RPGs: The State of Play

[frogbeastegg]

This thread's here to house a continuation of the discussion about the state of RPGs which began on page 4 of the Mass Effect 2 teaser thread. I won't move any posts over as there's no neat and clean dividing line between ME discussion and the wider subject.

The main questions raised cam be summed up with:
Where are RPGs?
Where were they?
What's better?
What's worse?
What needs to change?
How do you perceive the genre in the past, present and future?
Why?

[TinCow]

I think that in order for there to be a discussion about the state of RPGs, we should probably figure out what an RPG is in the first place. A lot of hardcore 'old school' RPG fanatics focus a great deal on dialog and freedom of choice within an pen storyline. However, the industry isn't anywhere near that limiting in its descriptions. Diablo is today classified as an "action RPG". First, it's worth noting that when Diablo was released, the word "action" wasn't anywhere near its genre description. It was called an RPG, plain and simple. We have since coined the "action RPG" term to describe games that utilize a RPG character system, but focus on combat instead of questing.

So, is an Action RPG an RPG? Is it a separate genre, or a subgenre of RPGs? How do we even draw the line between a regular RPG and an Action RPG? Looking back at some of the earliest RPGs, they have a stupendous amount of combat with relatively flimsy storylines and almost no freedom of choice in the plotline. The Ultima, SSI Gold Box, and Might and Magic series all involved essentially linear storylines there were completed in a sequential manner, with few, if any, choices about how to resolve them. The only choices were really whether to complete a quest or ignore it, and what order to do the quests in.

Might and Magic is an extreme example of this. Pretty much all dialog and NPC interaction in those games was limited to (1) giving you quests which involved going out and killing monsters, with no plot options for you to choose and (2) improving your characters' abilities in some manner. On top of that, every map you were on threw hordes of monsters at you, with loot galore. Yet the M&M games are called regular RPGs, while Diablo gets the Action RPG designation.

So, what exactly is an RPG? Is it any game where the player character has stats and abilities that improve over time? If so, do we call Bioshock an RPG? What about STALKER? How exactly is Ultima Underworld different from Borderlands?

[econ21]

To address TCs point about defining RPGs, I think there are a number of key elements that characterise such games, although I am not sure any one is necessary.

(1) Character building and gearing up - the stats, levelling and the loot. This is a core part of RPGs like Dungeons and dragons and World of Warcraft. Some regard it as an essential part - so a game like Max Payne might not be regarded as an RPG because it lacks stats (although you do collect and can vary the weapons you use).

(2) Making "meaningful" choices - with either an ethical aspect and/or ones that affect the world around you. Bioware games tend to do this well, as did Fallout. To my mind, this is closer to essential as it represents playing out a role. But as TC says, with some classics like Might and Magic, it is absent.

(3) Acting out a role in a story - here immersion and atmosphere are key. This is weaker than (2) because you may not have any choice at all - the story may be linear and your "choices" all scripted (you are going to save the world from the demon invasion). However, if feeling "in character" is essential to the experience, I would argue a case can be made for it being an RPG (or at least a hybrid). Stalker or System Shock might be examples here. You had no real choices in terms of affecting the story, but being free to roam the world and (in the case of System Shock) experience the story was a key element to the game and made them much more than shooters.

If I were to attempt a definition, I would say an RPG has to have at least two of the above. So System Shock has stats and story, so is an RPG. The same with Might and Magic - although TC rightly characterises the series, I found some of the games (MM6 and MM7) very immersive. The first person perspective and vast world made it easier for me to suspend disbelief than in the isometric Baldur's Gate. I confess I liked to play them trying to make actions in "character" ("Let's investigate the Temple of Baa" rather than "Let's raise to Freehaven to learn town portal"). Max Payne and probably Stalker don't have enough of the stats and stuff to be classified as RPGs. However, I am not sure a precise definition is important, except in order to highlight the key game features that should be appraised when discussing an RPG.

For what it is worth, I think RPGs are in good shape. The old school DnD type games that focussed solely on (1) are becoming obsolete, as players find them rather arid experiences. Pools of Radiance and The Temple of Elemental Evil are examples of this failure. Designers know they need to "wow" the audience with more cinematic elements. As computers develop, it is easier for them create vivid experiences that cover (3). Giving more content to the experience, by introducing real choices as la (2) seems to becoming more common, as games like Fable and even Bioshock (free or harvest sisters?), follow the path blazed by Bioware.

I haven't mentioned combat, which is a fourth element and tends to be the main form of gameplay in most RPGs. I'd be happy to see more games with a Deus Ex style "no kill" routes to victory. PST and Fallout also did this to some extent. While stealth missions and diplomatic options etc are becoming common, allowing wholly non-combat routes through RPGs seems very rare nowadays. Fallout 3 falls down on this. Another example might be Vampire Bloodlines - which started off well, being rather combat light, but then ended up throwing ridiculous numbers of mobs at you towards the end. Arcanum was similar and in both cases, it probably signalled the game designers running out of time or ideas. However, allowing non-combat solutions tends to go well with the second key RPG element - making moral choices.

[Meneldil]

I don't have much time to reply to all the points made earlier, but I think one big difference between the Golden Era-RPG's (late 90's) and nowadays RPG's is the way the world seems to be closed.

The Might and Magic serie was pretty action based, that true. You'd spam the attack key to cut through hordes of mobs. Dialogue was pretty much inexistent: guy asks you to kill some mobs, and rewards you with money.
But Might and Magic offered a vast, open world. You had a main plotline, but you could go visit dozens of unrelated places before being done. Exploring the whole world took dozens of hours.

Baldur's Gate did even better. Not only it offered a vast world, with a rather large amount of sidequests and several areas to explore unrelated to the main plot, but it also did a heck of a job with dialogues and immersion, two things that IMO were badly lacking in previous RPG's.

Arcanum and Fallout were mostly similar. The world seemed huge, and believable. You'd meet people who would do stuff on their own, talk to you about random events.

Since then, something has changed.
RPG's decided to cut down on the "useless, vast world to explore" thingy. Worlds don't feel living anymore.
That's especially true of DA:O. When you visit Redcliff, all doors are closed, except for a few ones. And if you can open it, it means there's a quest inside.
There's no useless area to visit, and you can't get away from the main plot. Characters who aren't involved in a quest don't have anything to say.
You arrive in a village? Check out which doors you can open to know what you have to do. And if you can loot a body, it means it's quest related too.
That was the same thing for ME, NWN1 and 2, KotOR1&2. Maybe the 3D is to blame. But I'm pretty sure it would have been easier to create a living world with NWN1&2 toolsets than it had been for BG1 or Fallout.

And oddly, the same applies to JRPG's. Have a look at the Final Fantasy franchise. Those games have always been quite straightforward. You start in point A, go through points B, C and D until you arrive to the big bad guy. There are a few sidequests on the way, a few choices to make (who am I going to date at the Golden Saucer?), a few hidden stuff to find. Until FF9, despite that, the world at least seemed open. You'd be running around doing stuff, in a completely straightforward fashion, but you wouldn't notice it.
Then, FF10 and 12 were released. Both were terribad (IMO), because you immediatly felt that you were litteraly running on an endless road, from point A to point Z. Sure, at some point you'd get the ability to go back to point D, or M, but it would still be the same endless road. You'd have to watch Tidus running for hours, from one side of the screen to the other again, and again and again. A real immersion killer. The same was true of FF12, though it was nearly as bad.

[econ21]

I don't have much time to reply to all the points made earlier, but I think one big difference between the Golden Era-RPG's (late 90's) and nowadays RPG's is the way the world seems to be closed.

That's true of many contemporary RPGs - perhaps especially Bioware ones. But it's not true of others such as Oblivion, Fallout 3 or MMOs such as World of Warcraft.

However, there's a trade off between the vastness of the world and its richness. Morrowind is an example of a fairly modern RPG that's very large and open, but IMO suffered in comparison with Bioware games in terms of the quality of the dialogue, quests, story and NPC characterisation. Personally, I think Bethesda were right to trim the world for Oblivion and introduce a more cinematic main story, but still did not go far enough. I think MMOs also tend to verr too much towards breadth rather than depth, quantity rather than quality.

The interesting case for me will be Star Wars the Old Republic - seeing if Bioware can combine the breadth of an MMO world with the quality of their SP games. In this case, I can totally see that it will take the revenue stream of WoW competitor to make a success of such an ambition.

[TinCow]

However, there's a trade off between the vastness of the world and its richness. Morrowind is an example of a fairly modern RPG that's very large and open, but IMO suffered in comparison with Bioware games in terms of the quality of the dialogue, quests, story and NPC characterisation. Personally, I think Bethesda were right to trim the world for Oblivion and introduce a more cinematic main story, but still did not go far enough. I think MMOs also tend to verr too much towards breadth rather than depth, quantity rather than quality.

That's interesting. I think Oblivion was significantly inferior to Morrowind specifically because they trimmed the world and focused more an the cinematic main story. If there's one guiding principle which best determines whether I'll like a game, it's an open gameworld. I like to be able to explore and 'live' in the game without restrictions on where I can go and what I have to do. I must've played Morrowind about 10 times, but I only finished the main storyline twice. I probably played Oblivion the same number of times, but after finishing the main quest the very first time, I never even advanced the main quest at all on any of the other plays... the Amulet of Kings just turned into another object in my trophy room.

That's one of the reasons I love STALKER so much. It's an FPS where I can just run around and live in the FPS world. Again, in that game I completed the main story the first time I played it, but have gone back and replayed it several times without ever having any desire to finish it again. For me, it's not the main story that is entertaining, it's the game world itself. Hence my enjoyment of GTA: Vice City and my less than enamored views on Mass Effect.

[Scienter]

However, there's a trade off between the vastness of the world and its richness. Morrowind is an example of a fairly modern RPG that's very large and open, but IMO suffered in comparison with Bioware games in terms of the quality of the dialogue, quests, story and NPC characterisation. Personally, I think Bethesda were right to trim the world for Oblivion and introduce a more cinematic main story, but still did not go far enough. I think MMOs also tend to verr too much towards breadth rather than depth, quantity rather than quality.

I enjoyed Morrowind significantly more than Oblivion. If Bethesda wanted to make the world in Oblivion smaller to make it more rich, I think they made a mistake in designing the cities, they all felt too similar. I got spoiled with the cities in Morrowind, they were vastly different in architecture and culture, that was lost in Oblivion, and made the world feel too small because the cities seemed interchangeable.

[Meneldil]

However, there's a trade off between the vastness of the world and its richness. Morrowind is an example of a fairly modern RPG that's very large and open, but IMO suffered in comparison with Bioware games in terms of the quality of the dialogue, quests, story and NPC characterisation. Personally, I think Bethesda were right to trim the world for Oblivion and introduce a more cinematic main story, but still did not go far enough. I think MMOs also tend to verr too much towards breadth rather than depth, quantity rather than quality.

Agreed, but to me, Baldur's Gate, Fallout and Arcanum got it right, as they offered an open and vast world, yet also shown the way to the player. You could explore things around, but you also had clear goals. The living world was merely the icing on the cake, but that's what made the game great IMO.

I never really got into Morrowind, because yes, you start out in this swampy town, you losely hear about that other place where something is happening, and that's it. Here, exploring the vast world is the main game, and the plot is the icing on the cake. They kind of got it backward.

As for WoW, yes, whether you like MMO's or not, whether you think WoW is retard or not, it's probably one of the best RPG I've ever played (though obviously, the fact it's a MMO made it impossible to have choices to be made). Huge world, lots of stuff to explore, funny easter eggs, but also quite story-driven. Too bad it can't be played in solo ;)

[Scienter]

So, is an Action RPG an RPG? Is it a separate genre, or a subgenre of RPGs? How do we even draw the line between a regular RPG and an Action RPG? Looking back at some of the earliest RPGs, they have a stupendous amount of combat with relatively flimsy storylines and almost no freedom of choice in the plotline. The Ultima, SSI Gold Box, and Might and Magic series all involved essentially linear storylines there were completed in a sequential manner, with few, if any, choices about how to resolve them. The only choices were really whether to complete a quest or ignore it, and what order to do the quests in.

I don't think so. Loot and stats/skill tree do not make a RPG. I don't feel like Diablo is a RPG, I think "action RPG" is a good name for a sub-genre of RPGs so long as it's clearly defined.

I think to be a true RPG, a game needs a rich world that the player can interact with through means other than just meeting cool new creatures and then slaughtering them. I think it needs choices, quests that involve conversations with NPCs/companions, and enough lore and side quests to make the world feel 'real.' The player needs to be able to have options to actually act as their character, instead of just killing stuff. Don't get me wrong, killing stuff is lots of fun, but you need more than that and a thinly developed plot to have a RPG.