Slashdot Mirror
IGN on the State of the CRPG
Via the ffwd linklog, IGN has a feature up discussing the current state of the CRPG. From the article: "Most people tend to associate RPGs with sword-swinging maidens in chainmail bikinis and doddering old white-bearded mages in robes spattered with owl poop. While the high fantasy setting is certainly the stock background for most RPGs, an RPG is defined not by its content but by its manner of presentation. To be a true RPG, a game must contain three elements. First, it should offer up an interactive story in which the player takes a vital part. Second, RPGs must allow for character growth that's driven by a player's choices or actions. Finally, RPGs must be built upon a system of rules and statistics that are used to resolve the events that take place in the world."
Second, RPGs must allow for character growth that's driven by a player's choices or actions.
Growth is a common element of RPGs, but it's hardly a necessary one. Many interactive fiction games have no character growth whatsoever, and they certainly qualify as "rolepalying game."
Well, at least one mainstream "publication" that excludes japanese stat-based interactive movies from the computer RPG genre.
What I don't see is a reason for computer RPGs to use any stats the user can see. Stats were just a crutch for pen&paper RPGs since you couldn't do a proper simulation. Computers take away the need for user-accessible stats and calculations. And seriously, in real life noone says they have "coding skill level 31" or something, they know they are a good coder or they think they are. Some might protest but it fits much better with the role-playing spirit if you have as little information about the simulation mechanics as possible.
No mention of Nethack, though...
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Dear IGN,
You suck. Go sell some more ads on your home page so you can write more "reviews" in which you unfairly favour your thousands of advertisers. I don't even know why people read you any more, given that blogs and podcasts have taken over the mindsphere of everyone with a clue.
There's a space next to Montgomery Ward's at the corporate graveyard. Better claim it quick before CNN gets it!
Sincerely,
CRPG
Now everybody and their mom is only making MMORPGs. Don't expect to ever play an excellent RPG like Fallout or Planescape: Torment again. Check out the list of upcoming PC RPGs at http://www.rpgamer.com/games/upcoming.html There are 35 listed, and maybe 4 or 5 of them are not MMORPGs. It's much easier to drop you in a world infested with stupid 14 year olds than it is to create decent AI and interesting situations to put players in.
- an article about RPG should have so many abbreviations that it has everybody who doesn't following this stuff regularly reading the Slashdot blurb goes something like "WTF?"
I think that the article put too much emphasis on two aspects of an RPG, an interactive story and moral choices that affect the plot. When I'm playing an RPG, I'm going to spend most of my time doing one thing: combat (I'm not counting walking). Even in a D&D based game like Knights of the Old Republic, with heavy emphasis on storyline and light side/dark side choices, I spend twice as much time fighting as talking. In RPGs like World of Warcraft or Diablo, I'm spending dozens of times as much time fighting as I am talking.
So, I think that the most important parts of an RPG are compelling and deep combat mechanics and character growth with a high level of strategy that directly affects combat. A good plot adds a lot to the immersiveness, but I have yet to see a plot that can hold my interest for hundreds of hours and still be just as good the third or fourth time through the game.
Maybe it's because I'm not a casual gamer, but I'd rather that developers concentrate on the parts of the game that I'll spend the most time doing and the parts that can still be interesting over and over again.
On another note, the talk of a robust physics system has me salivating. Combat mechanics with a dose of The Incredible Machine would be very interesting.
I completely agree with you in the short term. I hope, however, that in 10-15 years well see some new single player game that revolutionizes the industry, ala Balder's Gate.
In the meantime, I'll be waiting to buy games form the $20 "Game of the Year" rack.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You hear that, Bethesda? Better make Fallout III good! d^_^b
Aren't they going to make it just like Elder Scrolls? That's the best thing for the series...
The author mentions Final Fantasy in a way that implies that Final Fantasy is a role-playing game. I wonder if that's really the case. Personally one of the most important characteristics I would attribute to RPGs is non-linearity (at least to an extent.) Final Fantasy compared to older RPGs, especially if you go way back, is like riding on a rail ride at Disneyland.
I'm not necessarily saying that's bad, but it's qualitatively different from a non-linear system of exploration and leveling, where you can do most things out of order. The Legend of Zelda: A link to the past is more RPG than Final Fantasy, you can do the levels in whatever order you want, get or reject weapons, etc. It may be easiest to do it in a certain order, but the experience is far more personal, and you can tailor the difficulty of the game based on what order you do things, which is more like, um, role playing, where you are in charge.
The article never mentions this explicitly, but based on the MMORPG stuff and moral accountability and repercussions in the games, they seem to be treating it like it's a nice thing to have, but not necessary. Personally I see the lack of it in many games to be a regression, or at least the designers wanted to make a different kind of game that at least traditionally an RPG was like.
Look no further then Ultimas 6 and 7. Even 9 had it's moments (Looking over bucanneers den for the first time for example).
The thing that got to me about these games was the immersion factor. That is you didn't have to spend time worrying about the quest, you could just run around and make bread for a little while if you wished. Generally most things you tried because you *wanted* to do (like make a sword) worked.
In my opinion nothing since has gone close to what you could do in these games. (If I'm wrong, please let me know so I can play it!). Morrowwind? Meh, it tried hard, but was still a step backward from what was achieved all those years ago!
Can someone name 1 CRPG where the final greatest most superior weapon in the game is NOT a sword. Exactly. CRPGs all have the same design concept. Different characters, missions, but the same shit.
That's why MMORPG will take over all of RPGs in the future. It gives you that variety flavor.
I think it goes much beyond that. In single-player games, they can let you feel like the super-hero (or wizard or fighter) the likes of which MMORPG's can't match.
The ultimate example of this is being a Jedi in one of the various Star Wars games. Single-player, like the excellent Knights of the Old Republic series, you gain power and more power and more power. You feel every bit the elite Jedi that they're supposed to be. In the MMORPG Star Wars: Galaxies, you're lucky if you can even get to be a baby Jedi after a year of grinding. Then more mind numbing grinding. Where's the "special feeling"?
In other words, in single player games, everybody gets the vorpal sword, the light sabre, the gatling gun and rocket launcher. And they have real power. In MMORPG's, some guy with a gatling gun mows at you for 3 points of damage x 10 times, your health bar moves by 1/8. Ummmm, wow.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Yes, and they are:
1. Fire
2. Ice
3. Lightning
The most important thing is that it's FUN. Does it matter if Final Fantasy VII is just an interactive novel with stats and not really RPG? Does it matter if Diablo is just a hack-and-slash fest with stats and not really an RPG? I don't really care, neither does most gamers. I just know that I've had way more FUN with Final Fantasy VII and Diablo than some supposedly "open-ended, non-linear" RPGs like Daggerfall or Morrowind, which is just BOOOORING. I don't care.
He's mostly working on the combat engine and has very little plot, but the skeleton of the game is downloadable and very playable. It's kind of like Diablo right now, not plot but lots of enemies to slaughter.
This is the first combat engine I've seen that makes effective use of mounted troops - playing a mounted character is a lot of fun.
A review here.
Don't bother to download if you can't live without Half Life 2 quality graphics.
PS - not affiliated with those guys, but this is a cool game
Why no mention of Shenmue? Yeah, the story was pretty scripted, but there were no statistics, and the story's pacing was completely player-controlled.
You got better at moves by practicing them, and yes, you could see a status for how good you were at a move, but it was just a bar chart, and you'd know when you mastered it (as I think anybody into martial arts would).
So Ryo's combat skill comes from two things: time spent practicing (to get better at martial arts) and the player's skill and executing moves. It was a pretty refreshing way to handle combat in a console RPG. Also, there were no level-ups. Ryo was the same kid at the end of the story as the beginning.
The pacing of the story was completely left up to the player. Yeah, if you waiting way too long, you lost the game, but it was completely possible to take it slowly and fall into the world or rush through everything. Your Ryo could be calm and collected or rash and hysterical (except for the cut-scenes, but whatever). My game took over 6 months (game time), but I've seen walkthroughs say it's possible in under 20 days.
Granted, the game wasn't for everybody, but I felt a lot more like I was role-playing Ryo than I feel like I'm role-playing Link (Zelda) or Tidus (FF).
e2 | LJ
It's got laser guns, mang.
Fire: Narya, The Ring of Fire, set with a ruby; originally worn by Gil-galad, then by Círdan, who finally gave it to Gandalf.
Ice: Nenya, The Ring of Water, also called the Ring of Adamant, made of mithril with a shimmering white stone; originally worn by Celebrimbor himself but given to Galadriel
Lightning: Vilya, The Ring of Air, gold with a sapphire stone; originally worn by Gil-galad but given to Elrond.
That's one way to look at it. I'll admit I've heard another interesting idea from Tolkien fans over the years though. Because he had such strong ties with the elves, some people consider the One Ring to be part of the elven set. The One Ring can be looked at as being the ring of earth, or the most powerful of the four basic elements of fire, water, wind, and earth. I don't believe that Tolkien ever expounded upon this idea in his many letters explaining the inner workings of Middle Earth, though.
There are plenty of games with combat nowadays. RTS, FPS, action-adventure, you name it. In fact, you're hard pressed to find a game without combat nowadays.
So no offense, but using that to define an RPG is the kind of thing that makes me wish marketting people were lined up and shot.
RPG used to mean something. Now it's just a dilluted buzzword slapped onto the box, just because it's fashionable. It's been eroded and dilluted to the point of being meaningless.
Even Daikatana sported "RPG elements" on the box, and, you know, it was just a FPS. I've even read some site calling Gran Turismo an RPG, because you upgrade your car, or I've had people calling some fighting game an RPG because it has a health bar and combat. That's how dilluted the term has become.
Whole unrelated genres have been renamed once PC CRPGs became a fashionable buzzword. E.g., you no longer have "scrolling beat-em-ups" (e.g., Final Fight) you have "action-RPGs" or they're called outright "RPG" nowadays. Never mind that they have the same mechanics of a completely unrelated genre. Nah, marketting just had to slap "RPG" on the box.
Or take MMORPG, since you mention World Of Warcraft, which basically threw all the elements of an RPG out and nevertheless calls itself an RPG. Yes, I'm not surprised that all you do is fight in WoW, because that's _all_ there is to that whole genre. You have zero control over your character's development, zero plot, zero interactive story, zero influence on the world.
It's just a work simulator, where you spend countless hours doing the same thing over and over again: beating up rats with a stick. You start with a small stick and small rats ("young wolves") and you spend hours working your way towards being allowed a bigger stick and bigger rats. Yay.
But ok, at least it's called a MMORPG, so those of us who want a _real_ RPG can avoid it. Nevertheless, it just serves to further erode the meaning of "RPG". Whole generations of 13 year old retards are raised on thinking that repetitive bashing rats with a stick and "HOW I MINE FOR FISH??? NE1??? R U A GRL?" is what "RPG" means.
So here's the thing: again, RPG used to mean something well defined. And, no offense, but I'm sick and tired of people who _don't_ want an RPG in the first place, coming and arguing how the genre should be changed to something else.
If you just want lots of combat, there are already plenty of games that have that in spades. Get a FPS, RTS or god knows what else, and there you go. You don't need to destroy yet another genre some of us still love, by turning it into yet another generic game that's 100% about combat.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Here's why it matters: because "FUN" means different things to different people. You can't just say "game X is FUN". Fun by what criteria? For whose tastes?
Most people aren't generic players of anything published. Some like a story, some don't. (E.g., me, I thought the tons of text in Planescape Torment were a great story, whereas my father thinks that _any_ text or conversation is too much blabber instead of getting to the fighting part.) Some like lots of combat, some don't. Etc.
That's why we have those genre names: to tell us roughly what to expect from a given game. I want to know when I buy a game if it's a real CRPG (which I like), or a FPS (which I'm hardly interested in), or a MMO (which I find boring), or a RTS (which I bloody hate), or what.
So does it matter if it's RPG or not? Hell yes, of course it matters, if I'm looking for an RPG. Does it matter if it's really a hack and slash? Well, yes, because that bumps it a few notches down my list: I might still buy it, if I don't find anything more interesting, or I might not if I do. Does it matter if it's really RTS, but they called it an RPG because marketting said RPGs sell? Hell yes, because I bloody hate RTS, and knowing that I wouldn't buy it if it was the last game on Earth.
Which I suppose is why marketroids try to blur the genres, to the point of not meaning anything any more. Everything just gets to get all possible buzzwords, so you can't say "nah, I don't want this genre" any more. We're heading into an age where everything will be just labelled by a string of meaningless buzzwords ("real-time continuous-turn-based first-person isometric-view squad-based-tactics action-adventure RPG") that don't tell you anything about the game any more.
"I just know that I've had way more FUN with Final Fantasy VII and Diablo than some supposedly "open-ended, non-linear" RPGs like Daggerfall or Morrowind, which is just BOOOORING."
Well, bingo, you just made my point. You told me there that you like a certain (sub)genre and dislike another one. So wouldn't it be nice to know which of them a given game fits in, before buying it?
That's the whole point. I'd very much like that when I read "RPG" on a box, I can expect it to have, you know, all the elements that traditionally make an RPG. I.e., an interactive story, a certain way of using statistics to resolve combat, a chance to customize my character, etc.
That's not to say other genres can't be fun on their own. I do play other genres too. All I'm saying is: FFS, everything doesn't have to be called an RPG.
If it doesn't play like an RPG, call it something else. That way, those who like that kind of games, can know it's their thing, and those who expect a real RPG can know they can save their money.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
"Can someone name 1 CRPG where the final greatest most superior weapon in the game is NOT a sword."
;)
- Fallout and Fallout 2,
- Restricted Area (I finished it with a Flamethrower),
- Shenmue (martial arts all the way),
- Jade Empire (you need martial arts until the end, plus as "ultimate weapons" go, the dual axes do more damage than the sword. Or you can use a naginata for range. Or you can morph into a jade golem. Or whatever.)
- Deus Ex (personally I would count it as a FPS, but then everyone seems to think it's an RPG. So there you go: it had no swords whatsoever.)
- Entomorph: Plague of the Darkfall (if I remember right, it didn't even have any weapons)
- Another War (_all_ weapons in it were WW2 German and Soviet weaponry. And, oh, the _final_ weapon, the one that slays the big final boss is... a potato. I'm not kidding.)
Etc. That's just a 5 minute exercise, off the top of my head.
"Exactly."
Exactly. Try complaining about stuff you know anything about next time
"CRPGs all have the same design concept. Different characters, missions, but the same shit."
See, that's just the thing: "Different characters, missions". _That_ is what we play CRPGs for.
The weapons are just a prop to keep that story, those missions, going. I don't really care _what_ that ultimate weapon is shaped as, as long as the things I have to _do_ are different.
"That's why MMORPG will take over all of RPGs in the future. It gives you that variety flavor."
Hell, yes, all the variety ranging beating rats with a stick, to... umm... beating bigger rats with a bigger stick. And then you level up and, it's really amazing, they let you use a bigger stick on bigger rats. And you only need to repetitively do that for another week before you get an even bigger stick and bigger rats. Absolutely amazing, yeah.
It's like watching paint dry, except they let you use a wide variety of colours. This level you get to watch emerald green paint dry, over and over again, the next level they might let you watch teal paint dry. And if you go to a SF themed MMO, instead of a generic medieval one, you might get to watch paint dry on a metal fence instead of a wooden one. Isn't that some mind-blowing variety?
Nasty wisecracks aside, MMOs actually have the _least_ variety. Yeah, they give you plenty of different skins for the rats and for the stick you beat them with, yes. But that's _all_: a bunch of different graphics.
When it comes to the actual things you have to _do_, there all the MMOs combined have zero variety. Essentially everyone has been making a clone of the exact same game since the '90s, and not even a complex or detailed game. A game where _all_ there is to do is run around clicking on NPCs and counting up your XP. Yay.
No, thanks.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I think you forgot #4
Scantily clad females
While the CRPG is nowhere-near dead, I've still got the same gripe that I've had for over a decade: STOP IT WITH THE DWARVES AND ELVES!
/rant
The Fantasy genre has more than enough representation. I can't stand to play most RPGs today because they can't get their heads out of the sand and produce a QUALITY sci-fi atmosphere.
Where are this seasons greats? Where is the next Deus Ex, or Fallout? (I don't mean that literally, I'm speaking figuratively)
For every sci-fi RPG I hear about, I see at least two 'fantasy' RPGs being made (usually three or more). All I could think to myself when playing through Morrowind was "how cool would this be if it wasn't playing off every tired cliche in the fantasy genre?"
I got tired of fantasy games by the time I was 12. Warriors, Elves, Magi, etc. just don't turn me on. I'd at least be happy if there was some better hybrids, such as Shadowrun or RIFTS (again, figurative, not literal).
Bethesda is making the next Fallout. Good. How long has it taken to get to this point? How many fantasy RPGs were produced in that time? System Shock 3 was killed when Looking Glass was terminated. Now what? Anybody picking up the pieces on that one? No? How long until another sci-fi RPG of that class sees the light of day?
It's good that people who like fantasy games have options. I'm not asking that people stop making them. But where are the options for us who like sci-fi? When will we see our next game? Why are we being ignored?
I love a well-designed game, but I simply refuse to waste any more time playing some bastard D&D hack. I will not spend a dime on hacking away at Orcs with my +5 Sword of Shiny, then blasting their catapults with a AoE Fireball of BBQ.
I WILL PAY FOR A GOOD SCI-FI GAME! DON'T YOU WANT MY MONEY?!
Erm...
Finally, RPGs must be built upon a system of rules and statistics that are used to resolve the events that take place in the world.
Clearly the author is not familair with Paranoia, an excellent (pen & paper) RPG in which player characters rarely survive to partake in another adventure, and many aspects of the game (such as the combat system) were completely non-existant. (Game Masters were encouraged to punish and/or kill off players who simply hid or took only rudimentary action, while rewarding the most audacious and outrageous actions with success.)
Needless to say, paranoia existed not only between the characters in the game, but between the players and the GM as well!
Must... think up... something... clever!