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

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?

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.

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!!!!

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.

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?

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.

While I think that no computer or video RPG deserves to be called RPG because it's not how I define RPGs , 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.

Jaz said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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

Squeek said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

Squeek said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Squeek said:

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

Click to expand...

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

abbaon said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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!!

Maylander said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Corwin said:

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!!

Click to expand...

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.

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