There ARE people still making CRPGs, though. It's just that they are perceived to be not popular enough to cover. Without that extra challenge of criticism and player scrutiny, you're going to wind up getting mediocre titles that are made to scratch that basic itch you and I have for more complex mechanics, but they're not going to have fan pressure and competition make them much better.  On of the few games I reviewed on here tried something really different, and when it was combined with the skill system and story it was a breath of fresh air.  It still had a bit of that JRPG feeling if you're not into that, but it was an attempt at something new, with some hectic and challenging combat.
 
After reading your article I've discovered what I like the most is probably a combination of exploration and customization, with good tactical combat really keeping me interested. Customization like in Might and Magic was some of my favorite, where you could pick your party members, pick what they learned, their arsenal, their starting stats, everything. Icewind Dale 2 was a frigging masterstroke in so many ways and I still get a bit excited recalling some of the desperate battles from that game, but I think what made me love it was that that party was MINE from the ground up, with background, class, portraits, everything all because I put them there. Sure, that makes the story exist more in the environment than with my characters, but that's really not a compromise in my book, that's just another way to tell a story.
 
I think the reason I like games like Elder Scrolls is partly because of that customization. I feel like I make my stamp on my character (even if the world seems a bit obsessed with me, preventing immersion feelings...  why can't there be other hero characters running around?), but I don't much consider it the same kind of game as what you're talking about, so I don't see much of a conflict.  It's just that even when I play a fun oldie like Buck Rogers, which used the Gold Box engine, it's not just the tactics that keep me interested, it's that I feel invested in the characters.
 
When you move toward a market where everyone expects fully-voiced dialog, you have a problem when it comes to that customization, since you're not likely to be able to afford tons of voice actors for all the contingencies.  When we made the move toward 3D, Snide, we watched as more and more effort went to making inclines and big palaces, with less time devoted toward making a controlled and expansive tactical experience.
 
It's cool that DA worked for you, and I wonder how you feel about the DA2 previews, but I wonder if part of our problem is that we're not casting the net wide enough to include stuff that you wouldn't see on too mainstream a site.  The chances for more development in this field is still going on, I think, it's just that a lot of us are never going to notice it because the coverage won't be there. 

Have you played Grotesque Tactics? It's a Tactical RPG with a lot of references to games of yore.

Best article i have read in months on Giantbomb, thanks for sharing your opinion, i agree completely.

Did you ever play tactical shooters like Rainbow Six? It's another genre that has fallen from grace. The games have gotten progressively more linear since the original PC releases. In the original R6 games every map was rendered fully, and were fully populated by enemies instead of having arbitrary spawn locations. It created an environment where you felt like anything could happen. Gameplay in the recent editions of R6 and Ghost Recon (GR less so) have just felt like... "uh oh my screen is turning red, I better hide behind this wall until it goes back to normal. Then I will return to picking off these tangos one by one in this long hallway filled with doors that can't be opened."

You're obviously correct to hold that opinion about Mass Effect 2 and similar games, and there's no revelation to make you love them. Some people might be picking apart your opinion or misunderstanding your meaning, but if your main focus is the specific style of tactical turn based combat with deep character progression, there's very little to like about modern role-playing games despite their other strengths.

I'm mainly curious about your comment regarding your appreciation of STALKER. I absolutely love the games, but the things I like about STALKER are how it's unforgiving, tense, and the setting is unique to me. The fact that the guns feel good to shoot and that the enemies are dangerous is obviously to its benefit, but I feel like there's very little shared in regards to the tactics and progression with CRPGs; the only real tactics STALKER has compared to other FPSs is 'be careful of bullets and sharp things because they really hurt'. The illusion of depth in the combat of STALKER is removed when you realize that you can beat nearly every monster by standing on a barrel, and every human will slowly walk towards you if you hide around the corner of a building with your gun lined up to their head. That doesn't remove how dangerous things feel however, as running blindly around can still get you killed easily, so the game remains tense and exciting as you feel like you have to keep on top of your game to survive. I don't think that there are any options in STALKER that aren't in just about every other first person shooter, it mostly removes the option to soak up bullets while shooting everybody. That's obviously a good thing, but I don't feel its something that's tactical, uncommon, or what makes STALKER good.

Regardless of my blabbing about STALKER, I also want to suggest that you play some roguelikes. I think I recall you saying that you weren't interested in playing Nethack when people were suggesting you games, but I'm not sure if you've actually  tried it or other roguelikes. I wouldn't consider Nethack the best choice considering the things that you like about CRPGs, but you did mention Rogue and I feel they all have a lot in common with the tactical combat aspect of CRPGs although at the expense of story. I think if you can deal with CRPGs in general, there's a lot of roguelikes that are simpler, and I'd recommend trying a more forgiving roguelike with the option to back up saves (it removes a lot of the tension, but it seems like something you might prefer) that still has a lot of options. There's a shitload of roguelikes out there and if you're interested there's a lot of people who can give recommendations, but I'd first suggest Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup (it has 2d graphics and is generally really good), and if you're feeling adventurous I'd suggest Incursion (based on a modified D&D 3.5 system, has tumble and escape artist skills, you can be a lizardman druid who's combat strategy is to summon water and fight while your enemies drown, or a priest with heat resistance that grabs guys and tackles them while on fire/into lava, but it's unfinished and really unpolished with ASCII graphics and really dense). On second thought, maybe I wouldn't recommend Incursion, but it has basically the best combat in a roguelike and if you can play it it could be exactly what you want out of an RPG.

The comment regarding "takes hours before you learn to play them properly" is indicative of both the strengths and weaknesses of Japanese games in addition to eastern bloc.  Let me state that I enjoy games with vastly different gameplay styles that require a completely different method of thinking from the last game you played.  But simply put, the games in question are poorly designed, not from a gameplay standpoint, but a philosophical one.  Difficult to learn, easy to master is NOT what you aim for.  The goal is easy to learn, difficult to master.  Simplicity is not a demon, as an artist yourself, you know simplicity is the ideal.  The trick is adding additional layers beyond it, not in presenting an impenetrable front that never expands.
 
And difficulty and the proper use of it is a whole other topic that I won't even brooch.

RPG = Role Playing Game. At it's core it's about becoming another person. This started with D&D. Games like Baldur's Gate brought it to the PC. 
 
But when I think about a game that actually puts me in another person's shoes, in another universe, I think about Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, and Fallout 3. I am playing the role of another person. I do not think about a helicopter high view of my little wizard shooting magic missiles and collecting loot. That stuff is mostly going away because it just doesn't cut it anymore in terms of the actual role-playing. 
  
Also, playing Mass Effect 2 on higher difficulties requires a whole LOT of strategy for every battle. 

I loved Mass Effect 1 but hated Mass Effect 2 because it felt stripped down.

" RPG = Role Playing Game. At it's core it's about becoming another person. This started with D&D. Games like Baldur's Gate brought it to the PC.  But when I think about a game that actually puts me in another person's shoes, in another universe, I think about Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, and Fallout 3. I am playing the role of another person. I do not think about a helicopter high view of my little wizard shooting magic missiles and collecting loot. That stuff is mostly going away because it just doesn't cut it anymore in terms of the actual role-playing.   Also, playing Mass Effect 2 on higher difficulties requires a whole LOT of strategy for every battle.  "

" @snide:  Damn Dave. If I ever go to the US, let me buy you a beer, 'cause I completely agree with everything in that post. "

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you've said Dave. That said, I still very much enjoyed Mass Effect 2.

" Witcher 2, dude. Witcher 2. "

ME2 was hardly an RPG for me. I know that people will come and say "an RPG is about playing a role, duh" but I mean, come on. You KNOW what I mean. There are hardly any skills for each character to learn, the level cap is insanely small compared to ME1, and this overall lends to the game feeling the same no matter how you play it. In Mass Effect 1 there were so much skills and levels you could really go off and do crazy things with your character, or you could also really fuck him up and make the game a nightmare because of your bad leveling decisions. These are things I appreciate in RPGs, not just the characters and story. Even though ME1 had a better story by MILES

" @McGhee_the_Insomniac said:

" RPG = Role Playing Game. At it's core it's about becoming another person. This started with D&D. Games like Baldur's Gate brought it to the PC.  But when I think about a game that actually puts me in another person's shoes, in another universe, I think about Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, and Fallout 3. I am playing the role of another person. I do not think about a helicopter high view of my little wizard shooting magic missiles and collecting loot. That stuff is mostly going away because it just doesn't cut it anymore in terms of the actual role-playing.   Also, playing Mass Effect 2 on higher difficulties requires a whole LOT of strategy for every battle.  "

A RTS requires a whole lot of strategy, doesn't mean it's an RPG.  By that logic, are you saying Zelda is an RPG? I am playing the role of Link, I am in his iron-clad shoes. "

Amen, brother.

Glad to see not everyone thought ME2 was a gift from god. I fully endorse this thread.

" @zoner said:

" @McGhee_the_Insomniac said:

" RPG = Role Playing Game. At it's core it's about becoming another person. This started with D&D. Games like Baldur's Gate brought it to the PC.  But when I think about a game that actually puts me in another person's shoes, in another universe, I think about Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, and Fallout 3. I am playing the role of another person. I do not think about a helicopter high view of my little wizard shooting magic missiles and collecting loot. That stuff is mostly going away because it just doesn't cut it anymore in terms of the actual role-playing.   Also, playing Mass Effect 2 on higher difficulties requires a whole LOT of strategy for every battle.  "

A RTS requires a whole lot of strategy, doesn't mean it's an RPG.  By that logic, are you saying Zelda is an RPG? I am playing the role of Link, I am in his iron-clad shoes. "

I didn't say the fact that Mass Effect requires strategy makes it an RPG. If you paid attention to my post it shouldn't be difficult to see that I was making two separate points. My parting shot was addressing the claim that Mass Effect is "dumbed down" as some say, like when Snider says,  " I miss the puzzles of battle. I miss counterspells. I miss crowd control. I miss focus fire. I even miss the idea of things like tumble rolls. I miss knowing that in some battles I should take the mage out first, but in others I should prolly sleep his minions and take out the healer."   Damn, did you even read Snider's post? Did you even read mine? Don't waste my time with nonsense. Good day, sir. "

Guild Wars offers more deep tactical combat than any old CRPG, which is why I don't really miss them that much I guess. I really loved Dragon Age, but the amount of rape that mages could dish out just made the game way too easy after a while.

I disagree with nearly everything he says. The truth is that sales of more hardcore RPGs have been in decline for ten years or more, and there's simply no substantial market for such games to justify the inflated budgets required for AAA game development these days. The result has been the third-person shooter/RPG hybrid, which includes Mass Effect and, to a lesser degree, Dragon Age. We see that Skyrim is going to move in that direction, as has the Fallout series. Yes, blame KOTOR for this. But KOTOR is the reason we have AAA titles with RPG elements at all. Without it's success and the new style of gameplay it pioneered, there would be no RPG-style hybrids at all. Mass Effect certainly never would have been made, and likely not Dragon Age either.
 
The answer to his complaints about difficulty in ME2 is pretty simple: play the game on Insanity. I think that would solve most of his problems. The game becomes far more strategic at that level. Not that you can't use the game's combat system more strategically at lower levels, but Insane forces the gamer's hand. And I think that's the problem with most complaints about Mass Effect 2: gamers chose to play it one way, then criticized it for not being different. You can play it like a third-person shooter if you want (at least on lower difficulty levels) but you don't have to. Dragon Age had the same style of flexibility. On lower difficulties, you could almost play it as a real-time hack and slash if you wanted. On harder difficulties, the game required more micromanagement and strategy. It's difficult to fault Bioware for giving us more choices in how to approach the game, but these criticisms seem to stem from that flexibility. 
 
"They are god-damned different that it takes you a couple hours just to figure out how to play them correctly. Look, that limits their appeal, but shit, that's what I enjoy out of games these days: a novel approach."
 
And this is the real problem with a lot of gamers these days. They want everything. You can't have a AAA title that requires hours and hours of just figuring out how the system works. And when AAA titles come out, they expect them to be everything they want. People are more intuitive about this with other entertainment, like movies. They know that if they go to a big tent-pole movie release that they're likely to get action, but probably not the best writing or acting. And that's alright. Because they know what they're going to get. Those movies are designed for mass appeal. With games, though, some still feel that they ought to be given everything. They want everything that goes with a AAA budget, but they want features that only a 100,000 people or so are interested in dealing with.
 
Mass Effect 2, for instance, had enough RPG elements to make most RPG fans content. It had a decent story, great characters, and combat that made most third-person shooter fans content. Wide appeal, great sales, and overall nearly everyone who bought it left the game happy. You don't go to see Ironman, for instance, expecting deep, nuanced performances. You're lucky if you get convincing performances. Or even decent performances. Classical RPGs are mostly dead at the AAA level, and have been since KOTOR. It's been a decade. I think classic RPG fans need to get over this, get used to the fact that their favorite genre has been back-benched, and realize that not many people take their complaints about Mass Effect 2 very seriously because the game was never intended to satisfy their demands in the first place.

But that's an initialism, not an acronym.

I can't stand old CRPGs like Baldur's Gate 2 so Mass Effect 2 was a great game for me.

Thinking about this topic more made me think about how young our medium is.  The games industry is 30-35 years old, which puts us somewhere in the Humphrey Bogart era if comparing to film.  I thought about how BioWare began making niche games, and did that well, and decided on their own volition that they wanted to take the elements of those niche games they enjoyed, and move them into more and more accessible formats.  It made me think of film directors and how their work changes throughout their careers/lives, and how most of our developers (directors) are so young in comparison.
 
I've heard mentions of how there's no room for AAA budget traditional CRPGs... there never really was.  The RPG as a genre is so widely accepted now that I think people forget how hard it was to get them made in the 90s.  It wasn't until Final Fantasy VII that the JRPG became something you'd put money behind, rather than a limited release thing for fans only.  Dave is right, it will take the indie developers who only want to create the kind of games they like for those throwbacks to reappear.  
 
From what I can tell, the things that Dave and others desire from those games are not the same thing I desire.  I desired the complex narratives and player interaction and choice that only they offered... I was not going to get meaningful dialogue or choice from action games of that era.  The grognard, hyper-complicated combat and punishing difficulty was simply a chore to master in order to get more of the story.  I feel the same way about modern JRPGs, like the Persona series.  Love the narrative, but the 'gameplay' is brutal.  Meanwhile, I went through Mass Effect 2 several times just so I could try different classes and see how they handle combat.  And yes, you have to completely change your philosophies playing an Engineer from playing a Soldier.  You have to think about who you're going to back yourself up with, and which powers you're going to upgrade.  At least on Veteran/Hardcore.

" @McGhee_the_Insomniac:  
  

"

Agreed on absolutely every front.

Japan and eastern europe will always make games that require tactics, strategy, careful character building, etc.   Hopefully.

I would say I agree with you, except I don't. Maybe I'm too young of a gamer (I'm 20), but I cut my teeth on KOTOR from an RPG standpoint. I do enjoy ME1 and KOTOR more than ME2, I feel like they streamlined it too much, but that said, ME2 is a fantastic game with a great world and great story. I'll be honest, I've tried some CRPGs, mainly Fallout 1 and Baldur's Gate 2, since Dragon Age on a console doesn't count IMO, and...I just don't like them. They're...I guess...they just require more time investment to LEARN how to play than I'm willing to give in my busy schedule.
 
I hope ME3 looks back to ME1 and KOTOR and finds a happy middle with ME2, but honestly I think ME3 will basically be a slightly upgraded, about the same depth ME2, which I'm actually perfectly okay with. I do agree with you that CRPGs are probably mostly dead, but I just don't think that the 20 and under generation cares much anymore.

Kind of get what you are saying but I can't relate. Never liked overly strategic games mostly because the payoff was never satisfying. Low res sprites with reused animations made combat in old RPGs really unappealing for me so besides Fallout 1/2 and Planescape I never finished any of them. Even with later ones like Neverwinter Nights I never got into it. Hell, I didn't even get 15 hours into Dragon Age. Rpg combat is too dependent on dice rolls to look exiting. I get that it's upsetting to see your favorite style of gaming go and be replaced with something completely different but you got to change your mindset when you play a game or else it will just get you angry. I was really disappointed when Deus Ex 2 came out but It was just for that reason. Recently I decided to replay them back to back and there really is nothing to be upset about with the second one. The first one is actually less enjoyable because of it's arcane design. 

Also Mass Effect one was as much of a shooter as the second one but bugged down with horrible inventory system and abilities that you could ignore. So I don't see any reason to be upset about the second one being more of a shooter. Besides it being developed by Bioware who did MDK 2 way before it... But I'm just trying to diffuse that bitterness to a game that really doesn't deserve it.
 
P.S.
Since when not being able to gimp your character = meaningless RPG elements? Also why do you think that real time combat can't be strategic?

I like games.

The games market has become so mainstream that any sort of tactical or strategic play has been pushed entirely to the margins. Most people just don't have the patience for it, so no major publisher will invest in it, especially when it's a harder game to develop and balance compared to the 'fill the corridors full of cover ducking enemies' of Mass Effect 2. The scale of something like even the original Balder's Gate is beyond the quirky indie crowd, though I'm surprised all the European RPGs are action based and not at all tactical. Guess that style never took off there. When they do strategy, they like it so dense the average person can't even tell that it's a game. 
 
It's personally disappointing for me since I couldn't stand the characters and plot of Dragon Age. I thought it was the most trite, predictable bullshit I've ever been asked to stomach, full of moronic characters who act according to how the plot needs them to, instead of being the ones driving the plot forward as in all good stories. I really did enjoy the combat though. Maybe DA2 will borrow Mass Effect's storytelling ability AND NOTHING ELSE.

This is like comparing the UK and US versions of the office, both great things, but both of the things in question are great for different reasons. 
 
On one side you have classic CRPG's and the other side you have a streamline experience like Mass Effect 2. 
 
I get bonnerific combat, stats, and rule sets on one hand, on the other I get a slick, cinematic, fun 3rd person cover based shooter. 
 I pause for both sides in this argument :P

" P.S. Since when not being able to gimp your character = meaningless RPG elements? Also why do you think that real time combat can't be strategic? "

I really like the the story and presentation of mass effect 1 & 2 that rivals and surpasses established sci-fi franchises like for example Star Wars.
 
And I really like shooters, too.
 
But Dave is right: ME(2) is a shitty and boring shooter. I'm about 35 hours in and it continuously makes me laugh how poorly the levels are designed. There is no surprise involved whatsoever. If you see walls for cover, it is 100% certain that a fight will break out there.
If Bioware had only put in some situations or missions that surprise you by NOT making you fight even though you expected it, It'd would've reduced this issue somewhat. 
But no, each and every mission that has the player carrying weapons is exactly the same: talk at the start, reach cover and fight, talk in the middle ("the target is on the other side of the valley/court/complex"), reach cover and fight, talk at the end. The formulaic nature of the missions It really pulls me out of the experience and the world.
 
Another example for the bad mission design are the "gear-up"- rooms that you encounter in between missions before bigger fights (yeah, I see this room and know immediately that there's some bigger fight coming up around the corner). They all have the same stuff in them - no matter what planet or what enemy you fight against. I also find it baffling how each alien race drops the same kind of ammo. That makes the enemies appear way less threatening in my opinion.

Damn, Dave. I disagree. I like were RPG's are headed. KOTOR was a favorite of mine. Don't get me wrong I'm not calling you out. I just think the old way lasted a long ass time and it needed to change. This is just what it's changing into now. I also played DA and all the expansions. I also played Ultima Online...when it was new. I think as tech grows more accessiable to smaller pubs. we will see the return of CRPG's

"The rulesets and basic game mechanics are NOT THEMSELVES Role Playing.  Role Playing is about choice, flexibility, and an ability to influence events in a meaningful way; it has nothing to do with Dexterity, Strength, Defense, or any other numerical statistic-based mechanic."

I think where it all falls apart is where we play the terminology game.  If you remove generic terms and actually talk about what you like specifically, it gets clearer.  Just about everyone I've met has enjoyed slightly different aspects of what RPGs in all their forms have offered over the years.  When we say that we like RPGs because they have X, it's inevitable that you'll find someone to contradict it.
 
I play pen and paper games now and again, and even within THOSE, some of them emphasize crunchy, rules-heavy mechanics for dictating how the universe works with strategy and tactics sort of taking over playing sessions, and some of them are all about making stuff up as you go along, throwing in some random elements only to make things more interesting.  If someone forced me to to pick between one or the other and call it an RPG and the other something else, I'd rather walk away than answer since every one of them are, in some ways, connected to term RPG, whether or not that particular definition would appeal to anyone.
 
As to which kinds of games I prefer?  That's about opinion, and not quite the same topic.
 
I'm OK with these sorts of discussions, though, because I just like hearing about how diverse the opinions are.  Beyond that, I hope the subject never fully closes, since this kind of enthusiasm is rare.  Just don't pop a vein over it, everyone.

I'm so glad this post is here.  Kotor and Mass Effect 2 are not great games, they're 8/10 at best.  Their biggest drawback is that they're just too dry and dull and are a gameplay missmash that don't do any one thing really well.

I play pen and paper games now and again, and even within THOSE, some of them emphasize crunchy, rules-heavy mechanics for dictating how the universe works with strategy and tactics sort of taking over playing sessions, and some of them are all about making stuff up as you go along, throwing in some random elements only to make things more interesting.   

I wouldn't say something like DA is the last great AAA CRPG. ME 1 and 2 (and probably DA2) are just examples of the development of new styles. It doesn't mean old-school CRPG's are dead, they're just not as popular right now. 
 
A few years ago, people might have said hardcore 2D fighting games were dead, and died with the development of flashy (but usually less deep) 3D fighting games. Then we saw a crazy revival of the Street Fighter series, re-releases of games like Garou MOtW anf the KOF series, BlazBlue, and an upcoming AAA 2D Mortal Kombat game. 
 
The deep, hardcore strategic CRPG genre may have slowed down and AAA releases may be few or none, but years down the road someone might come up with a new game that manages to spark interest again. Or maybe we'll see newer WRPG's start to get deeper and more strategic as people get bored with them. If there's a good game to be developed within a genre, it ain't dead.