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."

Comments

so there is a starting rpg..

[gl4ss]

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.

Re:so there is a starting rpg..

[JabberWokky]

though rpg has been for years(forever) been meaning "a game where you level up when you kill monsters"

Funny, I can think of plenty of roles to play that do not require 'levels' nor 'killing' nor 'monsters'. Computerized role playing games are horribly immature and tend to make up for it by leaning on non-roleplay activities as a major facet of the game. Sure, there are now traditional aspects of CRPGs that are not role play, but I would hardly call them the defining aspect.

Simply put, the point of a Role Playing Game is to play a role. A character - as Willie said, "the play's the thing / Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king" - a character allows *you* to grow and explore various aspects of yourself. It's a reflection or a tangent or a cutting stroke across your own being. When you place yourself fully into a role, you learn about yourself by finding out how you would behave were you to have taken a different path. Sometimes a very different path out of fantasy, science fiction or another era of history.

As I say, computer role playing games are very immature at this point, with the best of the breed being mere storytellers. There is no consensual story picked up by the part of the players - indeed, there is usually one player following a script, and the selling feature of many titles is that the player can choose from a small wardrobe what costume they will wear.

That's not roleplaying - that's mere mechanics.

--
Evan

Re:so there is a starting rpg..

[JabberWokky]

True. I worried a bit after posting that that people would think I was implying that computer games could never do roleplay, or that I was saying that computers or mechanics have no place in roleplay (in fact, computers do a great job of handling the mundane aspects of the necessary mechanics). Muds are a good example, both text and graphic. Neither lend themselves to subtle inflection and timing of voice nor watching the meta struggle in another person as they work out their action. It's a matter of bandwidth. Social contact, body language, inflection... these are very high bandwidth forms of communication.

But my key point was that computer games were immature in the defining aspects of RPGs, and that he was mistaking side mechanics intended to foster RPGs as the core thing that makes a game an RPG. Ironically, a good story can seriously get in the way, since it dominates and constricts your actions. You miss the great storylines involving the tavern cat - the storylines that never existed until the moment that the words started tumbling out of peple's mouth, were never even conceieved of until the events smoothly flowed into story. MUDs do a pretty good job of it. But they owe more to the individuals playing than the system itself.

--
Evan "Made a note to check out Eternal Stuggle" E.

What!?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Stupid article.

[Eivind]

I don't want to sound like a troll, but frankly, this article is incredibly narrow-minded to the point of stupidity.

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.

Re:Stupid article.

[Liselle]

Thank goodness it's a only a guest editorial, I usually like GameSpot's official stuff. The article isn't even cohesive, and at points appears to contradict itself. I won't repeat what's already been said, but wanted to add my two cents on the subject.

I hope the author knows what "RPG" stands for, but I wonder if he knows what that means. I'd hate to think it's based some wrongheaded perception of the genre, but since he already fits into the braindead twitch gamer stereotype, I'm probably setting myself up to be disappointed.

Re:Stupid article.

[Quill_28]

I agree with you, but he does make one point.

A lot of RPGs have taken out the element of strategy, you pretty much do the same thing over and over wihtout thinking. It more like watching a movie or reading a book.
Also because of the ability to save easily, you never have to take chances and deal with the consequences.

Re:Stupid article.

[StrongAxe]

He also writes: 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. This unrealistic but wonderful improvement results in better gameplay, because now the battles are more evenly matched, and you can keep fighting, even if you are down to just one man, instead of reloading every time the weakest member of your party gets killed. Perhaps he should go back a decade and play the Final Fantasy games for SNES before lauding these as modern 'improvments'. I just hope this guy doesn't work for the U.S. Patent Office.

I think they got it wrong...

[Drakin]

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.

In other news...

[LeoDV]

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.

Makes Some Sense

[Databass]

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.

Integration of elements

[cloudless.net]

"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."

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?

Re:RPGs are coming back

[Anonymous Coward]

While I love NWN, the original campaign isn't the greatest (the expansion is fairly good though)

It makes a useful toolset in the right hands however.

Re:the dumbing-down of the rpg

[Shihar]

"If it doesn't have stats and random encounters, it's not a real RPG."

You are, in my opinion, absolutely and completely wrong. Stats and random encounters are NOT what defines an RPG. By your definition, Diablo II would be a better RPG then and Fallout II. Fallout II has very few random encounters, and if they were to be entirely removed they would not be missed. In fact, it is possible to eventually avoid all encounters. If Fallout II had no random encounters at all this would NOT mean it is not an RPG. Stats and random encounters are a crutch that RPG makers have fallen on to prop up game play.

RPGs are, at their heart, games that have a story. A 'good' RPG is a game that centers around its story and the development of the characters within that story, AND does this in a manner which is fun (game play). Diablo II is a good game because the game play is appreciated, but it is a shitty RPG in that its story elements are nearly non-existent and more an excuse to up stats and kill more creatures. You can have a game that is a bad RPG but a good game, and there is nothing wrong with that, however, such a game is by no means the pinnacle of RPGs.

RPGs are about their story and character development (which really is just another piece of story). The point of an RPG is to immerse yourself in an alternate reality more then in any other genera. The limits of current technology make it very hard to build entire worlds with interesting stories, and so this takes a backseat to game play. This is not an entirely bad thing simply because as it is we struggle so much with the game play aspect of RPGs. It is very difficult to make a game based around a story 'fun', and so the game play is the element that sees some of the greatest work. The real golden age of RPGs will be when technology opens the door to great game play quickly and easily for developers so that they can truly work on the story. When groups of real writers use RPGs as a medium to tell stories and flesh out beautiful and elaborate worlds, then you will know that you have hit the golden age.

Until that time we will continue to struggle simply creating the most basic of worlds with the crudest of game play. The golden titles of RPGs will be few and far in-between, like the Fallout games, Planescape: Torment, and other such games that built great worlds for great stories. The greatness of these games had nothing to do with the fact that they had 'stats and random encounters'.

No, you're wrong (in my opinion).

[Inoshiro]

"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.

Re:the dumbing-down of the rpg

[bmorton]

I don't know about this...

Most people I know that claim that Zelda is an RPG are people who don't play RPG's and think RPG's suck. "Zelda is the best RPG ever," quoth someone I work with!

People that tend to play more RPG's (such as myself) tend to insist that it's an "Action/Adventure" game.

Not that classifying games has much use for me.

-B