What is a cRPG?

I know it is insane question only Malkavian would ask but:
What is a cRPG?

The question asked in hundreds if not thousands cRPG forums but never truly answered. Because there is no definition of cRPG.

cRPG… computer Role-Playing Game.

c for computer - I guess doesn't need an explanation.
G for game - same as above
RP for roleplaying…

In Half-Life you roleplay the role of Gordon Freeman - a theoretical physicist working at the Black Mesa Research Facility. Yet this game is not called cRPG - it's called FPS. Why? Because "First Person Shooter" says more than enough - you play in first person and you have to shoot most of the time. But why not cRPG?

Fallout 3. Is it FPS or cRPG? Most of the time you play in first person and shoot. Why then Bethesda called it cRPG? Why some people don't agree it's a cRPG? Because there is no definition of cRPG - it can be anything then.

There is no problem like that if someone ask you if Planescape Torment or first Fallout is a cRPG. But these weren't first cRPG games. First cRPG games were simple and about fighting most of the time (with exceptions perhaps? But I'm not old enough gamer). Eye of Beholder for example was called cRPG but it was just a dungeon crawler - all about running around and killing like in Dungeon Siege.

So.. what's my point? We are a cRPG forum so we should know what we are. Dak'kon said in Planescape Torment "Strength lies in knowing oneself". Yet we don't know ourselves. Some of us consider Oblivion as cRPG and others not. "There cannot be two skies!" (another Dak'kon's quote).

That's why we need definition of cRPG. What are your thoughts about it? What is cRPG for you? I'm lost, I don't know anymore if I should consider Deus Ex or Oblivion as cRPGs or not. If someone asks me what is my favourite game's genre I don't know how to answer. If I say "cRPG" what he will think? Will he think of games like Planescape Torment, Fallout and Arcanum? Or Gothic, The Witcher and Bloodlines? Or Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Mass Effect?

"Once more round the block, driver."

IMO there isn't, and can't be, a universal, binding definition of a cRPG. Instead, cRPG-ness is a property that various artifacts have to a greater or lesser extent. If it's present strongly enough, it makes sense to talk about a game as a cRPG, although people will necessarily disagree about individual games.

I could sort games in ascending order cRPG-ness, and then draw an arbitrary line somewhere, saying "everything to the right is a cRPG." For me, this line would go between Deus Ex and Deus Ex 2: Invisible War.

Then I could look at specific characteristics or commonalities that the games to the right of my arbitrary line share to a greater extent, but the games to the left share to a lesser extent. I could then compile a tentative list of characteristics that, in a sufficiently strong combination, cause the property of "cRPG-ness" to emerge. Then, when a new game comes out, I could check to what extent it has these properties, and preliminarily assign it to some place in this queue.

If I did this exercise, I believe I would find that characteristics that engender cRPG-ness include things like:

1 Character progression, with player choice involved in the progression
2 PC/NPC interaction on a more meaningful level than "Follow me!" "Bang! You're dead!" or non-interactive monologue; ideally, this should lead to some level of emotional engagement with the NPC's.
3 PC/environment interaction on a more meaningful level than "pick up key card/open door."
4 The illusion of player choices that have a noticeable impact on the game world or story.

This doesn't mean that a game has to have all of these to qualify as a cRPG (NetHack, for example, has neither 2 nor 4, but has 1 and 3 present so strongly that it's definitely one), nor that every game that has some of them is a cRPG.

I also don't see any huge problem with not knowing exactly what a cRPG is. We don't have a precise definition for porn, either, but most people will know it when they see it.

I agree. There are a number of common elements present to some degree or another in CRPGs - on top of which, you have the intent of the developer. We see so much debate in this genre because some people can't accept the term be used in a game that doesn't exactly suit their personal taste.

I also am part of the 'genres are artificial boundaries' thing, feeling that often the term cRPG is a baseball bat that 'purists' attempt to use to beat up others who don't share their vision about what is and is not a 'proper cRPG'.

I definitely also feel the 'intent' thing is true, though as mentioned it is the 'intent of the developer' rather than the 'intent of teh marketing group to broad-sell the game'

Yeah, I agree with the two above posters.

It's as impossible a question to answer as "what is life" and what is the purpose of life.

You can look at the history of the genre, and you can see what games have been included - but even so you'll find plenty of people disagreeing with such a list.

The only problem with the lack of a clear definition, from where I'm sitting, is that there are people who think they're somehow "right" in their own personal view. Surprisingly, you'll still find countless gamers who'll claim that Diablo wasn't an RPG or that Half-Life IS an RPG. They're right, of course, but only so far as their own perception is concerned.

Indeed, genres are artificial boundaries, and especially in the case of the RPG genre, because it's a mix of so many elements that traditionally belong in other genres. These days, where real-time action is probably the most common element in all games that aren't strictly "something else" you'll find many elements in the modern CRPG that didn't belong there in the old days. But that has more to do with technology and a new audience, than it has to do with faulty definitions.

I really don't have a clear idea of what a CRPG is, I just don't. I know of games that are most definitely RPGs, but that I don't enjoy playing. This is especially strange, because the genre is my favorite.

I think Torment is one of the least entertaining CRPGs in existence, and that's because I don't recognise the "game" part as being all that great. I'm sure the story is wonderful - for those into that kind of delivery and setting - but to me story is secondary to actual gameplay. If the story is great, then naturally it can move and motivate me, but it won't do to deliver it as if I was reading a book, because I believe in appealing to the strengths of a given medium.

But I would NEVER try to claim that the game isn't a great CRPG - and if I did, it would be in jest or simply a fully subjective statement. That's what I think lots of people tend to forget - as basic as it is, and as smart as those people might otherwise be.

This is definitely the thread that would have been more appropriate for my argument. so I will attempt to rehash what I've said earlier and make it more manageable for peeps to understand.

I have some disagreements with the guys who have posted before me about genre blurring and this being the natural evolution of gaming and CRPGs in general. I'm just not sold on the concept or not convinced with adequate evidence.

here are some defining concepts that belong to the RPG genre. Those who read one of my earlier posts and disagreed can look away in horror! LOL

Qualities of an RPG:

1. Depth and Complexity. It has been an argued that any game is a Role-Playing game because you take the Role of a main character/vehicle/object. but we as rpg players expect more then that, we want details, character development, intricate statistical models, all serving towards the end of drawing us in deeper to the character/game, hence, depth.

2. Excellent dialogue, Narrative storytelling, overall Writing! most today argue the "show, don't tell" doctrine of relating stories to gamers I've yet to see this impact someone on the level that text actually does routinely at least in gaming. this section can also be difficult to gauge since some games can do part of this right while the rest sucks hard. Example: Mass Effect some decent dialogue between characters but the overall narrative/story/ and writing is mediocrity.

3. Choices and Consequences. a rather nebulous concept since it is rarely achieved. To start some simple truths of CnC. A choice is not really a choice unless there is a direct and lasting consequence that is seen eventually by the player, a hidden consequence has no meaning unless you know about it. Fake choices are the bread and butter of rpgs nowadays some are blatantly obvious(oblivion,ME) others are well implemented(The Witcher) all are an insult to your intelligence as a player.

4. Challenge. when a loss is meaningful you have gained the most from it. when you struggle and win you feel great, it is undeniable human nature. all games need this or they are not games.


Now I can see how some may look at these criteria and be dismissive as it only being statement backed with subjective opinion. however, its simply undeniable that nearly all RPG systems incorporate these qualities and by extension CRPGs attempt to do the same. Their successful implementation in addition to peoples personal opinions cause numerous arguments, but a RPG is only helped when these criteria are excellently applied. DArtagnan kind of proves my point, he can't deny the quality of writing present in Torment compared to other examples of the genre, he only wishes it was in a more accessible format.

Keep in mind no game has ever gotten everything right in regards to the tabletop formula or any other when it comes to RPGs. Its possible no game ever will. but that doesn't excuse us from standing up and declaring that this is what we find common in nearly all cRPGs and developers should include these things to the best of their ability if they want to make money.

Sincerely Polyhedron

members of rpgdot and rpgwatch have developed a "crpg meter":

look at

Drakensang

The Witcher

Geneforge 4

Gothic 3

The premise of a role-playing game goes beyond all others. While an ordinary game might provide an identity and a place for it to function, challenging players to succeed within a given set of rules, an RPG provides a role set in a seemingly authentic imaginary world, enabling players to make realistic decisions in an effort to simply do something worthwhile.

RPG requires collaboration, and in P&P games, it’s done between players on the one hand and a Game Master on the other. In single-player games expressed in software, potential for collaboration needs to exist within the game itself. A well-designed one will provide plenty of opportunity for it (viz. C&C).

Any role worth playing will be faced with conflict in order to provide opportunity for drama. So good RPGs need good writing to make them interesting, and maybe that's why this genre was inspired by incredible fantasy-adventure and science-fiction stories.

IMO, the future will see CRPG proceeding down two separate paths. The current one will continue to take advantage of state-of-the-art graphics capabilities and emphasize simulation. The other hasn't gotten underway, because no one's figured it out yet. But when they do, it will emphasize collaboration, somehow, and will undoubtedly make extensive use of the Internet.

I can agree that I find your points desirable but they are not absolute. Remember, we are discussing a definition, not a qualitative evaluation.

1. Depth and Complexity. It has been an argued that any game is a Role-Playing game because you take the Role of a main character/vehicle/object. but we as rpg players expect more then that, we want details, character development, intricate statistical models, all serving towards the end of drawing us in deeper to the character/game, hence, depth.

Noone here subscribes to the idea that every game is a roleplaying game. It was referenced as a starting point for discussion. I like depth and complexity but I don't think it's an essential part of a definition. Oblivion has far, far more statistical detail than Geneforge but does that prove it is "more RPG"?

2. Excellent dialogue, Narrative storytelling, overall Writing! most today argue the "show, don't tell" doctrine of relating stories to gamers I've yet to see this impact someone on the level that text actually does routinely at least in gaming. this section can also be difficult to gauge since some games can do part of this right while the rest sucks hard. Example: Mass Effect some decent dialogue between characters but the overall narrative/story/ and writing is mediocrity.

One of my personal major bullet-points. When I was a kid, we played quite a few very simple dungeon crawls in our D&D group - were we not playing an RPG because there was no dialogue?

3. Choices and Consequences. a rather nebulous concept since it is rarely achieved. To start some simple truths of CnC. A choice is not really a choice unless there is a direct and lasting consequence that is seen eventually by the player, a hidden consequence has no meaning unless you know about it. Fake choices are the bread and butter of rpgs nowadays some are blatantly obvious(oblivion,ME) others are well implemented(The Witcher) all are an insult to your intelligence as a player.

As above. We entered the tomb/crypt/whatever, killed everything and left. No significant choices (other than combat tactics) and no consequences (other than poor tactics = greater loss of hit points). But still an RPG, right?

4. Challenge. when a loss is meaningful you have gained the most from it. when you struggle and win you feel great, it is undeniable human nature. all games need this or they are not games.

Here, you are wrong. Not that I personally disagree but a game is not always defined by the presence of challenge. My partner automatically cheats with every game she can - essentially, she often likes to play dress-the-avatar-in-cool-clothing. Not a meaningful game for me but she enjoys it - she is still playing a "game".

Again, I personally like the attributes you listed but they don't define the genre.

Any video game can provide the player with choices that lead to consequences. They can have amounts of depth and complexity and even include some good dialogue. They can all be challenging.

It's the premise that makes these games different from the others. These aren't those with greater amounts of one thing or another. These aren't those at all. These are something else completely.

The roles, the world, the narrative all need to authenticate the idea that the player is living a real life in a real place. And it needs to do it in a way where the game is responsive to the myriad of decisions the player might make, reacting with consequences to those decisions that, somehow, lead to worthwhile adventure.

Ok, thats an ideal squeek. Would you call the bards tale games, might and magic games as well as the wizardry games crpg's? By what you wrote they would not be considered rpg's.

I don't think there is any reason to define an rpg into a set boundry, I also think even trying to do that and find consensus would be impossible. I personally felt that system shock 1 and 2 were crpgs(albeit action ones) The industry as whole has used the fact that there are attributes, levels, exp etc to label a game an rpg. I guess in the grand scheme of things it matters little if one person decides its an rpg and another says it is not. RPG meters are also useless when you have the person doing it with personal opinions that others may not share.

Originally Posted by rune_74
Ok, thats an ideal squeek. Would you call the bards tale games, might and magic games as well as the wizardry games crpg's? By what you wrote they would not be considered rpg's.

Don't forget that there were and still are limits to how RPGs can be hosted on computers. The folks who design these games have to work within those constraints. Some are good games, even if they're thin RPGs.

Remember Corwin's assessment of FO3? Good game, not as good of an RPG? That's the state CRPG has been in from the beginning, IMO. And that's fine. Designing these games can't be easy. Designing a good one is a good trick.

The future will open up for CRPG. I'm certain of it.

DArtagnan kind of proves my point, he can't deny the quality of writing present in Torment compared to other examples of the genre, he only wishes it was in a more accessible format.

I can neither confirm or deny the objective quality of writing in Torment. I didn't say anything about it being great, I'm just responding to what the fans of the game seems to think of it. So please take care not to imagine that I've said something which I haven't.

Quality of writing is subjective, and the writing I witnessed in Torment struck me as "trying too hard" and it was way too "loose" in style, meaning it was set in a world where life and death meant very little, and as such the writing didn't really have to respect reality or any kind of plausible underpinning - but I've never gotten that far into it. My own personal taste in writing goes in a very different direction, and I much prefer stories that are based in a tighter reality, a more to-the-point articulation, and deal with things less fantastical that I can closely relate to. I don't have many games that I think are well written, but one example is BioForge - which I played when I was around 18 years old. It's one of the best written and delivered stories in terms of when it was released that I've experienced, but there's NOTHING objective about my opinion.

The point is that objective quality of writing is just as impossible to guage - and beyond that, HAVING objective quality of writing is NOT objectively necessary for a good CRPG. I've played excellent RPGs with "average" writing - and in fact, most CRPGs HAVE subpar writing in my opinion.

Essentially, I don't agree with you at all.

and in fact, most CRPGs HAVE subpar writing in my opinion.

I have to agree. Although writing seems important in cRPGs, most of them have it bad or mediocre. I could only mention few cRPGs with good writing. Did Baldur's Gate or Arcanum have good writing? It wasn't bad but it is far from great.

I have to disagree with those who think C&C isn't strong point of cRPGs. While many games have it implemented not so good it still IS in them. I mean - you had some choices and consequences in Baldur's Gate, Planescape Torment, The Witcher, Gothic… even in Jade Empire. There weren't consequences that change huge part of the game but you could still choose and have some consequences. I think it is the thing that makes cRPG if implemented with dialogue trees.

Yes, dialogue trees. It is most important thing that makes cRPG (with C&C). Every cRPG had them but it's rarely seen in other kind of games. While writing in other genres can be good you don't see dialogue trees in FPS or RTS.

Remember that quality of something doesn't change the genre - cRPG can have horrible dialogues, story, C&C… but it still is cRPG.

That's what I think after giving it some thought - cRPG = dialogue trees + C&C.

Roleplaying has nothing to do with role-playing games because I roleplay role of James Sunderland in Silent Hill 2 and this game certainly is not cRPG.

Anyone who hasn't played very far into Planescape shouldn't be judging the writing. It only gets better as it goes, and it's very much like a book, you don't get much out of reading a single chapter.

Having said that, I thought Torment was good, but not the "classic" that many people make it out to be. I'd rather play BG or Icewind Dale any day.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Anyone who hasn't played very far into Planescape shouldn't be judging the writing. It only gets better as it goes, and it's very much like a book, you don't get much out of reading a single chapter.

Having said that, I thought Torment was good, but not the "classic" that many people make it out to be. I'd rather play BG or Icewind Dale any day.

That's why I specifically said "the writing I witnessed in Torment struck me", and detailed my reaction.

Whether or not it changes, I can't say - but I'll decide that for myself if I ever play it.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
That's why I specifically said "the writing I witnessed in Torment struck me", and detailed my reaction.

Whether or not it changes, I can't say - but I'll decide that for myself if I ever play it.

Judging by your reaction, I can only assume you erroneously thought my post was directed specifically at you… which it wasn't.

To me, you can't see what cRPG is by expanding each letter. cRPG is not a computer Role Playing Game. cRPG is cRPG, simply because what constitutes an RPG just can't be transferred to the computer. No matter how good a cRPG is, I bet you can't just decide to ask the bartender if he's seen any albino orcs recently (unless the game is about finding albino orcs of course).
We can only define cRPG as what it has been historically, basically, emulating the combat mechanics from real RPGs in a computer. Stats, skills, spells, character progression, that's about it. You can have a combat-less RPG, but you can't have a combat-less cRPG (it would be an adventure game).
So, for me to consider a game a cRPG it only needs to have stats, skills, spells, character advancement, and it would need to be the *focus* of the game. I.e. a shooter with some stats is not really a cRPG (like Bioshock, and even Mass Effect is dangerously borderline). Things like player decisions, a good story, alternate endings, etc. make a cRPG a good or great cRPG, but they're not requirements (how many player decisions did Wizardry 1 have, or what was the story?)

Originally Posted by JDR13
Judging by your reaction, I can only assume you erroneously thought my post was directed specifically at you… which it wasn't.

You mean I'm not what you meant by: "Anyone who hasn't played very far into Planescape shouldn't be judging the writing."

It's not like I'm the only one in the thread who specifically said I didn't get very far in Planescape and then commented on the writing.

No, of course not, you were talking in general.

Right, JDR

Heh a little of topic, but you said how many games can you ask the bartender about an albino orc? Well just off the top of my head, any rpg that has text based entry. Doesn't mean you will get a useful answer but you can still ask