What makes a CRPG good?

[Grue]

Today, to pass the time while commuting, I started thinking about Computer RPGs and what made them good or bad in my mind. Before I got very far, I realised that the term "RPG" is applied quite casually to games nowdays and not always in a way I would agree. If I would want to have a discussion about CRPGs, it would help if the term was more clearly defined somehow. I spent the rest of the ride home, trying to define what actually is a CRPG. I wanted to have a very short and bare bones description for the genre, to keep it as simple as possible. I could always add subgenres to further differentiate individual games. This is what I came up with:

"A Computer RPG is a game where you control a character or characters, that have values defining their in-game abilities (both innate and learned, usually called attributes and skills, respectively), which can be improved in the course of the game (by experience and/or training). Also, a CRPG has multiple different quests/missions for your character(s) to accomplish, that take place in a persistent game world, which you are (more or less) free to explore."

Now, I'm not overly satisifed with that definition, but it was the best one I could come up with, while still keeping it to two sentences only. Note that I do not mention character creation there. IMO, it is not absolutely required to have character creation in order for a game to be a CRPG. However, it must have defined values for your character(s) and have character improvement to be a CRPG. In other words, you may have a character and his/her starting abilities "imposed" upon you, but you must be free to advance him/her how ever you like (within reason) once the game starts.

I juggled for awhile with an idea of adding a sentence about the role of player vs character abilities, but decided against it. Instead, that became the major deciding factor in the subdivision of the CRPG genre. That being the division between "True" RPGs and "Action" RPGs. IMO, an Action RPG is any CRPG that places emphasis on the player's skills with the mouse (or whatnot) over the skills of the in-game character. In a True RPG, it should not matter one hoot how good my mouse arm or mouse-click timing is, when determining e.g. the results of a battle. Instead, the results should be determined by a ruleset, the character's abilities and (virtual) dice rolling - plus of course how well I lead and command the character(s) in battle. As an example, using these definitions, Oblivion is an Action RPG and NWN2 is a True RPG. (I know that the term "Action RPG" is applied a bit differently in the game media, but it was the best term I could come up with. I could have used "Action-Oriented" RPG, but that seemed too cumbersome. IMO, Diablo and its clones, what the game media calls Action RPGs, should be called something else altogether. Run and Kill RPGs, maybe? )

Heh, all this text and I still haven't even gotten to my topic. What makes a CRPG good? To be honest, I do like both subgenres, True RPGs and Action RPGs, so it's not the control-scheme that matters to me. Hmm, I guess two things that I really like in a CRPG are 1) non-linear gameplay that is open for exploration and 2) emphasis on the game's story and lore (i.e. the story of the game world itself). If the game succeeds in these, it usually is good in my book. Of course there are other things, like how easy the interface is (I hate clumsy UIs), how the game is balanced/designed and how well the game's story is actually told, but still if the game gives you freedom of exploration and a good story, I'm hooked. Naturally it also needs to have the qualifications that I gave for CRPGs above (and have them sensibly implemented). Note: Freedom of exploration doesn't mean a thing if there is nothing out there. Giving me miles of empty prairie isn't what I mean here. Exploration without content is wasted time.

[adamantyr]

An excellent definition of CRPG's. I would describe a CRPG as a "cerebral" form of game. It's how you think that determines your success, not what you do, per se.

The old CRPG's were notorious for being hard to understand and play. Partly because the 8/16-bit systems they ran on lacked memory for cohesive explanations, and it was considered part of the "game" to be confusing or esoteric. I think they were reading the 1st Edition AD&D hardcovers.

Fortunately, we've left those days behind, and now we can create CRPG's that are a lot more informative and interesting. But in the end, I think most CRPG fans still want that non-linear feel of having to figure things out for yourself, not have it told to you in a series of tip pop-ups or really obvious clues.

CRPG's really belong as a "niche" game, I think. The problem is, most gamers are like most people... they prefer mainstream entertainment, stuff that's easy to digest and understand.

The problem is, there is NO niche market in the professional gaming industry. The independent developers are the only source for niche game nowadays, because the gaming industry has become chained to the "big-hit cash cow" paradigm, and they're unlikely to get loose so long as companies like EA run the show.

Take Bioware's purchase by EA as a sign... don't expect good CRPG's from the mainstream industry. They'll let you down eventually.

Adamantyr

[Gothmog]

1. A good story!
2. Reward the player not only for killing something.
3. A turn-based battle-system
4. A good story!

and so on......


Diablo-Style Action RPGs are fun for 1 hour or so....

[Fleisch]

I can't play what you define as Action RPGs, so that division is important to me. And I agree with you that Diablo and its clones are a different sort of animal. And I would call them RPGs (many people wouldn't) but I agree that they are a different sort of RPG as well.

Many people argue that the ability to influence the game world, to have your decisions matter, is part of an RPG. I don't agree with this either, as there are plenty of RPGs I've enjoyed that either have a set story that cannot vary much (such as Betrayal at Krondor) or are essentially just dungeon crawls.

As for what makes them good, that's a good question. They have to be involving in some way, but the part that is involving can be different according to the type of RPG; it's just that they should have sufficient variety that they don't become monotonous, so you give up on them after a couple of days. Some can get by just on interesting loot accumulation (that's the essence of Diablo, really); others have interesting combat mechanics, or character interaction, or an involving story.

Notice that I didn't mention graphics, because that palls really quickly. That's not what keeps you playing a game, or remembering it later. As long as the graphics are sufficient (and Jagged Alliance and Wizardry 7 are good enough for me), I'm happy to play the game

[Nomander]

Greetings folks!

I have thought about the way RPG or rather CRPG has been thrown around over the recent years and maybe it is due to my being around since the conception of RPG's as it relates to both pen & paper as well as CRPG's that I hold this view (as well as my love for them), but to me the basic core aspect of what an RPG is has always been more of a factual existence rather than a perception of many players today.


If you look way back to the origins of D&D, you see that it was developed from a strategy board game called "Chain mail" which was adapted by Gygax and Arneson to form a more story based role within a very strategic or rather combat oriented game.


From there, many pen and paper games took on various directions. Most of the early games were very combat oriented though. Basically, by taking your game piece, giving it a development system and placing it within a story to which you could then make decisions based on those characteristics of your game piece (the role you played).


Over the years as the systems branched out, some did take on different directions such as more "story" oriented (Traveler in many ways, White Wolf games, and even early Warhammer) rather than strictly combat oriented. None the less, all of them seemed to focus on one thing, that is the character and its development. Maybe combat wasn't heavy or the systems so detailed that it required a panel of judges to arbitrate, but it did still have a character development system detailed in its own way which was constantly tested against the world and players choice of actions within it.


CRPG's emulated the early RPG's and so we saw the text based statistic representations of these games in many ways. Many of the early ones were strongly tactical combat situations meant to test the players management of the characters over time as well as within the moment.


As time went on, we saw more story develop within these games and additional statistical measures were added in more detail to allow the player to account for these various interactions. Yet at the same time, many of these "new" CRPG features were often only emulating the updated progression of their pen and paper brethren.


As this was going on, "genres" began to be defined. What is the difference between Zork and lets say early Wizardry? Both contain a story to some extent, both required puzzle solving and interaction, yet why would they call Zork an "adventure" game while Wizardry was being referred to as an RPG?


The devil was in the details. Wizardry provided detailed character development. It allowed the player to function in that story, but to do so with its main focus being on the progression and development of the characters within that story. Zork focused on the story and contained no development of the character to be required in the progression of the story. Each puzzle or obstacle didn't require the character to weight their own development, but rather relied upon the "player" to solve the riddle, the puzzle, and explore their way to resolution.


What about action games though and strategy games? Why are they different? Does not an RPG contain many of those elements as well? Action games as we know them from their early appearance were synonymous with "player reaction or skill". That is, the main focus of an action game was the dexterous play of their interaction within the game. For instance, Pong could be an early example of an action game. The player has an objective and then must use their own reactionary skill to win the game.


As for strategy, we look back to board games much like Chain mail or even Monopoly. They may have a story background to explain the pieces and the board, but the key is that the pieces often contain no development within themselves. They are what they are and they do what they do. All pieces of like name are usually the same and each are applied in focus of a pre-specified path of function.


Later we saw combination variations of these games. Real Time Strategy was a mix of the older strategy types mixed with "action" game elements. Adventure games also cropped up with "action" elements and some even went as far as to balance all of the genres into one game in various quantities. Diablo for instance was a mix match of action, adventure and some RPG elements to form its design.


So since you labored through all of my explanations, you are probably wondering what I would think an RPG is more exactly? Well, as I explained earlier, an RPG tends to be a game of developing a role within a story to which that player then uses that manged development to succeed in it.


You might be thinking, well isn't Diablo just that? Yes, and no. This is where subjective opinion begins to take shape. It is not that Diablo isn't an RPG, but rather it is not much of one. Its focus is so thin, that it pretty much has to stand on its own which leads to the numerous "hyphen" classifications.


An RPG must have a story (it doesn't even require one of depth which you might have noticed from the early RPG's), it must have conflict, more specifically conflict that can be measured against the "character", not the player. That is, the characters development is the most key aspect of the game. A conflict might test a player in the application of those developments (how to use spells to benefit them or apply various other developed skills to their strategic use), but it must above all else contain this element.


If a player is able to "action" their way through an obstacle (hitting keys in rapid succession or change an outcome that would not be possible through their characters makeup), then they are not playing in the spirit of an RPG. An RPG "is" the character. The entire game is centered around it. It is not in story, not in look, or attitude, but in the "makeup" and "development" of that character and how it can succeed in an environment.


So that is what I consider an RPG. While other games may come close to this representation and as I said, that is where "interpetation" starts to play a larger role as to "how much" is required to be an RPG, the key requirement is the development of the character.


For me personally, in order for it to be an RPG, it requires an attribute system that is fairly in depth and a skill system that is equally in depth. Those systems must be "required" to fulfill duties within the game and outcomes should be dependent on their levels of management. Consequences should exist within the choice of those development decisions and the way in which they are applied in any giving situation. In many respects, the numbers should decide. Place that within a story and you pretty much have an RPG. Will it be a good one? That all depends on "how" they are designed.

It is why I am somewhat saddened to see many developers these days looking at "turn based" as an outdated mechanism. Turn based in my opinion is the best way to apply character developed features that do not allow player influence to compensate for. A player other than applying thought in the use of their skills should never be allowed to "overpower" their development. The characters development and only the characters development should decided. That is what I have experienced to be at the heart of what an RPG is.


Sorry I went on so long, but I felt it necessary in order to properly explain my reasoning.

[Mr. Fed]

Here are the elements of my favorite crpgs:

1. They're hard. I don't like games where you climb levels and accumulate loot without real effort. I like them hard, approaching frustrating, so you feel real accomplishment. Examples: Might and Magic I (remember how hard it was to stay alive?), Nahlakh, Helherron.

2. They have rich strategic options in combat. Tom Proudfoot's games and Helherron are particularly good examples.

3. They have rich character development options. For all of their other good points, Ultimas are a low point on this. If I want to replay because I want to try out some other character build, that's great. I shouldn't be able to combine all the possibilities in one character. I shouldn't even be able to combine them all in one party.

4. Usually I prefer party-based over single-character-based.

5. I like non-linear exploration.

6. I like lots of places to visit and discover. I remember how excited I was playing early crpgs when I would reach a new town. Who would I meet? What new equipment might be available here?

[Spaceman Spiff]

Jay Branson has written a number of posts on this very topic at his blog, Tales of the Rampant Coyote ( See: http://www.rampantgames.com/blog/labels ... Games.html ) , and gotten some good discussion about it going in his forums.

(Since he is following the indie RPG scene closely and mentions Eschalon often, I thought it fair to link back to his site)