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."

Comments

Growth not essential

[Planesdragon]

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."

Re:Growth not essential

[KDR_11k]

Nowadays "RPG" seems to mean "with stats that increase as you kill monsters". That means they'd dispute whether interactive fiction without stats quialifies as an RPG even though you play a role.

OTOH roleplaying is a term that comes from pre-computer limitations, almost all computer games involve playing a role these days and the involved simulations clearly surpass what the GM settled with a d20 back then.

Re:Growth not essential

[damiangerous]

Perhaps you could technically call it role playing in the sense that you are "playing a role", but not in any meaningful sense. I would argue that without growth, you are little more than an actor in a stage play. Sure it's satisfying in its own way but it's definitely not what we would consider role playing in this context.

Re:Growth not essential

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> OTOH roleplaying is a term that comes from pre-
> computer limitations, almost all computer
> games involve playing a role these days and the
> involved simulations clearly surpass what the
> GM settled with a d20 back then.

Eh? I have yet to see a computer game that surpassed the mind's eye when playing pen-n-paper D&D in the mid '70's.

The most advanced modern games still barely tackle 1% of what you can do with a real human GM (or DM as we called 'em.)

And we won't even get into the idiocy of MMORPGs compared to a GM. The only remotely exciting thing, invasions, are few and far between, if they exist at all. Sorry if it messes up your plans to go camp some orcs, or messes up your mule's cross-continental journey to resupply your camping wizard. Man, if we could only get a spell to kick such complainers about invasions in the balls, man that would be nice.

Re:Growth not essential

[Grab]

Who says the "growth" has to be the character you're playing? "Growth" can as easily be applied to *your* abilities.

The key to role-playing is using your own imagination, not the imagination stat of your character! If every encounter amounts to "I charge the group of 2/5/50 Orcs" or "I fire a lightning bolt at the group of 2/5/50 Orcs", welcome to Snore City. OTOH if you have the option of "I sneak behind that pillar and push it on top of them", or "I use my lightning bolt to take out the roof member above them", now that's an improvement! And it doesn't need any growth, just the ability to use your imagination in an unconstrained way. XPs are just a non-monetary form of reward, but other forms of reward for your character are equally valid - prestige, money, some good kit, etc.

A good guide to roleplaying is how valuable illusionist spells are. Someone with a good imagination can think up some doozies. Equally a good GM can bounce off that and come back with a response from the Orcs which, whilst logical, is utterly not what you expected. That's *real* roleplaying. And it's almost impossible to code that. When I see an MMORG that offers anything that good, I'll be impressed. So far it's all just rabbit-killing with pretty graphics, as far as I can see.

Grab.

Poor Final Fantasy...

[KDR_11k]

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...

Re:Poor Final Fantasy...

[Morgon]

That would require a much greater visual representation of characters than we've had in any game, ever.

If you meet someone in real life, you generally know how they'll match up with you - the tone of their muscles, weapons they're carrying, etc. Sure there are some surprises, but for the sake of argument, let's just assume you can get a good idea of what the deal is.

In games these days, usually you've got generic representations of the majority of items, skills, physical attributes, etc. of each character, and you can't really get a good look at them.

I imagine this will change shortly, the level of detail in games is fast becoming near-life-like.. However, it would take a considerable amount of effort and dedicated concentration in this very area for it to work...

Single player CRPGs are dead

[Chainsaw Karate]

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.

Re:Too much emphasis on story/moral choices

[Shihar]

I don't even know where to begin. Lets start this way: stat based combat does NOT equal an RPG. Stat based combat is the shitty filler that bad RPGs used to fill in their dull and uninteresting stories.

The ultimate RPG would be a simulator of a world. The world might be nonsense, like D&D with Dragons and and magic, but within the 'rules' you accept, the world would be completely coherent. It wouldn't have stats or numbers, at least not any that the player would see. There would be a story, and that player could affect the story.

It is the idea of Diablo vs Planescape: Torment. Diablo was a game about whacking the moles for exp and l00tl. Planescape: Torment had a combat system that was at best medicore, but a truly awesome story and a coherent world. The problem is that Diablo is a hell of a lot easier to build then Torment. Diablo just requires fiddling with the numbers until the game starts to be balanced. Hell, an intilligent enough computer could balance one of these games. Torment requires a team of writers to not only write a story, but to keep them consistent and interesting.

The difference between the mindless numbers game of Diablo and a true RPG is that you could make an AI using todays technology to play that game for you. Until AIs start passing the turning test, no AI will ever be able to play Torment. The same goes for the shitty MMORPGs out today. You could write AI programs to play those mindless games for you. Those are not MMORPGs, those are number counting games. They are awesome if you are addicted to watching numbers go up. They suck if you want an RPG.

What about non-linearity?

[alan_dershowitz]

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.

Swords overrated

[superpulpsicle]

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.

Re:Swords overrated

[Dachannien]

Both the System Shock series and the Thief series didn't have swords as the most powerful weapons. (Heck, for Thief, the most powerful weapon was your brain. Not the character's brain. Yours.)

I realize that a lot of people view these as FPSes of sorts, but they do meet IGN's definition of RPGs.

Re:On the Contrary...

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The single-player CRPG is not dead; I personally much prefer an interactive story wherein I play the hero(es) over a massively immersive, alternate world wherein 90% of the entities I encounter are collectively the heroes. I imagine a simple distinction between those people who "merely" want to experience a unique world and those of us who are more interested in involved plotlines and character development.

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.