Crispy™ Isometric tactical RPGs have not advanced post-decline the same way as action RPGs

[Infinitron]

CRPG devs recognizing the 90's & 00's formula was pretty perfect, and just needed a few QoL tweaks such as improved pathfinding and UI, is the most innovative thing to have happened in gaming.

As I mentioned in another thread where somebody compared DA:O and BG3, I think people are justified in wanting area design that offers more than map painting and clicking on characters. This isn't something that isometric RPGs of the era you're referring to emphasized and it's no minor thing.

 

[lukaszek]

in general stealth is getting better, at least when implemented? Also rpgs of old didnt have much to offer in terms of los, cover, elevation control

 

[OttoQuitmarck]

I'm amazed at how many isometric-like and turn-based "RPGs" have come out that have zero to offer in the story department and that immediately means 0 interest from me. That's "Conquistador/Viking/Rome, Shadowrun Returns/Dragonfall/Hong Kong, Battle Brothers". Would it kill them to hire a writer? And the ones that do have a story are written by you know who. So yeah, I'm almost in the same boat, for slightly different reasons.

Battle Brothers actually has great writing, prose particularly. It just doesn't have any predetermined quests for you to do.

 

[gaussgunner]

Dragonfall has the flat out best writing ever for a CRPG. or at least on par with Planescape Torment. If you did not like it then I question if you have ever played the game before.

If you think any of the Shadowrun Returns games had good writing you've never read a decent novel. The writing is college tier and they're shit games that barely qualify as CRPGs, but they're good because they don't waste your time pretending to be anything more.

 

[gaussgunner]

Isometric tactical RPGs have not advanced post-decline the same way as action RPGs

Witcher 3 (great writing/lore/quests/graphics/physics/production values)

 

[gurugeorge]

I think you could get some serious innovation in cRPGs with more emphasis on environmental storytelling instead of "click on character, get quest." But I suppose that's just really difficult, and more likely to go with a closer 1st/3rd person perspective than with isometric.

If I think of a peak gaming experience, it was being with a group of players in a NWN2 persistent world, where a DM was laying out clues to a quest from conversations with NPC locals (who he would take control of and talk to us through) and spotting environmental cues, and we pieced together a little story ourselves, as players working with the DM, culminating in a cool boss fight, where he controlled the boss. Having a game world come alive around you and be totally reactive is something quite amazing, and it made me think that maybe actually reactivity is king in RPGs (with the standard "NPC-gives-quest" being merely one small example of the kind of reactivity possible).

The old "logs left lying around" in the classic immersive sims is another example; even the "shard stories" you pick up from NCPD encounters and hidden secrets in CP2077 point in the right direction (some, a very few of the shard "stories" and characters are interlinked, sometimes even shine side-lights on main quests, and it's always very fun when they are).

Surely something like this is becoming more and more possible with AI now? I mean the ideal situation is still with something like a PW and a human DM, but single player games could surely do a pretty good job of emulating that interaction now, or aim in that direction? (It's the same direction as the initial vision for Daggerfall.) The game has to "know" what you're doing - like if you're examining a patch of ground, the game instantly creates on the fly something with a gleam that catches your eye, it turns out to be such-and-such object, with a clue to something else, and so on.

But that would have to be out of the confines of "isometric" - it has to be a control system that can zoom in from third person out to isometric (actually much as you can do with BG3 with the WASD mod and Native Camera mod), so that you can journey through a 3-d world and see details, but zoom out to a more traditional top-down view for combat. Graphics are now good enough to do this sort of thing very well, it just needs some "intelligence" from the computer's interaction with the player.

Isometric is too wedded to sparse interactibles/NPCs in a zoomed-out, merely aesthetic background to do this kind of storytelling well.

 

[ds]

You're mixing up two things here: environmental or less direct storytelling, and reactive stories - neither of which requires the other. The first doesn't benefit from procedural generation at all ("AI" buzzword or not) and for the latter I will believe that machine learning algorithms can create worthwhile stories when I see it. I also don't see why either can't be done in an isometric interface - you just need to be able to inspect things in detail and most isometric games have that. Opening the details page to examine an item is slightly more abstract than just planting your camera closer to it but that shouldn't fundamentally limit your storytelling options.

 

[gurugeorge]

You're mixing up two things here: environmental or less direct storytelling, and reactive stories - neither of which requires the other. The first doesn't benefit from procedural generation at all ("AI" buzzword or not) and for the latter I will believe that machine learning algorithms can create worthwhile stories when I see it. I also don't see why either can't be done in an isometric interface - you just need to be able to inspect things in detail and most isometric games have that. Opening the details page to examine an item is slightly more abstract than just planting your camera closer to it but that shouldn't fundamentally limit your storytelling options.

They don't require each other, but I'm talking about an ideal where they do work together, where the "DM" (human or AI) is (as it were) laying reactivity out like a red carpet in front of you - in which case the storytelling can come partly from clues magicked into the environment ad hoc, according to the path you're taking, partly from NPCs that react to you in an ad hoc, tailored way, according to the path you're taking.

You can certainly do some of the former even in an isometric game by hand-placing things - but again, the problem with isometric is that the "clue" is going to be one of several sparse interactibles on a painted backdrop, and its highlighteability is going to be an artificial beacon (well, at least with tab highlighting - perhaps a pure pixel-hunting style minus tab highlighting would be more suitable, but pixel-hunting is irritating, and for an autistic, min-maxing, completionist mind, just leads to a mechanistic cursor-sweeping style of searching for interactibles).

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

You can certainly innovate iso RPGs (or action RPGs also for that matter) by introducing more active gameplay, requiring the player to think, figure things out, etc. That's something missing from modern games in general, as they dumb themselves down to sell more copies. Where it might be pertinent to iso RPGs is that those games are typically already niche, so since they are not aiming for the same market as blockbuster cutting edge graphics action RPGs, might as well double down and add some brainy gameplay.

 

[Dadd]

You can certainly innovate iso RPGs (or action RPGs also for that matter) by introducing more active gameplay, requiring the player to think, figure things out, etc.

Specifically how?

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Well:

1. Remove all the stuff that dumbs gameplay down - map markers, quest compasses, NPCs with quest markers above their heads, journals that tell you EXACTLY what to do in small steps.
2. Replace the stuff in step 1 with intelligent gameplay - NPCs giving intelligent directions based on landmarks, spatial navigation, quests being high level goals instead of detailed instructions of what to do.

For example, instead of typical braindead RPG go here, kill/bring X quests, how about something like: "Go to province Y, and overthrow the government there." That's it, no more instructions, details spelled out. You go there, and you figure out how to achieve this very high level goal by talking to NPCs, learning the culture, history of the place, the political relationships, the enmities between local factions, and then based on your newly acquired knowledge, create a plan utilizing your character skills to achieve the desired high level goal.

This is not something only iso RPGs should do, all of them should, but it might be easier for iso RPGs, because

1. They are cheaper to make, so creating the background content for something like this might be easier than for a super expensive cutting edge game.
2. They are already niche (unless including bear sex apparently), so scaring off mainstream idiots won't be as much of a concern.

 

[raeven]

Little game you may have heard of called Baldurs gate 3 would seem to fit the bill nicely.

Also wasteland 3, which was loads better than wasteland 2, and jagged alliance 3 are all some good examples of fantastic recently made tactical turn based RPGs. Although wasteland 3 is a bit anemic on the tactical front, but then again so was fallout 1 and 2.

 

[NaturallyCarnivorousSheep]

While there's a point to be said about games like the current cRPGs being possible 25 years ago(outside of graphical fidelity) I think you're also overrating the progress in aRPGs. In fact the witcher 3 is just a bioware game the latter company has been making for the entire previous decade but executed more competently.

Meanwhile somehow the general interactivity and design of the most recent Larian games which whatever you think about it, is relatively novel or the integration of coop into cRPGs which wasn't really done as seamlessly before but no, that doesn't impress porky.

 

[Lord_Potato]

Meanwhile somehow the general interactivity and design of the most recent Larian games which whatever you think about it, is relatively novel or the integration of coop into cRPGs which wasn't really done as seamlessly before but no, that doesn't impress porky.

General reactivity of Larian games is not really novel. It is inspired by Ultima series.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

snip

The joke here is that ARPG's have not advanced past Gothic or even Deus Ex

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Little game you may have heard of called Baldurs gate 3 would seem to fit the bill nicely.

Also wasteland 3, which was loads better than wasteland 2, and jagged alliance 3 are all some good examples of fantastic recently made tactical turn based RPGs. Although wasteland 3 is a bit anemic on the tactical front, but then again so was fallout 1 and 2.

I still have PTSD from completing Wasteland 2, see my comments about that shitpile in the Codex thread.

While there's a point to be said about games like the current cRPGs being possible 25 years ago(outside of graphical fidelity) I think you're also overrating the progress in aRPGs. In fact the witcher 3 is just a bioware game the latter company has been making for the entire previous decade but executed more competently.

Saying Witcher 3 is like a Bioware game done competently is like saying Fallout: New Vegas is like a Bethesda game done competently. Well, yes, but that's the point isn't it?

Meanwhile somehow the general interactivity and design of the most recent Larian games which whatever you think about it, is relatively novel or the integration of coop into cRPGs which wasn't really done as seamlessly before but no, that doesn't impress porky.

1. Larian interactivity is overrated - combining fire and oil or lightning and water for 10,000th time, or rifling through 10,000 crates is ... meh. I haven't played BG3 yet, but is bear sex filed under environmental interactivity also?
2. As I mentioned before, games exist as a whole. PST might have weak combat, but it's an understated side of the game that doesn't detract from its overall greatness. Larian games have such shitty AND obnoxiously in your face writing, that they cannot be taken seriously as a whole, even if you happen to like the combat/interactivity.

 

[DeepOcean]

The thing I miss the most about the RPGs on that time is seeing a box with a nice art, having no idea how that thing played out and plunging on a journey of discovery on both gameplay and setting. All RPGs shared something but each one played on some way that was completely unique.

Playing Fallout 1, Arcanum and Torment felt like wildly different games and different journeys even if , in theory, they shared the same niche, nowdays, most cRPGs follow very familiar patterns... or they are yet another version of DnD without adding anything transformative or another version of dumbdown X - Com.

 

[gurugeorge]

The thing I miss the most about the RPGs on that time is seeing a box with a nice art, having no idea how that thing played out and plunging on a journey of discovery on both gameplay and setting. All RPGs shared something but each one played on some way that was completely unique.

Playing Fallout 1, Arcanum and Torment felt like wildly different games and different journeys even if , in theory, they shared the same niche, nowdays, most cRPGs follow very familiar patterns... or they are yet another version of DnD without adding anything transformative or another version of dumbdown X - Com.

It's really exacerbated by the visual genericness of UIs these days. They all look like the same game. It's one of the reasons why I much prefer Wasteland 2, for example, over Wasteland 3; even though WL3 is a good game in its own way, it just feels more generic.

I think a fair bit of it has to do with the lack of skeumorphism, the general trend to "flat" UIs over the past couple of decades. (It's been the same with music software, another great field of interest for me.)

Think of the stone-grindey click when you pressed a button in Baldur's Gate, it seems like just a minor thing, but it has more contribution to the final feel of a game than one might think. If the UI "feels real" it helps make the virtual world it's the portal to "feel real" too.

 

[DeepOcean]

Think of the stone-grindey click when you pressed a button in Baldur's Gate.

Yep, most developers are obsessed over accessibility but dont bother a second figuring out game feel, even simple things like that violin sound on Bloodlines when you get experience, simple things like that when they accumulate have a much bigger impact than people presume.

 

[Mortmal]

why do we think it's an attractive genre for others?

Others, like medium/large studios? Why do you care about them in the context of good RPGs? They don't matter.

It matters a lot because the very best RPGs in ancient times were not from indie developers but from full teams, sometimes the best like Origin. Indies will always be limited, and people here will pretend they are great, however, as usual. Something like Ultima 5-6-7 was made from dedicated nerds, some of the best in every field, from the coder to the composer.

 

[NaturallyCarnivorousSheep]

Saying Witcher 3 is like a Bioware game done competently is like saying Fallout: New Vegas is like a Bethesda game done competently. Well, yes, but that's the point isn't it?

I'll sum your opinion. Game does nothing new - innovative. Game does something new - stagnant. This is your brain rn porky.

1. Larian interactivity is overrated - combining fire and oil or lightning and water for 10,000th time, or rifling through 10,000 crates is ... meh. I haven't played BG3 yet, but is bear sex filed under environmental interactivity also?
2. As I mentioned before, games exist as a whole. PST might have weak combat, but it's an understated side of the game that doesn't detract from its overall greatness. Larian games have such shitty AND obnoxiously in your face writing, that they cannot be taken seriously as a whole, even if you happen to like the combat/interactivity.

1. BG3 brought a lot of verticality and emphasis of displacement to the combat for starters, again something few games tried to do before(an RTwP shovelware called The Dwarves did something similar some years ago, but it was a kind of side thing that sometimes happened rather than something serious), so that's already 10 times more than the shitcher.
2. PST is one of the worst games ever made and that includes all shit gamejam indies.

 

[Shaki]

tactical ones (e.g. Baldur's Gate, Fallout 1/2, PST, Graphical NetHack).

Stopped reading here

 

[Lady Error]

You do not really need to innovate the wheel once it is discovered - only improve on the existing formula, eg. QoL features.

The bigger problem is that the good stuff from older isometric RPGs cannot even be properly replicated by most studios, eg. writing and mechanics.

The BG magic system with hard counters is apparently an enigma inside a mystery for most current year devs.

 

[Lemming42]

1. Remove all the stuff that dumbs gameplay down - map markers, quest compasses, NPCs with quest markers above their heads, journals that tell you EXACTLY what to do in small steps.
2. Replace the stuff in step 1 with intelligent gameplay - NPCs giving intelligent directions based on landmarks, spatial navigation, quests being high level goals instead of detailed instructions of what to do.

For example, instead of typical braindead RPG go here, kill/bring X quests, how about something like: "Go to province Y, and overthrow the government there." That's it, no more instructions, details spelled out. You go there, and you figure out how to achieve this very high level goal by talking to NPCs, learning the culture, history of the place, the political relationships, the enmities between local factions, and then based on your newly acquired knowledge, create a plan utilizing your character skills to achieve the desired high level goal.

This is more or less a (charitable) description of the best parts of Baldur's Gate 3, although it has a degree of quest compass (which I don't even think is a bad thing, especially since it mostly serves to help you keep track of what's happening on which area of the map in BG3).

Otherwise, I feel like the genre has had some trouble innovating because the annoying trend of the past decade was "how can we recapture what made 90s games - or at least the handful of ones people fondly remember - good?", when it should have been "how do we make a game that doesn't suck balls". Pathfinder and Pillars of Eternity are the ultimate example - recreating the worst elements of a bad combat system that sucked 25 years ago and sucks now, for no other reason than that they're desperately trying to hark back to that era, and the result is shitty games. Games that tried something a bit different like Conquistador fared best, IMO.

One real problem I have is that nobody, including BG3 which is rightly getting its dick sucked in this thread, can be bothered to come up with a better skill check system than "pass = quest immediately complete, fail = combat". Colony Ship Game is getting a bit of a beating over in the release thread for this kind of thing too. There must be a better, more intelligent, more player-involved, less boring way to handle dialogue checks than this. Starfield, of all games, has offered the most exciting innovation in speech checks in recent memory, and it's basically a non-retarded remix of the fucking Oblivion speech minigame. There's a couple bits in BG3 where a failed dialogue check makes something interesting happen (stealing the Gith egg for example; if you can't convince the guy then you have to find a way to cross the acid and sneak to the egg, which is fun) but for the most part it's still the same shit as usual.

EDIT: Actually, I'm gonna say it - the Oblivion speech minigame was a good idea, it was just executed in a devastatingly shit way. But the idea - the player has to actually play a game-within-a-game, which gets tangibly easier as their characters' skills increase so you can actually feel your character getting more persuasive and becoming a more effective negotiator - is much better than just clicking [Speech] and winning by default. The error was in making the minigame unbelievably bad, and also having the NPCs pull fucked up fetal alcohol syndrome faces the whole time. Other games should have learned from the catastrophe and improved on it, rather than just going for lame dialogue tags. Wasteland 2 can take its "Hard Ass" checks and fuck off.

 

[raeven]

One real problem I have is that nobody, including BG3 which is rightly getting its dick sucked in this thread, can be bothered to come up with a better skill check system than "pass = quest immediately complete, fail = combat". Colony Ship Game is getting a bit of a beating over in the release thread for this kind of thing too. There must be a better, more intelligent, more player-involved, less boring way to handle dialogue checks than this. Starfield, of all games, has offered the most exciting innovation in speech checks in recent memory, and it's basically a non-retarded remix of the fucking Oblivion speech minigame. There's a couple bits in BG3 where a failed dialogue check makes something interesting happen (stealing the Gith egg for example; if you can't convince the guy then you have to find a way to cross the acid and sneak to the egg, which is fun) but for the most part it's still the same shit as usual.

EDIT: Actually, I'm gonna say it - the Oblivion speech minigame was a good idea, it was just executed in a devastatingly shit way. But the idea - the player has to actually play a game-within-a-game, which gets tangibly easier as their characters' skills increase so you can actually feel your character getting more persuasive and becoming a more effective negotiator - is much better than just clicking [Speech] and winning by default. The error was in making the minigame unbelievably bad, and also having the NPCs pull fucked up fetal alcohol syndrome faces the whole time. Other games should have learned from the catastrophe and improved on it, rather than just going for lame dialogue tags. Wasteland 2 can take its "Hard Ass" checks and fuck off.

I haven't played oblivion, but this sounds a little like what the two modern Deus ex games did with dialogue checks, which was a great little system imo that was never copied by any other games to my knowledge.