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

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.

[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.)

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.

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

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'.

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.