Is the CRPG genre going to change whatsoever?

[American Fox]

Fantasy Life.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

I mean... you still do point and click for all of them but there's quite a lot of change in the mechanics. Tyranny doesnt really feel like Icewind Dale for instance.

Also, does anyone know if there are any 3rd party NWN servers still going?

 

[critanime]

Now I want to play BG2...

 

[loa]

What are you talking about?
Mass effect, dragon age and the witcher are where crpgs went.
That's a lot of change. So much so that you'll probably not even recognize them as the same genre.

 

[Zenja]

Snip

Man, I don't think there were that many moral choices at all in Morrowind. Skyrim had more. Both Baulder's Gate had little choice as well. This was exemplified for me when I realised the ending of Witcher 3 was determined by two separate choices and nothing else mattered. There aren't many decision that have any weight to it in these games.

Now if you think there are some good moral choice to individual side quests, some people would point out the Witcher 3. But when I went through, you didn't actually decide much. You chose between a town or kids, the leader of Skellige, who survived Kaer Morhen, the ending, who you love and that's about it. (The Kaer Morhen one is a big one, with multiple flags and is probably the best). Morrowind also didn't have many impactful decision and you mostly just did boring fetch quests.

You could also say that you don't like Skyrim moral choices. I'd agree but I'd put Morrowind in the same boat. Morrowind is only better because you can kill main quest givers and get around it.

Morrowind skill is in the thing that was more simplified, but then if it means that I don't miss nine times out of ten, I'm probably going to pick Skyrim. Morrowind made combat unenjoyable and the first dungeon was by far the hardest (same with Daggerfall though). Also, Morrowind was the huge simplification - from Daggerfall. I remember the complaints about Morrowind from Daggerfall players

Side note, Morrowind was when the storyline/ ending issue started really cropping up for me. You got 4 choices of endings in Daggerfall then Morrowind comes along and say, nope, your choices didn't make a difference because all of them a true. Deus Ex: Invisible War did the same only a little while later. It complete tries to negate all your choice. Dark Souls is the same as well.

Morrowind was actually more of me pointing at where RPGs of the time started heading. Morrowind was the first step away from the CRPGs of yesteryear the OP was talking about with the likes of BG2 and such. While it is true that many games from then didnt hold much in the way of choice consequence, it was improving. Back then, it was actually Arcanum that fascinated me and still does to this day. Many of Obsidian's crew worked for Troika back then I believe so I am one of the few who get excited about Pillars of Eternity and the like. (Although I have yet to have a chance to play it.)

When Morrowind came out, it fascinated everyone (myself included) at fully 3D free roam exploration and non turn based cambat/leveling in a single player fantasy world that we take for granted now days. Back then to get that you had to pay monthly on Everquest for that kind of experience. Even Ultima was isometric as an MMO back then. Most RPGs were isometric. So 3D became the next big thing and CRPGs were put out to pasture. Eventually, choice dialogue came back around and it was accompanied by a moral choice system that is pretty sad. The whole "answer as a saint or an heartless asshole" clearly good vs evil. Or the choices mean nothing but exploring the conversation (Mass Effect) as it did back in the old days.

However, if we look back at the way they were playing with alternate endings with Arcanum and Fallout (Right before Morrowind's release) you could see that those two games were going to probably impact the CRPG market. But 3D impacted it harder and as a result depth of consequences as a feature took a backseat to pretty graphics. Now two decades later we are starting to be able to explore that idea again and I thought Mass Effect was going to do it, but they didn't. What Mass Effect did was neat but didn't amount to much in the way of innovating consequence. No game has yet to do what Arcanum accomplished 20 years ago. But CRPGs are coming back and I am hoping to see some innovation there myself. As the OP notes, there hasnt been much offered up yet to my knowledge. But I think the aesthetic lends itself over well to affordable innovation into multiple endings and branching paths and/or consequence.

As for sequels being able to pick up from multiple end points is simply untouched innovations still yet to happen on either front. But I think there is still plenty that can be explored by a stand alone game with multiple endings. Not every game needs a sequel. Not every sequel needs a strong reference to its predecessor. It all depends on how it is handled I guess.

 

[DoPo]

No game has yet to do what Arcanum accomplished 20 years ago.

The more time passes, the more I see this as true. And before anybody says it, it's not really "rose tinted glasses" that lead me to believe that - the first time I played Arcanum was in 2012 and I absolutely loved the game. Playing it so long after it was released gave me the opportunity to appreciate just how ahead of its time the game was - it actually mocked, criticised and flipped some common trends on their head - trends that still show up in games to this day. Arcanum managed to be a lesson in story telling that apparently fell on a lot of deaf years for more than a dozen years.

Summary: I really love Arcanum. I think I must replay it soon. Heck, I've been playing Might and Magic 7, so probably when I finish that.

 

[Fallow]

Divinity Original Sin was mentioned above, that's a good example of evolving CRPGs. I would also say that XCOM:EU and XCOM2 are recent CRPGS that made innovative strides on the older formulae.

 

[Imre Csete]

Monster Hunter games had my interest for a while, I'm excited for Dauntless and Prey for the Gods coming out this year. Since I'm a PC gamer, I only had the chance to try Dragon's Dogma, which is pretty much the perfect mix of player imput skill and numbercrunching for me.

The story is nothing to write home about though, Gothic games (the good ones) had it all somewhat, but since ambition and pushing the boundaries are second concern in AAA games and indies don't have the budget to please everyone, I'm okay with the genre branching off.

There is no chance we are going to see a 'perfect' RPG with top of the line graphics, cinematic open world presentation, in-depth rule systems, great story and character writing, excellent combat and blowjob dispensers.

But that's fine with me.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

I want a DnD game where you can play as close to actually playing DnD in person but you know, through a video game.

If someone ever manages to nail that...

I would throw money at it. My D&D group would throw money at it. Like, all of the money.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

What are you talking about?
Mass effect, dragon age and the witcher are where crpgs went.
That's a lot of change. So much so that you'll probably not even recognize them as the same genre.

Barring the Witcher, the RPGs you mentioned are from franchises that have stripped more of their RPG features with each entry into the series. If change in cRPGs means taking away what makes them RPGs in the first place, the genre is in trouble. At least when it comes to Western cRPGs.

OP: I have no problem with the action based combat. What I have a problem with is the padding of content into BS fetch quests like in Dragon Age 3. It seems cRPGs (at least the ones that get released on console as well) means a sandbox with a trope filled story and action combat. The Witcher 3 seems to be the only RPG that doesn't require mods to be valid on its own (I see you TES fans), and Bioware games have gotten progressively more stripped of their RPG elements as well as their stripped of their ability to carry a story that isn't a done to death Hollywood standard tale.

I feel like we're going to see more innovation in this genre coming from outside of the US. Stuff like Dark Souls was a breath of fresh air. It told its story in a different way than other RPGs and while it is action combat, it still has the facets of RPG mechanics that make the genre so loved in the first place. The main problem is that American companies are scared to death of trying anything new.

 

[Saelune]

I want a DnD game where you can play as close to actually playing DnD in person but you know, through a video game.

If someone ever manages to nail that...

I would throw money at it. My D&D group would throw money at it. Like, all of the money.

WotC should give it a shot. I had hoped that Sword Coast Legend would have been that.

There are these sites and even programs that seek to basically emulate DnD, you'd think WotC would want more of the cut.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

Why, yes, games that are developed with the express goal of being more like older games, ARE more like older games.

Bingo.
You can't really hold games like Pillars of Eternity or new!Torment as examples of the direction genre's evolving, because they're specifically designed to bank on nostalgia, and evoke the feeling of isometric Infinity Engine titles. They're an example of genre "going back to its roots".

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

Well wasteland 3 is going to have co-op. That is a newish mutation.

 

[Terminal Blue]

You can't really hold games like Pillars of Eternity or new!Torment as examples of the direction genre's evolving, because they're specifically designed to bank on nostalgia, and evoke the feeling of isometric Infinity Engine titles.

Exactly.

In the case of Torment, it's also a Kickstarter thing. Kickstarter is all about milking the nostalgia because who is going to throw money towards a new and untested idea when they could be throwing money towards a game which gives them warm feels in their gut about games they played when they were seven.

I suspect another problem is that the line between what is and isn't an RPG can get pretty blurry nowadays, which means the only games which get described as "cRPGs" tend to be those which are so saturated in genre conventions that they can't be described as anything else. The Souls Games, for example, have been a massive shot in the arm for innovation in RPGs and one which is starting to bear fruit in all the "souls-like" action RPGs coming out all over the place. Then there's the "rogue-lite" trend which is still going on with games like the Binding of Issac, Enter the Gungeon and Crypt of the Necrodancer. Then before that there's the survival crafting thing. Games like Starbound, Terrarria and even Minecraft to an extent could easily be seen as RPGs.

I want a DnD game where you can play as close to actually playing DnD in person but you know, through a video game.

A major issue there is that P&P RPGs in general have kind of had their day. There will always be people who enjoy them and want to play them, but it isn't big money any more.

Community split is also a problem. There's a reason why there was never a 4e equivallent to NWN. I personally think 5e D&D is great and is the first time in my life I've really felt inspired to play D&D (I generally detest any P&P RPG in which the concept of "builds" is meaningful) but a lot of people will always romanticise the "silver age" 3/3.5 era and see it as the high point of D&D as a system, and I'm not sure a game like NWN could really survive without those people.

You'd also be competing with 2D virtual tabletops, which are fairly cheap and common now.

 

[Saelune]

You can't really hold games like Pillars of Eternity or new!Torment as examples of the direction genre's evolving, because they're specifically designed to bank on nostalgia, and evoke the feeling of isometric Infinity Engine titles.

Exactly.

In the case of Torment, it's also a Kickstarter thing. Kickstarter is all about milking the nostalgia because who is going to throw money towards a new and untested idea when they could be throwing money towards a game which gives them warm feels in their gut about games they played when they were seven.

I suspect another problem is that the line between what is and isn't an RPG can get pretty blurry nowadays, which means the only games which get described as "cRPGs" tend to be those which are so saturated in genre conventions that they can't be described as anything else. The Souls Games, for example, have been a massive shot in the arm for innovation in RPGs and one which is starting to bear fruit in all the "souls-like" action RPGs coming out all over the place. Then there's the "rogue-lite" trend which is still going on with games like the Binding of Issac, Enter the Gungeon and Crypt of the Necrodancer. Then before that there's the survival crafting thing. Games like Starbound, Terrarria and even Minecraft to an extent could easily be seen as RPGs.

I want a DnD game where you can play as close to actually playing DnD in person but you know, through a video game.

A major issue there is that P&P RPGs in general have kind of had their day. There will always be people who enjoy them and want to play them, but it isn't big money any more.

Community split is also a problem. There's a reason why there was never a 4e equivallent to NWN. I personally think 5e D&D is great and is the first time in my life I've really felt inspired to play D&D (I generally detest any P&P RPG in which the concept of "builds" is meaningful) but a lot of people will always romanticise the "silver age" 3/3.5 era and see it as the high point of D&D as a system, and I'm not sure a game like NWN could really survive without those people.

You'd also be competing with 2D virtual tabletops, which are fairly cheap and common now.

If it is good and user friendly though, it will be infectious. Learning tabletop rules is intimidating, and for some very difficult, but having a game that does it all for you would be great. Even as an experienced player and DM, using things like Roll20 is well, I feel like a newb. But when I played NWN, I didnt even know DnD then, but had fun. Later learning the real rules only made it more fun.

Plus people who dont have others to play with could use it to play with others, and I know if they made one and I liked it, Id encourage others to buy it so we could play DnD together. If one existed, Id probably round up various people from my DnD question topics.

I think the demand for such a game is really super high, and alot of people at most just dont know they want it, but well...

 

[Mister K]

No game has yet to do what Arcanum accomplished 20 years ago.

The more time passes, the more I see this as true. And before anybody says it, it's not really "rose tinted glasses" that lead me to believe that - the first time I played Arcanum was in 2012 and I absolutely loved the game. Playing it so long after it was released gave me the opportunity to appreciate just how ahead of its time the game was - it actually mocked, criticised and flipped some common trends on their head - trends that still show up in games to this day. Arcanum managed to be a lesson in story telling that apparently fell on a lot of deaf years for more than a dozen years.

Summary: I really love Arcanum. I think I must replay it soon. Heck, I've been playing Might and Magic 7, so probably when I finish that.

If only tech builds were not so crappy compared to fighter and mage ones. It's a STEAMPUNK game, damnit. I want guns to be the most destructive weapon in the game!

But yeah, the game is great. Well, maybe except for not really conclusive (for main character) ending and this first cave with stone golems. God I hate this place.

 

[Trunkage]

What are you talking about?
Mass effect, dragon age and the witcher are where crpgs went.
That's a lot of change. So much so that you'll probably not even recognize them as the same genre.

Barring the Witcher, the RPGs you mentioned are from franchises that have stripped more of their RPG features with each entry into the series. If change in cRPGs means taking away what makes them RPGs in the first place, the genre is in trouble. At least when it comes to Western cRPGs.

OP: I have no problem with the action based combat. What I have a problem with is the padding of content into BS fetch quests like in Dragon Age 3. It seems cRPGs (at least the ones that get released on console as well) means a sandbox with a trope filled story and action combat. The Witcher 3 seems to be the only RPG that doesn't require mods to be valid on its own (I see you TES fans), and Bioware games have gotten progressively more stripped of their RPG elements as well as their stripped of their ability to carry a story that isn't a done to death Hollywood standard tale.

I feel like we're going to see more innovation in this genre coming from outside of the US. Stuff like Dark Souls was a breath of fresh air. It told its story in a different way than other RPGs and while it is action combat, it still has the facets of RPG mechanics that make the genre so loved in the first place. The main problem is that American companies are scared to death of trying anything new.

I agreed with the Witcher 3 until realised that all it was doing was giving me fetch/kill quests with an extra step. So they are literally making me do more work than an average game. For me, it became a real problem when you went to Skelllige and I'd enough of that shenanigans. I now see Witcher 3 as still better written than most RPGs but it don't put it on a pedestal like some other people do.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

What are you talking about?
Mass effect, dragon age and the witcher are where crpgs went.
That's a lot of change. So much so that you'll probably not even recognize them as the same genre.

Barring the Witcher, the RPGs you mentioned are from franchises that have stripped more of their RPG features with each entry into the series. If change in cRPGs means taking away what makes them RPGs in the first place, the genre is in trouble. At least when it comes to Western cRPGs.

OP: I have no problem with the action based combat. What I have a problem with is the padding of content into BS fetch quests like in Dragon Age 3. It seems cRPGs (at least the ones that get released on console as well) means a sandbox with a trope filled story and action combat. The Witcher 3 seems to be the only RPG that doesn't require mods to be valid on its own (I see you TES fans), and Bioware games have gotten progressively more stripped of their RPG elements as well as their stripped of their ability to carry a story that isn't a done to death Hollywood standard tale.

I feel like we're going to see more innovation in this genre coming from outside of the US. Stuff like Dark Souls was a breath of fresh air. It told its story in a different way than other RPGs and while it is action combat, it still has the facets of RPG mechanics that make the genre so loved in the first place. The main problem is that American companies are scared to death of trying anything new.

I agreed with the Witcher 3 until realised that all it was doing was giving me fetch/kill quests with an extra step. So they are literally making me do more work than an average game. For me, it became a real problem when you went to Skelllige and I'd enough of that shenanigans. I now see Witcher 3 as still better written than most RPGs but it don't put it on a pedestal like some other people do.

That's actually a very fair point when it comes to the Witcher 3. Though I do think at least for its time, it does deserve the praise it gets with it being cohesively good at more than just one or 2 aspects of what makes a cRPG great. That's the rub with Bioware's and Bethesda's work lately. Its either great combat in an boring sandbox or a fun sandbox with mediocre combat. Both have lost points in the story department.

 

[sXeth]

Computer Role Playing Game is really kind of a broad label. I wouldn't even put it as a genre of its own.

I get from the further text that you mean the circa 2000 wave of not-quite-isometric party-based, pseudo-tactical, dialogue heavy RPGs, the style made famous by Black Isle (later Bioware). But you're complaining about genre standards in a genre you've basically isolated of your own volition. Anything that alters significantly from those boundaries is already excluded because of those arbitrary boundaries.

Go a few years back and you could claim the same non-changing genre of the first person 4-6 person party of simulated 3d dungeon crawlers as the CRPG (Ultima Underworld, Dungeon Hack, Eye of the Beholder, Wizardry, Might & Magic and the other slew of them that were the big wave prior to Baldurs Gate). You'd even have the same resurgence wave there was a few years back with stuff like Legend of Grimrock.

 

[Trunkage]

That's actually a very fair point when it comes to the Witcher 3. Though I do think at least for its time, it does deserve the praise it gets with it being cohesively good at more than just one or 2 aspects of what makes a cRPG great. That's the rub with Bioware's and Bethesda's work lately. Its either great combat in an boring sandbox or a fun sandbox with mediocre combat. Both have lost points in the story department.

I noticed what kept me going in Fallout 4 a little while ago when thinking about it. Because it wasn't the quests.

Fallout 4 (but more in Fallout 3) had interesting places I could visit. I see something on the compass or skyline and say what's that? In Witcher 3 I did that a couple of times and was punished because you could only get the full experience of that area through a quest. Sometimes it was too connected and the modular way Fallouts are built meant you could explore anywhere you wanted. I remember repeatedly going back to Quincy to clear out that outdoor dungeon because it was a massive challenge and got harder as you levelled up.

Also, weapon variety - I wanted to do something other than swing a sword. The magic system was limited by the way the levelling up worked.