Philosophy of Computer Role Playing Games, Part One.

[Tekar]

What do you believe is the common perception of what constitutes a CRPG?
A game in which you play a character that has a number of abilities (which you can choose to a certain degree) and that progresses in skill as you achieve things. In the game you are given a quest which you must solve to complete the game. Often there are other minor quests that you can complete aside from this main quest.

What are your own philosophies on the matter?
In my opinion a good CRPG has.
-Good player-NPC interaction.
-A good story.
-Non linear gameplay. (You should be able to return to most places you visited and you should ba able to go to many places from the start of the game. NWN missed this)
-A system in which your character progresses in skill.
-Combat where you decide the strategy. The character skills are responsible for succes or failure of an action. You are responsible for maximising the chance of succes.

To what degree does that philosophy actively define your enjoyment of a CRPG?
I enjoy roaming around in a relativly free world (doesn't need to be Morrowind free tough) yet with enough depth concerning background and interaction with that world (mainly NPCs) I enjoy an RPG that does not count on reflexes but uses your strategy (Long live the BG pause otion, I don't understand why there are still games that don't use it) I also enjoy an RPG with a good story (or stories) the richness of the NPCs background and main story in PS:T are a good example of this.

What challenges should the game present to a player, and how integral should they be to the role playing elements?
Decionmaking, every action you take will have it's concequences. The player should be chalanged to choose the action which will have the consequences that best suit his needs. if you play evil than the consequence of someone dying isn't that bad, but if you play good you try to avoid it.

Where do you see the "evolution" of CRPGs headed?
Sadly I have seen the RPG genre deteriorate to a more and more action packed gerne ever since 3D graphics became mainstream. The party based (strategic) system is often ignored in favor of a cool looking 3D system that doesn't work good with parties so the player only controlls one character (this is why NWN and morrowind combat was boring) the 3D graphics also put a big load on a PC so there are less things that can be put into the world. A good balance between amount of things and quality of graphics would be good but IMO they're leaning too much towards the quality aspect. Also graphics usually come first and gameplay elements are based on that. In OB you won't be able to climb becouse it would give clipping problems, also levitate has been cut because of it. i would have preferred if they would work the other way around (I want this, this and that, now make some graphics for me)

What direction would you take if you had a controlling stake?
I would make a game with a story like PS:T, combat like BG:II and a world map in the style of BG:I. I probably would make a 2D games with drawn backgrounds, or a 3D game with a fixed camera view, every map would be created with that camera viewin mind (no levels jumping, no things blocking your sight/overview) I would try to add as many as possible options yet stop when it becomes unbalanced.[/b]

 

[Bidjou]

I'm tired of hearing myself say it, but emergent gameplay and procedural content.

As Zomg said, procedural content and emergent gameplay

So I'm still seraching in the forum if theres threads about this,i'll probably have to google a bit and perhaps the wiki
but while doing so I just find other interesting reads and nothing so far about emergent gameplay and procedural content,and it just seems to be what i'm trying to babble in a painfull elaboration of aswer

so if you have links ,all-ready, to inforamation about it I would be most welcome

 

[Faustus]

First time poster stepping out of the shadows...

What do you believe is the common perception of what constitutes a CRPG?

I believe the common perception of a CRPG is that it is simply an action/adventure game with stats – a hack-n-slash.

What are your own philosophies on the matter?

I personally feel that a CRPG must necessarily emphasize role-playing. Role-playing requires a reasonable amount of freedom for the player to decide how his persona will behave within an imagined environment in pursuit of some objective. This freedom implies having real and varied choices and entails a logical cause and effect – a concept that goes far beyond the acts of killing monsters and picking up treasure. I also believe that dice rolls should not solely measure your success or failure in a CRPG. Rather, it should depend heavily on the choices you make (or do not make) in the game.

To what degree does that philosophy actively define your enjoyment of a CRPG?

While it may not prevent enjoyment of a game, I consider the freedom to role-play my character the essence of what a CRPG should be. Games that give you very limited choices or merely the illusion of a choice are only adventure games.

What challenges should the game present to a player, and how integral should they be to the role playing elements?

Most of the challenges in a role-playing game should involve role-playing to one degree or another. Battles fought or avoided should be a direct result of how you role-played. Even the “random” encounters can be a result of how you played until a given point. Role playing challenges can be just about anything. They can be social, political, moral, psychological, strategic, and investigative or anything else that involves “you” the player making choices on behalf of the character for some purpose. The role-playing elements should be the foundation upon which everything else in the game builds upon – not the other way around.

Where do you see the "evolution" of CRPGs headed?

I think virtual environments will gradually become more immersive as far as interacting with the physical. This is not a bad thing per se. However, world simulation is more than that. It is the complexity and depth of interaction with virtual characters that is going to continue to be ignored because it is a more difficult and thus more expensive problem to solve.

What direction would you take if you had a controlling stake?

I would pay lip service to fancy graphics only as far as it furthers role-playing and does not look dated and get back to the essence of what role-playing is about. If people could experience true role-playing rather than the hack-n-slash style with superficial role-playing elements, I think it could be just as successful in the commercial world as the latter. It has a lot to do with how the game is marketed.

 

[Twinfalls]

Sorry to butt in, but so what's going to happen at the end of this - is someone going to summarise general threads of thought that run through all this stuff?

 

[Zomg]

So I'm still seraching in the forum if theres threads about this,i'll probably have to google a bit and perhaps the wiki
but while doing so I just find other interesting reads and nothing so far about emergent gameplay and procedural content,and it just seems to be what i'm trying to babble in a painfull elaboration of aswer

so if you have links ,all-ready, to inforamation about it I would be most welcome

Procedural content has two related meanings:

1) Content that is generated by some algorithm(s). Ex: Dungeon layout in the Rogue-likes, SpeedTree, most Daggerfall geometry, the "initial world" of 4X games.

2) Content that is created by self-interaction of the gameworld and its rules. Ex: Civilization, other 4X games. For example, consider a Civilization continent with three or four AI actors on it. The interplay of those four actors and the terrain will create semi-discrete events (that will likely support a compelling narrative) and interesting opportunities for interactions with the player nation. This is obviously just a more complex implementation of definition one, but they're pragmatically quite different.

The first definition is desireable for various reasons. It can decrease costs (which is vitally important both commercially and artistically) and allow the implementation of novel environments that would be impossible to handmake (Ex: an entire planet on a human scale, etc), as well as provide randomness.

The second definition is even more interesting. Imagine a "sandbox" game like Morrowind or Darklands except with constant dynamic consequences for your actions, and a world that doesn't wait around statically for your character to show up. Artistically, it also ensures rational coherency, since all events evolve from previous events.


Emergent gameplay I think I'll get to later, although you can probably see where I'm going.

 

[Bidjou]

Procedural content has two related meanings:

1) Content that is generated by some algorithm(s). Ex: Dungeon layout in the Rogue-likes, SpeedTree, most Daggerfall geometry, the "initial world" of 4X games.

2) Content that is created by self-interaction of the gameworld and its rules. Ex: Civilization, other 4X games. For example, consider a Civilization continent with three or four AI actors on it. The interplay of those four actors and the terrain will create semi-discrete events (that will likely support a compelling narrative) and interesting opportunities for interactions with the player nation. This is obviously just a more complex implementation of definition one, but they're pragmatically quite different.

The first definition is desireable for various reasons. It can decrease costs (which is vitally important both commercially and artistically) and allow the implementation of novel environments that would be impossible to handmake (Ex: an entire planet on a human scale, etc), as well as provide randomness.

The second definition is even more interesting. Imagine a "sandbox" game like Morrowind or Darklands except with constant dynamic consequences for your actions, and a world that doesn't wait around statically for your character to show up. Artistically, it also ensures rational coherency, since all events evolve from previous events.

wow that's what ,althought all clouded,was in my mind and so emergant gameplay ... hmmm , ... is also lost in the same cloud of ideas,I probably know what it means,but i'm not very strong at making definitions,and a clear definition like the one you gave for procedural content woud be once again and indeed most warmly welkome,but don't hesitate to send me to hell :wink:

Emergent gameplay I think I'll get to later, although you can probably see where I'm going.

better later than never :D

 

[Chefe]

Sorry to butt in, but so what's going to happen at the end of this - is someone going to summarise general threads of thought that run through all this stuff?

Well, if I understand correctly, this was supposed to be a log of sorts where everyone would answer the posed questions on what they think an RPG is. Of course, some people feel like turning this thread into an active discussion. Bidjou.

 

[Bidjou]

well sorry about that ,but now that it's too late ,please don't scold zomg if/when he post the definition about emergent gameplay ,it's my fault after all
I know,theres no excuses for not stiking to the rules, I'm doomed

 

[Section8]

First of all "promulgate" is a top word, and one I was not aware of until today. :D

Sorry to butt in, but so what's going to happen at the end of this - is someone going to summarise general threads of thought that run through all this stuff?

That's about the gist of it, old boy. This is part one - Collate a range of thoughtful opinions on the matter in the form of definitions. So I'll take a selection of the responses given here, paste them into an article, and summarise the generalities into something that should hopefully be fairly readable, with a link to this thread so that people can see the whole discussion as opposed to the abridged version.

Part two is - Throw said opinions to the lions, and discuss the relative merits, where we can address the individual points, and also the general conclusions in the summary of part one.

Part three is Discuss the implications of striving for a common ground, where we consider the conclusions and arguments given in the first bits, and whether they can effectively gel into a single paradigm. For instance, does a procedural world impinge upon an epic storyline. What concessions must be made, etc.

Part four is ...and perhaps, discuss that common ground with relation to realistically incorporating it into a game product. That's where we consider what's involved in appeasing say, the masses and the hardcore, and whether the effort is worth making from a commercial standpoint.

Now, I'm hoping to get a broader sampling of views over time, in order to incorporate more than just the Codex "status quo." We seem to be getting some variation, but I'm considering throwing the net a bit farther to get some truly different views.

 

[Joff1981]

What do you believe is the common perception of what constitutes a CRPG?

This is easy, stats and levelling. Whenever you hear of RPG "elements" being added to a game it is invariably stats that get better throughout the game, never any of the other things that make up RPGs. This definition of RPGs covers JRPGs, MMORPGs, more traditional western RPGs and action RPGs.

What are your own philosophies on the matter?

In my opinion, a real RPG gives you and where it stands apart from other genres is in the amount of choice it gives to you. You should be able to go anywhere that you choose, you should be able to take on extra quests if you want, you should be able to complete those quests how you want and you should be able to travel with who you want. Obviously you shouldn't be able to do anything and everything you want whenever you want, this is where your characters stats and skills come into play, but if you were to take every type of character available there should be almost limitless possibilities.

To what degree does that philosophy actively define your enjoyment of a CRPG?
I'm going to talk about some RPGs that I liked and didn't here as it helps to illustrate this and it gives you some background on what I have played.

KOTOR I + II - I liked these, maybe because I'm a massive fan of Star Wars, but I liked how there was multiple ways to play them (good/evil + fighter/force user/skill user) and that you could play the planets in any order (after the first couple).

Jade Empire - I liked less. Levelling your character didn't seem to offer as much variation, the combat wasn't very good and it was too linear.

Morrowind - Couldn't get into this at all because it felt too undirected. I probably shouldn't talk about it because of my lack of experience with it but I will. I didn't like how when you got to Caius he basically told you to go get levelled up without suggesting anything for you to do and I also didn't like the wiki-dialogue, if characters haven't got anything unique to say don't offer me a dialogue with them.

Planescape:Torment - Loved this game until I went through Curst and had to start using combat to proceed (haven't managed it yet). I have played through Sigil a few times though. Linearity is offset by multiple solutions (when present) and a thoroughly engaging story and dialogue system.

Fallout 1+2 - Loved, loved, loved. A large world to explore as you wish without being unfocused, multiple ways to play, great dialogue, pretty good combat. What an RPG should be.

What challenges should the game present to a player, and how integral should they be to the role playing elements?

To be true to the spirit of a RPGs (the characters skills decide what you can and cannot do) the only way a game should challenge you is in how you approach a situation or obstacle, combat shouldn't be about making the player hit things, but in deciding what things to try and hit. Similar things should be done for other RPG systems such as dialogue, i.e. some characters would respond better to certain approaches and it should be up to you to decide which to take.

Where do you see the "evolution" of CRPGs headed?

Unfortunately it seems that future of RPGs is headed further away from freedom of choice and down the linear, flashy graphics, twitchy combat route. Of course I may be wrong about this, I'll wait for Dragon Age to be sure as being the next PC only rpg by an increasingly console oriented company I'm interested to see whether they can use the greater stability (money) that their console games bring to benefit PC gamers with what they want.
RPGs will evolve when we start seeing good quality procedural quest generation and a behind the scenes engine to flesh out the lives of NPCs to give a living, breathing world.

What direction would you take if you had a controlling stake?

Procedural content generation. I think a company could really be onto something great if they were to go down this path, just look at Spore and all the great press that has garnered so far for going this route. Obviously you can't do a whole game like this straight away and quite possibly never so I would use this alongside hand crafted content so that the technology could mature whilst still providing benefit to the end user in terms of better longevity/more stuff to do.

 

[OverrideB1]

What do you believe is the common perception of what constitutes a CRPG?
The common perception of a RPG is any game that has some form of character development and a few stats bolted on.

What are your own philosophies on the matter?
CPRGs should (and must in my opinion) emphasis role-playing. To accomplish that there needs to be the freedom for the player to make decisions as to how their avatar will act within the gameworld's environment. The actual actions and their outcome are based on the avatar's skills and abilities rather than the player's ability to twiddle the mouse and thump the keyboard.

Then there need to be "real-world" consequences to your choices. If you make decision A, then certain paths through the game will be closed off to you while other paths (that would have been closed off had you chosen B) are now open to you. These "key" decisions can be many fold: a dialogue choice, how you accomplish a quest, even what sparkly ancient artifact you've picked up. And - most importantly of all - NPC interaction and game-ending must reflect those "key" decisions. That means multiple endings for the game and meaningful dialogue from the NPCs.

To what degree does that philosophy actively define your enjoyment of a CRPG?
To be honest, I don't actively consider what genre a game belongs to while I am playing it. Although my first love is for CPRGs, I am quite happy playing a beat 'em up, a racing game, a FPS...

However, when I fire up a CRPG, I do have certain expectations of what the game should be, how it should play out, and what options it presents to me. While I am willing to accept compromises based on the inherent limitations of a CRPG, limitations placed on the avatar because of design decisions tend to lower my enjoyment of the game.

What challenges should the game present to a player, and how integral should they be to the role-playing elements?
This is a difficult one to pin down - there needs to be a balance between what the avatar can accomplish via his skill set and what the player can accomplish through their own innate abilities. Here I'm not talking about the ability to push button-combos but rather cerebral challenges - stuff that will push my imagination, my intelligence, my strategic ability. That, for me, is where the fun lies - if I wanted physical challenges, I'd take up some outdoor sport like rugby.

This does mean that any "puzzle" must have several routes that can be followed to allow it to be overcome. It's the old "locked door" trick. Do you try to pick the lock, bash it open, search for a key, magic it open, or go and hire someone to open it for you? Each of these is a perfectly valid means of overcoming the "puzzle" and the game should accomodate itself to each of these possible actions.

Where do you see the "evolution" of CRPG headed?
Traditional RPGs (those most closly representing PnP) are unlikely to survive in the "mainstream" gaming genre. The average gamer is simply overwhelmed by the multitude of possible options, the variable outcomes of their decision making, and the proliferation of statistics that the "old school" RPG offers. Games are slowly, but surely, evolving towards a genre in which role-playing is a secondary or tertiary consideration and where the story or the action elements are of primary importance.

Already we are seeing more importance being given to the visual sumptuousness of a game than to the role-playing aspect, along with more and more emphasis being put on the visceral combat and "immersiveness" that such a game offers. Frankly, this is a trend that I forsee continuing for quite some time until the FPS and the CRPG are pretty much the same genre.

For the evolution of more traditional CRPGs, we are going to have to look towards independant developers. Indie developers don't have to deal with the marketing suits who see the money-pit that is an MMO as being the next "must have" release.

What direction would you take if you had a controlling stake?

If I were a mainstream publisher,in all honesty, I probably wouldn't do much that is different from what is done now. Develop a MMO, bolt on a few RPG-ish elements and charge the suckers twice to play the game - once when they buy it and once per month to play it. Then sit back and watch the money roll in for a while before ripping off the newest and trendiest ideas from recent games and doing it all over again.

 

[kingcomrade]

What do you believe is the common perception of what constitutes a CRPG?
Any game that has stats and isn't a strategy game. Elf boobs and unlikely giant swords. If the game was made in America, a half-assed plot about the chosen one collection the 4 dills to save the world from the ancient evil. If the game was made in Japan, they expect a half-assed Matrix plot about how the world isn't what it seems.

What are your own philosophies on the matter?
An extrapolation of a puzzle game, where the world can be affected by the player to achieve some end goal. The player is given the ability to interact with a world in certain ways through his avatar, who has strengths and weaknesses that define how he approaches the world's problems. The game should do its best to incorporate the various forms of human interaction. RPGs focus on triggers (like accomplishing quests or discovering information in dialogue) to further the plot.

To what degree does that philosophy actively define your enjoyment of a CRPG?
A fair degree. I can enjoy games that are limited, but games which most closely follow that paradigm (Fallout, of course) become my favorite games of all time.

What challenges should the game present to a player, and how integral should they be to the role playing elements?
Typically the game should be limited only by the player's knowledge of the game. He should be able to do whatever he thinks will change the game world in his favor. This includes information gathering, combat, dialogue, etc.

Where do you see the "evolution" of CRPGs headed?
MMORPG (the ultimate expression of the Diablo style of game) ified + Sex-Boxified (strealiming game design into mediocrity from the business end because you can still make money off mediocre games). I foresee that any game that becomes popular (Diablo, in current times) will be emulated until someone else comes along and presents another blockbuster hit, and games will try to copy that as well. As things stand, stats aren't a way of defining your character's strengths and weaknesses, they are a way of artificially limiting your character so that you have to follow the developer's linear game design.

What direction would you take if you had a controlling stake?
Whatever made me the most money, screw you guys.

 

[Blacklung]

What do you believe is the common perception of what constitutes a CRPG?

Stats, kewl lewt, spikey haired anime characters, leveling up, pretty pictures and dragons, fantasy stories.

Edit: Yes, and elf boobies, thank you kingcomrade :wink:

What are your own philosophies on the matter?

While I feel some degree of quality storytelling should be present in a decent CRPG or any RPG for that matter, this and much of the afforementioned derailments/degenerations of the CRPG have resulted in the downslide of the level of intelligence in todays games. Can you have these apects in RPG's? Yes of course, but if that is all you have then you are missing the mark, and William Tell just shot the boy in the head. The apple is lying in a pool of blood. JRPGs while are fun to play to a regular gamer (yes I'm guilty), are the worst perpetrators and I feel they are mostly to blame for the current state of things. Nowadays nearly everything has "RPG" elements in them, and sadly the market world is jumping onto the band wagon of calling FPS's, RTS's, Action games, and what have you, RPG's simply because your character "Jack the Uber Knight" can gain levels and skills. Sigh.

To what degree does that philosophy actively define your enjoyment of a CRPG?

As said above, I do believe a good story is necessary to create some degree of immersion. This goes hand in hand with environments, manipulation of them, and their believability.

Still while all of this adds to the quality somewhat, it should always come after the focus of character development. If this is not done, and done well...well you really don't have an RPG, much more a CRPG. You should be able to create a character within some sort of realistic limit. Harry the barbarian should not be able to be a grandmaster of combat, thievery, magic, conversation, etc. at the same time. However, having Harvey the rogue who excels greatly at hiding in the shadows and dexterous feats of the hand, is fairly decent in red combat, knows a few basic spells, and the conversing ability of well travelled individual is fine.

Also, it does more justice to the genre if the character possesses some psychological faults and/ or physical weaknesses (being a student of pyschology I find the former much more interesting). That said, these abilities, talents, personality traits must be able to develop appropriately/realistically, whether that means the certain qualities degrade and others improve or if the person learns to cope with a certain disability etc.

Going along with character creation and development the world should react to your individual in a realistic manner. Harry the barbarian should not be able to kill endless amounts of innocent lives and pilfer extraneous amounts of "kewl lewt" without some sort of reaction by the populace. Bands shall form, the local guard should get involved, people should set out to exact justice in one sense or another based on their personas and the cultures of the world they exist. Then apply this same kind of reaction to good deeds, not getting involved, etc. The world should react as it should.

On the level, if you say something offensive, the person should become offended variable to the words used and the psychological affect on their peronality. Similar for flattery, jokes, and other exchanges of language. Heck, add different languages to the world and things really get interesting. Conversation should feel real, progress, affect, immerse.

Also, while there is a traditionally great degree of focus on adventure in CRPGs, it does not hurt to allow things such as family, friends, a profession, and other realistic choices if, and only if, they are implemented well. By this I mean immersion (hmmm again, maybe a hint), spawning interest, believable (again a hint). Harvey the rogue should be allowed to run a fencing business or do some drug running while customizing his lockpick, creating a poison for his blade, protecting his sister (who actually needs no help) from local troublemakers, and still be able to go on his adventures from time to time.

Now as far as stats and leveling up are concerned, while easy to implement and show certain developments, should not be limitless, should not be the major focus, and don't always have be used or even used at all (waiting for this day) if another instrument of conveying change can be introduced. Personally I prefer the approach of no grand experience, but of more use more growth...to a point. This approach is buffered when you are only able to progress in so many things to a certain point based on inherent traits or affinities you have predetermined (again think of Harvey the rogue vs. Harry the barbarian and give them various inherent weakness and strong points). Sure Harvey the rogue could abandon his life of crime and start focusing on scholarship and magic, however he will never be as good at it and it will make things a bit more challenging.

What challenges should the game present to a player, and how integral should they be to the role playing elements?

Challenges that give you choice, that are real and not artificial, that may be a little unescapable, that will alter the path of your personality development. Give me ethical choices, give me the choice of entrance, give me the choice of peaceful or brutal negotiation, give me the ability to disable the trap by hand and move the sword (with certain lagging of the tools based on skills), give me any sort of challenge that gets me involved and is not impossible or broken. And let them run the gauntlet of determining the fate of the cow/village/town/city/region/world, and all the way down to " do I choose the blue or red tunic today."

Where do you see the "evolution" of CRPGs headed?

Sadly, I must profess I am a gamer and a tech head as well as an RPG'r. Thus I do find myself partial to pretty graphics and colors (we all have our faults I suppose). However I am finding more and more that it is becoming difficult to find a graphically stunning CRPG that is not dumbing down the genre at the same time. Money, business, survivability, time expense are sadly becoming much larger roadblocks to great games these days. Unless the Indie game's can really survive all of this or some company stands against the corporate giant in it's own arena, I fear that decay or dead will become the words used to describe the RPG scene on both computers and consoles.

What direction would you take if you had a controlling stake?

Give the indie companies free use of the biggest and best graphics engines and let them have at it. Sadly I doubt it will come about. Where is my messiah?

 

[Bidjou]

What do you believe is the common perception of what constitutes a CRPG?

Like all commons perceptions on something ,it has to be the superficial most obvious things
like the fact that you take upon a role and evolve in a story leveling by getting xp rewards
and exploring a game world gathering kewl loot and gold,quests and dungeons,magic and powars,monsters and npc

Role = an archetypal profession ,wizard warrior or whatever new trend arrises,that just mean different ways of bashing enemies
Story = some kind of narrative that justify the fact that the pc has to go out and kill things,and a way to bring an epic end battle
Leveling = killing things,getting rewards from quests implying killing things ,gattering stuff or wathever non intelligent nor too involving process
exploring the game world = find were the uberloot is and leveling by killing the monsters that are scattered there waiting for the player to come and kill them while finding new cities where to sell the loot and get new quests
monsters= bags of xp and random items droppers,quest related thing to kill
npc = content fillers ,quest givers,ego flattering devices,or major story invulnerable progressing tools


What are your own philosophies on the matter?

You can't take features separatly ,you don't have a rpg with only stats,a story or loot
The games mechanics and features are the tools to support the interaction betwen the world and the player and not the focus on itself
The game is not a whoring device to flatter morroons egoes
The consequences of the players actions are not only xp rewards
It's not because the first pnp rpg's introduced mana,hitpoints,levels and xp... that these are the absolute prequisites for an rpg
For me the more detailled a character can be the better,some psychological traits ,vices and virtues,so not only physical or magical attributes + skills that are not only oriented for combat
And so theres the need of a gameworld that gives opporunities to use that,the interactions between the player and the npc too
There's no need for a plot to be set in stone just for the sake of being epic(moronic),for me the story is all the remembrances of what happened during the game because of my choices or actions and ,as space rangers introduced it to me, in a non static world what the gameworld has done on it's own(even tough it could be developed but that's a good start)
Theres a lot of things that I hold has my philosophies but have been said by others so i'll stop there


To what degree does that philosophy actively define your enjoyment of a CRPG?


well there are games that I play and that I really enjoy and leave a memorable experience,of course they are close example of that philosophy,while theres games I play rather of morbid curiosity and for the sake of "It has to be played to be belived"
but the more I recover from a brainFailure that brought me to a psychiatric hospital,the more I'll tend to be picky,and I'm pretty sure I'll finish to avoid some disasters just by reading the hype
then there games that even if they are far from that philosophy are good games nevertheless that can be appreciated for what they are(eg dugeon crawlers,hack and slashes etc)

What challenges should the game present to a player, and how integral should they be to the role playing elements?

well i'll give an example ,If after many hardships the player becomes the shiftain of a village perhaps he would have to find the culprit of a murder does he accuses the newcomer or put Him into arrest and tries to find the truth
it was or wasn't the newcomer was it mr bill, oh no It's my village blacksmith I've trained him so hard so that he could make good weapons ,what does the player do ,keep the blacksmith with all his expertise then says to the village it was the newcomer or a monster
You want to be honest oh oh you have chosen opportunist as a vice and the database of your character has noted that you have always followed that principle so a roll hip hop failled ,too bad you can't say the truth about the blacksmith
so the players says it's a beast,who knows he says to himself the newcommer might hold some jucy quest in its database,oh oh too bad he hasn't any lying ability morso his villagers knows very well the surrondings,dammit end game
The villagers have found the truth about your lies and your implication with the blacksmith,so according to the tribal law your going to be both mouru par le cul boulli et scié en deux vos restes donnés aux chacals et vos ames bannies dans le grand toumou


Where do you see the "evolution" of CRPGs headed?

Russia has shown me two glimpses of hope being space rangers with its non static gameworld,
and konung 2 while not polished and not matured enough had good premises ,you could became chieftain of the villages and organise their defenses by putting blacksmithes building palissades etc ,the enemies were moving randomly around , ah if only that game had the production values of a AAA game
even the fact that there was no magic was good, but in the end it was just a bag of ideas
Indies that bring us stuff like mount and blade,theres the guys beind guild wars that are trying to explore new grounds
even hellgate london can be a revival for the hack and slash genre,,as for those games that promises innovashun and are plain retarded, well its a waste of human resources, bandwidth(coz ill never buy games like Dsiege2) hard disk space and as somebody elses said their best features is the uninstall wizard ,are those games responsible for the state of idiotic moronity of certain sentient beings
well no,but they're not helping it neither

What direction would you take if you had a controlling stake?

I would go back and forth between past,present and future gathering money knowing in advence what results luck games have ruining thousands of casinos and others stuff
so that van buren could have seen the day coz I'd been there to save the day with lots of mony
investment would have been made for all sorts of games,a pleasure would be also hiring assassins and killing the responsibles,then ill take all the rpg's from the beginning to 2300 then i'll return to the precise moment were Christobal of fucking colombus discovered america and i'll zap his fucking boats down with a pozitroniom from 2300
and ill teach the natives from australia africa and america to do the same for all boats who would come to them then i'll retire in some forgotten place and play all those wonderfull rpg's I had collected on a supacomputer with a battery that would last until my death ,and you would even exist to play them :twisted:

and if you mean a less powerfull controlling stake then guys like VD or those behind mount and blade or guild wars are doing quite well

 

[Drain]

Can we make this thread sticky? It is a pity to watch it go into oblivion. Besides, it answers some frequently asked questions.

 

[Section8]

Well, I'm going to work up the second bit sometime soonish. I just thought I'd let it fester for a while so everyone can come at the discussion bit fresh.

 

[7th Circle]

Since it's been grave-dug, I'll add my thoughts...

What do you believe is the common perception of what constitutes a CRPG?

A game with character stats advancement.

A while (as in several years) ago, I would have said something fanatsy-like (in the D&D mould) but recently the common perception seems to be that a crpg is where your character's abiilites, skills etc. become increased as you progress through the game. I base this on the number of times I've seen words to the effect of "If GTA:SA had swords instead of guns and was set in the Middle Ages, it would be labelled as an rpg".

What are your own philosophies on the matter?

An rpg is an role focussed game.

As the RPGCodex motto attempts to emphasize, roles are what makes an RPG. As everyone reading this should know, RPG stand for Role-Playing Game. A small minority of people believer that this means a role-playing game is a game where you play a role but this is overliteral - you don't call a game an Action Game because it features some action. You do call a game an Action Game because it is focussed on Action; similarly you call a game an rpg because it is focussed on role-playing.

So, what does it mean to be a "role-focussed" (or "role-playing focussed" if you'd prefer) game?

Personally, I set two (broad) criteria.

(a) Character choice. A game focussed on role-playing must have the option to play multiple roles. Having a game with a focus on role-playing but only having 1 role to play would be kind of like having an "Acting Game" but only being able to be play one part; like acting, the very nature of role-playing suggests multiple possibilities. To put it another way, an actor who only ever plays one part is often not considered to be really acting; I maintain that this is also true for role-playing.

(b) Character development. A "role" in the psychological sense of the term is not a static thing. For instance, as one's children become older, the role of parent becomes modified. Even things like gender-role change over time (albeit over a broader timeframe). Likewise your "self" (ignoring the psychological squabbles over that word) is a dynamic entity; since a role (i.e., as defined in relation to a role-playing game) is essentially another self, it also is a dynamic entity. Consequently, any game purporting to be focussed on role-playing must take account of this.

'Taking account of this' though is more complex than it sounds. Why? Because, despite similar themes, we all develop in different ways. Now, I'm not saying that an rpg has to be a "universal human modeller" (as this is way too high a bar to set) but it does have to have the capability for the same starting character to evolve in different ways. Critically, there must be decisions with consequences in order to do this because human development reaches different end points (and "check points").

To summarise, character development in a rpg involves some decisions with permanent consequences. In essence, to some extent, your choices shape the world, your character or a combination thereof irreversibly.

Below are two examples of crpgs and one game that doesn't make the grade.

(i) Fallout is an rpg. The game provides mechanisms for to play different characters (e.g., tag different skills, choose different abilities scores). The criteria of character development is handled in several ways - e.g., karma earned, plot consequences for world based on character decisions. Making dialogue options dependent on stats taps both character development and character choice.

(ii) Diablo is an rpg. You choose different characters classes at the start and these define your experience for the whole game, satisfying (a). The choices you make when levelling up satisfy the criteria for (b) because you can't possibly raise them all to max.

(iii) GTA:SA is not an rpg. You only play as Carl Johnson and, moreover, the game starts with the same Carl Johnson each time - consequently (a) is failed. I would also argue that (b) is failed but this is a more complex argument that I don't feel like making atm (this is post is already taken significantly longer than expected).

Now, "rpg" is a broad category as Fallout and Diablo are rather different games. Consequently, I'm going to introduce a distinction here between "shallow rpgs" and "deep rpgs". While I am going to talk about this as a dichomotous distinction, this is really a dimension and, in theory at least, all rpgs could be ordered along this dimension.

A shallow rpg is a rpg where the rpg criteria are met solely through stats especially stats that are related to gameplay elements such as combat; Diablo is such an example. A deep rpg has rpg criteria that are met, at least some of the time, through things such as consquences for the world and psychological changes in the character. To put it another way, in a shallow rpg, the role is solely defined in terms of gameplay related stats whereas a deep rpg defines the role in terms of an individual within a society.

To what degree does that philosophy actively define your enjoyment of a CRPG?

This question can be answered at two levels.

(i) I like a lot different type of games so whether a game is a deep rpg, shallow rpg or not an rpg is not essential to my liking of a game (e.g., I liked Fallout, Diablo and GTA:SA).

(ii) If I want to play a rpg, all other things being equal, I will prefer a deep rpg over a shallow rpg over a non-rpg. Diablo for instance won't satiate me if I'm in an rpg mood but I would marginally prefer it over GTA:SA. Something like Fallout though would be what I want to play.

What challenges should the game present to a player, and how integral should they be to the role playing elements?

Essentially a CRPG as a game should provide challenges suitable to the role that is being played. Consequently, if a variety of roles are present, the player should face challenges relevent to that particular role.

An example. A player is required to recover something from a stronghold and the game provides diplomatic, combat and stealth orientated characters. Playing a diplomatic character should involve the challenge of learning about who inside the stronghold can be bought off, threatened etc. and how to go about doing this. Playing a combat character should involve working out the tactics to defeat the relevant enemies. Playing a stealth character should involve figuring out where to hide, when to move and so on.

Where do you see the "evolution" of CRPGs headed?

(For my comments to these last two questions, please remember my earlier comment about shallow v deep rpgs really being a dimension even though I am referring to them in categorical terms.)

I see rpgs heading more towards the shallow rpg category. The gaming industry seems to be going through to what the movie industry was, and to some extent still is, going through in the sense that the target market for a given game aims to be as all-encompassing as possible. Shallow rpgs seem to fit the bill more than deep rpgs in this sense. The question is whether the computer game market will "nichify" and deep rpgs will be recognised as a niche worth targetting.

What direction would you take if you had a controlling stake?

I would make sure that there was a steady supply of both shallow and deep rpgs. Considering their mass appeal, shallow rpgs will take care of themselves so I'd probably focus on keeping the situation balanced with deep rpgs.

 

[NeVeRLiFt]

Thanks, this why I love the Codex.

Really good stuff people.

 

[elander_]

Obviously there is no clear cut definition any more, what is left are elements. The more RPG elements a game has, the more it will be perceived as a RPG. Some such elemensts are (in very loose order of importance):

Of course there is. From someone who has played Daggerfall why are you allways so confused? A good crpg simulates the fun people have with pnps. If you remenber reading the Daggerfall manual they mention this. Other old-school crpgs like Fallout are also strongly influenced by Gurps and the pnp experience.

A game must provide a certain set of elements to be considered a crpg. The clear cut test for Elderscrolls games (their own standards im not making up stuff here) is to see if you can specialize in one of their three basic classes: thief, warrior and scholar and level-up only using your specialization skills. Your character biography (past), reputation (reactions) and weknesses are as much important for your rp experience as your abilities. This is what justifies playing a certain character and what gives the feeling of being inside his shoes: your strengths, your weekness and how other npcs react to your character.

For each class there is one type of guild that provides that class a supply of quests endless if they use templated quests that span over time or just sufficient if they don't use it for the character to progress and level up. Then it's up for the writer and 'game master' ability of who makes the game to provide a concistent, inteligent and entertaining world to play in. In this case having some writing skills and knowing a bit of gameplay in general and not only crpg gameplay is important. A crpg can be deep and interesting but at the same time suck for having a bad user interface or boring gameplay.

Level of dificulty must also be easly adjustable for novice players, average players and hardcore players. This is one reason why so many crpgs suck because they are inflexible, either too hard or too easy and you can't adjust your gameplay settings acording to your experience level in that game. In other words the game doesn't teach the player how to play the game in an entertaining way.

Daggerfall for example didn't provide much options to adjust the level of difficulty but it provided at any time more than one quest to chose from a guild. These were templated and timed quests you could choose from, that would allways respan or you could simply wait for it to time-out to pickup another. Some quests were easy to do but provided little reward thus good for novice players while others were hard to impossible but provided big rewards. I would say this is a much better system than just having a difficuty lever.

 

[Sarvis]

<b>What do you believe is the common perception of what constitutes a CRPG? </b>

The common perception is largely non-existant. People just don't really know how to categorize games, and you can always find someone to call any given game an RPG. You can find people who will say Quake is an RPG because you play the role of a space marine.

In general though, it will be perceived as an RPG if it is marketed as one.

<b>What are your own philosophies on the matter? </b>

Part of the reason for the confusion above is the amount of change and fluidity in games. RPGs are often thought of as games with strong stories, yet as some have posted here action and adventure games often have strong stories these days. In fact, many features of games are easily transferrable between genres. Anything concentrating on non-gameplay elements can be made a part of any genre. Action games can have in-depth stories, puzzle games could have strong characterization, x-streme sports games can have stats. The Codex Holy Grail of choices and meaningful consequences can be played out in any style of gameplay.

Because of all these variables and interchangeable elements, there is only one possible way to categorize games: focusing on the core gameplay.

A game which simulates real world athletic events is a sports game.
A game which focuses on player reflexes and timing is an Action game.
A game which requires the player to explore and solve puzzles is an Adventure game.
A game where the success of player made decisions depends on character abilities is an RPG.

So yes, an RPG is a game which has stats. It always has been, since the earliest days of D&D. Now, clearly just inserting stats into another game doesn't make that game an RPG. For instance, in GTA:SA there are stats, but they don't determine success or failure they just give the character more abilities for the player to use. Just having stats isn't the important part, it is whether or not success is determined by those stats.


<b>To what degree does that philosophy actively define your enjoyment of a CRPG? </b>

Not much, given that my philisophy on what is an RPG is very minimalist. Since I also enjoy other genres, there's no need to like or dislike a game based on if success depends on character ability.

<b>What challenges should the game present to a player, and how integral should they be to the role playing elements? </b>

Whatever challenges the developers can make interesting. Frequently the main challenge in any genre (other than sports/puzzle games) is combat, because it is very easy to make combat fun. It is very difficult to make other types of challenge interesting.


<b>Where do you see the "evolution" of CRPGs headed? </b>

For the most part it is going away, to be replaced by action games with RPG elements. Jade Empire, Oblivion, X-Men Legends... RPGs are a dying breed, but not because elements which were only ever used in 3 or 4 games aren't being represented. They are a dying breed because elements which were always there are being phased out. Since Diablo character ability has progressively taken more of a back seat to player reflexes.

One day you may see games where there is unlimited choice and incredible consequences for your decisions, but it will happen in an action game.

<b>What direction would you take if you had a controlling stake?</b>

I'd move RPGs more towards turn based, strategic combat.

'nough said.

 

[Svartberg]

What do you believe is the common perception of what constitutes a CRPG?
A game where a character kills monsters, gains levels and get better loot.

What are your own philosophies on the matter?
A game where the player fills a predefined or chosen role (via choices and actions) in a virtual role, and being believable enough for me to actually think about my choices and actions.
It doesn't have to have stats, equipment, or even monsters.

To what degree does that philosophy actively define your enjoyment of a CRPG?
Well rpg are among my favorite kind of games, but i enjoy other games too - even "hack and slash" if they are done the right way a hack and slash should be done.

What challenges should the game present to a player, and how integral should they be to the role playing elements?
I believe choices that a player makes which go against the role he fills should be harder to achieve, either technically (example: picking a lock as conan the barbarian) or consequentialy (example: going against the philosophies of an order you belong to, and having your rights revoked).

Where do you see the "evolution" of CRPGs headed?
Crpg's were never popular, and never will be because many gamers looks for light entertainment with having to think about choices and consequences.
I don't see a reason for crpg's to offer more freedom or choices as they done the last 10 years, basically the evolution would be graphics, physics etc.

What direction would you take if you had a controlling stake?
I would quit and get a better profit job doing sport games for EA.

 

[MINIGUNWIELDER]

What do you believe is the common perception of what constitutes a CRPG?
a game set in a fantasy enviroment

What are your own philosophies on the matter?
Roleplaying:The role you are playing should be defined entirely by the games skillset and the player GURPS' system is a decent example Victoriana is a perfect one roleplaying should be there in print actively effecting the game, Bryce777 is right in the matter of how if the only meaningful character developement choice is to get new equipment and skills, then it is not an Rpg

GURPS Perk/Quirk system should be used as an example of characte flaws

Combat:combat should be based entirely on character physical skill, player mental skill is abstracted into the game as the characters personality, etc in combat

To what degree does that philosophy actively define your enjoyment of a CRPG?
a very large one

What challenges should the game present to a player, and how integral should they be to the role playing elements?
the character design system should make it so that every build is equally challenging as long as you know how to play it, and the backround of your character should be deciding in the skills, equipment, and finances of the character


Where do you see the "evolution" of CRPGs headed?
to a future where everygame with stats becomes an rpg, the same cruel fate that the adventure game market fell tog

What direction would you take if you had a controlling stake?
1.i would do everything in my power to punish companies like Bethesda who make fantasy sandboxes and then slap the rpg label onto them

2.I would make it so Fallout is viewed as the core of what a CRPG is

3.I'd make outfits like Troika benefit by lobbying congress to make it so that piracy of indie outfits would not suffer from dumbasses

4.I would make it so that anyone stupid enough to say "an rog is an fps here the gun is a sword" sincerely would be ip banned from every website on the interweb

 

[HotSnack]

What do you believe is the common perception of what constitutes a CRPG?
Visible stats, an adventure of epic proportions, and some form of player advancement such as upgraded stats, better items, etc. Though I’m not even sure if there truly can be a “common perception” of a crpg, since the term is bandied about almost as often as the word immersion as people try to find the adequate words to communicate a certain feature.

What are your own philosophies on the matter?
A crpg must be able to allow a player to define and make a character into his “own”. It is important however to not misinterpret this to mean that a player must be able to have a choice on their sex/race/initial stats/favourite colour, but rather they must have enough room to have their own take on a character much like how two actors can have two completely different takes on the same character.

Secondly a crpg must respond appropriately to how the player has chosen to take their character. This would include whatever background they have chosen, what actions they have taken through the course of the adventure, and what organisations and groups they have had chosen to be affiliated with.

Now these goals (especially number two) are pretty lofty, up to the point where currently crpgs will never realistically be able to achieve all these completely. But if you aren’t even going to try and strive to do it then why are you calling your games crpgs?

To what degree does that philosophy actively define your enjoyment of a CRPG?
Not too much actually. Sure I certainly pay attention if a crpg shows some very strong rpg qualities. But I usually take most games by the value of whatever they throw at me. It only really has an effect when I get caught up on internet debates on what makes a crpg.

What challenges should the game present to a player, and how integral should they be to the role playing elements?
The game should present challenges to help define or even question just what type of character the pc is. It’s good if the game gives the player the chance to define their character by allowing the pc to side with either the good guys or the bad guys, it’s even better if players can further define their characters by giving the pc the choice to side with the good guys who believe that it is wrong to kill no matter what, or the good guys who believe that killing is a grim but sometimes necessary action that must be taken. Such moments are needed as they provide the opportunity for the player to better represent their characters in the way they envision them (or to further define the ones that were only a murky concept to begin with).

Finally challenges should be designed so that every character concept can have their periodic “moment of glory”. I believe though that only for the main quest should it be compulsory for there to be the classical covert/diplomacy/force options available. Side-quests can be any combination of the three or even exclusive to one, as otherwise you risk losing role definition and wind up playing exactly the same game but now you’re killing stuff with swords/arrows/magic!

Where do you see the "evolution" of CRPGs headed?
The same as it’s currently is; AAA crpgs will be focused on supplying that cinema-like feeling, lesser rpgs will be catering to gamers that have become jaded or nostalgic of the games of old, and then there’ll be the bits of poo crpgs in between it all.

What direction would you take if you had a controlling stake?
I’d probably pump out a string of small crpgs each one exploring and experimenting with role-playing mechanics. Afterwards I’d probably go poor, and so go on to become a sell-out and write articles to The Escapist about mainstream being teh win.

 

[Sarvis]

So when do we get part 2?

 

[Monk]

"Video Games and the Hero’s Narrative"

As I mention in other articles, video game culture is not as superficial as one may think. There is a reason so many people are drawn to it. Simply put, video games tap into something deeper than the virtual. It is not mere entertainment. The gaming industry is becoming a medium through which uniquely human desires are explored and manifested.

As such, it is important that philosophers and theologians understand the various trends and common themes within video game culture. This will allow for substantial dialogue with the current generation as well as an appreciation of the topics, concerns, and needs most important to them. In my own study as both an avid gamer and Catholic theologian, I recognize numerous leitmotifs underlying the overall development of video game culture. In this article, we will pinpoint one of the most common—namely, heroism.