aiming for, but I guess what was going thorugh my mind as I wrote this was the old, top down RPG's with turn based combat systems, compared to something like Final Fantasy.

So, so far what I'm getting (and it does make since) is that, for casual players and games, the simple and older view is better, but if your sitting it in for the long haul, you need (or want) to have the realistic 3D graphics with a lot of things to keep track of.

I guess though, my main problem is, I have the technology to make a 2d graphics game with world interaction physics, complex immersive story, and very very convincing lighting effects. The only problem is, the game is designed to be played as a semi-addicting casual one.

So the issue it comes down to: I can make incredible graphics, but should I?

PS: before you say yes, know this, South Park uses one of the most powerful animation systems in the world. But how funny would the show be if the characters were in Pixar-quality 3D?

Quote:

Maybe you should clarify what you are thinking of when you divide RPGs into those categories. Personally I think there are a lot more categories.

I'm with Sunandshadow on this. When ever someone presents a multiple choice question like the OP, I always look for an option not included in the list.

I think there are more RPGs than just the Final Fantasy or Neverwinter Nights types of RPGs.

Take the game "Sword of the Samurai" (at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_of_the_Samurai ).

I'm not sure that it even gets classed as an RPG, but to me (a long time pen and paper RPGer - going on 15 to 18 years now), this game has everything needed to be classed as an CRPG, just that it is not one of the mass collective RPG (that is it doesn't fall within the majority of RPG types).

I have had (and still have) more role playing fun playing SotS than even modern RPGs like Neverwinter Nights. Not that I don't like NwN (I actually like NwN and I am involved my own scripting projects for it), but that I think that SotS has more scope for Role Playing.

So, I think this question is more about what style you would like for your game than one about RPGs. So, I would say the style you should choose is the one that presents the game best and one that fits your player's expectations of that type of game. For example: If it is a turn based RPG, then having it like NwN would break the style that players expect.