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.

[Torgo's Pizza]

You're not being a troll when you're speaking the truth. Mr. Wills is himself a contradiction. He rails against RPG games while in his list of games he enjoys most he lists System Shock 2 and Freedom Force, both Hybrid-RPGs. He's writing about something he obviously knows nothing about. Show me an action game that has a rich storyline like Fallout, Baldur's Gate or heck, even Ultima. Planescape: Torment has a plot that brings most games to their knees. He wants strategy? Deciding which areas to level up in is the whole point of the game. What fun is it if it really doesn't matter where I build up my character? RPG games force the player to make choices, hard ones with consequences to your character. What requires more thought: choosing between the shotgun or rocket launcher; or giving your last bit of money to a beggar on the street (as seen in Ultima IV). He really speaks out of his butt with his statement "the [puzzle] game designers had more time to spend on creating devious and clever puzzles, which no RPG can compete with." A great RPG can compete on every level an adventure game and can add more twists. What Casey forgets is that an RPG can uses stats to it's advantage and allow more than one solution to a problem. To solve a problem the player can rely on intelligence and solve the problem, charisma and talk your way out of a situation, brute force and fight your way out, or take the adventure game route and use your inventory to find the right item for the right job. If designed properly, an RPG can offer a myriad of solutions to a problem and is only limited by the imagination of the player. But the one thing that shows what an arsehole Casey Wills really and truly is can be seen in this statement: "In most RPGs, a character that is lost in a battle is lost for good." Where has he been in the last ten or fiveteen years? Most RPG games have a state between alive and death called unconsciousness. If your characters do die it's because something catastrophic happend like decapitation. There's other states between death like petrify, poison, etc that add variety and fun to the experience. It's an article in frustration. Argh. I know Greg Kasavin, and I think I'll drop him a line to see if this kind of content can be brought back up to par.

Re: Stupid article.

[Black Parrot]

> I hope the author knows what "RPG" stands for

He thinks it stands for "Rocket Propelled Grenade", and requires "no hand-eye coordination, no button-timing" because of it's area effect.

(He probably goes for the chain gun, and thinks it requires "skill" because at least one of the bullets has to hit something.)

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.

the dumbing-down of the rpg

[keefer]

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.

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'.

Re:the dumbing-down of the rpg

[(trb001)]

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

Gonna have to disagree with you here. Ultima 4 was about the pinnacle of RPGs for me (thank you paying some homage to it later in your post). When you say "role playing game", I don't know how you can't think of Ultima 4...you had to literally become the Avatar in this game in order to succeed. I'm not saying it changed your personal philosophies or anything, but if there is any credit in the "violent games breed violent people" creed, Ultima 4 would passify even those people. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean by random encounters, but you were able to run away from the encounters you could see in the overworld, so you weren't really forced into any fight.

On another note, Wizardry 8 is disappointing if you have played Wiz7. However, if you haven't played Wiz7, you may be surprised by the size of Wiz8. I had friends who got bored really quick because the game is kinda stagnant at the beginning. Good game tho, overall.

--trb

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

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?

mhm

[Anonymous Coward]

Casey is the gamespot resident troll, don't get worked up too much about what he says.

Disproves his point

[Shihar]

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.

RPGs are coming back

[javajoe99]

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.

You don't know how right you are

[Rayonic]

Gamespot actually did a review of Chess on April Fools Day a couple of years ago. I can't find it on their site anymore, but I managed to find this text-only mirror. Here is a highly amusing excerpt:

CHESS
By Greg Kasavin

The latest offering in the rapidly overflowing strategy genre is hard evidence that strategy games need a real overhaul, and fast. Chess, a small-scale tactical turn-based strategy game, attempts to adopt the age-old "easy to learn, difficult to master" parameter made popular by Tetris. But the game's cumbersome play mechanics and superficial depth and detail all add up to a game that won't keep you busy for long.

. . .

Are we missing the point of the article?

[*weasel]

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.

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory

[indros13]

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.

are you kidding?

[deus_X_machina]

"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...