CRPG - Computer Role Playing Game
Computer - you are playing it on computer(even though there are RPGs on all platforms, even paper).
Role - YOU are not you. You are represented as a character in that game. The one that you wish or desire to be in your life. That is why there are different classes. I personally like assasin, stealth and ranged types and I dislike fighters. Your avatar is you in that world. His actions are those actions that you would do if you had the chance to be in that kind of situation. Focus about building your character? Well, that is basiclly the point. You want to evolve through gameply even though today''s RPG are making to big difference between skills you have at start of game(none) and end of game(semi-god). Because you are taking a role that means that your path somewhat predefined, that is you are the Chosen One(god I hate this two words). Your way is determined by some factors unknown to you in beginning. As someone stated in some other forum :
quoute:
In a fantasy setting it is quite easy to make up a story of an evil wizard destroying the world and then assemble a band of adventures to kill the evil wizard.
The crucial word is "limits". How can you limit your world, your actions and story.
Playing - Basiclly this means that game has to have three elements :
- start - You find out who you are(or don''t, yeah, how original, another amnesia), and get your first quest.
- game itself - there is generic plot which you MUST follow in order to see the main story(oh, yeah, like there is another one). Non-linearity will not exist while there is one main story. You are moving through game so that you may unlock the greatest miracles of them all : End Animation & Credits.
- end - Logical? conclusion to your /desired/ movement through events in game.
Game - Nothing to say here.
Todays RPGs are nothing then a linked list of slaughters backed up with a story that explains why you killed them all and a Character Development Screen where you actually see that killing them has done some good to you.
Some other notes:
Emotional binding - Where has that thing gone? In FF7(one of the best games) you were strongly connected to the emotional side of your game. At least I perceived it in that way.
In Fallout2 I was really pulled in by the game. Your character(responses + dialogues) had sarcastic look on the world around him that in fact did look like that. Today''s games don''t give you porpouse, they give you gametime instead. You have to win the game for what? Ending Animations? Death of Evil Wizzard? Final Love? You are given rules, your exact role(even this is the sole porpuse of RPG''s) and world which you must travel across to follow some story which is ot only seen, but predictable, and that is the worst thing that can happen to your game experience.
Experience - This should be reduced to smaller level of affecting gameplay. It is just stupid that I need to kill five goblins so I can move up a level, get a weapon star that I will put on two-handed sword in order to improve my skills with that sword although I have never seen that kind of sword in my life(game).
Quests - What is definition of a quest. I mean, is there a cure to "Get me a golden carrot so you can feed golden bunny to get golden key which opens golden door where you will instantly gather 500 EXP and find super-cool-bow." I mean that you should think twice before you put that thing on your mind on paper or in editor or whatever.
Main plot - "Oh know. Cliche again!!! Stop." Huh. Since when cliches are bad. Since when some idea is bad. Because it has been used. Wrong. In RPG emphasis is not around the story but on the integration of world-story-feel-actions. Story is set in a world where you are takeing some actions and you must have a unique feel of that world. When you clcik quit in your favorite game and you head out someplace out of your house(somewhere in world), if you are feeling that you are missing something from that game, then that game has good atmosphere. Your game is connection of all the details you can find, yet there is so much room to fail.
Misconceptions of traditional RPGs :
- character classes - "I am a Crusader." While you may think that I am good person, who can prevent me from bringing chaos and ultimate destruction in game. Classes should be removed from plain choosing and instead they should be your description throughout the game.
- traditional bad event - Why save the world? I dislike it and I wish to join the dark side and help destroying this world. Who knows...?
- ending - Ending should not be when final script is executed. "I killed the Saphureonthgs!!! Yeah! The world is saved!!!" Ending should be when player feels satisfied. Some may be satisifed by killing the min boss. But who knows. Maybe it was his double...
- evil wizard - Why not you become the Evil Wizard at some point in the game? Just a thought...
- building up - The thing with modern RPG''s that you do a lot of management. 1000 of items out there with such small inventory, so many skills, and yet so little exp levels. Focus shouldn''t be too much on gathering.
This went too much into RPGs. Hope you didn''t went to sleep out there.
Clean slate
Syphoon, that''s an awesome game idea, definitely one I would play. If anyone ever does it, remember to add an excellent multiplayer component, else you will not sell. Of second-most importance would be new episodes.
quote:Original post by superpig
I agree that life, in general, is boring. But aren''t games, movies, books, and all the rest, meant to be a form of escapism? People don''t want realism in games, they want entertainment. If your game will be made more fun by the addition of a bouncing cow with no legs, the fact that such a thing could never realistically exist shouldn''t hold you back.
You seem to be forgetting about the Simulationists. I love realism, though consistency is what''s necessary. Here''s a question to ponder, when you played ''pretend'', how and what did you play? You never ran out of ammo? You never had to change tactics against imaginary enemies? You never let yourself be ambushed? Me and an old friend of mine would sneak around with toy guns, trying to guess each others'' moves and catch one another off-guard. When one of us found the other, we yelled ''bang'' and said ''I got you''. I was escaping, I was playing a game, yet it was me who was running around. I had to listen and watch and wait. I got one glance of the boss from SmashTV and so I would use a similar looking guy as the ultimate bad guy. I usually fought him for days just to destroy a single form(just like in video games and movies, you had to kill him a bunch of times to make it stick, and then of course I started over with his army restocked and him in his first form).
Superpig, Why isn''t rearranging your inventory fascinating? What do you find fun? Perhaps you think preparation in general is boring? I actually do like going over my inventory, in every genre. By preparing I am making my position stronger, I am playing an active but perhaps not direct role in the story yet the story is advancing. The story will be different if I do not do these ''boring'' things.
I think what you experience are barriers, not boredom.
RolandofGilead: I think what he meant by going over his inventory is arranging every single item to get that extra ''inventory square'' free to hold a new item, not the act of adding and removing things to the inventory. If thats not what he meant, well thats the kind of thing I would mean - I don''t mind having to buy a potion, but I don''t want to have to spend 15 minutes arranging things perfectly to get that one potion to fit. Some games have auto-arrange to avoid that, but I''ve never seen it work perfectly yet. In the few games where it works at all, it usually gives you a long horizontal or vertical line of empty squares when you want a 2x3 rectangle or something like that.
Why not just have a list of items in your inventory, with each taking up X ''space points''. A backpack, bag, cart, etc give you a greater number of ''space points'' to store items. That way you still have limited space but you never have to worry about wasting time arranging items the perfect way (but can still chang the order they are listed in for easier access, etc).
Also, simulationists, gamist, and narritivists don''t fit all gamers. I don''t play to win, I don''t care about realistm, and I don''t care about story - I play to have fun.
Why not just have a list of items in your inventory, with each taking up X ''space points''. A backpack, bag, cart, etc give you a greater number of ''space points'' to store items. That way you still have limited space but you never have to worry about wasting time arranging items the perfect way (but can still chang the order they are listed in for easier access, etc).
Also, simulationists, gamist, and narritivists don''t fit all gamers. I don''t play to win, I don''t care about realistm, and I don''t care about story - I play to have fun.
quote:Original post by RolandofGilead
Syphoon, that''s an awesome game idea, definitely one I would play. If anyone ever does it, remember to add an excellent multiplayer component, else you will not sell. Of second-most importance would be new episodes.
What, the chaotic approach or the episodic game?
Wow. Between you and Warsong, Bishop, I think everyone who reads this board has been insulted, derided, or discouraged at least once in the last few days.
With regard to "a different way to vicariously experience a world populated by characters of the designers'' imagination as well as the avatar of the player," I think it''s important to remember that there might be other classes of in-game characters than just pre-set NPC''s and the player character. I would very much like to see a new incarnation of the game style seen in Wonder Project J for the SNES (Super Famicom, really).
It featured an indirect interface between the player and the main character. The player controlled a small flying critter that functioned as a cursor more than anything else, and could move objects around the screen and in and out of the inventory, and could communicate with a very limited vocabulary to the actual protagonist, who was an android. You introduced him to new items and used a simple schedule of reinforcement to condition appropriate responses, and then sent him on missions unaided. You teach him to be nice to animals, turn soil with a hoe, and plant seeds, then send him to work on a farm. Sometimes he kicks the dog, or eats the seeds, or smashes the hoe, and you have to teach him not to do those things. It''s fun.
I would like to see a control scheme like that in a world reminiscent of Majesty. Essentially automatic characters inhabited a fairly standard Tolkienized world and the player was the ruler of the town. Building projects were scheduled, and workers would show up more or less at their leasure and comfort to do the work, and if you wanted heroes to go out and fight a particular monster, instead of just wandering and gaining levels, you set bounties on them. All individual acts and decisions were resolved by the AI. Later you got some magic, which let you take a more active role, but it was limited.
If a player could function as a sort of coach or daimon, invisibly influencing the actions of an A.I. adventurer, I think that role-playing would be absolutely necessary, and the world would become more immersive and entertaining. Turn it into an MMORPG, and all the guys that want true role-playing would have it. Communication would take a little doing, but I bet it could work.
So that''s my idea. Lock the player into the character''s mind, and don''t let him control the character''s actions. Anyone see "Always"? The Richard Dreyfuss character could instigate actions through suggestion, but he himself was powerless to interact with the world. That''s sort of what I''m looking for.
With regard to "a different way to vicariously experience a world populated by characters of the designers'' imagination as well as the avatar of the player," I think it''s important to remember that there might be other classes of in-game characters than just pre-set NPC''s and the player character. I would very much like to see a new incarnation of the game style seen in Wonder Project J for the SNES (Super Famicom, really).
It featured an indirect interface between the player and the main character. The player controlled a small flying critter that functioned as a cursor more than anything else, and could move objects around the screen and in and out of the inventory, and could communicate with a very limited vocabulary to the actual protagonist, who was an android. You introduced him to new items and used a simple schedule of reinforcement to condition appropriate responses, and then sent him on missions unaided. You teach him to be nice to animals, turn soil with a hoe, and plant seeds, then send him to work on a farm. Sometimes he kicks the dog, or eats the seeds, or smashes the hoe, and you have to teach him not to do those things. It''s fun.
I would like to see a control scheme like that in a world reminiscent of Majesty. Essentially automatic characters inhabited a fairly standard Tolkienized world and the player was the ruler of the town. Building projects were scheduled, and workers would show up more or less at their leasure and comfort to do the work, and if you wanted heroes to go out and fight a particular monster, instead of just wandering and gaining levels, you set bounties on them. All individual acts and decisions were resolved by the AI. Later you got some magic, which let you take a more active role, but it was limited.
If a player could function as a sort of coach or daimon, invisibly influencing the actions of an A.I. adventurer, I think that role-playing would be absolutely necessary, and the world would become more immersive and entertaining. Turn it into an MMORPG, and all the guys that want true role-playing would have it. Communication would take a little doing, but I bet it could work.
So that''s my idea. Lock the player into the character''s mind, and don''t let him control the character''s actions. Anyone see "Always"? The Richard Dreyfuss character could instigate actions through suggestion, but he himself was powerless to interact with the world. That''s sort of what I''m looking for.
quote:Original post by Extrarius
Also, simulationists, gamist, and narritivists don''t fit all gamers. I don''t play to win, I don''t care about realistm, and I don''t care about story - I play to have fun.
They get those titles based on what is fun to them. The article that explains the types is at gamasutra.
quote:Original post by RolandofGileadquote:Original post by superpig
I agree that life, in general, is boring. But aren''t games, movies, books, and all the rest, meant to be a form of escapism? People don''t want realism in games, they want entertainment. If your game will be made more fun by the addition of a bouncing cow with no legs, the fact that such a thing could never realistically exist shouldn''t hold you back.
You seem to be forgetting about the Simulationists. I love realism, though consistency is what''s necessary.
Oh, but even the Simulationists are after escapism; I don''t know any airline pilots who go home and unwind by playing Flight Simulator, so to speak. For them, the enjoyment comes from the realism *itself* - they''re after the ''experience'' of flying a plane, rather than a game per se. I guess it boils down to a question of whether you can correctly assess your audience''s priority; if you''re designing a flight simulator, sure, your audience is going to want it to be as realistic as possible; but if your audience isn''t going to consider realism a top priority, it shouldn''t be yours either.
It reminds me of a fictional game from Terry Pratchett''s Only You Can Save Mankind (a book all game developers should probably read, btw). In it, one of the characters (Wobbler) once saw a documentary that said it would take 50,000 years to reach Alpha Centauri. So, he wrote a game which displays a starfield. If you leave it running for 50,000 years, you get a dot in the middle of the screen, and the message ''Welcome to Alpha Centauri. Now go home.'' The ultimate in simulation, hmm?
quote:Here''s a question to ponder, when you played ''pretend'', how and what did you play? You never ran out of ammo? You never had to change tactics against imaginary enemies? You never let yourself be ambushed? Me and an old friend of mine would sneak around with toy guns, trying to guess each others'' moves and catch one another off-guard. When one of us found the other, we yelled ''bang'' and said ''I got you''. I was escaping, I was playing a game, yet it was me who was running around. I had to listen and watch and wait. I got one glance of the boss from SmashTV and so I would use a similar looking guy as the ultimate bad guy. I usually fought him for days just to destroy a single form (just like in video games and movies, you had to kill him a bunch of times to make it stick, and then of course I started over with his army restocked and him in his first form).
Intriguing. That certainly says something about the priorities of young audiences; kids aren''t interested in realistic games as much as they are in fun games? I can''t say I really remember how I played ''pretend'' as a kid, so I''ll have to go with your experiences.
quote:Superpig, Why isn''t rearranging your inventory fascinating? What do you find fun? Perhaps you think preparation in general is boring? I actually do like going over my inventory, in every genre. By preparing I am making my position stronger, I am playing an active but perhaps not direct role in the story yet the story is advancing. The story will be different if I do not do these ''boring'' things.I didn''t mean I thought the act of equipping your characters with the best combination of items, shopping for the most sensible preperations, etc, was a waste of time - quite the opposite (I''ve got a couple of designs in my portfolio which contain elements that actively encourage the player to obtain equipment beforehand).
What I don''t like is the tedious way in which much of it is done. After a large fight in Baldur''s Gate II, I pick up a bunch of stuff with my main person (as is the way it goes). I go to his inventory screen, and move the mouse over each individual item to check the stats, and to see how they compare to his current weapons. I then take every item that I''ve not used and pass it to the next character in my party, and repeat (sending some items back up the chain) until the group is equipped in an optimum manner. I''m in the middle of the dungeon, and I''ve taken 5 minutes for my people to swap swords with each other.
How could that be improved?
Well, firstly, an AI could come into play which would automatically pick up ''good'' items if your party member is standing near it and he has enough room. I could simply walk my party through the carnage, and they will have ignored all the useless goblin jewelry and leather trousers that are invariably left behind.
Secondly, it should eliminate technical inefficiency. If I have a +4 sword equipped and a +5 sword in my inventory with no other differences, it should be a no-brainer - unequip the +4 sword and use the +5 one. At the same time, I don''t like the game forcing me to do things, but how about this: I move my mouse over the +4 sword in its ''equipped'' slot, and a flashing border is drawn around the possible better replacements (as I might have a +5 sword *and* a +5 club, which are both better than the +4 sword but each have their own pros and cons relative to each other). If there''s only one sensible replacement, then I should be able to right-click on the +4 sword and have it automatically replaced with the +5 sword. Much faster - I can just move the mouse over my character to see if he''s at optimum configuration.
The next quibble is more something which is specific to Baldur''s Gate itself, I feel (I''m not really an RPG player). When I move equipment from character to character, I can''t tell if that equipment is usable until I''ve switched to the new character''s screen to take a look. Why not turn that character''s icon red if they won''t be able to use it? Sure, I can still give it to them - maybe I need to lighten one character''s pack - but if I can just grab a newly-found quarterstaff and instantly see which characters could use it, it''d be much better.
quote:I think what you experience are barriers, not boredom.
One does not exclude the other. Games have flaws that often lead to repetetive gameplay; and repetetive gameplay leads to boredom. Particularly when it''s not part of the core game - I want to be adventuring, rescuing damsels, killing monsters, and saving the world, not rearranging my backpack.
Superpig
- saving pigs from untimely fates, and when he''s not doing that, runs The Binary Refinery.
Enginuity1 | Enginuity2 | Enginuity3 | Enginuity4
ry. .ibu cy. .abu ry. dy. "sy. .ubu py. .ebu ry. py. .ibu gy." fy. .ibu ny. .ebu
My first instinct when it comes to reworking the concept of a game genre would be to get down to the basics, with the concepts of perspectives and control.
In a general sense, I can think of only two methods of control: Characters = empty shells that instantenously follow your desired actions, or characters = distinct entities you have to manipulate directly or indirectly, with more general commands or puzzle-like methods of getting them to perform actions. (Remember Pac-Man 2 for the 16-bit systems?)
In a sense, almost all games with more than one character in them use both methods of control. If you have any enemies, for example, you can learn their patterns, so you control them by moving around your own character to make them respond in a way that will help you kill them.
Of course, if the enemies are static and move along fixed patterns regardless of what the character you directly control does, then they are more like another form of obstacle; but I''m digressing here.
What if we took these two concepts of control and used them in a non-traditional manner? Why not a game where you have alternating episodes, one as the evil main character, and one as the good main character, and let the actions of the character you control in one episode affect the status of the other character in the next? This could be overlayed on top of a timed-world system so that, for example, if the player goes through one episode quickly, he can take advantage of events as the other character in the next episode. This would require the rejection of the typical story line where the evil side starts out all-powerful and the good side must catch up and conquer, but I don''t really think that those kinds of storylines were ever the reason any game was successful.
The ending of such a game could be resolved in two ways: neither side wins(due to some other event), or the player chooses a side and begins the final battle/episode.
This would also satisfy the need for real role-playing, because the player role-plays with himself as the other character, and so the need for some kind of dynamism in the world is satisfied practically by default.
In a general sense, I can think of only two methods of control: Characters = empty shells that instantenously follow your desired actions, or characters = distinct entities you have to manipulate directly or indirectly, with more general commands or puzzle-like methods of getting them to perform actions. (Remember Pac-Man 2 for the 16-bit systems?)
In a sense, almost all games with more than one character in them use both methods of control. If you have any enemies, for example, you can learn their patterns, so you control them by moving around your own character to make them respond in a way that will help you kill them.
Of course, if the enemies are static and move along fixed patterns regardless of what the character you directly control does, then they are more like another form of obstacle; but I''m digressing here.
What if we took these two concepts of control and used them in a non-traditional manner? Why not a game where you have alternating episodes, one as the evil main character, and one as the good main character, and let the actions of the character you control in one episode affect the status of the other character in the next? This could be overlayed on top of a timed-world system so that, for example, if the player goes through one episode quickly, he can take advantage of events as the other character in the next episode. This would require the rejection of the typical story line where the evil side starts out all-powerful and the good side must catch up and conquer, but I don''t really think that those kinds of storylines were ever the reason any game was successful.
The ending of such a game could be resolved in two ways: neither side wins(due to some other event), or the player chooses a side and begins the final battle/episode.
This would also satisfy the need for real role-playing, because the player role-plays with himself as the other character, and so the need for some kind of dynamism in the world is satisfied practically by default.
quote:Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
Wow. Between you and Warsong, Bishop, I think everyone who reads this board has been insulted, derided, or discouraged at least once in the last few days...
i''m surprised he hasn''t chimed in yet...
but i''m still mulling over the question/topic at hand.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
