Where are RPGs going, and how do you feel about it?

[abbaon]

Continuing a discussion from another thread. What broad trends do you see the genre following? I see, and foresee, pretty much every entry in the field placing greater emphasis on these three areas:

Accessibility: Simpler interfaces, stats, controls, conversations, and everything else. Every possible barrier to entry lowered or removed. Why risk a multi-million dollar development budget on a trifle like endless dialogue options?

Player skill: Player action replacing chance in a game's task resolution systems. Stats determine the abilities your character possesses and their effectiveness, but the probability of success depends on you. Turn based is dead, and the to-hit roll is on its last legs.

Simulation: That "living, breathing world". In this area, we've made very little progress -- considerable regress, actually -- since Ultima 7. It's a tough problem: getting cool moments to arise out of the interactions of your simulation requires far greater engineering effort than setting them up in scripting. But I still hold out hope for it, because everyone talks up this aspect of their games. They all go on about their "living, breathing world". Clearly the idea has captured people's imaginations, and it may just take another decade or two before someone can realise it.

And yes, Oblivion exemplifies all three trends. I think that's super, although my ideal RPG is Dhruin's Microsoft Fantasy Simulator. I don't expect many people will agree with me. So: what's the future of the RPG?

[Maylander]

You summed it up rather nicely, although it's not something I like. I like challenge, heavy dialogues, solid plots, consequenses, and so on. I also like exploration, where I believe new games will shine, but it has to be unforgiving exploration - walking into some old ruins, not knowing whether I'll die the next second or not, keeps me on my toes and makes it exciting.

[Corwin]

I don't think TB is dead, and any game which relies on player skill more than character skill, is not really an RPG; just ask Roqua!!!! :)

[abbaon]

I'd be really grateful to everyone here if we could keep the "That's not an RPG!" out of this thread for as long as possible. The subject is the future of RPGs, not their definition. Thanks.

[Corwin]

The problem, however, is that you're using YOUR definition of an RPG to discuss its future!! If it is going to rely on player skill primarily in the future, then we have a problem based on definition. The rpg has no future, since what you describe is not really an rpg!! See the problem?

[abbaon]

There's no problem. Feel free to use your own definition of the term when replying, so that you can contribute usefully to the thread. Just don't argue with anyone else's definition. We've done that.

[Jaz]

While I think that no computer or video RPG deserves to be called RPG because it's not how I define RPGs :p, I'll talk about how I see the future of CRPGs, and how I feel about it.

Since publishers discovered that producing MMORPGs is paying better than single player games (must be the case, right?), single player CRPGs are going in the same direction of other games: more eye candy, less game time, less puzzles, more famous voice actors, less turn-based combat, less party-based games. In the end, they'll blend in perfectly with many other types of games, the ultimate hybrid entertainment.

While I'm not averse to eye candy, I can have less if the graphics are charming and represent the game's atmosphere well. Having less game time is a) sad because I'm always sad when a game I liked comes to an end, and b) great because I have 'a life' and very little time to play games nowadays, so I'm glad when a game is over and I can get back to my family.
I'm not too fond of the 'less puzzles' feature, but I discovered a method to sate the desire by playing more adventure games.
While I like decent voice actors, they needn't have a big name. That money might be spent on game content instead, at least IMO.
If I want TBC, I play a TBS game. I can't stand turn-based in a CRPG unless it's a) Japanese or b) blessed with other great features (which is rarely the case, at least for me).
I don't want a party in a CRPG, unless it's a) Japanese, or these AI morons add significantly to a story, or better yet, the game's atmosphere. This they rarely do. As I tend to play to get away from it all for a few minutes, I don't need surrogate others to hamper my progress and spoil my experience. If I could recruit the people I wanted, fine, but unfortunately you are stuck with strange bedfelllows most of the time.
Well, if they WERE bedfellows, but... well... most of the time they are bystanders.

My opinion in short: while the 'Western Tradition' of CRPGs will morph into CRPG/ adventure/ shooter hybrids before long, the 'old style' CRPG will live on in JRPGs (stat crunching/party based/Turn-based combat). The other, bigger branch of games will be the MMORPGs, because there's a mass market for those.

How do I feel about it? Indifferent. I know I'll always find a game to entertain me. A certain label isn't necessary.

[txa1265]

My opinion in short: while the 'Western Tradition' of CRPGs will morph into CRPG/ adventure/ shooter hybrids before long, the 'old style' CRPG will live on in JRPGs (stat crunching/party based/Turn-based combat). The other, bigger branch of games will be the MMORPGs, because there's a mass market for those.

But look at Final Fantasy - FF XII was 'real time', FF VII: Dirge of Cerebrus was almost a shooter, and the upcoming PSP FF VII: Crisis Core is also an action combat game ...

I don't think that diversification of the genre is bad, and since I have 'm4d sk1llz' I'm OK with action / shooter oriented RPG's. But I like puzzles, huge dialog trees, turn-based combat, and so on as well.

[Jaz]

Okay, then the trend seems to be universal, and JRPGs will go the same way.
The skills aren't a problem for me, either... due to lack of time and thus, training, my leet skillz may have degraded, but a single player game will hopefully not pose a problem for me. Personally, I loathe CRPGs where I have to plan a round of combat for 30 minutes and then let the AI slug it out while I can make a pot of tea or watch TV until they're done. If I want that, I play Rogue Spear.
Don't get me wrong, I like diversification, too... or rather, I like so many different game genres and types of games within certain genres that change doesn't frighten me. Games have always changed, evolved, grown, and they will continue to do so.

[Squeek]

I think abbaon's post was very good, even though I don't see it quite the same way. Here's my take on it.

The trend toward accessibility is definitely there, and that's too bad. Gimme lots to consider and tinker around with, and I'm happy.

While I see the point about player skill (who can't?), I also think player skill adds value despite that negative. We're really talking about player competence with a mouse. But the game needs to be balanced properly, or players won't even bother to become competent. Gothic is a great example of that. More recently, The Bard's Tale proved it again. I would go so far as to suggest that Oblivion would be a far-better game if its combat were more challenging (and players were forced to become more skilled at it).

Simulation is both good and bad. Without a doubt its the coolest yet most-difficult part of role-play gaming, no matter how it's done. Back in the day, the Dungeon Master controlled the quality of simulation (and good DMs were beloved for it). With computers there's the temptation to commit too much of the processing to creating cool graphics and sound (IMO, Daggerfall represented the exact opposite of that trend--limited graphics but elaborate detail and vast amounts of calculations being made by the CPU behind the scenes--and that's why it stands as one of the greatest CRPGs of all time).

The future of CRPG depends on the business judgement of future game makers. Right now, and in the recent past, they're in the habit of choosing the least amount of risk, favoring cool graphics and sound. The only way that will change is if those folks decide to stick their necks out a little further by trying to make interesting, fun games again (but that means less emphasis on cool new graphics).

[Maylander]

Your point about combat and player skill is very good Squeek. Having all-stat based combat isn't the way to go, a certain amount of skill should be required as well, just like your example Gothic, where your stats, weapons and armor certainly matter, but skill matters as much or even more.

As for the future of RPG combat? Well, the classic hack'n slash games will keep on coming, obviously, but this is far from a new trend. I really don't think we'll see a whole lot of changes to be honest - sure, we'll get combat that looks better, and runs smoother, but the essence will be the same: Some games are hack'n slash, some are more strategical, and some will require skills above stats.

[txa1265]

Here is a quote from another forum on turn-based versus real-time:
Character skill versus player skill, yeah, that's a real faultline in debates like this. I've always seen that as an excuse. A way to buy time.

Strategy is what you do before a battle starts, nobody conducts strategy during a battle. That's where instinct, experience, tactics, and the planned portions of strategy (if possible) are executed. I always made my players make snap decisions in my games during combat (or the monster would get a free strike).

I never really thought about how taking your time and thinking it over could be a reflection of "your characters" experience and skill... or is it really just a slowed down version of player skill in play? Compensation for non-instinctual players?

Oops ... forgot to mention that I think that is one of the more idiotic posts from an otherwise respected person in the industry I have ever read. If I didn't know better I'd assume it came from a 13-year old troll.

[MasterLich]

Just commenting on 3 things, going to sleep because of work tomorrow morning. Please note that this is not a hostile post:


The trend toward accessibility is definitely there, and that's too bad.

Look at WinVista and see that it's a very common and a very global trend soon. BTW, German ComputerBild tested Vista with a hundred (less than 5 year-old-games, I imagine), and were able to run 37 games without a significant change for the worse in anything, including performance. That's called Accessibility 2007 (M$TM). By the way, did I tell you that you'll be playing old "gems" in a Windows XP emulator in 5 years?

While I see the point about player skill (who can't?), I also think player skill adds value despite that negative.

Even the game-whose-name-shouldn't-be-mentioned thing was a clickfeast to play for me. And I'm not a young guy, so this player-skill thing flatters me. But the real player skill should relate to the game itself, not to smash-the-flies games.

The future of CRPG depends on the business judgement of future game makers.

NOW THIS is a sentence that nobody can prove wrong, unless somebody just makes an indie super CRPG from nothing...

[MasterLich]

I don't expect many people will agree with me.

Your original post was good, I expect that several people will agree with you here, including me, but it doesn't exactly equal to destroying the forces that affect the market outside RPGWatch. At least you put your thoughts on a forum in a structured, constructive manner, which is a good thing.

[Corwin]

There will always be several 'groups' of gamers; from niche to casual. Market forces almost dictate that a game FIRST appeals to the casual gamer, rather than the hardcore niche market!! Sad, but true. Gone are the days when we were the group that the devs catered to, but it was a different world back then. Perhaps that's why I still enjoy replaying old games, sometimes more than the new ones!!

[Squeek]

Your point about combat and player skill is very good Squeek. Having all-stat based combat isn't the way to go, a certain amount of skill should be required as well, just like your example Gothic, where your stats, weapons and armor certainly matter, but skill matters as much or even more.

I happen to think that stats, weapons and armor meant a great deal in Gothic, and that's why I chose it as an example. The player's mouse-using skill factored into the game to some extent, of course, but it was really just a matter of becoming competent.

I would suggest that if you were, somehow, able to measure the "mouse-using skills" of every seasoned Gothic player and compared them, you wouldn't see much difference at all. There's only so much you can do with with a mouse, after all, and every player was forced to learn how to fight. Otherwise, you couldn't play the game! That may have been Piranha Bytes' single-best design decision.

It's a balance issue. Piranha Bytes designed Gothic so that the player had to become skilled at combat, meaning the player had to reach a certain high level of competency. They balanced against that. In other words, the character's fighting skill wasn't all over the map, according to the player's skill, because the player's skill was predictable. It was a requirement.

A previous poster made a great point when he suggested that RPG players tend to try their best. That's true. From the moment they begin "rolling up" their character to the moment they retire or go down fighting, they try their best at every opportunity. And what's wrong with that? It's a game! That's how games are played. Of course, everyone tries their best.

The benefits to non-stop action and real-time combat are well worth it even if there are still some small variations in players' abilities, using a mouse. But only if the game is designed and balanced well.

[Maylander]

Not entirely true, the most skilled Gothic players can complete almost the entire game, up to most of the temple of the sleeper (and only can't complete the rest because the rest is simply locked at that point), already in chapter 1 with the most basic armor and weapons. Back at the old RPGDot forums, quite a few of us tried the infamous "Pickaxe Game", where you use nothing but a pickaxe untill you have to defeat the special apacolyptic templars with Uriziel.

This is one of the reasons why I like Gothics combat system. In Oblivion, you meet the roof fairly fast - a point where there really is no need, or possibility, of becoming better. In Gothic there is also such a point, as there is in most games, but it takes longer to reach.

Also, a little note, Gothic (1 that is) can only be played using a keyboard, so mouse-using skills doesn't really have anything to do with it.

[magerette]

Where are RPG's going--going the way of all flesh, I think. Already the term is almost meaningless, because as we know only too tediously well, it has a staggering multiplicity of meanings adding up to a cipher. But I think abbaon has hit the three main trends--easier, (accessability,) twitchier(eye-hand coordination and player skill) and shinier(the living breathing dollar generating world.) And as Jaz mentioned, shorter.

How do I feel about it? While I have nostalgia for the bygone days and ways, nothing stays the same. I think we'll see the same ratio of a few good games to a seething mass of crappy ones, with the occasional perfect masterpiece surfacing occasionally And it's always possible that technological advances may stimulate rpg development in ways that we can't even picture now. So on the whole, I feel hopeful in a reserved and paranoid kind of way.:)

[Zaleukos]

There will always be several 'groups' of gamers; from niche to casual. Market forces almost dictate that a game FIRST appeals to the casual gamer, rather than the hardcore niche market!! Sad, but true. Gone are the days when we were the group that the devs catered to, but it was a different world back then. Perhaps that's why I still enjoy replaying old games, sometimes more than the new ones!!

In a way I'd say there still is room for niche developers, just as there is room for both the Economist and News of the World in the UK. The total size of the market is way larger now, and a "niche" can still have enough fans to be worth dev time, even if the budget is lower than that of a WoW or a an Oblivion. Internet also makes the marketing and distribution of niche products much easier. My favourite niche developer Paradox Interactive is a good example of how this could work. Their games are hardly attractive for the main stream but they still get by just fine since they found "their thing" and make unique products.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Definitively towards action, action and even more action ! And I definitively feel sick about it !

[Alrik Fassbauer]

If I didn't know better I'd assume it came from a 13-year old troll.

Had the same impression. Definitively.

[dteowner]

It would be interesting to check demographics against opinions.

I've got 3 young girls and a bored wife. Immersion in a game is pretty well nonexistent in my house. Since immersion is supposed to be one of the big selling points of nu-CRPG, I gain no benefit. 99% of the time, my gaming is done after the Wild Dogs go to bed, when I'm good-n-tired and not terribly active. Since engrossing, blood-pumping action is supposed to be one of the big selling points of nu-CRPG button mashers, I actually lose ground. Since all my money goes to feeding the Wild Dogs, my rig (and graphics card) is 4 years old. Yep, another nu-CRPG selling point right down the toilet...

[magerette]

"It would be interesting to check demographics against opinions"

Yes, it's kind of like all the console hype--'consoles are the future'--like everyone in the gaming world is able and willing to buy each latest installment of each platform as it comes out--or like there aren't just as many or more households with PC's.

Not bashing consoles in any way--gaming is gaming to me. Just that we've had years of the 'pc gaming is dying' stuff and all kinds of attempts to manipulate people into buying into new and advanced tech so that, primarily, other people can make money.

End result--games are still buggy, people who can still buy them, and many people continue to play on older systems and can't profit from any of them. Especially if you think in terms of the world market. All the shiny immersion and easy GUI's in the world won't make a game play on an under-spec system.

That's where the indies come in, I think. If there's going to be 'traditional' rpgs as we think of them, that's probably where they will be.

[Ionstormsucks]

It's time for a Knightrider RPG... and I feel good about it.

[Squeek]

Also, a little note, Gothic (1 that is) can only be played using a keyboard, so mouse-using skills doesn't really have anything to do with it.
I'm afraid you're mistaken, Maylander. I always used the mouse to maneuver around in Gothic. In fact, it was the first game I ever played where the mouse was used that way (Of course, it's used in combination with the keyboard). You can remap functions to the mouse buttons too. It never occur to me that some players only used the keyboard, though. Well, keyboard or mouse, the point's still the same.

[Maylander]

That is in Gothic 2. In Gothic 1, there is no way to avoid keyboard combat, as mousebuttons can't be asigned to any actions. You can still use the mouse as camera, but that's about it.

[Fenris]

RPGs will be EXTREME in the future :)

http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=141

btw, it's a fake Interview - at least I hope that it is ^^.

[xSamhainx]

It's time for a Knightrider RPG... and I feel good about it.

I second that emotion!

As far as where RPGs are going, and all that, I will quote REM along those similar lines - It's the end of the (rpg) world as we know it, and I feel fine!

Things change as time progresses. We arent the same people we were ten years ago. Not only electronics and such change with the advancement of tech, everything, even music genres change. Jazz today is different from 40's jazz. Metal today is different from 80's metal. Movies today are different from 80's movies. RPGs will be more streamlined, more mass-market appealing, quicker to pick up and play, better looking. Just like everything else, for better or worse, it's what the world calls progress.

I feel the same as Jaz when everything said and done, I aint sweatin it. There's so many rpg games that I havent played, and there's bound to be some good ones coming out, even if sporadically.

[Maylander]

Now I'm going to have REM on my mind for the rest of the week. :p

[Squeek]

That is in Gothic 2. In Gothic 1, there is no way to avoid keyboard combat, as mousebuttons can't be asigned to any actions. You can still use the mouse as camera, but that's about it.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Yeah, you can use the keyboard combinations if you want. But if you never tried using the mouse to maneuver around and fight (in combination with the keyboard, of course), you missed out.

EDIT: I was wrong about remapping keys to the mouse. You can only use the standard mouse functions. But they don't need to be remapped, anyway. You just hold down the left mouse button and press forward to attack.

[Corwin]

There will always be niche developers, and I try to support them as much as possible, but mainstream is heading far away from where I'd like it to be!! I'm SO Old Skule!! :)

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Well, I've recently retro gaming magazines (two of them) in a big newspaper-and-magazines shop. I think I'll buy them.

I suddenly feel old.

[txa1265]

There will always be niche developers, and I try to support them as much as possible, but mainstream is heading far away from where I'd like it to be!! I'm SO Old Skule!! :)

It is interesting, but your comment makes me think of several PSP vs. DS debates I've been involved with recently. There are a large number of people who fundamentally believe that the same game given better graphics, even at the price of long load times and loss of an 'always-on' map, is a better game. That is an easily debatable point, as it involves trade-offs.

However, they tend to extend that to judge inferior games with superior graphics as superior games ... and that is where the problem starts.

[abbaon]

newspaper-and-magazines shop
You'll be delighted to learn that anglophones give those a different name on every continent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsagent).

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Thanks. When I'm in the "writing flow", I'm just writing, and when I can't think of a word, I try to quickly invent kind of a "workaround". ;)

[txa1265]

Thanks. When I'm in the "writing flow", I'm just writing, and when I can't think of a word, I try to quickly invent kind of a "workaround". ;)

I actually thought that your term was good that it worked for all audiences.

[Ionstormsucks]

For me it's hard to forsee where exactely rpgs are going. Over the last few years there was a tendency to produce a lot of fast food rpgs, but I guess that could change again. There is certainly a shift to "merge" the avatar and the player, as there is a general inclination to produce 1st person games. But this has to do with the new graphical possibilities and is also just a trend that can change anytime. So in terms of gameplay, I don't think anyone can really say for sure where we are heading.

When it comes to setting I can only welcome change (hence my joke about the knightrider rpg - although a "talk to your watch" skill is long overdue). I think there is no other genre that is so damn incestuous than the rpg genre. Honestly, I don't need all ten fingers to count the rpgs that did not fell into the traditional fantasy genre. Don't get me wrong, it's not like I dislike fantasy, but traditional high fantasy is getting rather dull. I think, that this kind of incest is one of the major barriers that keeps the genre from becoming more popular.

What I don't think is that rpgs are a genre that is uninteresting for most players. I firmly believe that the "most people don't like all the numbers" argument is such a damn myth - created by game developers whose gaming experience is limited to Sonic, the whatever... Obviously those "numbers" don't keep millions of players to play MMORPGs which work more with numbers than most single player rpgs.

I also doubt that RPGs are not profitable enough.
In fact rpgs can be a very profitable genre if you're playing your cards right. First of all, I think, you need a strong product. In the last few years however we saw a lot of crap coming out... If you have a strong product then the company should support it. I feel that this is one of the major mistakes of most companies. Rpgs are usually played for a rather long time and I think that players are willing to pay for additional content and expansions IF they are worth it. Bioware and their Premium Modules come to mind (in this context I have to say that I think Bioware could have gotten a lot more money out of NWN if they had launched their Premium Modules programm earlier and invested some more in it).

[magerette]

... I think there is no other genre that is so damn incestuous than the rpg genre. .
I agree. In fact, you can extend this further and say this crosses genres and is terribly derivative to the point of plagiarism sometimes. Example: In Titan Quest, there is a Rogue skill available called 'Flash Powder'. It mimics a blinding powder being thrown that produces a few moments of stun lock/blindness. In Wizardry 8, there is a substance called 'Flash Powder' that IS a blinding thrown powder that produces the same effect. This is about as incestuous as you can get. Which leads to your next point:



What I don't think is that rpgs are a genre that is uninteresting for most players.
...I also doubt that RPGs are not profitable enough.

Taking this further, I think it's the rpg aspect of a lot of newer games that draws players.

RPG elements are constantly being scavenged and incorporated into other games--haven't played Dark Messiah but from descriptions I'm thinking this is the 'New Breed'--a game that incorporates the most prominent conventions of several genres.

In a way, this is encouraging rather than depressing. It ought to prompt developers to focus on the attractions of the genre rather than the supposed 'geek' syndrome. Where would Diablo2 and all it's numerous progeny be without number-crunching character builds?

[JemyM]

As roleplayers grow more demanding, rpg's are getting fewer and fewer to meet the demands. Instead of releasing a game each year or each second year it takes 4-5 years to develop a game good enough to impress the public.

[Geist]

In addition to those elements already mentioned (Accessibility, Player Skill, Simulation etc.) I also see a trend towards size. As algorithms for generating landscape, vegetation, dungeons etc. become increasingly sophisticated, game worlds are becoming ever larger, and the hand crafted world is becoming a thing of the past. The problem with a large world is that it also requires a large quantity of objects for the player to interact with, or it starts feeling very empty. As a result, we're also seeing a trend towards such things as randomly generated chests, random merchant inventories, and more generic NPCs.

To make up for the lack of hand placed and scripted content (which becomes incredibly time consuming for huge worlds) developers are focusing increasingly on AI and attempting to create that living breathing world simulation referred to in the original post. I don't necessarily see this as a positive trend.

Many people probably remember the much ballyhooed Oblivion demo in which a woman couldn't sleep because her dog was barking so she shot a fireball at it. Bethesda assured us that unscripted events like this would be taking place randomly all throughout the world. In the end, Radiant AI turned out to be little more than a gimmick, but what if they had succeeded in implementing this feature as promised? It would be impossible to write dialog for all the major and minor changes the AI could make to the environment. NPCs would be running around buying and selling items, stealing from each other, fighting each other etc, but they wouldn't be able to communicate an awareness of what they are doing, or react realistically to the changes in their surroundings. Such a simulation might be interesting to watch, but due to the primitive state of current technology, I would rather play a well scripted, hand crafted game with coherent characters and storylines rather than suffer through the whims of an as yet primeval AI technology.

[Corwin]

You know, I spent ages looking for that dog scene, as I'd thought it sounded great when I first read about it!! I guess I'm still looking, since I never found it, or anything even remotely resembling it!! Why could U7 do something similar, and G1&2, yet Oblivion failed to deliver? Oh for Mud, or Noober to have been in the big O :)

[Geist]

Well, NPCs are kind of like dogs.;) In G1&2 and in the Ultimas each dog was meticulously trained to obey a set of specific commands. In Oblivion, Bethesda decided to give them all a general set of goals and behavioural guidelines and then turn them loose. The plan went awry, however, as the dogs became confused and ran amok, so Beth was forced to put them all on leashes. The leashes are a little longer than the ones from Morrowind, allowing the dogs to now go to bed at night and bark greetings to each other on the street, but their repertoire of tricks is pretty limited.

[abbaon]

It would be impossible to write dialog for all the major and minor changes the AI could make to the environment. NPCs would be running around buying and selling items, stealing from each other, fighting each other etc, but they wouldn't be able to communicate an awareness of what they are doing, or react realistically to the changes in their surroundings. Such a simulation might be interesting to watch, but due to the primitive state of current technology, I would rather play a well scripted, hand crafted game with coherent characters and storylines rather than suffer through the whims of an as yet primeval AI technology.
I agree that it's hard to overstate the gulf between what a game developer today can easily simulate and what he has to can fake. AI agents observing and recording the events around them, then then arranging their memories into narratives to impart to each other, will be THE cutting-edge application of AI research... someday. No-one's even trying.

[MudsAnimalFriend]

Not only is it impossible to implement an AI driven "living breathing world" sandbox with current technology it's also completely redundant for RPGs. I believe that even if Radiant AI had delivered on the marketing hype its effect still would have been inconsequential on the Oblivion RPG experience (or lack thereof). RPGs are about how our choices evolve narrative. In contrast sandboxes are entirely non-narrative experiences.

What does it matter if an NPC X decides to steal food from NPC Y based on the result of some AI algorithms? Or if bot 1 decides to hunt for herbs rather than buying them from bot 2? There's no player involvement in these scenarios and therefore no choice-consequence payoff for the player. It's not a game element and thus contributes nothing to the game; at very best it's window dressing - fluff, which could have been much better implemented by old-fashioned scripting. CRPG designers need to take a closer look at how at 4x genre functions with reference to evolving narrative as triggered by player choices.

[dteowner]

Welcome to the boards, and an excellent post! While part of it is my own gaming constraints, I've never completely bought into the "deeper immersion" hype.

[Geist]

There's no player involvement in these scenarios and therefore no choice-consequence payoff for the player. It's not a game element and thus contributes nothing to the game
I don't quite share the opinion that game elements which don't entail involvement on the part of the player are entirely worthless. One of my chief complaints about single player RPGs is the static nature of their game worlds; it always seems like everyone just stands around and waits for you. I would like to see far more interactions take place between NPCs, both on an individual and on a group level, irrespective of the actions of the player. Preferably, these should be scripted so that they can be supported by narrative. Ideally, the player should also have the option to influence such events whenever possible, but, even without player involvement, I've always found that cut-scenes when well executed (a rarity I'll admit) can add a lot to the enjoyment of a game. Sometimes 'watching' can be just as exciting as 'doing'.

That said, AI still has its uses in the realm of world simulation. For instance, one of my more memorable experiences early on in Gothic 3 was seeing a pack of wolves run into a pack of scavengers who were feeding on a carcass and then witnessing the wolves attack and eventually kill all the scavengers. It's far more efficient to let the AI handle such animal encounters rather than scripting them by hand, and since they don't require any dialog or story support, not much is lost in eschewing the scripted approach.

[Ionstormsucks]

I think the main problem when it comes to artificial intelligence and scripted events is that there is just a lot more possible than a few years ago. As Geist said, it is well possible to create large worlds nowadays. But they do not only become bigger they also become more complex. If you come up with a RPG nowadays then everyone expects that its gfx can compete with that of of shooters that usually contain way less content than the average RPG. Everyone expects that models have their own custom animations - if possible extremly realistic ones. And voice acting seems to be a must. Now, look back at the old Ultima. Textures, animations, gfx in general, all that was certainly more simplistic. What I want to say is, I think that the technical aspect of a game just soaks up a lot more development time nowadays than it did a few years ago. Add to that, that most games were entirely build in a programming language, so basically everything was hardcoded. Nowadays a lot of games (or at least certain parts of a game... levels, zones, call it as you like) are build with editors that were written for these games. You have people who are doing nothing else than building levels - unfortunately these people are usually limited by what the editor allows them to do.

What I was always wondering about was why games like Oblivion are selling so well. I came to the conclusion that there is a real shift from storytelling to character building. There seems to be a large crowd of players that are only superficially interested in plot and story, but much more in leveling their character, accumulating wealth and power, etc.
That would also explain the huge success of games like the sims (which basically have no story at all) and the decline of adventure games in which you very seldom have the possibility to level your character, but instead consist almost entirely of story.

[abbaon]

What does it matter if an NPC X decides to steal food from NPC Y based on the result of some AI algorithms? Or if bot 1 decides to hunt for herbs rather than buying them from bot 2? There's no player involvement in these scenarios and therefore no choice-consequence payoff for the player. It's not a game element and thus contributes nothing to the game; at very best it's window dressing - fluff, which could have been much better implemented by old-fashioned scripting.
Simulation is certainly window dressing if the player can't interact with the world on the same terms as the AI. A game which allows the player to sign on with the Watch or own stores would want to model those behaviours, but Oblivion's sword-swinging vagabond has nothing to contribute to either scenario.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

There seems to be a large crowd of players that are only superficially interested in plot and story, but much more in leveling their character, accumulating wealth and power, etc.
That would also explain the huge success of games like the sims (which basically have no story at all) and the decline of adventure games in which you very seldom have the possibility to level your character, but instead consist almost entirely of story.

I believe this is also the reason why games like Sacred sell so well.

Blizzard made it so that *everything* is utterly reduced (Dungeon Siege as well), and it focuses *entirely* on the character levelling up. And the items for equipment, of course.

Hm ... If I follow this trail of thought could it be that this leads to a rather "narcistic" kind of gameplay ?


And my fear is that this applies mostly to a younger generation. (I would *really* like to see some statistics on who is buying which games nowadays !)


And by the way : My dream is kind of an MMORPG as a Singleplayer application ! I want a game that breathes "world", instead of static hack & slash.

[curious]

the only mmorpg i'd ever play for any extent is if it was based on back to the future or sliders...imagine the possibilities

[Geist]

And by the way : My dream is kind of an MMORPG as a Singleplayer application ! I want a game that breathes "world", instead of static hack & slash.
This vision has appeared in my dreams as well (though usually only after chewing generous quantities of peyote;) ) Imagine an MMORPG designed in the style of a single player game, but with the NPCs controlled by humans who all agree to actually roleplay their characters. Why settle for artificial intelligence if there are plenty of sentient beings who could provide the genuine article.

[titus]

maybe Age of Conan will be this, a MMORPG where the storie matters