From RPG Shortcomings To A RPG Renaissance? 81
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."
so there is a starting rpg.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.. (Score:1)
For instance, Eternal Struggle (note: I'm an administrator of this MUD) concentrates on RP only. Levels in the game, although they exist, are given by the assignment of "RP Points" awarded to people who stay in character (by other players), which makes for a rich world.
telnet/MUD client to esmud.com port 1234
Re:so there is a starting rpg.. (Score:3, Insightful)
What!? (Score:4, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:4, Insightful)
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. (Score:4, Funny)
> 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. (Score:3, Insightful)
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. (Score:2)
Re:Stupid article. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stupid article. (Score:2, Insightful)
I think they got it wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
You don't know how right you are (Score:4, Funny)
the dumbing-down of the rpg (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:1, Informative)
Except that Zelda is an Action/Adventure and not an Action/RPG
(Action/)RPGs are character(-skill) based and Action-Adventures player(-skill) based. In other words you could beat every enemy in Zelda with lower than possible stats (which it actually doesn't have, it has unattachable equipment [heart containers]) if you've good reflexes, but you wouldn't be able to beat any Action/RPG wi
Re:the dumbing-down of the rpg (Score:1)
Kindom Hearts is a better example of action/RPG. It's a cross between Final Fantasy and Zelda.
I think that action/RPGs aren't really advancing, just action/adventures that look like RPGs.
Re:the dumbing-down of the rpg (Score:1)
It seems like it would be an RPG because so many people associate the fantasy setting with RPGs. RPGs simply haven't been able to get away from their roots in D&D and Ultima etc.
That really annoys the hell out of me. RPG's are really about character development, puzzle solving and good story telling. In Zelda you see about as much character development as you do in Mario Bros. If you gave M
Re:the dumbing-down of the rpg (Score:1)
Re:the dumbing-down of the rpg (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
Re:the dumbing-down of the rpg (Score:2)
Are you kidding? The random encounters were one of the best parts of FO2!! The whale from Hitchhikers guide (complete with daisies), the knights searching for the holy handgrenade, the crashed federation shuttle, gozilla's footprint, the tinman, exploding brahmin, the spammer hunters... all priceless! FO2 wouldn't have been the same without 'em.
PS: I realise you're probably only refering to t
Re:the dumbing-down of the rpg (Score:3, Interesting)
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,
Re:the dumbing-down of the rpg (Score:2)
Zelda is an action/adventure game. The main people who call Zelda an RPG are people who pretty much only play RPGs, but like Zelda also. They just call Zelda an RPG so they can say they only play RPGs.
Re:the dumbing-down of the rpg (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Some thoughts on random encounters (Score:1)
Agreed, random encouters are good. On the other hand, they shouldn't make the experience infuriating.
Last week I played through Skara Brae in Ultima VII. I went to talk to this guy. When going to talk to that other guy, I fought skeletons and ghosts. Then I went to talk to that third guy, and then to the first guy again, and en route I fought some skeletons and ghosts and tentacle thingies. Ultimately, I grew tired of combat (which kept me on toes, but was actually neither dangerous nor exciting), and use
How do we define "RPG" in the first place? (Score:2)
Ah, I see they are still using the Squaresoft translation for that Capcom game. I would have though they would have tried to re-translate it for the GBA...
Regarding some other comments... It doesn't sound like modern players would consider classic games like Angband or Nethack to be RPGs, but games more like Zork. Strange how the perception of the terms "RPG" and "Adventure" have become reversed over the years.
No, you're wrong (in my opinion). (Score:2, Insightful)
The biggest problem with RPGs are the constant, unfettered flow of cliche after cliche after cliche [project-apollo.net]; reliance on random battles as a means of stretching out gameplay; lack of character freedom; and the fact that most companies put the same games out again and again
Makes Some Sense (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Imagine if this guy reviewed Starcraft (Score:1)
Re:Imagine if this guy reviewed Starcraft (Score:1)
mhm (Score:3, Informative)
Disproves his point (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:RPGs are coming back (Score:1, Insightful)
It makes a useful toolset in the right hands however.
Re:RPGs are coming back (Score:1)
Modern RPGs (Score:2)
I see two possibilities for the future of RPG
Dungeons and Dragons (Score:1)
That being said, i do like pen and paper RPG's like D&D and Star Wars RPG much more, even though my friends pretty much use them as an excuse to hang out a couple nights a week...
Re:Dungeons and Dragons (Score:2)
I also find RPG video games involve way too much "fight around until you level up" gameplay. While some games that I have enjoyed (Dragon Warrior for the NES, Final Fantasy for SNES), the more electronic RPGs have tried to emulate actual D&D, the more I'd rather just be playing D&D.
While I'm sure there are some good RPGs that I've missed, I think the range of possible activity and interaction that a D&D campaign offers far surpasses anything computerized.
I agree with this article completly (Score:1)
Are we missing the point of the article? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Are we missing the point of the article? (Score:2)
Interestingly enough, the games you point out as "using the good aspects of rpgs" don't allow you to have any real impact in the game. Character customization in GTA:VC is superficial at best - I'm sorry, but choice of outfit and weapon does not an RPG make.
KotOR is the best RPG (I would say best game, perio
Re:Are we missing the point of the article? (Score:2)
i didn't mean to insinuate that GTA:VC was a good 'RPG' genre game. It absolutely isn't what RPG genre gamers are looking for. My point was that it is a great action game because of its RPG elements. story, character, depth (compared to other action games).
D&D:H and BG:DA -are- however, unfortunately lumped into the RPG genre. as much as you or I recognize that they're not true RPGs (just as diablo is not a true RPG) they are sold and consume
ahhh... reporting at its finest. (Score:2)
"Unlike most games, there is almost no skill required in RPGs - no hand-eye coordination, no button-timing"
Except, of course, RPGs require pretty high level thinking and reading comprehension (if they're done well). Despite what the "reporter" may think, using the brain is a *skill* that must be honed and practised.
Re:ahhh... reporting at its finest. (Score:2)
Re:Breaking it down... (Score:2)
Uhhh, thats probably one of the most blatantly incorrect statements I've ever read. You can roleplay in any medium! Pen and paper was the available medium when "role playing games" were introduced, not the defining element. However, there are so many different ways to "role play" (or "play roles") it's insane... (you can even do it during sex, kiddo.)
"Only in a pen & paper game can you truly assume the role of a character and inter
Re:Breaking it down... (Score:1)
Instead of trying to offer examples of why I'm wrong, try actually argueing a coun
Re:Breaking it down... (Score:2)
Though that paragraph is incoherent, I belive what you're trying to say is 'you can
Re:Breaking it down... (Score:1)
You are confusing character growth with character building, make up your mind. The whole purpose of a pen & paper adventure is to create someone not you
Re:Breaking it down... (Score:1)
Re:Breaking it down... (Score:1)
B) MMORPGs are even worse than typical console/PC RPGs. I've yet to see an MMORPG that didn't treat the individual characters as invisible people. You character is there to gain experience and that's it, not be a part of the enviroment. The only exception to this (that I've seen, there are a lot o
Re:Breaking it down... (Score:1)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that your advocacy of the 'pen and paper' system relied on the fact that there were no limitations in the practice of RPGs, right ?
'you are restricted by the rules of the game and the physical boundaries of the system used'
To illustrate your point of view, I'd say that, for you, Final Fantasy is not an RPG because you are restricted by the materia system and the fantasy world right ?
But, as I think you're talking about D&D RPG systems, do you really think
Re:Breaking it down... (Score:1)
Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (Score:3, Interesting)
are you kidding? (Score:3, Informative)
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...
Thought on Hybrids (Score:2)
The first 3 rules of game design should always be, "Gameplay, gameplay, gameplay!"
No hand-eye coord.? (Score:1)
Uhh.. has this guy played 'Legend of Dragoon' or 'Vagrant Story'? Both needed hand-eye coord. to pull of the amazing timed combos, and both were fun RPGs, story-wise and playable-wise; although I could accept a convincing argument over whether VS was a 'true' RPG or not, but thats beside the point.
-ash
Re:No hand-eye coord.? (Score:1)
Missing the point? (Score:1)
The author is simple (Score:2)
Final Fantasy Tactics Advance is a RPG of sorts; it has a storyline, it has character development. It requires that you think ahead at least a couple of moves to consider where you should go, and what you should do when you get there. You're also playing the odds of hitting and missing, and so on. Actually it has a lot in common with management of a group of contractors; you take on jobs, you sometimes send one person on a job, or you pick who works on a job, then you have to organize and lead those people