Slashdot Mirror
From RPG Shortcomings To A RPG Renaissance?
Thanks to GameSpot for their 'GameSpotting' guest editorial, focusing on the alleged inferiority of the RPG genre, and the 'hybrid' games which use these RPG elements to great effect. The writer suggest: "Unlike most games, there is almost no skill required in RPGs - no hand-eye coordination, no button-timing", and while calling RPGs "inferior to other kinds of games", still finds addiction and praise in the "sense of power and accomplishment that comes from seeing your puny character grow from a weakling into an ass-kicking machine." But he finds hybrid titles, such as "first-person shooters [that] are starting to incorporate upgradable skills and character classes", to be examples of a "RPG renaissance", suggesting: "Game developers are starting to realize that almost every game can include and would benefit from RPG elements."
renaissance..
that started almost 3 years ago with deus ex?
one that started in '92 or whenever ultima underworlds(followed by system shocks) came out.
though rpg has been for years(forever) been meaning "a game where you level up when you kill monsters" so it's not like it would matter. crying about a genre is fucking useless. a game is never good just because it belongs to a certain genre, like a movie never is(scifi books aren't automatically good either). if you're just buying into things because they're labeled as something you want to show that you're fan of then congrulations, you have masterd consumer whore 101.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
You mean repetative tasks that appeal to our compulsive and obsessive natures with modest (usually random) rewards can find followings!? This is so increadible. Hi, game designers? The early 20th century called, they want their psychological observations back.
Seriously, if They Might Be Giants has written a song about it, and a centeral historical figure, you might get it to pass for interesting, but not news by any stretch.
Consider the following introductory quote:
The RPG is the most peculiar genre of games, simply because it carries the least amount of actual game attributes. Unlike most games, there is almost no skill required in RPGs--no hand-eye coordination, no button-timing.
Here the author plainly admits to not understanding any other aspect of gaming than purely skill or twitch-based games. If he thinks a game that does not require quick button-pressing is strange, then surely, by the authors opinion, Chess, Go, Sim City, Trivial Pursuit, A large fraction of the puzzle games ever invented, practically 100% of all card-games ever invented, practically all strategy games ever invented and so on are lacking "actual game attributes".
This is true only if your definition of "game attributes" is so narrow that only things depending on precise and quick button-pressing are "gaming attributes". This was never true, and it's mind-boggling that anyone could believe it to be true.
It's more a FPS renaissance rather than an RPG one.
There's been RPG's that contain more skills with the controls than your normal ones (Ultima Underworld, and Stonekeep as examples)
However, it's not a new thing. System Shock 2, Darkforces II: Jedi Knight (and the Jedi knight II and III) all contain upgradeable skills of one sort or another.
GameSpot has declared Chess an inferior name, declaring that "Unlike most games, there is almost no skill required in Chess - no hand-eye coordination, no button-timing".
I agree that the RPG genre is in dire lack of innovation, but so is the entire gaming industry, it doesn't mean RPG is an inferior genre any more than it means videogames are an inferior medium. Declaring a genre is inferior because it challenges your intellect only is ludicrous.
I don't want to defend RPGs against FPSs or action games, simply because I love both for different reasons, it's like comparing tomatoes and cucumbers, cars and trains, a videogaming genre and an other.
The biggest problem with rpgs, really, is the advancement of the action-rpg (Zelda being the primary example of this). There are generally so many more action-rpgs made these days, it's easy to get confused as to what a real traditional rpg is.
If it doesn't have stats and random encounters, it's not a real rpg.
There's another strange kind of rpg as well, the drying-up rpg. Dungeon Siege is an excellent example of what I'm referring to here. In this rpg, the world is finite. There are a fixed number of enemies, and therefore a fixed number of objects in the world, fixed amount of advancement, fixed amount of wealth, etc. This kind of game is ultimately unsatisfying, because if you blow your advancement or wealth early on, it's pretty easy to screw yourself over later in the game.
All that being said, though, it's really really difficult to make a really great rpg these days. Balancing all the play mechanics, creating interesting stories, all the thousands of details that go into these things I would assume generally try on the patience of game developers. And given the popularity of the true-rpg nowadays, how many people actually would go out and buy your product given how long and how many resources it took to make?
The last true-rpg I had a lot of fun with was Wizards and Warriors. I have Wizardry 8 (for over a year now) but just haven't had any time to start and get into it, which is another problem of the genre. Really good rpgs require quite a lot of time.
As for the article, maybe you had to grow up playing the Ultimas, or the Bard's Tales, or something. I love civ and all, but all that micromanagement can get to you after awhile. And no FPS has done squat for me recently. I guess if you just aren't introduced to the genre (it was more or less a big accident that I was), you don't get it.
So this article takes a look at different aspects of RPG games, such as Story, Strategy, and Puzzles. Then it goes on to say that movies and books are better for Story, RTS or turn-based Strategy games better for strategy, and Puzzle games better for puzzles.
The obvious counter is, isn't it sometimes fun to have a light mix of all of these elements? The amount of top-selling RPG games such as the Final Fantasy series suggests yes.
This guy must be living in a cave. It has been like that ever since the first RPG I played (Dragon Warrior I).
RPGs are fun because they integrate many great elements, yes you can read a book with a better story, but you won't get any interactivity. You can find better strategy games, but you won't get as good a story. Get it?
Casey is the gamespot resident troll, don't get worked up too much about what he says.
I personally think that this guy simply disproved his point. He points out three elements of an RPG and says that RPGs suck at all three elements. First off, I don't think all three of those are elements. Story is the only one I think that deserves to be there. Those other two are simply methods of making the telling of the story interesting. Diablo I and II in my mind are examples of horrific and terrible RPGs. They might be great games, but they are absolutely horrible RPGs. They had no story element at all.
Planescape: Torment is an example of an RPG that is at its best. The story is masterful and easily as good as any movie, and the gameplay medium they choose to use to tell the story is fun. That is what defines a 'good' RPG. A strong story told through a fun game play medium. If you lack the story, like Diablo did, then it is no longer a good RPG. It is just a good game.
There has been absolutely no RPG renaissance. RPGs are, in my mind still yet to experience any sort of golden days. You might look back at some time period with nostalgia, but I think there has been no period that consistently told a good story through good game play. There have only been the occasional gem, like Planescape:Torment, the Fallout games, and a few others. I think the RPG golden days are somewhere in the future when we master story telling elements better. Currently we are spending so much time struggling with game play that story telling has been neglected. This is not an entirely bad thing, just a fact of things as they are now. When the medium becomes truly powerful and larger more cohesive worlds are possible, then I think you will find the story once again becoming a focus and there will be a true golden age of RPGs.
I point over to neverwinter nights, excellent RPG that allows players to add RP content to it. In my humble opinion it is an awsome RPG translated from pen and paper to the electronic medium.
Modern RPGs are not strictly games. I consider the vast majority of them to be interative movies. Some actually have different paths to go, like Chrono Trigger. Others are very linear. In the end all an RPG is is a story, and in order to see the story the game forces you to push buttons to continue. Like if you went to see the new LOTR movie imagine if they made you push a secret button sequence halfway through and if you got it wrong you couldn't see the end.
I see two possibilities for the future of RPGs. Of course the MMO. The problems with the MMO are vast, and it will need to be greatly re-designed. But it can work. I suggest having an event based plot. Put all the characters into roles in a vast world with a rich history. Then manually orchestrate events ranging from high up world destroying politics to local water shortages. Don't prompt players to do anything. News of the events will spread by word of mouth. Let the players on their own either abandon the droughted town, stay in it and suffer, dig a new well, go out to find water, etc. Have a world with world problems that characters solve.
The other direction I see is combining the RPG with other genres. For example, the fighting game or the RTS. Have the same in depth RPG plot, but replace all the game parts with a fighting game instead. Or an RTS instead. Or like Golden Sun which is mostly a puzzle game and the combat is incredibly easy.
I've stopped playing RPGs lately. It's just too tiresome and troublesome to go through all those menus and pick the correct thing in order to see the rest of the story. Make it less tedious and monotonous. Make combat rare and exciting. And make it so the story can continue, not just a game over screen but always go to an ending that fits and makes sense.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
I find RPG's too repetitave, and i don't have the attention span to play through a 120 hour one without high doses of ridalin...
That being said, i do like pen and paper RPG's like D&D and Star Wars RPG much more, even though my friends pretty much use them as an excuse to hang out a couple nights a week...
Agreed, random encouters are good. On the other hand, they shouldn't make the experience infuriating.
Last week I played through Skara Brae in Ultima VII. I went to talk to this guy. When going to talk to that other guy, I fought skeletons and ghosts. Then I went to talk to that third guy, and then to the first guy again, and en route I fought some skeletons and ghosts and tentacle thingies. Ultimately, I grew tired of combat (which kept me on toes, but was actually neither dangerous nor exciting), and used Exult teleport cheat to go to the key persons. I would have got the place done only about 15 minutes and three whole experience points later if I had not resorted to teleporting... Well, at least combat in U7 is not annoying - hit 'c', see the baddies die horribly, hit 'c' again - and the dialogue, characters and the quests itself in the city were just brilliant. I enjoyed every moment.
The point was, there was too much combat in the ghost town. The sign said the town had a population of 54 or something before the disaster. I killed approximately that many thingies before I got tired.
I'm not saying Ultima VII is worst offender, though. In fact, along with Bioware's offerings, it's one of the least annoying RPGs I've played in recent times, even in regards to random encounters.
Japanese RPGs are far more annoying. I played GBA Breath of Fire yesterday, and quickly remembered the only thing that really frustrated me - fighting one-xp blobs (with epic music!) and stuff every three steps I take on the overworld, and fighting killer monsters every two steps in dungeons. Thank god for Mrbl3 and "Auto" in combat menu.
I can teach my grandmother to play a game like everquest, and she will be just as good as anybody else. I still think they are fun, but they take no skill to play. There is no competition. There usually is only a mild penalty if you die. I like games that you can lose, where you have to start over if you messed up. Games where there is real competition. I am sure there are rpgs out there like that, but everquest and ashrons call are not among them. I play games for the challenge, not just mindless entertainment. If I wanted that, I would just watch a reality tv show.
the author is simply saying there is nothing quantitative about RPG conventions that lead to 'good' games.
in actuality, all quantitative measurements of RPGs will show that they, by definition, -aren't- good games on average. Clicking doesn't make them fun, and neither does deciding whether you'll use swords or axes before you even start the game.
it's all about the qualitative story and character development - and keeping the player engaged. RPGs tend to have a much better, and deeper story, with real character attachment than the other games on the market. -That- undefinable aspect is what makes them RPGs, and what makes them fun.
The point is: when you break down an RPG, -nothing-else-matters- but the story and having a character the player likes. yet most traditional RPG developers haven't realized this, and are sticking with convention over and over again.
'save-die-reload' is a prominent 'bad for story' design decision that -keeps- getting made within the genre. why? simply because its convention, and designers are loath to shy away from what they think rpg gamers 'expect'. indeed they might be right. bioware may have had a hardcore PC gamer revolt if NWN had a KOTOR-style 'death' system. (console gamers seem to be much more open to make concessions to keep the fun coming)
blind, irreversable, character specialization is another bad design decision. it simply isn't fun (when you only have one PC), that before the game even begins, you decide to start as a rogue-type only to find out that the game is mostly hack and slash, with very little opportunity to skulk and surprise, and you're screwed. you tick of the gamer and essentially have added a -worthless- character option. Granted, this problem isn't a big one when you are controlling a group of characters, but this style of CRPG is quickly becoming the minority.
skill based advancement simply makes much more sense - where your character improves based on how you use him, or when you choose as you play how to improve your character's skills. it also jumps the player right into the game. you know - the fun part? why does the CRPG genre stick to the RPG convention of focused specialization? it works in p&p only because there's a -group- of players who can work together. in a single-PC CRPG, it's a ticket to frustration and indecision. Make a bad level-up decision and you may be screwed.
the 'core' RPG is dying out because it should. the renaissance is coming from other genre's that are co-opting the -good- aspects of rpgs. The rpg elements in GTA:Vice City, Freedom Fighters, and the Sims are -preferable- to games like Dark Alliance, D&D Heroes, and NWN.
that's the whole point.
the conventions that have been co-opted from group-centric, GM-hand-tuned gameplay of pen and paper -dont- work in single-player focused CRPGs.
(pen & paper rules only work because the GM can fudge things to keep the game fun for the players. a CRPG can't do that, it can't tell when a player is getting pissed at a 'cheap' fight.)
It's when developers throw out the preconceived notion of what RPGs -are- that they will truly be able to move these games forward.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
Ah, I see they are still using the Squaresoft translation for that Capcom game. I would have though they would have tried to re-translate it for the GBA...
Regarding some other comments... It doesn't sound like modern players would consider classic games like Angband or Nethack to be RPGs, but games more like Zork. Strange how the perception of the terms "RPG" and "Adventure" have become reversed over the years.
Those who complain about affect & effect on
From the original article:
"Unlike most games, there is almost no skill required in RPGs - no hand-eye coordination, no button-timing"
Except, of course, RPGs require pretty high level thinking and reading comprehension (if they're done well). Despite what the "reporter" may think, using the brain is a *skill* that must be honed and practised.
"The biggest problem with rpgs, really, is the advancement of the action-rpg (Zelda being the primary example of this). There are generally so many more action-rpgs made these days, it's easy to get confused as to what a real traditional rpg is."
The biggest problem with RPGs are the constant, unfettered flow of cliche after cliche after cliche; reliance on random battles as a means of stretching out gameplay; lack of character freedom; and the fact that most companies put the same games out again and again.
Final Fantasy is the worst series in regard to lack of freedom -- the first let you pick any party you wanted, with any name, and develop them how you liked; current ones require you play as a set group of characters through a set story line -- even the battles are on rails, thanks to the boring summons that look cool the first (or second) time, but past that are merely a cinema to watch and make the random battles that much agonizingly longer.
Zelda is a great example of how you can have a good game with only battles you choose, and still have 30-40 hours of gameplay, lots of side quests, and a good story. How is that reducing RPGs? It's not. You play the role of Link (or some succesor), and enjoy the story and mechanics. The boss battles are fun, and the game in enjoyable. It's also not super hard like Halo on Legendary -- people of every age and gender seem to be able to get into it equally, rather than the stereotype of only the while male 18-31.
Also, considering that there were 10-15 "traditional" RPGs out this year, compared to the action RPGS (5-8), I don't think the release schedule's diluting it either.
You say it's not an RPG unless it has random battles. So, by that logic, Grandia and Grandia 2 aren't RPGs. Sounds like someone secretly likes Final Fantasy to the exclusion of all else.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Many of you need to sit back and consider just what is an RPG. RPG stands for Role-playing game. The definition of an RPG is a game in which you assume the role of a person you create. First and foremost thing to understand, YOU CAN NOT PLAY AN RPG ON ANY SYSTEM OTHER THAN PEN & PAPER! On a board game, a computer game, a console game, card game, anything except for a pen & paper game, you are restricted by the rules of the game and the physical boundaries of the system used. Only in a pen & paper game can you truly assume the role of a character and interact with the fictional world in any way possible (within the laws of physics and what not from the game world, but we are bound by those limits in the real world as well). Now, with that out of the way, there is still the fact that the term RPG has been applied to computer and console games (despite the fact that it's impossible). Traditionally RPGs on a console or computer have been considered to be a game which included stats of characters with growth values, something you could call a storyline, and a non-real time combat system. With the passing of time, the RPG definition has generalized to where the only defining trait of an RPG now (on a computer or console system) is having stats that grow in one manner or another. Take a few minutes and reflect on that, then share your comments. I'd love to have someone prove me wrong, but I've spent the last few years trying to figure this out. The only other trait on a pure RPG game is a non-real time combat system, but for the full definition of an RPG (be it pure or hybrid) is simply a game with stats that grow.
I can attest to the fact that FPS benefit from some RPG elements. Enemy Territory is a great, FREE, online FPS that incorporates experience into the gameplay. For example, each map is part of a 4-6 map campaign and experience rolls over from map to map during the campaign. Thus, if I start as a medic and keep that character class throughout, I become a much more effective one, able to perform many medic skills more effectively than lower xp medics.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
The dumbing down of the RPG is right-- if a gameplay "enhancer" from KOTOR and the like is the fact that you can never really lose a party member. This just means that instead of playing the game and quitting because you're frustrated, you quit because you're bored. (In KOTOR I got tired of just killing everything I met)
I have a feeling this is a gameplay device used to make sure that you finish and enjoy all that content in a fairly linear fashion. I recall Wizardry 1 where I used to turn the computer off in order to spare my poor characters from getting axed by poison giants (or using Wizfix to restore them). I think all in all I saw about 1/2 the dungeon but still finished. And I probably enjoyed the game for 3 years afterward for the simple reason that it was tough as heck and there was tons for me still to discover.
I still haven't finished Knight of Diamonds.
I totall disagree. One of the thigns I despised Asheron's Call (the first one) was that death was severe. Your character was based on his items, and when you died, you lost a lot of items. For a person that wants to jump in a play a bit, this sucked because at any particular time if I died I may gimp my character if unable to get to my corpse. Your problem with the game is that you probably had hours to waste in a game like this and losing items is not a penalty because you had the time to get better things.
You seem to limit yourself to online RPGs which is not what this article is restricting itself to.
"Starcraft is an odd game, it attempts to combine story, action and strategy. The problem is that it fails to be as good at any of them as things devoted to a single element. Story You can do far better in a book or a movie since telling a story is the entire point of those. Strategy Many turn based games provide far deeper strategy and will provide you the time to truly plan your actions. The best strategy is of course running a large real life nation, so if you want strategy I suggest you start running for president. Action The pace of the action can't begin to compare to the likes of Quake 3 or Half Life. The requirement that you have to build your units and the whole strategy elements to the game really slow the action down." As cloudless said, it's the integration of elements that makes RPGs fun. To claim that the games are no good because you can do better elsewhere in a single part of them shows a total lack of understanding.
"For a good story, you are usually better off reading a book or watching a movie. Some RPGs have great storylines, but few can compete with the best that the silver screen has to offer, and most RPGs are downright tedious and redundant compared to film"
Are you kidding me? Hello! Final Fantasy (you ALL freaked when Aries died)! Xenogears! Tactics Ogre! FF Tactics! Xenosaga! Compared to the tripe out in the movies?! I find that 99% of the time, video games plots are better and have more developed characters than most of the crap in the theater. Plus, since you develop your characters and watch them grow, you feel closer to them than some lame actor.
If you want an intense half hour of strategic combat, any number of current real-time strategy games will deliver a better fix
Uhh, some of the most 'intense' battles I've ever played through were in Final Fantasy 2 and 3. Utilizing all your techniques, casting spells like "reflect" on your enemies and then reflecting "heal" spells on yourself, there is a ton of strategy required in text based RPGs.
The best examples of RPG improvements are seen in Freedom Force and Star Wars: KOTOR. In both of these games, if one of your party members reaches zero health, he is just knocked out of the fight, not killed outright.
I think the ONLY game I've ever played where characters die outright was "Tactics Ogre". Your characaters usually affect the story too much to "die" for good. so if they do its usually built into the story, and not from melee combat.
Frankly, I think it was awesome that in Tactics Ogre characters could die outright because it would affect the storyline. Has this idiot ever played an RPG? Can Tidus "die" in FFX?
Hybrid RPGs are popping up everywhere. Game developers are starting to realize that almost every game can include and would benefit from RPG elements. Maybe Grand Theft Auto IV will give you the choice between improving your outlaw's shooting skills or his driving skills. It's just a matter of time.
I think it's more that people enjoy RPGs, particularly the element that you can start with a weak character and develop him/her. They give you much more of a sense of accomplishment than running around and shooting stuff. Don't get me wrong, FPSs can be fun, but there's no genre that gives you more satisfaction than an RPG. You start with a weak group of adventurers and develop them into something awesome. On top of that, MMORPGs are taking RPG gaming to the next, quite possibly most intense level ever. Hell, they even put disclaimers on them saying they're "extremely addictive"! Has anyone ever committed suicide over an FPS or a RTS? RPGs can be REALLY intense.
RPGs are so satisfying and such an effective genre that other genre's are starting to borrow from them, not the other way around.
This author has obviously never played an RPG...
"In a Democracy, people get the kind of government they deserve." -Winston Churchill
I'm all for RPG elements plunked into FPS games or mixing any game genre with another. I'm not a big fan of "genre bias" in the first place. However mix and matching different gameplay elements should ONLY be done to make the game more interesting for the gamer to play their own way, it should not be done just to advertise "IT'S THE WORLDS FIRST FPS/RPG!" in the hopes people will buy it on a whim.
The first 3 rules of game design should always be, "Gameplay, gameplay, gameplay!"
No sig for you!!
You need to play more of those Japanes school-girl fetish soft porn RPG's. You usually have a limited number of saves slots, and you never know how close you are to getting their close off. Unless you know japanese, probably.
Uhh.. has this guy played 'Legend of Dragoon' or 'Vagrant Story'? Both needed hand-eye coord. to pull of the amazing timed combos, and both were fun RPGs, story-wise and playable-wise; although I could accept a convincing argument over whether VS was a 'true' RPG or not, but thats beside the point.
-ash
"Mass genocide is the most exhausting activity one can engage in, next to soccer."
This is why I hate hate review things. The reviewer is talking about something that - personally - I don't care about. What I ask about a game is, "Is it fun?" That's all that's important.
Final Fantasy Tactics Advance is a RPG of sorts; it has a storyline, it has character development. It requires that you think ahead at least a couple of moves to consider where you should go, and what you should do when you get there. You're also playing the odds of hitting and missing, and so on. Actually it has a lot in common with management of a group of contractors; you take on jobs, you sometimes send one person on a job, or you pick who works on a job, then you have to organize and lead those people intelligently. It has this in common with a number of other RPG titles which have a combat system involving moving characters around, which we sometimes do by describing the layout verbally or by using miniatures. The computer RPG is just an automated system by which one person can play without unintentionally cheating.
As for RPGs with twitch factor, they've been around for a long time. One of the best RPGs ever was Dungeon Master, which debuted on the Amiga (1MB RAM required) and later moved to PC with VGA graphics; it was still better on the Amiga running off a couple floppies, but anyway...
Frankly I don't think that most things called RPGs really are. If you're not actually playing a role, then you're not roleplaying; if you're not interacting with other humans, no one can really determine whether or not you are playing your role. Some games enforce a certain standard of behavior, such as the previously-mentioned Ultima IV, which is sort of like roleplaying, but it's not quite the same thing.
Frankly I think even most pen and paper roleplaying games rapidly devolve into rollplaying, or as you might say, power gaming, where the objective is to be successful and complete objectives, as opposed to exploring the mind of your fictional character. Of course, whatever you want to get out of a game is fine. You're most likely to get real roleplaying out of a game which takes the emphasis off statistics and the rolling of dice (such as Amber Diceless) or in a live-action RPG.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"