Editorial 20 RPGs Every Game Designer Should Play @ Gamasutra

[Edward_R_Murrow]

Before anyone says "you hit elemental weakness for super effective all the time in Pokemon too", that's because the in-game AI is moronic - try spectating a high level competitive Pokemon battle.

There's certainly a lot of interesting stuff going on outside the battle, in the preparatory stages, as players try to break the meta with their teams, move selection, and item-equips. But within the battle itself, lines of play are not terribly complex. You have four moves and the ability to switch to a different Pokemon. In most situations the correct move is going to be relatively obvious given team composition and what you're matched against. Mindgames come into play, sure, but that's a given for any sort of adversarial multiplayer game, even something as simple as repeated Rock/Paper/Scissors.

Competitive multiplayer tends to make games more interesting, even relatively simplistic ones.

Unfortunately Pokemon in-game AI is going to continue to be the way that it is because they want children to be able to beat the game, but imagine a "hardcore Pokemon" version targeted with the same mechanics but much superior AI - the strengths of its battle system would be able to show more clearly then.

The Pokemon Stadium games did something along these lines. Many of the later challenges had good Pokemon/movesets (high IVs, good setups like Rest+Wakeup Berry on beefy legendary dudes) and I swear the AI straight-up read your inputs to make "optimal" decisions (e.g. the trainer will switch their Pokemon if you are about to use a move that will drill a weakness, but won't if you choose a different move with the same Pokemon). It's relatively interesting, but I don't really think that there's all that much unplumbed depth in the core systems.

 

[Deuce Traveler]

I don't think you can make a list of 20 CRPGs that every designer should play (influential or unique designs) and still not leave a bunch out. If I was going to make a list of 20 games that one should play because of their influence on the genre instead of popularity or greatness I would choose:

1. Rogue
2. Oubliette (PLATO)/Wizardry
3. Dungeon Master
4. Temple of Apshai
5. Ultima IV
6. Phantasie
7. Dragon Warrior
8. Wizard's Crown/Pool of Radiance (SSI)
9.Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together
10. Quest for Glory I
11. Phantasy Star 2
12. Final Fantasy 1
13. Diablo
14. Suikoden 2
15. Wasteland
16. Fallout 1
17. Might and Magic 1
18. Planescape: Torment
19. Final Fantasy 7
20. Chrono Trigger

And crap, I haven't even gotten into games from the last 15 years, left others before then out, and I have already run out of room. Some of these I haven't even played, but know by reputation because they had that much of an effect on the genre.

 

[tuluse]

Why put Final Fantasy 1 on there? It's really nothing special in my opinion. Just a jBlobber without an interesting character system or the challenge of mapping in first person.

 

[Deuce Traveler]

I don't know my jRPGs as much as others, but I was always under the assumption that Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy 1 started the whole jRPG format we are familiarized with now, with birds-eye exploration perspective breaking into a combat screen where you have the party members on one side, the enemies on the other, and you select the individual party member actions for each turn.

 

[Siveon]

I don't think you can make a list of 20 CRPGs that every designer should play (influential or unique designs) and still not leave a bunch out. If I was going to make a list of 20 games that one should play because of their influence on the genre instead of popularity or greatness I would choose:

4. Temple of Apshai
6. Phantasie
9.Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together

I'm not quite sure why these three are that important. For the first two, I simply don't know too much about them so it's more of a question than an argument.

But Tactics Ogre has me scratching my head. It's popular among niche crowds but I don't recall it doing anything genre-changing. I'd argue Final Fantasy Tactics did more for the western world with that specific brand of RPGs, and Fire Emblem is pretty much the Dragon Quest to SRPGs. Of course elements of Fire Emblem was done before but I consider that it popularized the concept to Japan as a whole.

That's not to say it isn't one of the better games in that genre, I simply wouldn't know.

 

[DraQ]

Listing series as single games is bad, especially if we talk about long running series or series that change ownership at some point.
For example: Wizardry 1 and Wizardry 8 have very little in common and I'm not sure early Wizardries are still all that relevant even though late ones are, TES series is all around the place and different games in it are interesting for completely different reasons (for example, Oblivion makes excellent "what not to do" material), etc.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...gaming-industry-curate-its-own-history.97065/

 

[Deuce Traveler]

I don't think you can make a list of 20 CRPGs that every designer should play (influential or unique designs) and still not leave a bunch out. If I was going to make a list of 20 games that one should play because of their influence on the genre instead of popularity or greatness I would choose:

4. Temple of Apshai
6. Phantasie
9.Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together

I'm not quite sure why these three are that important. For the first two, I simply don't know too much about them so it's more of a question than an argument.

But Tactics Ogre has me scratching my head. It's popular among niche crowds but I don't recall it doing anything genre-changing. I'd argue Final Fantasy Tactics did more for the western world with that specific brand of RPGs, and Fire Emblem is pretty much the Dragon Quest to SRPGs. Of course elements of Fire Emblem was done before but I consider that it popularized the concept to Japan as a whole.

That's not to say it isn't one of the better games in that genre, I simply wouldn't know.

Not that I should care about defending this list, but Temple of Apshai is the proto-type action RPG, with gameplay bettered by using a joystick rather than a keyboard. Phantasie had a couple of new innovations such as having a town with all important locations on a single screen instead of having to travel to each building, and also having monster races as PCs such as the troll and minotaur. Finally, without Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together, you wouldn't have had the Final Fantasy Tactics series of games.

My throwing up of a top 20 list of CRPGs that a developer should try to learn from was to show the impossibility of such a task, and from the responses I'm getting from such a quickly typed post you are proving my point. I could have gone through the hundreds of games and just picked the top 20 that had the most influence, but even that would be a faulty list since there would be a temptation to only add the popular ones. Dark Heart of Uukrul has a lot of great ideas going for it, but it was a commercial failure. Should that game be on a top 20 list of games developers should look at or not? Games based on the Space 1889 and Traveller tabletop systems were badly done, which resulted in us not having modern games based on those tabletop games, so those games had a strong negative influence. I included Might and Magic 1, but the series departed sharply in style and interface with Might and Magic 3 and again with MM6. Shouldn't Might and Magic as an entire series be considered because of the innovations made each time, and if so shouldn't we be saying the same for the Ultima series. The Might and Magic games and Ultima series along with their off-shoots have more than 20 games to learn from just between the two. The small innovations of the 11 Gold Box games are significant over time, and so they would be worthwhile to play the entire series through for the better graphics over time, and milestones like the first in-game romance. Finally, what about the bad CRPGs that still had something to offer? I hear that Tangled Tales introduced party members in a memorable way, but no one would consider that game a must-play CRPG, but there is still things that may be learned from it. I hated combat encounters in Dragon Age: Origins, but I still learned a lot from what I hated about them. I don't think that it is possible to pick just 20 broad CRPGs and tell a would-be developer that they are all there is to know about CRPG design. A designer of a CRPG might want to play through our top 70 list plus another few dozen jRPGs and rogue-likes in order to have an idea of most of the possibilities out there, and even then they wouldn't be learning about every trick in the book.

 

[Sceptic]

I could have gone through the hundreds of games and just picked the top 20 that had the most influence, but even that would be a faulty list since there would be a temptation to only add the popular ones. Dark Heart of Uukrul has a lot of great ideas going for it, but it was a commercial failure. Should that game be on a top 20 list of games developers should look at or not?

You answered your own question earlier. This isn't a list of "popular ones". The point of such a list would be for designers to see unique features being implemented. You either pick the oldest game that implemented it because having to deal with technological limitations to do so teaches you a lot about how to implement features efficiently, or you pick whichever game implemented the feature best. So I'd pick either Rogue or Nethack because Rogue started it all, but Nethack took the complexity to incredibly high levels without losing the essence of what made Rogue Rogue, whereas I'd argue that games like ADOM or Moria did change that essence, by turning quick-playing perma-death games into extremely long excursions that still have perma-death - a very different kind of game when you think about it. Final Fantasy has no place there because it doesn't matter how successful it is - it didn't actually do anything that special or different, beyond codifying already existing mechanics.

I included Might and Magic 1, but the series departed sharply in style and interface with Might and Magic 3 and again with MM6. Shouldn't Might and Magic as an entire series be considered because of the innovations made each time

No, because the reason to include any of the games in the first place would be because they were the blobbers to put so much emphasis on outdoor exploration and a completely nonlinear main quest that you had to piece together bit by bit in its entirety. The only reason to include anything other than MM1 would be if one of the games improved on this aspect dramatically, and I don't think any does, regardless of the quality of the exploration.

The small innovations of the 11 Gold Box games are significant over time, and so they would be worthwhile to play the entire series through for the better graphics over time, and milestones like the first in-game romance.

This is a list of games ever designer should play, and supposedly learn from. "Better graphics over the time" does not qualify. The romance in Savage Frontier might, except it's such a minor mechanic and so irrelevant to the game as a whole that I don't think it's justified. Frankly, much as I like the Gold Box games, I wouldn't include them at all. The only one I might include, if I have the space, is PoR, but more because of its extremely clever use of a low-key non-epic plot, the fact most of it takes place in the city streets (count how many games before it did this... or even after it. Legends of Valor, which was otherwise a terrible game. AR: The City, which had no real game in there to speak of. What else?), and its use of the overland map for exploration.

Finally, what about the bad CRPGs that still had something to offer?

A truly terrible game whose horrdiness can teach you what to avoid in your own design definitely has a place. I don't think DAO qualifies because it is merely mediocre and boring, not "WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY THINKING" bad. If anything Descent To Undermountain would be a great example of how to NOT use an engine that is TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE for the kind of game you are making.

Anyway my own list, which mostly intersects with yours acually:

Rogue
Nethack
Oubliette (PLATO)/Wizardry
Dungeon Master/Chaos Strikes Back
Temple of Apshai
Ultima IV
Phantasie
Tactics Ogre
Wizard's Crown
Pool of Radiance (SSI)
Demon's Winter
Wilderness Campaign
Quest for Glory I
Wasteland
Daggerfall
Morrowind
Might and Magic 1
Planescape: Torment
Mask of the Betrayer
Dark Heart of Uukrul

I can justify every game on there as being the prototype of a very specific mechanic or concept, and in the case of concept it's one that pretty much defines the game, as opposed to being a minor feature. Tactics Ogre was hard to justify, but considering it pretty much started the "strategy RPG" genre I couldn't really leave it off. I almost didn't put Dark Heart of Uukrul in there by the way (I had Magic Candle initially), even though it's a better game and a better CRPG than half what's on the list. I simply felt that it's game that does everything right rather than a game that attempts something truly momentous and that one MUST learn from. That said, the fact it does everything right is the reason I included it, and because I also remembered it probably shares the slot for most unusual ending with U4, for completely different reasons (it's the same reason I had Magic Candle in there initially).

 

[Siveon]

Not that I should care about defending this list, but Temple of Apshai is the proto-type action RPG, with gameplay bettered by using a joystick rather than a keyboard. Phantasie had a couple of new innovations such as having a town with all important locations on a single screen instead of having to travel to each building, and also having monster races as PCs such as the troll and minotaur. Finally, without Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together, you wouldn't have had the Final Fantasy Tactics series of games.

Fair enough.

My throwing up of a top 20 list of CRPGs that a developer should try to learn from was to show the impossibility of such a task, and from the responses I'm getting from such a quickly typed post you are proving my point.

Same here.

More nitpicks

Tactics Ogre was hard to justify, but considering it pretty much started the "strategy RPG" genre I couldn't really leave it off.

Except that it didn't. That's like saying Warcraft started the RTS genre when there were games like Dune II already out. And yes, I'm well aware I'm being hopelessly semantic.

 

[tuluse]

I don't know my jRPGs as much as others, but I was always under the assumption that Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy 1 started the whole jRPG format we are familiarized with now, with birds-eye exploration perspective breaking into a combat screen where you have the party members on one side, the enemies on the other, and you select the individual party member actions for each turn.

The thing is that FF1 is actually quite different than the FF games most people think of (the SNES, PS1 and PS2 games). It had minimal story, you made your own characters. It's really only notable because it was popular at the time and funded Square to go on to make the games that were actually influential.

Looking over the list again, I would replace it with Fire Emblem. A game which featured pre-created characters with set classes and I believe launched the entire sRPG sub-genre in Japan.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Frankly, much as I like the Gold Box games, I wouldn't include them at all. The only one I might include, if I have the space, is PoR, but more because of its extremely clever use of a low-key non-epic plot, the fact most of it takes place in the city streets (count how many games before it did this... or even after it. Legends of Valor, which was otherwise a terrible game. AR: The City, which had no real game in there to speak of. What else?)

Dragon Age 2.

 

[DraQ]

Sceptic :
I think the list would need Wizardry 8 (implementation of free movement TB 3D blobber with formation management and all the jazz), possibly Wiz 7 (competing parties), some Fallout and maybe a DXlike hybrid also couldn't hurt.
A good thing about hybrids is that they are partially out of genre's box by definition.

 

[Sceptic]

I think the list would need Wizardry 8 (implementation of free movement TB 3D blobber with formation management and all the jazz), possibly Wiz 7 (competing parties), some Fallout and maybe a DXlike hybrid also couldn't hurt.
A good thing about hybrids is that they are partially out of genre's box by definition.

Yes, that's why QFG and Wilderness Campaign are there. I do realize that I failed at my list, 20 just isn't enough. Wiz 7 DEFINITELY has to be there, for the competing parties alone. Wiz 4 should be there too, because again there's nothing remotely like it.

 

[sser]

Personally, if I did a list of games I'd want a designer to play it'd have at most a handful of the best games, and then the rest would be average to shitty games whose mistakes they can learn from.

 

[felipepepe]

In a list like that I would include games that offer stuff no game today does... System Shock 2, Wizardry 8, Phantasie III, Morrowind, Ultima IV, Quest for Glory, Star Control 2, Jagged Alliance 2, Geneforge, Mount & Blade, etc...

 

[DraQ]

It would be nice to compile a list comprised of titles and rationales for including them.

In a list like that I would include games that offer stuff no game today does... System Shock 2, Wizardry 8, Phantasie III, Morrowind, Ultima IV, Quest for Glory, Star Control 2, Jagged Alliance 2, Geneforge, Mount & Blade, etc...

SS2 would be absolutely necessary if one was to made such list for survival horrors, but it is completely irrelevant as an RPG.

 

[felipepepe]

I disagree, it's important especially because it's a survival horror RPG. Enough with the power fantasies, I'm sick of saving the world every goddamn time.

 

[DraQ]

I disagree, it's important especially because it's a survival horror RPG. Enough with the power fantasies, I'm sick of saving the world every goddamn time.

But it sucks at RPG part.

 

[Ninjerk]

I disagree, it's important especially because it's a survival horror RPG. Enough with the power fantasies, I'm sick of saving the world every goddamn time.

But it sucks at RPG part.

Which is what exactly

 

[DraQ]

I disagree, it's important especially because it's a survival horror RPG. Enough with the power fantasies, I'm sick of saving the world every goddamn time.

But it sucks at RPG part.

Which is what exactly

Stat system.

(It's a dangerous road you're on and you know that.)

 

[Ninjerk]

I don't play by your rules, and that scares you.

 

[DraQ]

What is an RPG?

 

[bloodlover]

In a list like that I would include games that offer stuff no game today does...

And that's why your game would have a very small niche and not be profitable to make.

I see the Codex has different opinions on the matter but how about this: Are there any games today (or a least in recent history) that could influence other games and genres in the future?

 

[Ninjerk]

What is an RPG?

 

[MRY]

I see the Codex has different opinions on the matter but how about this: Are there any games today (or a least in recent history) that could influence other games and genres in the future?

Surely you mean "should"? There's no question that games are influencing genres all the time!