CRPG Analyzer: A checklist for computer role-playing games

Let's do the CRPG Analyzer checklist for Jagged Alliance 2:

I. The Checklist:

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

  • Must Have
    C1: you can control and role-play one (=Avatar) or more (=Party) unique characters (-> not only uniform units) - yes
    C2: you can progressively develop your characters' stats and/or abilities (-> e.g. through an in game value (usually exp. points) gained by quests, exploration, conversation, combat, …) - yes
    C3: Checks against character stats and/or character abilities/skills are necessary to make progress and finish the game - yes
    C4: you can equip and enhance your characters with items you acquire - yes
  • Should Have
    C5: you can create your characters - only the main character
    C6: the player needs preplanning for the development of the character(s) - yes
    C7: the primary means of problem solving, gameworld interaction and overcoming challenges is the tactical use of character/party skills/abilities (-> the player's physical coordination skills are secondary) - yes

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: your character(s) can interact with the gameworld and find new locations by exploring. - yes
    E2: your character(s) can find items that can be collected in an inventory (-> there have to be more item types than quest items, weapons, ammunition and consumable stat boosters.) - yes
    E3: your character(s) can find information sources (-> e.g. NPCs, entities, objects that provide info) - yes
  • Should Have
    E4: there are NPCs in the game - yes
    E5: you can choose a path (-> there is at least some branching) - yes
    E6: your character(s) can manipulate the game world in some way (-> e.g. pull levers, push buttons, open chests, …) - yes
    E7: the gameworld can affect your character(s) (-> e.g. weather, traps, closed doors, poisoned areas, …) - yes
    E8: there are initially inaccessible areas in the gameworld that can only be reached by enhancing your characters' abilities, solving quests or puzzles (-> e.g. unlock locked areas, overcome obstacles, 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: your character(s) can get information from information sources (-> e.g. hints, goals, quests, skills, spells, training, …) - yes
    S2: your character(s) can follow quests (-> there is at least one main quest) - yes
    S3: your character(s) can progress through connected events and play their role - yes
  • Should Have
    S4: the story is influenced by your decisions and your characters' actions and stats/abilities/skills. - yes
    S5: your character(s) can interact with information sources (-> e.g. NPC conversation, riddle statue question, …) - yes
    S6: your character(s) can make choices in those interactions - yes - a few
    S7: at least some of these choices have consequences - yes
    S8: advancing in the story requires thinking of the player (-> e.g. irreversible choices, moral dilemma, riddles, …) - yes- some strategic choices
Combat
Describes how combat (or more general: conflict resolving) corresponds with 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 (bigger stats allows you to carry better weapons, special skills give combat advantages)
    F2: Combat works with some random elements (game internal dice rolls) - yes
    F3: Combat should provide some challenge (-> e.g. preparing, use of tactics or environment possible) - yes

The CRPG Analyzer checklist shows that Jagged Alliance 2 is very strong in the categories Exploration, Combat, good in story and nearly complete in the category Character Development.

Jagged Alliance 2 is a true RPG!
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
19,818
Location
Germany
The CRPG analyzer is working again. Sorry for the delay @HiddenX;.

Unfortunately all reviews were lost. It shouldn't be too hard to re-enter them though from the data in this thread.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
3,486
thanks for all this explications
but i want to know how what you mean, you have to think about the player

S8: advancing in the story requires thinking of the player (-> e.g. irreversible choices, moral dilemma, riddles, …) - yes- some strategic choices
We need to rephrase that. It should probably read: "requires thinking on part of the player". You as the player need to ponder how to progress in the story.

... just checked; the phrasing is already correct. @HiddenX; just used an old version of the text as the online tool wasn't working when he made the analysis.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
3,486
Some random comment.

1. NPC must have
Too precise and restrictive in my opinion.

Notes can play a NPC role but nobody will identify them as NPC. Behind this there's probably an aspect of interactivity and choices, but NPC by itself doesn't mean real interactivity and even less choices during the interaction.

Why favor NPC interactions compared to world interaction?

I wonder, from a unified point of view, the key point could be more, world interaction as a whole, NPC just a way to do it.

2. Skills use include combat aspect
Good point, but it skips the evaluation aspect:
- Most players will continue have 2 ladders in their mind, skills and combats.
- It's close to impossible to compare a non combat skills system and a combats skills system. It's up to a point that for a combats skills system arguing will cover, tactic, strategy, diversity, it's a lot more rare for any non combats skills system. Have 20 skills check on DEX will feel better than having 10, have 10 time the same combat will feel less worse than have 20 time the same combat.
- Combats skills system tend be a lot more complex and diversified than Non combat skills system, compare them is hard.

A good example would be Ultima VII, very strong on non combats skills system, rather weak on combats skills system compared to many other RPG.

For a unified vision, stick to only one criteria, skills system brings positive aspects:
- Simpler definition looks a lot more cute.
- It avoids the problem of RPG without any combat.

But such vision is unrealistic to compare RPG quality/quantity level:
- Nobody can compare well a combat system to a non combat system.
- Most if not all players are used to consider both on a different layer, so compare them as a global skills system is close to impossible to do.

EDIT:
More random comments:
Should Have - you can create your characters - only the main character.

Good way to reject or depreciate a ton of JRPG. But why?

It's a choice knowing the CRPG tag is a pure invention and nobody can provide any definition of it, here it's only an attempt. So the question is why this choice.

EDT:
More random comments.
Should Have - you can choose a path (-> there is at least some branching)

I quote how alternate paths totally hide a pure choice and consequence aspect.

The problem of alternate path is rather interesting because it is in the mouth of a wide majority of RPG players, but in practice it seems sells suffer a lot from RPG play length cut by 2 or 3 because of true alternate path.

In one play a NPC is killed and another play this NPC isn't killed with no real consequence but eventually a dialog line of one other NPC, most players will reject it from an alternate path perspective. Still there's been a choice with a consequence.

First aspect is despite that lot of world living, stories, NPC live is going though text, many RPG players consider as no consequence a consequence that is purely text related. Ok but that's not fair and that's not saying how some RPG are quite deeper and/or quite more developed on that aspect.

For sure true alternate paths is the ideal, but for same amount of content it reduces significantly one play duration. Moreover choices and consequences not generating true alternate path still make a lot of difference in a world or play.

EDIT:
And my opinion didn't change at all since, 10 years ago? Perhaps not 10 years but this is on the table since long. CRPG tag is only a way for each player to tag best RPG, but nobody agree on what's the best RPGs, hence nobody can agree on what's the CRPG tag. As soon as you pick cautiously what RPG matches the CRPG, there's no clear problem, but when you go on more chaotic roads this problem is clearly revealed. Is the Witcher 3 a CRPG, if it is is Fallout 3 a CRPG, if it is is Far Cry 3 a CRPG…

I would say that for all players believing in CRPG tag existence, should ask themsleves the question, what RPG not CRPG are better than all or most CRPG, and better than how many CRPG, then go figure on the result.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
NPC - Must Have is not a criterium.
S1 means that you have some kind of information sources - that can be a stone with writings on it.

Combat is a main category and optional.

If a game doesn't fullfill a Should Have criterium, it is not devalued here.
It just means that you make a comment on this point in the checklist.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
19,818
Location
Germany
Ooops I had read and answer some of the first posts, so commented old stuff not valid anymore. Then later comments was for the last post on JA2.

Ok, Should have are only information, Must Have define the CRPG tag. Without any quality/quantity criteria it should result in a very inclusive tag, with most RPG being CRPG or there's some must have criteria I didn't noticed. Even many (not majority) Roguelike should match the tag.

What's the point of non Must Have stuff?
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
Must Have elements fulfilled = the game is a CRPG of some kind.

Must Have + Should Have fulfilled = the game is a CRPG in a more traditional way / closer to Pen & Paper in a way / more role playing options.

Nice to Have elements - just for information.

The best current explanation can be found here.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
19,818
Location
Germany
Ok, well that definition is still just an opinion, not a fact. I don't see what's not making a Roguelike as ADOM not match the CRPG tag, and for me no matter how, and no matter the amount of RPG aspects, ADOM will ever be a Roguelike. Yeah my opinion.

It's like JA2, I can't see it as a RPG, too much a tactical game with some strategy elements.

But ok it's an analysis effort, the point is to make choices to define criteria it's a thought on the genre or the tag.

Diablo 2:
- Character Development: All Must Have, some Should Have.
- Exploration: All Must have, some Should Have.
- Story: All must have, some should have.
- Combats: All should have.

Diablo 2 is a quite qualified CRPG.

But for me nope, no matter how I love the game and the genre of Diablo like.

So, still from a different opinion point of view, it's not working for me.

For me what's true RPG (which could be read as a replacement for the modern CRPG tag) isn't related just to criteria. Much more major is the gameplay balance, but also various balances work. But also no way my true RPG definition would fit other players. I'm believing that RPG are too diverse for a universal definition.

A good example could be games as Eyes of the Beholder or Dungeon Master, now many players would tag them as dungeon crawler but I'll never buy it. They are RPG for me and they always been, they will be in any RPG history writing, and deny it is a lot too late.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
Should Haves are missing for Diablo likes (often no choices with consquences)

Should Haves are missing for dungeon crawlers (often only a minimal story)

If Should Haves are missing you have to further qualify the CRPG tag:

For example:
Diablo: CRPG lite / Action RPG / Diablo like / Hack'n'Slash
Legend of Grimrock: CRPG / Dungeon Crawler
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
19,818
Location
Germany
For Diablo like you probably mean Should Have for Story. No Story Should Have for Diablo 2? Mmm I didn't noticed, perhaps.

This is making Should Have criteria extra important, the post you quoted isn't clear on that it seems implies Must Have conditions for sub genres. And you add CRPG+Subgenre on the table, through Should Have criteria.

But for Should Have Diablo 2 looks strong:
- C5: you can create your characters. At least it's more choices than the Witcher series and plenty JRPG.
- C6: the player needs preplanning for the development of the character(s)
- C7: the primary means of problem solving, gameworld interaction and overcoming challenges is the tactical use of character/party skills/abilities. At least as well than most real time RPG.
- E4: there are NPCs in the game
- E5: you can choose a path (-> there is at least some branching)
- E6: your character(s) can manipulate the game world in some way (-> e.g. pull levers, push buttons, open chests, …).
- E7: the gameworld can affect your character(s) (-> e.g. weather, traps, closed doors, poisoned areas, …)
- E8: there are initially inaccessible areas in the gameworld that can only be reached by enhancing your characters' abilities, solving quests or puzzles (-> e.g. unlock locked areas, overcome obstacles, repair bridges, dispel barriers, …)
- F1: Combat efficiency is in some way tied to character stats or abilities (-> e.g. amount of damage, chance to hit, weapon access, …)
- F2: Combat works with some random elements (game internal dice rolls)
- F3: Combat should provide some challenge (-> e.g. preparing, use of tactics or environment possible).

I see no clear reason to not give Diablo 2 CRPG tag instead of CRPG lite. But ok CRPG Something else because of lack of Story Should Have.

For me Diablo 2 and any Diablo like I played aren't true RPG a lot more because their gameplay is a lot too much focused on combats, character building, equipment. Not because of Must Have elements filled or not.

That's probably through story I shift the most from this point of view. A RPG with Dialog choices and some (true) morale choices is often a lot more superficial than a RPG with a lot of exploration choices and problem solving which doesn't mean pure puzzling. At end those in second category feels to me more like true RPG than those in first category.

If Morale choices really involving the player is something, in practice morale choices are often very light. If Dialog choices is a good feature, it's still a very basic gameplay, at least for most games.

This could explain why for me some "Dungeon Crawlers" are much more true RPG than many RPG.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
I only played Diablo 1 (I don't like it at all). For Diablo 1

S6: your character(s) can make choices in those interactions - no
S7: at least some of these choices have consequences - no
S8: advancing in the story requires thinking of the player (-> e.g. irreversible choices, moral dilemma, riddles, . . .) - no

are not fulfilled in my opinion.

I like Dungeon Crawlers more than Hack'n'Slash games as well. But the goal of the checklist was not, to identify what we like most, but what games are commonly tagged as CRPG.
I like that with the current system both (dungeon crawlers and Hack'n'Slash games) have often to be tagged with a sub-genre, because I want to know if I get a dungeon crawler or something else.
The checklist is not an evaluation about better/worse CRPGs. It just counts common CRPG elements, Must Haves are necessary, Should Haves are less common and optional, but if a Should Have is missing you have to make an explanation and/or sub-tag the game.

A game with all Must Haves and all Should Haves is a CRPG with many elements and options. If someone likes this more than a game with only the Must Haves is a personal preference.
You can get even more insight with the huge Nice To Have-checklist. Just check for elements you like.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
19,818
Location
Germany
The good ole what is an RPG debate. Everyone has a different opinion.:biggrin:

Anyway I appreciate the tool HiddenX. Even if I don't use it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
36,185
Location
Spudlandia
I only played Diablo 1 (I don't like it at all). For Diablo 1

S6: your character(s) can make choices in those interactions - no
S7: at least some of these choices have consequences - no
S8: advancing in the story requires thinking of the player (-> e.g. irreversible choices, moral dilemma, riddles, . . .) - no

are not fulfilled in my opinion.
Looks like you listened the hype, but the truth is Diablo 1 is an overrated crap, it's a shame for Diablo 2.

Still on those story points I think you are right for Diablo 2 too. But I already confirmed it so you argued on that for nothing.

The point is Should Have points aren't only story stuff, and I already provided a long list achieved for Diablo 2 (and please let Diablo 1 rest in peace).

Or do you mean the difference between CRPG and CRPG lite is only related to story Should Have points?

The goal of the checklist was not, to identify what we like most, but what games are commonly tagged as CRPG.
I like that with the current system both (dungeon crawlers and Hack'n'Slash games) have often to be tagged with a sub-genre, because I want to know if I get a dungeon crawler or something else.
The checklist is not an evaluation about better/worse CRPGs. It just counts common CRPG elements, Must Haves are necessary, Should Haves are less common and optional, but if a Should Have is missing you have to make an explanation and/or sub-tag the game.
And Diablo 2 is an example matching CRPG not even CRPG lite, you can add Action to the tag, same for Gothic 2.

And still I doubt much would agree Diablo 2 is CRPG when most would agree Gothic 2 is CRPG.

I quote the Must Have list is very cautious so most RPG will match the CRPG tag, pretty sure that this doesn't reflect reality of how some players use this tag.

For me CRPG is just computer RPG, a tag of past meaning less and less to oppose computer RPG to JRPG/consoles RPG.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
I think we talk past each other.

Yes - the Must Haves are weak conditions, so all CRPGs are recognized as part of the CRPG genre, even lite ones, even borderline games like Farcry 3, Deus Ex etc.

If you are interested in more sophisticated CRPGs look at the Should Have criteria. And of course Gothic 3 will fulfill more criteria there than a Diablo clone.

If you are interested in even more specialised elements take a look in the Nice To Have list - there's even more to learn about a game.

You can even use all these list elements and give them your own priority and make your own clusters. After all it's only a checklist for CRPG elements not a definition of the CRPG genre.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
19,818
Location
Germany
There's no debate ok, just saying that my feeling to define real RPG doesn't follow a list of features.

For CRPG tag it has no real existence in my opinion, it is used but none ever provided a definition, and this analyzer won't define it either. For me Diablo 2 example show it can't do that.

But yeah the analyzer can be a tool to comment a RPG from features list perspective.

A list of features isn't a gameplay. The gameplay is the combination and that's very different. Length of list of features never defined a quality, nor for me. Can features define a genre, not for RPG, too diversified genre.

Let say different opinions and no debate, ok.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
Yeah - chances are a little bit higher that a game has more quality if more CRPG features are implemented, but that doesn't guarantee quality.
Like an over-engineered car that has every feature you can think of, but it doesn't drive so well. To answer questions like
  • Is the gameplay good ?
  • Is the game interesting ?
  • Has the game a high quality?
you have to write a review. To answer these questions you have to measure the game against your personal subjective taste. The checklist can help to answer these questions and can help not to miss any feature, but the checklist cannot answer these questions objectively alone.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
19,818
Location
Germany
Yeah - chances are a little bit higher that a game has more quality if more CRPG features are implemented, but that doesn't guarantee quality.
Like an over-engineered car that has every feature you can think of, but it doesn't drive so well. To answer questions like
  • Is the gameplay good ?
  • Is the game interesting ?
  • Has the game a high quality?
you have to write a review. To answer these questions you have to measure the game against your personal subjective taste. The checklist can help to answer these questions and can help not to miss any feature, but the checklist cannot answer these questions objectively alone.
Here we are switching to another topic.

Reviewing is an old topic for me, because I tried (many decades ago, for books and game addons) and it probably changed a bit my point of view.

I believe my point of view is totally unique so it will only hurt you and won't make us more agree on some topic, but who care we agree on anything? Nobody but a few with a Paladin/Diplomat syndrome, ok but time for them to check some doctor.

Reviewing is so difficult that it's a bit embarrassing to have negative comments on this review or that review. I would list 3 core problems:
- Humanity isn't an army of clone. One answer for all is an impossible target.
- There's a lot of subjectivity involved, transform subjectivity in math hasn't work yet, not even a bit.
- No matter how it's a lot a matter of experience, and that means that reviewer current mood is highly involved, luck can influence a lot too, first experience is always unique so replay for a second/deeper verification has a very relative value.

Let see some solutions attempts:
- One major element of difference between humans in front of a topic is experience and knowledge depth of this topic. This is leading to admit that an elite is identified, with enough experience and knowledge, and they give the value. But it's democracy times, number of sells looks so more concrete and solid than the opinion of a small elite. If something is great or boring for an elite with a deep knowledge on the topic, how his opinion is valid for a player with a much more limited experience. Internet questioned even more the elite aspect, where's the elite, how identify it, elite is everywhere now so impossible to identify clearly.
- Use objective criteria. A typical example is the reviewer that consider what would be the result of his review, check around and quotes he is totally out of the range of other reviews. A typical rescue is go back and pick objective criteria and consider them. the reviewer was perhaps in bad mood, or didn't play well the game, or his wife harassed him, many more. Ok but how valid is such approach, see what it is really. It's something related about enjoyment, and profit from it (fun, use brain, thought on life, adrenalin boost, emotions, beat problems, anything matching). The reviewer get bad/very good result from a game, and throw it to trash to try change it though objective criteria that will hardly hint anything on emotions, fun, solving problems, more making play the game enjoyable. This is leading only to absurd reviews, all those review making no sense come from such error.
- Use cold analysis. It's close to objective criteria but a lot more sophisticated. One example of process is to identify elements hinting quality. For example, not just consider there's one or more dialog choice, but consider an average of 3 dialog choice is the hint of a complexity that hints a quality level. For sure it's a lot related to compare with previous games. The point is there's a major problem in such approach, where enjoyment is the point, it is ignored and throw in trash. For sure such approach won't lead to absurdity as soon it is based on a very deep knowledge of a topic and a lot of experience on it. But it's still totally wrong. And consider use two approach, and temper one with a cold analysis, it won't make the product more enjoyable, nor even for more players. Eventually there's a chance that the review will fit better a tiny amount of players matching very well the reviewer on many aspects, that's short, and at end the review was still a lie in part.

So concrete criteria to help review a product, how much a lie it is, in my opinion a lot because such criteria will never give level of profit take from the play. And if they can be a hint, how valid it is compared to the real enjoyment get by the reviewer, close to not at all valid in my opinion.

And this reviewing problem is aggravated by tiresome problems. Too many games played and reviewed up to have lost most appeal, too many games played up to over-evaluate innovations aspects, a game to play and review when you would want not play it, or play another, rush a play to be able make a review in time, more.

Is criteria will solve such problems, nope.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
I agree reviewing is hard. Fair reviewing is even harder.
A good approach is IMHO that you tell your readers what your personal preferences are.
So they know what measuring stick you are using.

I tried this approach earlier with the CRPG-Meter (very laborious).

A good solution for review-readers is to find reviewers that have the same taste in games like you.

For example the RPGWatch-Curator is very popular, so many people seem to like the taste of our site and my taste in CRPGs.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
19,818
Location
Germany
A good solution for review-readers is to find reviewers that have the same taste in games like you.
Or reviewers that at least know there's differing opinions about things. Some folks love micro-managing, some despise it, so the reviewer should mention what level of micro-managing is in the game and give some sort of hint as to how it affected the score. Then the reader can correct the score for their own taste.

As long as reviewers do that, you don't have to try and find somebody that's your perfect match. (Though it does make the reviews a longer read.)
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,238
Location
Kansas City
Fair review and explain why the game is great/bad are two other reviews problems.

Fair is leading soften/boost a review for friends products, and the more the reviewer is a specialist the more he tends have "friends", the problem seems simple but it isn't.

Explain is the same pitfall than evaluation, but in worse. It's great (for you) and you explain why through objective criteria picked "randomly". The review constantly push transform experience into concrete elements. For sure, experience and knowledge in the domain do help, but the process is a constant problem, and often it leads "explain" through lists of criteria not fully linked to the topic explained. This problem is seen more often during forum arguing, a player didn't like a game, can't explain fully why, then pick a list of criteria or a list of lack of criteria, and argue here is the problem.

Find reviewers matching yourself is definitely the better know trick, but people are changing and no people is the same. And then it works better when the reviewer is seen, a bit, as a guide to the path of knowledge. It leads to a process to learn appreciate what's "good" or reject what's "bad". Identify the guides was easier when elites was more easily identified, but internet came, and a restrictive set of elites involve a lot of side effects. At some points even if the guide aspect is natural and makes sense, it can also lead to sheep behavior and sudden non sense absurdity spreading quickly and widely.

For the guide aspect, it's something that puzzles me, in general reviewers don't hesitate learn what to enjoy, but rarely how.

Do I use reviews? Not really or past plays. It's not working for me, but it's rare I don't quickly browse a few reviews along the process to select or not a game.

What job is doing a curator, I don't know, for me, it's an occasional checklist to quote more games to consider play, but it just make me add games in a list of games to look closer. I have no idea why RPGWatch curator is so popular, myself I can't bear the other specialized RPG forum, just a bunch of hysteric dictators headbutted with ruts, and I'm sorry for the souls lost there. I know that RPGwatch curator can list many games I won't like, but it's a worthy source for games with RPG elements to consider play or not. Its openness (ability to include more than exclude) is a strength but isn't pushed too far for me. Some other curators are just too open for me, then I feel get overloaded with suggestions not enough filtered.

But at reverse, use this curator to check past decade wouldn't work for me, it is too inclusive and would involve consider a lot too many games. But I don't think curators is the same than reviews, nor that any made along a decade can be used as a checklist. Probably less than reviews, curators are still linked to actuality, but they are missing the wider perceptive that brings time, and a decade checklist without some filtering from time would be only for few wanted spend a lot of time through a very long list, and probably most of those would be a bit optimistic in believing they could filter or consider such huge list.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
Back
Top Bottom