CRPG rant. Possibly old and musty. Beware, you may want some cheese with this whine... In one of my numerous "SF RPG" posts someone wrote that they didn''t think I was making a CRPG. That puzzled me, and so I decided to brush up on my CRPGing. I hadn''t played an RPG in awhile, so I tried Fallout 2 for the first time. And you know what? Man, whoever said that was right. If this is what computer RP''ing is all about, I am *not* making an RPG! The Fallouts, along with the Baldur''s Gates and Planescape, have been some of the best CRPGs to come out. But I guess I''ve lost touch. I can barely stand Fallout 2 (and I''m Mr. "Why Are All CRPGs Medieval?!?!"). You see, in a CRPG I do not undersand... ...Why, Exactly, Do I Need To Fetch & Carry? Find your own damn dog! Kill the plants yourself! I was hoping to be an adventurer, to explore and blaze my own trail, not do people''s menial labor!! Yet if I don''t accept quests, most CRPGs have nothing interesting to do. ...Why, Exactly, Is Every Fight "Combat Light?" No cover. No manuevering. No elevated terrain advantages. No fog of war. Combat is as dull as pulling the lever on a slot machine that doesn''t dispense money. Not even the accursed Diablo could get this right! Jesus, strategy and tabletop RPGs have had this subtety for years!! What does it take to move past the "chance-to-hit" mongering and get some tension and choice?! (And don''t tell me you need 3D!) ...Why, Exactly, The Endless Conversation Loops? Try this some time while riding the bus or rail: Find someone and ask them their name. A dozen times. You don''t need HAL 9000 to have an "Annoyance" variable! I swear, nothing kills immersion faster than jukebox NPCs who regurgitate information at the press of a button. ...Why, Exactly, Am I Walking On A Bitmap? Stunted. That''s what the world feels like. Can''t climb a simple fence. Can''t wade into streams. Can''t jump from rooftop to rooftop, let alone get up on the freakin'' roof. *sigh* A dozen dozen screens and levels, and still the world is small and hobbled. Why can''t we have a world?!?!! Fallout 2 had around five Designers and two freakin'' Lead Designers. Yet the game constantly reminds me that it is a game, not a wonderous place of adventure that I can get lost in. Is every designer out there so busy trying to be the next Pulitzer Prize winning novelist that they can''t spare a few moments on making a responsive world!?!?!?!?! I don''t care about your damned story! I want interesting gameplay! *whew* Okay. That accomplished absolutely nothing, but I feel better now. Do you feel better? -------------------- Just waiting for the mothership...

QYOTE : Wavinator
" Find your own damn dog! Kill the plants yourself! I was hoping to be an adventurer, to explore and
blaze my own trail, not do people''s menial labor!!

Yet if I don''t accept quests, most CRPGs have nothing interesting to do."


What is there to do if the player doesn''t enter the strategic situations that the quests lead to? Well there ought to be many opportunities to use a large variety of skills in otder to "roleplay".. but to use skills the skills need to be applicable in general situations. Ie. If you could sneak or fight, there needs to be a reason to sneak or fight.. ie. a REWARD for sneaking **OR** fighting.

Why should you not be able to blaze your own trail through diverse and unexplored jungle (or whathaveyou), which brings up opportunities to use your skills!

Exploring "artificially GMed " areas which give you opportunities to roleplay via. choice of action.


Note.
Those are beginner''s tasks, to get the player used to the world and the "possibilities" of how to carry out tasks. (Combat, Stealth, dialogue, inventory use?).. and to introduce the player to some of the members of "their" tribe.

quote: Original post by Ketchaval
Note.
Those are beginner''s tasks, to get the player used to the world and the "possibilities" of how to carry out tasks. (Combat, Stealth, dialogue, inventory use?).. and to introduce the player to some of the members of "their" tribe.

I disagree. The basic concept of a RPG is to "play a role". Why should the role-play be limited to only a certain set of quests?

Characters -should- be able to exercise free will over their actions. Should they wish to go gallavanting about in randomly generated jungles, let them. All that hacking and slashing will do wonders for their machette skills

More to the point, this is supposed to be an immersive world. RPGs need to take a leaf out of Doom''s book. "If you can see it, you can access it".

It''s like any game. If you try to enjoy it for what it is not (an action strategy game with some character interaction and loads of exploration) then you will enjoy it. What it does, it does very well. But if you try to enjoy it for what it is not (your more detailed CRPG explanation, with impressive AI, multiple ending subplots, real world physics, essentially "real life on a computer") then you will not enjoy it.

It''s like buying Quake III and trying to enjoy it as a puzzle or exploration game. There are NO puzzles, and the levels are too short to be anything but technical eye-candy. But if you play it like a multiplayer shoot-em-up, then you''ll have a great time.

Your enjoyment largely depends on what the game is SUPPOSED to offer in terms of technical game features, what you as a player are looking for, and even what the developers are trying to show off. And we both know that the industry''s version of "CRPG" differs from the idealistic description.

I think it was stated weeks or months ago that games are pigeonholed far too often into categories that historically may not be fair, given the game''s content. This is true for CRPGs... I have a different view on them (like any FF and any spinoff thereof, is a lame excuse for an action strategy) than many other people do. Who is "right"? Probably the company with the greatest revenue. Who is intrinsically right? Probably anyone who agrees with me that the higher form of CRPG has not manifested itself on store shelves or on the internet yet ... that''s why I became a game developer.


MatrixCubed
http://MatrixCubed.org

There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY IN THE WORLD you''ll get the immersion of a tabletop/paper RPG on a computer game (unless of course you want the whole game to take place in one small room). The beauty of the traditional play methods is that the DM can use his/her intelligence/imagination to come up with answers/reactions quickly to surprise requests/actions etc. CRPGS need everything designed,planned,drawn etc. in advance. CRPGS will be for the forseeable future a poor substitute for ''the real thing''.
Credit where credit''s due though CRPGs have advanced a long way n the last few years.

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster

There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY IN THE WORLD you''ll get the immersion of a tabletop/paper RPG on a computer game (unless of course you want the whole game to take place in one small room). The beauty of the traditional play methods is that the DM can use his/her intelligence/imagination to come up with answers/reactions quickly to surprise requests/actions etc. CRPGS need everything designed,planned,drawn etc. in advance. CRPGS will be for the forseeable future a poor substitute for ''the real thing''.
Credit where credit''s due though CRPGs have advanced a long way n the last few years.

Absolutely no way? Bah. That''s the kind of negative thinking that will one day hold the industry back. I mean, come on: people are already developing robots that can learn simple tasks, so why can''t we just use that and the power of today''s PCs and let the computer learn at least some things. So what if everything would be drawn in advance? Don''t you think most pen''n''paper DMs already have their maps and locales at least planned in their head, if not set on paper?

Let me give you one point for timeliness (maybe): In the next month, there really is absolutely no way. Maybe the next 2 months, next year, next few years. Maybe not. But don''t shut out an idea just yet.
--


WNDCLASSEX Reality;
...
...
Reality.lpfnWndProc=ComputerGames;
...
...
RegisterClassEx(&Reality);


Unable to register Reality...what''s wrong?
---------
Dan Upton
Lead Designer
WolfHeart Software

For roleplaying I tend to just stick with my email game (post about one post a day for a long period, and you''ll have more fun than any ''crpg'' out there).

I''ve long given up on the mention of ''role'' in computer games. Fell for Diablo II (because after all I did somewhat enjoy Diablo I), but now that I''m older it''s a little easier to get bored by doing the same thing over and over again. Fell in love with Baldur''s Gate, dreaming of creating fun characters to play with in the sequel... but got sidetracked to other games when I finally became bored of doing the same thing over and over again. Might be number one game to some, but I went back to playing Warhammer Dark Omen. After that, I went back to playing some oldies again (M.U.D.S. and now Fantasy General) while Diablo II and Baldur''s Gate are still rotting away in some far corner of my desk.

As to Wav''s points...
Fetch and Carry. I got sick of this when I first played a game that was probably a pre-game to Daggerfall. I''m not sure if it was Arena (maybe in Europe it went under another name) but the Fetch and Carry sure was ''carried'' out into the extreme.
Quests in Baldur''s Gate were actually somewhat fun. The expansion that I bought had a pretty interesting tower with lots of traps etc, but once I learned that ''this was the reason you bought this expansion'' I pretty much knew that it was still lacking something to make it really worthwhile.

I''m not quite sure why the questing in computer games doesn''t seem to be fun to me. Maybe part of it is that the clues are given either too sparsely or too frequently. The PlayByEmail games have a real person telling the story, and leave you to figure out how to interpret his words. In computer games, I haven''t found that perfect balance between mystery and discovery. Maybe it''s because in computer games there aren''t enough options for a player''s action, therefor the player pretty much knows what he has to do to finish a quest (kill baddie).

Combat
My number one frustration in crpg. There''s just no thrill to it. The only strategy I find that I can use is one before combat even starts (picking skills and learning interface). During combat, it''s just a matter of whack whack whack OR once again cast the three spells that you''ve cast a thousand times before.
And if you die anyway... well just go back to a save game one minute earlier. Warhammer Dark Omen (not a crpg but it has some elements in it) actually does use some strategy (although in the end I think artillery is a little too dominant) and that''s why I enjoy it so much every time I play it.

Conversation
Maybe someday they''ll be able to get this right (not perfect though, never perfect, because people will still have to program all that conversation, so it''ll never really be a two-sided conversation). For now, it''s all blabber to me. I just look at what the important message inside the message is.

Bitmap world
This to me is probably the least of my frustrations, simply because this is mostly a matter of coding, not of creativity. Where combat strategy should probably be number one on the creativity list (because it still is what all crpgs are about... kill kill kill) to me, graphics are merely a tool to make it all feel a little more real when my character gets hurt or achieves victory. But yes, a world doesn''t feel real because of the way it looks, but because of the way you can interact with it. Baldur''s Gate looked pretty good, but bookcases were still just ''things to click on and see if something''s inside when a box pops up''.
I think for a combat-crpg my main concern with ''can I interact with my environment'' would be for strategy matters. Outside combat I just want to be able to fill my cask of water in the river... Can I have that at least?

So why do I still play crpgs? Well, because they ARE the closest thing yet to the real thing... and since a computer is easier to set up than a circle of close friends who have the time to come together whenever I feel like playing.

What do I hope rpg will one day be like in computer games? I don''t even know...

Quote"I disagree. The basic concept of a RPG is to "play a role". Why should the role-play be limited to only
a certain set of quests?
Characters -should- be able to exercise free will over their actions. Should they wish to go
gallavanting about in randomly generated jungles, let them. All that hacking and slashing will do
wonders for their machette skills "


The Note about beginner''s tasks was directed at Fallout 2, and the tasks that Wavinator is talking about. (Which occur before you get sent on the main quest). You don''t have to do all the quests and there are several different outcomes to them.



The main point was that the RPG world of Fallout etc. hasn''t got enough of a skill emphasis.. there aren''t enough opportunities to use skills & play a role. (In terms of action). Thus a "artificial DM" world where you explore it.. and have to choose how to deal with the simple>advanced obstacles that you meet (and which are generated by the computer).
Ie. How do you deal with a charging boar?? How do you find a good place to camp for the night? (Simple obstacle).

Or . How can you use/ change the war between the two local tribes for your advantage, or TO create the future that you most wish to see (Advanced obstacle).

I'm basically just responding to wav's comments. I haven't read other people's responses so I appologise if I say something someone's already said

quote: ...Why, Exactly, Do I Need To Fetch & Carry?

I couple of weeks ago a strange fancy took me and I decided it would be great to do a Space Quest style isometric adventure game. After I planned it a bit I got stuck so i went and played SQ 1,2 & 3 to inspire me. I finished all 3 in about 4.5 hours. Now ok, I've finished them before and I knew exactly what to do.

Basically, as I see it, if you don't have something for the player to do, they'll get bored and they wont play the game. If they didn't have to fetch & carry, they'd have to hack & slash, and if they didn't have to hack & slash, they'd have to plot waypoints and issue commands, if they didn't have to plot.... blah blah and so on until we realise that games just aren't fun anymore. I think the best style I saw was Sierra's Hero's Quest (quest for glory) 1. You could do all the fetch & carry quests and it would take you 20 or 30 days (of in game time) to finish the game, or you could finish it in 3 days (IGT). the difference was that if you did the fetch & carry, you got a lot more gameplay for your buck.

I realise your point wav, but I can't think of a solution. Every game has some repetitive aspect, that's what defines its genre.

quote: ...Why, Exactly, Is Every Fight "Combat Light?"

No cover. No manuevering. No elevated terrain advantages. No fog of war. Combat is as dull as pulling the lever on a slot machine that doesn't dispense money.

If I wanted hardcore turn based strategy I'd play chess or battle isle or something. When I want to kill things, I play a FPS or RTS. When I want to explore, I play what we call RPG's. It's unfortunate that game designers today equate "explore" with "find belinda's lost scarf" but they throw in enough combat and story, and I have to explore the haunted castle to find the scarfe anyway, so I get my exploration fix.

I think 90% of the problem is the whole concept of genres. Ok, so wav isn't making what we all refer to as an RPG. Based on his posts, I would say he's making a Sci-Fi simulation, or maybe a strategy/rpg. Who cares on the genre?? I think part of the reason games are so stale is because people say "no, we can't have THAT in a turn based game" or "hell no, that doesn't work in an FPS"... I've read most of wav's posts and I don't know how to define his game or what genre it fits into.

That's what makes me want to play it

quote: And don't tell me you need 3D!
Why, Exactly, Am I Walking On A Bitmap?

I think if you want to climb fences and jump over rooftops and all of that stuff, you do need 3D. I mean it's one thing to move along the X/Y axis, but as soon as you wanna go Z, you gotta move into 3d. The fact that the FPS is way too overused shouldn't deter people from 3D. I know that sounds kind of pedantic... but I'm not saying you need first person 3d... I'm just saying taht you need some basic 3d if you want your game to be more than 2 dimensions.

quote: ...Why, Exactly, The Endless Conversation Loops?

I totally agree with Wav on this one. How capable are conversation generators? I mean we're using a bunch of variables already to define the NPC's reaction to the character (our reputation, thier reputation, the time of day, what I'm holding, what I'm asking)... surely we could correlate this with different words? anyone know where I could find some articles on this?

quote: *whew* Okay. That accomplished absolutely nothing, but I feel better now. Do you feel better?

I hate to end with a band comment, but imagine how you're gonna feel wav, when you complete your game and it's great and people can explore the whole universe and there's suprises around every corner... you're gonna know them all.. that's what demotivates me when I'm working on my game.. the knowledge that even if I finish it, I wont be able to play it, because I've seen everything already, and who wants to spend all day hacking/slashing, fetching/carrying just to see things you've seen already?

just my $0.02...

Edited by - catalystjones on March 5, 2001 12:26:19 AM

quote: Original post by Wavinator

...Why, Exactly, Do I Need To Fetch & Carry?

Yeah, this is what I meant in a post of mine a week or two ago. I'm convinced that in many RPGs NPCs asking us to do things for them is just a way to get us to explore the world. Why do we need NPCs telling us how to explore the game?

Of course in some games lately there is the option to ignore them, and decline their quests, but I still find it quite intrusive for NPCs to suggest to me where to go to find their damn dog.

quote:
...Why, Exactly, Is Every Fight "Combat Light?"

The options to run for cover or more tactical options would be better. Either that, or what you mentioned before: abstracting it more. Make it so the decision to enter the fight is the more important thing.

Perhaps, the game should even simulate the combat for you. In an RTS, you don't control each swing of each unit. You are making a decision as to when, where, how, to attack not each individual swing. Granted, in a strategy game, you're controlling many and in an RPG you usually only have maybe 4 at most, but it's a thought.





Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
What a plight we who try to make a story-based game have...writers of conventional media have words, we have but binary numbers


Edited by - Nazrix on March 6, 2001 1:08:18 AM