The lull of RPGs

[The Gnome King]

A little known RPG gem is Anachronox, if you're looking for something to tide you over. It has one of the best stories ever in an RPG, turn based JRPG style combat, great characters among the best in RPG history, and a great sense of humor. If we're lucky Tom Hall will do a Kickstarter campaign for Anachronox 2 - the game was originally planned to have more content.

Ah ha! GoG has Anachronox, cool. I will have to pick it up and give it a whirl, it looks very interesting from what I have read about it in the past ten minutes or so. Thanks for the tip.

 

[Psychobabble]

I think what happened is most RPGs went on to morph into cutscene filled first person shooters.

 

[FoolKiller]

It is funny that the OP narrowed his/her view to Mass Effect and Dragon Age: Origins and then was surprised that those were the only two games to be those two games.

OP, you've basically said that you don't like RPGs, but rather like a very specific few games that just happen to be RPGs. There are a lot of good and great RPGs this generation but your narrowminded viewpoints don't allow for them.

 

[Milanezi]

To me, RPG is all about convincing me that the I am the character I created (or that I'm playing with, but it's harder to accept this idea if I didn't make the character myself) and that the world the game happens is real. That's why i say that Bethesda did a hell of a job with Fallout 3, it's a game that like the first two Fallout gave me a real option of totally ignoring any plot at all and playing the game however I wanted. I spent over 100 hours on that game after finishing the main story line and side quests, all I did was walk around, go to places I already visited, scavenge, fight the eventual raider, I felt like a true part of that universe. A close friend felt the same towards Skyrim (I didn't, but then again, it's no reason to judge, no game can absorb everyone into it).

But true enough, many RPG lost the perspective of "ROLE PLAYING". I love the whole Mass Effect Trilogy, but only ME 1 can be called a RPG, and that's because it relies heavily on how the player has control over the story, both 2nd and 3rd games only had a central story that got "masked" by certain decisions by the player, but that were ultimately no more than a "choose your path, left or right" in a Gears game... RPG leave a lot to the players imagination, and that's ok, as long as the game respects that "space": Dragon Age II had that sequence in which

Spoiler

the mage dude does that whole terrorist act on the inquisitor's tower or something; many people complained that it didn't matter wether the player chose to partake on the act or not, I don't believe that's a valid criticism: the game had a certain plot, and given the situation your decision did matter, but only to you, the mage had his actions set in place no matter what you decided, ultimately your decision did have an impact, it impacted on your relationship and on how you were seen by those close to you. In my opinion, that's enough RPG impact that requires imagination from the player, and respects that fact.

DA II did fail in other aspects though...

Ps: not going into technical issues here, because if we do, then I'll get back to hating Bethesda games in general, RPG or not lol

 

[briankoontz]

snip.

While I certainly agree with your sentiments on the "variety" not being there in terms of most video game RPGs being combat based, I have difficulty coming up with any examples outside of Planescape Torment where we really "had" this D&D feel in video games? If you look at other Infinity Engine games, even the ones with D&D license did not really embrace this sense of variety in gameplay, as all classes are essentially combative, and what noncombative skills were there ultimately felt even more niche or superfluous by the lack of situations in the gameplay where they'd be particularly effective.

I won't go any further back in time because I feel that CRPGs really peaked with the Infinity Engine (A far cry better than old SSI RPGs).

I really don't feel like we got close to this "variety of gameplay" until you hit upon the age of the sandbox games which didn't fully take off until the 2,000s with games like Morrowind. While yes there's been "dumbing down" in that series in general, the ability to directly mod those games gave us the option to pursue non-combative playstyles, I recall one of my most enjoyable experiences in Oblivion being playing a scared Imperial merchant who wouldn't fight and would bribe thieves to leave him alone, mods gave me the playstyle option to be a trader wandering town to town, hiring mercenary guards, owning businesses, and even investing in a medieval stock market. Almost no game would allow that same level of freedom to me, and no game I've seen would dare risk going full "niche" on that end.

I think as long as we have RPGs we can mod on the PC we will always have the option to play alternate playstyles, and I see the age where that happens more often to be ahead of us, not behind.

Survival Horror is the only genre that sometimes gets realism correct, tremendously ironically given the typical supernatural themes there and the overwhelming sense of dread and paranoia. Consider that while seemingly supernatural, the best horror is based on reality, such as Slender and the Enderman in Minecraft. Stanley Kubrick's The Shining is an amazing work of horror precisely because of it's grounding in reality. Realism is what allows for variety of gameplay because in real life we use creative thought to work out problems and help other people. Most people don't just choose which gun to use and then mechanically pull the trigger to work out their problems, and those who do I really don't want to role play in a video game or have anything to do with in real life.

The Sims series are much better RPGs than most in the official RPG genre, largely because they focus on realism and realistic social contexts (as realistic as gaming typically gets).

A problem is that game developers understand themselves as producing fantasies where the player engages in gloriously victorious combat (murdering the evil monsters to save the girl/world/hometown/civilized people), instead of focusing on simulation. A focus on simulation would encourage developers to take "monsters" seriously, to take player engagement in the gameworld seriously, to allow them to build a great world. Origin Systems have the best RPG motto in gaming history - "We Create Worlds". Note the meaning of the company name - a "system" being a simulated world and "origin" to indicate that this simulated world is being made from "nothing". Another beloved company name back then was Strategic Simulations, Inc., again showing that their heart was in the right spot, despite the execution.

As to your second point, the problem is that every mod is just like modding an automobile - the body of the car is still there, the engine is still there, the basic philosophy of the car designer is still there. Modding can only do so much. Modding is a patch on a leaky tire - the real solution is to address the game design problem at it's roots.

 

[lord.jeff]

Someday people are gonna look back and compare a new game to COD and say shooters are on the decline. People are comfortable with what they grew up with and view to many changes as bad.

 

[chainguns]

Meh, I have no love for "classic" RPG-combat systems. I remember once trying a game of D&D with a few friends, the role playing was actually quite enjoyable, if a bit goofy from time to time, but holy fucking assshit did the combat suck. Honestly, fuck grinding for 30 hours to level up some kind of dumb stat so I can defeat the boss, instead of me just, you know, defeating him with skills rather than stats.

Oh, and the writing has gotten way better, in fact, about almost every single thing has gotten better, but the nostalgia-goggles sure do their job well.

If you have no love for "classic" RPG combat systems then what are you interested in the genre for? The things you describe as chores are the things genre fans love (assuming they're properly implemented).

Stats are not there because of technical limitations from the old days of computing - that's a myth put out by developers looking for an excuse to turn RPG franchises into mainstream action. Stats are there to accurately reflect the skill of the character - as people we specialize and become really good at what we repeatedly do. I personally want to play an elite archer who can shoot an incoming arrow with his own arrow, even if I as a player cannot do that. I want to play a legendary fighter who can parry two opponents while striking a third, even if I as a player don't have the reflexes for that. If that style of play is not your thing - then guess what - you're in luck! 90% of mainstream games reference *direct* player skill for their core gameplay, and their stories are getting better too. That fact does not make the very different RPG gameplay mechanics wrong or obsolete (though as I said, the majority of gamers find them boring).

 

[Windcaler]

Bethesda dont count imo, they just make huge sandbox games with cardboard cut-out npcs and laughable writing and stories.

Morrowind would disagree with you, and to a lesser extent so would oblivion. One mistep does not equate to the company abandoning RPGs.

That said, have you looked into Shadowrun returns? Thats a really good old school style RPG and it would be the most recent true RPG released that I know of. You can also look into Divinity Original sin, Torment, and Project eternity. Each one looking like it will be a return to RPGs of the past

Also, I get that you dont tend to get into the Japansese style of RPGs, thats fine, but there are many good ones out there that you're discounting purely because of its japanese origins.

I think the major issue is RPGs are hard to make. You have to give a player enough freedom to let them roleplay while having a set narrative for the story or stories that the games trying to tell. Its not easy and its not a quick turn around either which is what most publishers want. DA2 and MA2 were rushed out, which is why they werent very good

 

[briankoontz]

A role-playing game is a game where the primary purpose is for the player to inhabit a role different from himself, in order to learn about someone else's life - it's the meaning of the phrase "walk a mile in another's shoes".

Modern RPGs are fairly terrible in the sense that they mostly teach us about the lives of monster-murderers, and not surprisingly these lives are pretty boring, unless one revels in the slaughter. If that's the case why not just play a FPS?

Older gamers can't be written off as simply "liking whatever happened to be around when we were young". Most older gamers didn't like most games back then, just like we don't like most games now. Dark Souls is one of my favorite games of all time, despite coming out for the PC just last year, and I've been gaming since 1981 when my parents bought an Atari 2600, with my very first gaming experience a brief play on my aunt and uncle's Odyssey system in 1980, as well as tabletop pong games in restaurants.

Great games are great games, no matter when they are made. Dark Souls is what happens when modern technology is used in the service of great art. Skyrim is what happens when artistic ambition is sold out in the name of higher profits.

I'm excited about Watchdogs. GTA V is my favorite game in the GTA series. Letho from the Witcher 2 is one of the best villains in RPG history, and the Witcher series is very good if not to the standard of the best RPGs.

But there is such a thing as developer philosophy, as basic design goals, and for the industry as a whole as well as the RPG genre much of this philosophy and these goals have degraded over time. Who has taken up the mantle of Richard Garriott, of Warren Spector, of Roberta Williams? These are visionaries who express their vision through games.

Who are the modern visionaries? Where are the Miyamotos, the Kojimas, the Housers?

Why are the most successful Kickstarter projects from often very old (in gaming terms) developers whose best games were made long ago? Where are the new visionaries to get people excited about new projects?

Why are the visionaries of today so often outside the AAA industry? Jenova Chen, Edmund McMillen, Derek Yu, Markus Persson. Why have so many great developers (Romero, Hall, Spector, just to name a few) left the industry long before reaching traditional retirement age?

People often talk about the "Hollywood system" as the reason more great movies don't come out of Hollywood, so why do we find it so difficult to talk about the "video game industry" in real ways, truly criticizing the industry and detailing what's preventing the industry from producing great games?

Filmmakers David Lynch and Robert Altman have made movies criticizing the film industry - where is a AAA video game criticizing the video game industry?

 

[Darmani]

That is a terrible example old schoolers are KNOWN and believed in with a history. Who else would be paid to produce a game from public personas. Its like asking why we vote for soldiers, celebs, and hometown heroes who make a deep personal impression!

There ARE visionaries. I'm not a fan of the fps but Halo made them into console commodity and brought the essential and fun elements to millions. Cliffy B perfected cover shooting and cnimeatic gameplay and changed the design and tones.

Modern Warfare ANYONE!