What will be Bioshock's impact on the cRPG?

Totally relaxed and sober here.

What is with the false accusations, and lynch mob "shoot the messenger" tactics ?

Is reality that irritating ?

Maybe that's an effect of alcohol & pharmaceuticals combined with FPS mayhem…

Arpyjee, with all due respect, fuck you. I can say that because I said, "with all due respect." (And I'm a sailor, so that's pretty light for me.)

If you don't like it, don't look at it.

the pompous "shoot the messenger" line wasn't accurate the first time and certainly not after repeated use. i think a more proper analogy would be "don't shoot the unabomber". and while i wouldn't since i won't ever own a firearm, i think their are plenty here who would take offense to the "package" you keep trying to deliver. i love reality, which is why i don't do drugs save a beer or two, and often times a bit too much cafeinne. my grammar is usually intentional. my lack of spelling not so much. i also like other peoples reality. but sometimes those peoples reality is a bit of an incubus filled with a bit too much selfish views. maybe try some art, then people can try to understand the tortured indivual, because even the most offensive art is still less offensive than a righteous rhinonocerous on a rampage.

OK, so stepping away from the back-and-forth, I'm not clear what you want. We already have a non-RPG section; beyond that, I can't control what people post about and I wouldn't want to (beyond the usual no-personal-abuse bla bla). Perhaps we could be more anal about moving some threads but I'm not clear what that actually achieves in practice.

Bioshock is just the flavour of the month - it has dominated the gaming press over the last few weeks, is actually a good game and has been controversial (activations, copy protection), hence people want to talk about it…and it will be gone in another week or two. You know, sometimes people want to discuss non-RPGs with other RPG fans, because they know they will have a common appreciation and perspective on certain things. I think that's a good thing.

If you want to influence the editorial side (if you can write), I called for community help a week or so ago - come join us or offer to write a retrospective on BG or whatever topic you think we are missing.

Arpygee is 99% right.

He missed one thing, though, as did many of you. The central defining element of an Rpg is in character options and character development. That's traceable back to Rpg roots in the form of the tabletop games where people would roll up a character, each one TOTALLY different, and have it progress in various ways.
Each Rpg'ers 'role', therefore, was/is a very individual thing, extremely diverse and highly configurable.

The "Fu** you" Arpygee response is lame, impotent and childish. The notion that putting a Non-Rpg in it's proper category is somehow akin to mass murdering human BEINGS is totally insane.

Grow up.

Interesting to try to answer the question "what will be bioshocks impact on the cRPG" and reading the discussions. Was terryfied it contained spoilers.

Like somebody pointed out, Bioshock borrowed to heavily on its cousins, and only kept the part that wasn't good. I.e, the part that made this a shooter. I don't know the last time i pressed F when i was low on health. Does anyone? and why? I got closer to the end and was fed up with the respawning from levels that happened in a blink of an eye.

No, i hope - but i fear, they don't seeing the sales - that they learn from their misstakes. Take a heavy look of the "sense" of freedom you got in SS and SS2. How lesser action, became a greater game.

Hm, i feel this is DOOM done right. Not a reharsh of System Shock. Altough, i feel that i am playing SS2 in a lot of aspects… and in this case i don't feel its the good parts.

Me hope people start to look at Bioshock and make them take a closer look at what did really make SS and SS2 such a great games. The closed space, the feeling of urgency, the question "Why, what, how?".

Hm, i am dissapointed in Bioshock. It delivered an action game which i probably not will finish. (Got up to the 80% mark sort of and really couldn't stand "another one").

From my part i hope people get curious about System Shock2 and start playing that classic (1 will pehaps turn off people because of the graphics). And if EA has some intelligence they should learn about the "Spritiual successor" of SS and SS2 and do SS3. And do it the right way.

Hm, i can dream.



Well, bioshock is the best shooter, my dissapointment come from the hype. The shooter 2.0 stuff. When will developers learn. This isn't any 2.0. This is 1.1. At the most. And its damned good. Best shooter i have played. Trouble is that i find them to booring.

I have to agree, as stated earlier it just wasn't my cup of tea. It's an excellent shooter, but if you're looking for a solid RPG experience, Bioshock ain't for you.

Originally Posted by Baldurfan
Arpygee is 99% right.

S/he may be, but s/he's 100% offensive in his/her troll-like manner of letting us know about it.

…. The notion that putting a Non-Rpg in it's proper category is somehow akin to mass murdering human BEINGS is totally insane.

Grow up.

I will agree to grow up if you will agree to get a sense of humor. The concentration camp remark was (obviously) satirical and intended to let a little air out of a rather pompous, self-righteous balloon.

I appreciate your on-topic comments. I'm not sure how reclassifying threads in more specific categories will affect how other genre titles impact cRPG's in the long run though. It seems like a cosmetic adjustment that doesn't really address why the popularity of the old school cRPG is lessening in the mainstream gaming population.

Seems rather simple to me. Original question has already been tweaked to a more appropriate one (paraphrased: Does Bioshock have an impact on cRPGs) and thus it is 100% relevant for discussion on a cRPG forum.

Games development and markets are never completely isolated - I assert that a critically well acclaimed and commercially very successful game *will* have an impact on game development, regardless of the genres.

Game devs/publishers will look at such a game and isolate elements that were successful that can be applied to their own ideas. Genre is rarely the sole cause for a game's success.

I will just remedy one false statement i made.

i did finished it! My first shooter EVER. Well, thats has to say something. It didn't completly suck.

And kalniel, no i don't think (now) this should be part of an rpg community. But i don't mind the discussion about. I think Stalker was more RPG then bioshock. Bioshock was an excellent movie.

And i love action movies!

//
Hm just 2 cent. Seeing this game could have been an rpg and in some views it still is. The impact on the cRPG seeing the sale number could be that more cRPG will be dumbed down to action games.
//

Originally Posted by mute
//
Hm just 2 cent. Seeing this game could have been an rpg and in some views it still is. The impact on the cRPG seeing the sale number could be that more cRPG will be dumbed down to action games.
//

MORE dumbed down games??? Is that even possible?

Übereil

I don't have a problem with 'Arpygee' and his ideas, but he hasn't answered my basic question:

- What defines the ruination of the RPG?

He talked about short games being a rip-off. I asked for a cut-off. Without a concrete number against which to evaluate, he is ranting and not making a logical argument.

Also, he states that 'first person', 'action' and 'click-fest' are all part of the greedy ruination of RPG. So I can assume:
- Knights of the Old Republic has helped ruin RPG since it is relatively short.
- Gothic 2 has helped ruin RPG since it is action-oriented.
- Morrowind has helped ruin RPG since it is first person.
- Divine Divinity has helped ruin RPG since it is a click-fest.

You cannot just drop generic bombs about the ruination of the genre and then cite no specifics. You want to debate? Stop telling us we're all apologists and start citing facts - because most of us here agree that RPG's have been largely neglected.

i guess i was brainwashed by my original first person gaming experience--bard's tale. that game was a horrible disgrace to rpgs…

Originally Posted by Baldurfan
Arpygee is 99% right.

He missed one thing, though, as did many of you. The central defining element of an Rpg is in character options and character development. That's traceable back to Rpg roots in the form of the tabletop games where people would roll up a character, each one TOTALLY different, and have it progress in various ways.
Each Rpg'ers 'role', therefore, was/is a very individual thing, extremely diverse and highly configurable.

Now, see, that doesn't work (and noone missed it - we all know character development is a key part of most RPGs) - there are football simulations with highly customisable characters and development - but they are not RPGs. Conversely, there are PnP RPGs where characters don't really develop over the course of the game.

I agree it's the element that usually marks a game as an "RPG" rather than an adventure or action/adventure and it's probably something we all enjoy and embrace but in itself it can't define an "RPG".

And kalniel is correct - a discussion on the potential impact of Bioshock on the genre is a perfectly valid and potentially interesting discussion.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
Now, see, that doesn't work (and noone missed it - we all know character development is a key part of most RPGs) - there are football simulations with highly customisable characters and development - but they are not RPGs. Conversely, there are PnP RPGs where characters don't really develop over the course of the game.

I agree it's the element that usually marks a game as an "RPG" rather than an adventure or action/adventure and it's probably something we all enjoy and embrace but in itself it can't define an "RPG".

And kalniel is correct - a discussion on the potential impact of Bioshock on the genre is a perfectly valid and potentially interesting discussion.

But it doesn't have to be *exclusively* based on the presence of character options and development (which I admit I missed), and I don't believe anyone has stated that. Rather, it's a combination of *that*, possibly along with "dialogue & character interaction and impactful moral choices based on the alignment / reputation system". Having more than 1 worldly outcome and consequences BASED on the unique choices made and behaviours pursued, is likely another essential element.


Well, we're getting warmer, anyways.

But we must remain non-vindictive and *rational*.

There are likely more than 1 essential RPG elements. If we don't have limits on the definition or inclusiveness of the concept of 'RPG', then it will become meaningless, and subsequently, Mike Tyson Boxing, NHL2K8, FIFA 08, Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem, Unreal Tournament will ALL be classifiable as RPG's, because the concept of 'RPG' was irrationally allowed to mean "any game a human plays".

If you think that is acceptable, then you will literally destroy the concept entirely, by taking away any essential distinguishing elements/characteristcs it must possess *in order* to make it unique and distinguishable from *NON-Rpg's* .

When every game, and any game is considered an Rpg, then the concept has - by definition - been rendered meaningless, because nothing is judged to be classifiable as a *non-rpg*, and *every* game is judged to be classifiable as an *rpg*.

So then, in effect, any game would = a role-playing game ( g=rpg ).

I think everyone here knows that…and I don't think anyone is suggesting anything and everything be considered an RPG.

Originally Posted by txa1265
He talked about short games being a rip-off. I asked for a cut-off. Without a concrete number against which to evaluate, he is ranting and not making a logical argument.

Fallout was about 20 hours, with side-quests. Felt good too.

You cannot just drop generic bombs about the ruination of the genre and then cite no specifics. You want to debate? Stop telling us we're all apologists and start citing facts - because most of us here agree that RPG's have been largely neglected.

I think one problem is that people have pretty different expectations of what constitutes a role-playing game. For example, it's been claimed in this thread that the essence of a cRPG is character customization. I happen to disagree: I think the essence of a cRPG is the exploration of alternative narratives driven by player choice based on their motivation.

cRPG's have always had their limitations. The "roots" shall we say being DND, Runequest, Traveller, etc etc give the player/s limitless scope of what they want to do/be. Improvisation I believe is one of the key attributes of a true roleplaying game.

Originally Posted by woges
cRPG's have always had their limitations. The "roots" shall we say being DND, Runequest, Traveller, etc etc give the player/s limitless scope of what they want to do/be. Improvisation I believe is one of the key attributes of a true roleplaying game.

But computer RPG's allow very, very limited scope for improvisation, since the story, dialog, and general development has to be scripted. I mean sure, you can "improvise" about which stats/feats/spells/skills you pick, which will make the difference between kicking down a door, picking a lock, or spelling it open, but that doesn't really affect the outcome -- the door opens. IMO things only really get interesting if your actions do affect the outcomes; this, I believe, is why Fallout enjoys such a dedicated following. It's not *really* improvisation, since the game's responses to your choices are all programmed in, but it gives a strong impression of *feeling like* improvisation.

In fact, the only single-player computer games that do allow improvisation are tactical/strategic ones with "emergent gameplay." That's why I like the Total War series so much -- every battle is unique, and every so often a genuinely interesting one crops up. And that, I believe, explains the lasting appeal of the likes of Nethack or Diablo: paper-thin plots, but unpredictable gameplay.

The trick is often balancing improvisation/freedom/exploration/ with consequence and plot advancement. Games like Arcanum and Baldur's Gate give you a world in which you have at least the illusion of freedom and making things up as you go along, but bring you back to reality with a dull thud whenever you encounter a plot element. Still, it's a good combination, because without some sense of purpose there is little reward in wandering through endless repetitive random encounters, so it works out.

If you contrast that with Diablo you can see that as Prime Junta says, the randomness is the essence of the game, and it actually furthers the plot(such as it is) and blends with the stat grind in a nice marriage of form and function. Where you see the biggest difference, IMO, is in the way you get experience almost solely through combat, and that's why it can't accurately be classed with the roleplaying games, where experience flows from dialogue, NPC interaction, and quest resolution more than annihilating armies of monsters.

Being as how I don't play shooters, it's hard for me to assess how Bioshock lines up with these comparisons. Fifteen minutes of the demo(before vertigo disabled me) and other's spoilers in various threads are all I have to go by. But the impression I have is of a concentrated, directed experience which leans heavily on repetitive elements and the immersion of the player in a smaller, more detailed and well-realized alien world with preset goals involving some moral choice as the plot advancer.

I thought that these elements might be useful in countering the Oblivion syndrome(another game I haven't played but whose impact I can't avoid in any piece of gaming press), i.e., a game that's influenced the genre toward a game premise where the player has freedom without apparent consequence, with an emphasis on exploration in a large but homogenic world with generic NPCs and no moral choices. (And I'm not dissing the game, since I haven't played it, just talking about how it's massive popularity has influenced developer's approaches to their own games and gamer's expectations.)

I think cRPG's are crying out for their next level, and that highly visible games that sell well are going to influence them. The verdict is still out on whether it will be a positive or negative impact, but challenges like this are how evolution works.