Depends on how you define RPGs (which has been the subject of lengthy threads before). To me, the combat system on its own merits isn't an RPG, it's a strategy game.Menegrothx wrote: The difference is that unless it's a game like PS:T, you dont really have to work for dialogue because you just read/listen and press a button to choose an answer every now and then, while in good RPGs you need to make tactical decisions in battles, decide what kind of party members you want, what kind of build works most efficiently in your situation and so on. Even if it's a bad RPG, atleast you have to work in the form of repetitive grinding. That's the gameplay aspect of role-playing video games.
In any case, there's certainly room for decisions to be made via dialogue. Not that you need to turn an actual game into a visual novel, but for the most part combat is win or try again. Not many games do the Heavy Rain thing where the game keeps going either way (and most gamers would probably just reload saves until they won anyway). At least not for the main quest/mission. As such, it's something that could easily be made skippable or much easier.
I agree that, for most computer RPGs if you remove the combat system you don't have much actual game, but is that actually the ideal? I think trying to make more games that at least allow for marginalizing the combat system might prompt developers to evolve the complexity and impact of dialogue trees as well. Or, by examining how modular the elements tend to be, find ways to make both of them more relevant to one another.
