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.

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...

[C0rinthian]

It would be interesting to see this in action in an MMORPG. Stats and levels are completely hidden, and the only knowledge of a characters ability is indirect. (I.E. - I can kill these rabbits twice as fast as last week, lets try something harder) The same would go for mobs and NPC's. You don't know how tough someone is until you take them on. Throw this into a PvP game, and it would be very interesting. No more "I'm lvl 60 and he's lvl 55. I'm gonna win" mentality.

heck, I'd play it in a heartbeat.

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:Single player CRPGs are dead

[Sparr0]

I disagree.
The most content-ful RPG in recent memory has been GTA:SA. Hundreds of hours of branching storyline. The linear central story doesnt even encompass 1/4 of the game. Progress can be made in a dozen different directions (including the much-debated girlfriends).
Looking back, Morrowind was also an amazing single player RPG. Oblivion is going to blow the mediocre CRPG competition away; I've already set aside a thousand hours of free time (about what I spent on Morrowind) to waste on it.

Re:Swords overrated

[Nasarius]

Fallout.

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.

interesting RPG on the horizon

[Clover_Kicker]

An indie developer has a cool RPG concept in beta - Mount and Blade.

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