CRPG Analyzer: A checklist for computer role-playing games

Of course you are right. (That's why I think a % value is ok as it can be verbally explained that it's not a score of the game's quality.)

If having a score makes sense or not, depends on what you want to do with this model. If you want to apply it to a few games only, you don't need one. But if you want to apply it to a large number of games and then want to have something like a searchable, sortable database, then it would be really handy to have some comparable numeric values.

I started fiddling around with the form / database thing. For comparison purposes, we actually wouldn't need the numbers, because we can individually compare all points, which would also be more accurate, and calculate the difference from those. The numbers are only helpful for humans, e.g. like the short summary for IWD+HoW I posted above.

What do we want to call this model or tool, by the way? "CRPG-Meter" sounds catchy, to my ears at least, so why not keep it? Or is it too misleading?

Originally Posted by Morrandir
For example if a game fulfilled all MHs except from C3, I'd most likely very much want to play it (if its quality is also good). But in a potential list of CRPGs (according to this model) it won't appear at all. Whereas when you have a list according to the CRPG-Meter and order it by RPG Score, the particular game will most likely be somewhere in the top region.

If a game is in RPGWatch's database, it can get evaluated — we do have one or two non-CRPGs in there, I think. And if it's not, it shouldn't be too difficult to request that it be added, if it's of interest to CRPGers. How we want to display the data is then up to us, so what you want should be possible.

CRPG-Meter is the old RPGDot-system. The new system is not a direct replacement, so I don't want to use this name.

How about:

CRPG-Inspector
CRPG-Checker
CRPG-Examiner
CRPG-Validator
CRPG-Investigator
CRPG-Analyst
CRPG-Questioner
CRPG-Inquisitor
CRPG-Guru

native speakers - what sounds good / what is laughable?

(-> I like CRPG-Guru and CRPG-Examiner)

With a clumsy prefix like "CRPG" it's difficult create a fancy and catchy name.

I'd like a suffix that has some connection to (fantasy) RPGs, so "Inquisitor" sounds like a good name. But an inquisitor searches for something (evil magic) and then somehow tries to remove it. So that's quite the opposite of what it is done with this system.
Guru sounds great, too. But a guru is a teacher, so not fitting imho.

From the above I like "Investigator" the most.

Some other suggestions would be

• CRPG-Hunter
• CRPG-Seeker
• CRPG-Prospector
• CRPG-Siever

These don't describe the process, but rather somehow the result.

A CRPG-Guru is someone who knows a lot about CRPG elements.

From those listed I like CRPG-Analyst, although I'd rather call it "CRPG-Analyzer".
Others keywords that come to mind are "(CRPG) Classification", "(CRPG) Class", "(CRPG) Evaluation", or simply "(CRPG) Elements".

CRPG Analyzer

Analyzer = To examine methodically by separating into parts and studying their interrelations

I like that.


CRPG-Elements-Wizard or
CRPG-Elements-Analyzer
sounds good, too.

CRPG-Elements-Analyzer describes our process (def. + checklists) very good.
short: CRELAN

CRPG-Elements-Examiner
short: CRELEX

I have posted definition V0.94 on the Codex today; beside some of the usual Codex joking & trolling you can find some interesting comments and suggestions there.

Let's see if we can enhance the definition with some extractions out of these discussions.

You forgot a link: What is an RPG 2014 edition

Let's see if we can enhance the definition with some extractions out of these discussions.

You seem to be doing a great job already.


I was working some more on the form/database thing. Some musings:

- Let's call it CRPG-Analyzer then

- I removed the interdependent "you can avoid combat" points from Nice-to-Have Char/Exploration/Story, because they really were redundant. They are listed already in the combat category, which is all about interdependence.

- I slightly grouped and (re-) named some things for the tool for a better workflow:

Step 1: You pick a game
Step 2: CRPG Definition (Three sub-steps: Must-Have, Should-Have and Tags)
Step 3: CRPG Elements (Nice-to-Haves)
Step 4: Fun Features (General Game Info; mostly subjective things)

This is more logically structured and easier to understand. Users can save their evaluation after every major step.

Your discussion on the Codex at the moment, for example, is about the definition (step 2), not about atomic elements (step 3). Either way, I look forward to seeing what comes out of those new points of view.

From the thread at the Codex:

Originally Posted by Xeon
Is Phase based combat not counted as a style?
(..)
Active time combat[?] like the ones in the older Final Fantasy games, Is that a style?

Good points, there's a whole lot of sub-types of real-time / turn-based we haven't considered.
cf. Turns, rounds and time keeping systems in games on Wikipedia.

1. Real-time
2. Turn-based
3. Sub-types
3.1 Timed turns and time compression
3.2 Ticks and rounds
3.3 Active Time Battle
3.4 Simultaneously executed and clock-based turns
3.5 Unit initiative and acting outside one's turn
3.6 Special turns and phases
3.7 Partially or optionally turn-based and real-time
3.8 Pausable real-time

They are explained in the article. Maybe we could add "Time-based turns" as another type. We'd then have:


1. Real-time

2. Real-time with pause

3. Time-based turns
Includes: timed turns (chess), ticks&rounds (browser-mmorpgs), active time battle (final fantasy iv+),

4. Turn-based
Includes: Simultaneously executed and clock-based turns (Master of Orion), Unit initiative and acting outside one's turn (X-Com, King's Bounty), Special turns and phases (board games, Battle Isle), Partially or optionally turn-based and real-time

Seems to work fine, although I'm not sure where to put "Partially or optionally turn-based and real-time" …

Originally Posted by HiddenX
Even this version flags some false positives, but works for the majority of CRPGs..

Hm… which games would that be?

Originally Posted by Morrandir
Hm… which games would that be?

The Spellforce games for example.

-> There are RTS games and CRPGs

Ultima 7

Character Development
Describes ways to change or enhance your characters in order to increase their effectiveness in the game.

• Must Have
  C1: you can control one or more characters -> yes
  C2: you can progressively develop your characters' stats or abilities (=> e.g. through quests, exploration, conversation, combat, …) -> yes
  C3: you can equip and enhance your characters with items you acquire -> yes
• Should Have
  C4: you can create your characters -> no - characters are predefined
  C5: character development requires careful thought and planning -> not really

Exploration
Includes how you can move through the game world, as well as everything you can find, see, manipulate or interact with, like locations, items and other objects.

• Must Have
  E1: by exploring the gameworld you can find new locations -> yes
  E2: you can find items that can be collected in an inventory (=> not only puzzle items) -> yes
  E3: you can find information sources (=> e.g. NPCs, entities, objects that provide info) -> yes, a lot
• Should Have
  E4: there are NPCs in the game -> yes, many
  E5: you can choose a path (=> there is at least some branching) -> yes
  E6: you can manipulate the game world in some way (=> e.g. pull levers, push buttons, open chests, …) -> yes
  E7: the gameworld can affect your party (=> e.g. weather, traps, closed doors, poisoned areas, …) -> yes
  E8: you may have to think or plan to progress or overcome obstacles (=> e.g. unlock locked areas, repair bridges, dispel barriers, …) -> yes

Story
Concerns all narrative elements like setting, lore, plot, characters, dialogue, quests, descriptions, storyline(s) and similar, including how you can interact with them.

• Must Have
  S1: you can get info from information sources (=> e.g. hints, goals, quests, skills, spells, training, …) -> yes
  S2: you can follow quests (=> there is at least one main quest) -> yes (many)
  S3: you can progress through connected events (= Story) -> yes
• Should Have
  S4: the story is influenced more or less by your actions -> yes
  S5: you can interact with information sources (=> e.g. NPC conversation, riddle statue question, …) -> yes
  S6: you can make choices in those interactions -> yes
  S7: your choices have consequences -> yes
  S8: advancing in the story requires thought (=> e.g. irreversible choices, moral dilemma, riddles, …) -> yes

Combat
Describes how combat is influenced by elements of Character Development, Exploration and Story.

• Should Have
  F1: Combat efficiency is in some way tied to character stats or abilities (=> e.g. amount of damage, chance to hit, weapon access, …) -> yes
  F2: Combat works with some random elements (game internal dice rolls) -> yes
  F3: Combat should be challenging (=> e.g. preparing, use of tactics or environment possible) -> no

Ultima 7 features all Must Haves => it is a CRPG -> surprise
The Should Haves C4, C5 and F3 are not fulfilled.

So the CRPG must be qualified with a tag which is is easy in case of Ultima 7:
Ultima 7 is an Adventure CRPG, character development and combat are the weaker sides of the game. The game shines with quests, story, exploration, riddles and choices with consequences.

I like this one from Cassidy:

Tactical use of character skills/abilities are the primary means of problem solving and overcoming challenges

Could be a Should Have under the character category.

I agree with that, for me, but to some, roleplaying isn't all about problem solving and overcoming challenges. Look at how some people play Elder Scroll games. That's a difference between a simulationist's and a gameist's points of view.

@Trasher
Even in an Elder Scrolls games you have to build your character to do some useful things.
Example: Learn minimal requirements to get into the Mages guild, Thieves guild etc.

Some more good posts:

Lerk said:

With that out of the way, for me a "real" CRPG has to contain:

Character/Party building and development
Equipment & Loot
Attribute based interaction (whether you're trying to bribe a guard, or break open a chest)
Turn based combat
Exploration of environment
A framing narrative
Choices with consequences

CRPGS had their roots in PnP games, they were originally computer simulations of tabletop dungeon crawls where the CPU and RAM took the place of the DM; Gold Box and Bard's Tale series are good examples of this type of game. Any game which relies on real-time input to affect an in-game action isn't, to me, a CRPG. Much as I love EOB, Ultima etc. I don't consider them CRPGS; so the age of a game isn't necessarily an indicator.

The first game I played that contains all the criteria above was Pools of Radiance (though that's by no means the first game I played that might be considered an RPG, that was a game by Origin called Times of Lore)

The last game I played that largely satisfied my above requirements completely was…TOEE, I guess? M&M X came very close but it was very linear, so there was no C&C to speak of.

It seems to me that for some, all you need are a few "old school trappings" like levels and inventory and suddenly, it's an RPG. "Playing the role" of Commander Shepard, Geralt of Rivia, or the Avatar doesn't make the game an RPG though, because those characters are pre-defined. An RPG allows me to create my own characters. not play someone else's.

Set said:

Real Definition:

1. Degrees of freedom: Players are supposed to be put in the "shoes" of the avatar they are "playing". Their avatar has choices that are true to that role and the player has the freedom to make them, right or wrong. The inability for a player to make a logical solution to a story-based problem is a critical failure of any RPG. RPGs have high degrees of freedom.
2. "Real world": The world is "real". It is simulated through mechanics like "perks", "levels" and "drops" (or other mechanics in general, as complex or real-like as the kinds you'd find in a game like Dwarf Fortress). The world has consistent rules that are understood by the players that live the universe of the game's narrative. The mechanics described above are meant to simulate the growth of character and advancement of story and conflict. The inability for an RPG to simulate "realness" to a sufficient degree is a critical failure of that RPG.
3. Personal: RPGs are personal stories that are concerned with the personalities, relationships and growths of the player and the characters of the game. RPGs are "social" games (this doesn't mean they are multiplayer, just concerned with society and relationships).

Not all RPGs yet adhere to 1) and 2) but I think my definition is sufficiently simple and inclusive, while clearly showing games like Bioshock Infinite aren't RPGs (their mechanics don't simulate anything and there is no player agency).

(All) Traditional RPGs go to great lengths to consturct mechanics so players can simulate the difficult of all things from hash slinging to basket weaving.
(Most) Traditional RPGs go to to great lengths to construct stories that evoke emotion or reflect some idea of reality.
(All) Traditional RPGs are done in groups of people and it's a highly social kind of game, thus 3) holds that any video game RPG should reflect this inspection of social roles and social play.

Videogameified versions are no different, thus any so-called RPG follows 1) for sure and 2) to some extent. 3) to the least extent, but still to a barest minimum even among very old crpgs.

You don't HAVE to do those things if you are roleplaying a guildless loner. Just sayin'.

Yeah - I know a guy with one primary objective in Gothic 1:
Find as many mushrooms, flowers, roots etc. as you can.
He fulfilled quests only by accident

Like me with Drakensang 2.

Originally Posted by HiddenX

Tactical use of character skills/abilities are the primary means of problem solving and overcoming challenges

Could be a Should Have under the character category.

Sounds good to me. How would you rate Deus Ex?

And in a similar vein, we currently have this for combat SH:

F1: Combat efficiency is in some way tied to character stats or abilities (=> e.g. amount of damage, chance to hit, weapon access, …)

How about working in "physical coordination skills" somehow, which was in the Ernest Adams definition?

Something to the effect of "Character stats/abilities > physical coordination skills" …