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."
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.
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.
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?"
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.