most CRPGs are little more than shooters. Some are real time, others are turn based, but they are still mostly shooters.

the ONE thing that differentiates CRPGs from others in this genre is that there is an experience point system. (which means nothing more than a non-item based powerup)

I won't (read: can't) disagree with the degree of linearity and constraint in CRPGs around the place, but I have to say that some of the best storylines I've seen in games has been in CRPGs... perhaps to make up for the fact that you have to follow the story?

From a coding point of view, creating a nonlinear system would be an immense task, even if created with player-player interaction as the staple, such as Ultima Online. From a marketing point of view (for a single-player CRPG), I'm willing to stick my head out and say that some degree of linearity is necessary for the game to sell (to a viable market)...

How many people will play a game that gives you 20 choices of direction right from the start, with only hints of a story until hours of play into the game? (Well, lots ... but perhaps not enough)

If there wasn't a story, then your game is akin to SimCity, with no definite goal... but as soon as you include hard-coded goals, you restrict the game's replayability. Where should the compromise be struck?

And the ball is passed on...

White Fire

Well, there's one way of making games with linear storylines replayable that has worked for me... the method used by both Diablo and Darkstone. In both games, there is a main quest and a large number of subquests. The subquests have something in general to do with the main quest, but every time you play through you randomly get another set of subquests to work through. In addition to this, in Diablo at least (unsure about Darkstone because I haven't played it enough yet) the level maps and the characters on the levels change every time you go into a game. This impressed me a great deal thinking about it because Blizzard had to have come up with a really good level-editor AI to make viable but different levels every single time you make a game. Not knowing the map or the creature you will face (general difficulty stays the same for a given level but type changes drastically) makes a game extremely replayable, without interfering with the story line.

-fel

I say to all you sticklers for the "traditional" use of the term role playing game that it is you who have it wrong! :p Of course, this is a fairly subjective matter, and as I see it there are two exqually correct interpretations of what an RPG is.

1) The player simply plays a role within the gaming world. Whether or not that role is pre-defined is irrelevant.

2) The cration of the role to be played is implicit in the playing of the role. A bit too confining a definition for my taste...

If we must come up with a form of computer game development semantics, I think the first definition of the two would be a much better one to use. It's is not as constraining to a particular type of game as the second and is just as correct an interpretation of RPG.

Well, a traditional RPG and a traditional
CRPG can be two very different things.
The majority of CRPGS which are considered
the "traditional" fare do include numbers
and statistics and whatnot. These,
however, do not necessarily a CRPG make.

Personally I feel it's one of those things
that can only be really defined by
comparison.

And if Zork is classified as a CRPG
(the emphasis on the C), then what is
an adventure game?

I dont remember anyone ever classifying Zork as a CRPG, its always been an adventure as long as I can remember it.

"Traditional CRPGs" would be Ultima, Wizardry and Bards Tale, if we go by just what "RPG"s have historically been.

The point of the conversation is really dealing with RPG being a misnomer as you dont really play a role. Its been quite well sumamrized as a shooter with experience points.

IMO, the term CRPG is here to stay for exactly what it means now and will just remain a misnomer.

-Geoff

Shinkage actually makes a pretty good point, though I disagree with his assertion about *who* is misusing the term... ;-)

I know this thread didn't start as a comparison of RPGs and CRPGs, but I figure I'll continue the digression...

Though a CRPG may have most of the trappings of a "True" RPG, most players of dice-and-paper RPGs resent the CRPGs because they are experientially VERY different. Sure, when playing a CRPG you're "playing a role" and even "gaining experience" to "develop your character", maybe even "making your own decisions" as you progress through the game...but it doesn't "feel" like an RPG.

And it's this "feel" I think that is the distinction. In a dice-and-paper RPG, the player is usually part of a small group with a dynamic that has evolved over time. Plus they are following a storyline that they have helped shape. Sure, the GM might have laid out the basic plot, but the players generate the story, the excitement.

In a CRPG, however, none of this is present. The player is either the only character, or has to keep track of 4-6 "player characters" that he rolled up for the game. There is no group dynamic. He controls the entire party. While there may be several plotlines available, he can only choose among them, not mix-and-match or even improvise his own. He can't accidentally stumble into the climax of the adventure and win through luck, clever use of skills, and sheer chutzpah.

And when there *are* multiple players, then it's usually the opposite extreme: The player is simply one of the "herd" of Great Warriors, Powerful Mages, and Infamous Thieves. Now he has interaction with other players, though it's on a very superficial level, but he's lost any semblance of a plot or story.

So, while it maybe be possible for a CRPG to match the "dictionary definition" of a traditional RPG, will there *ever* be a CRPG that can supply the "feel" of a traditional RPG? I doubt it.

------------------
DavidRM
Samu Games
http://www.samugames.com

A shooter with experience and some interaction with non-player characters.

While we are seeking to define various abstract concepts such as a game, let us also
try define more specific concepts suchs as
games that fit in a specific class such as
CRPGs. I would suggest the following as
required for a game to call itself a CRPG:

1) The player must control at least one Alter Ego, Avatar, Character, etc.

2) The Character must advance in experience and aquire additional items or treasure.

3) There must be "Quests" to complete.

Any other ideas?

------------------
Glen Martin
Dynamic Adventures Inc.
http://www.dynamicadventures.com

Not to nitpick, but:

::ddnguyen wrote:::Perhaps the best way to define this genere::is to cite examples to which everyone can::agree is representivie of the group. Then::we can note similarites within them and::perhaps that will give us a good start: n a defintion. Here are my examples:[snip]::Zork[snip]:ghowland wrote::I dont remember anyone ever classifying:Zork as a CRPG, its always been an:adventure as long as I can remember it.

Which is what I was replying to.

--foo :P