What's more important in a CRPG?

[Xenich]

Would brofist, but there's a thing... RPG's aren't about the charactersystem, that is a part of the whole, but what makes an RPG an RPG is the degree of how much (in conjuction with the storyline) it reacts with the player; the character system is of course part of it, but the soul comes from the way you can interact with the given world.

In further example (in a nutshell): The charactersystem is a part of the whole, but the whole is comprised of more than that.

I am not discounting the importance of such, just pointing out that without a character system, the games are a different genre. For instance, take Kings Quest and Quest for Glory. Both are the same game in about every way... except for character development to which Quest For Glory has. Yet we call Kings Quest an "Adventure game" and Quest for Glory an "RPG". Character development is the defining element of an RPG. As you mentioned, there is more to it than that in an RPGs design, and I agree... but my point is that without that key element, the game is another genre.

Fair enough. But for an RPG to be an RPG it needs to have the proper world interaction for the PC (be in PnP or cRPG); elsewise it is just an action/adventure game with stats. A proper RPG always has to have the interaction things covered along with combat if there is such. But, if an RPG offered you a character with stats, but without any improvables, then that's what you'd have to play. That's playing a role.

Can you give some examples of such?

 

[likaq]

Time to resurrect this topic.

 

[pippin]

I think settings are what makes games unique. It's either how well you handle realism or how over the top you're willing to go, but always keeping some degree of style. Some devs really focus in ways to make combat different and/or interesting, but I don't really care too much about it. Nothing surprises me when it comes to combat, although bad design can be cumbersome, like when the devs didn't realized their combat sucks and yet they force you to fight everything. It's great when devs think about charisma or stealth when it comes to problem solving.
The story is probably the least interesting element for me. I mean, I will be able to care and even like good characters, but stories in games aren't really impressive to me as they are to some people. It's probably because I think of them as books or tv shows and don't really find them noteworthy at all. Specially when it's mostly about heroes and their travels. Even PST is about the journey of the hero, but the story was deeply enhanced by the setting. Same for Deus Ex and Fallout, among other games.

 

[Ashenai]

This is a difficult question to answer, because what I look for from games (and from every other artform, really), is excellence. What area this excellence is in is less important.

I want to play games that are a 10/10 in some aspect, even if they're a 4/10 elsewhere. I'd much rather play a game like that than something that's a polished 8/10 across the board. I liked Alpha Protocol; it was broken, but it did C&C better than any other game I know of, with the exception of some text adventures. I loved Planescape: Torment because of the story, even though the combat was a pile of garbage, and the setting was okay but not spectacular. I love roguelikes because of the combat, even though setting and story tend to be nonexistent (or close to it) in that genre.

Wasteland 2 is an example of a game that's good in every aspect and exceptional in none, and it was a great disappointment for me. I never finished it, and I probably never will.

This poll is trying to ask me if I like Planescape more than Crawl, and it's a stupid question. The two experiences are so orthogonal to each other that any comparison feels pointless. Both are masterpieces in their own right, and which one I want to play is entirely dependent on my mood (of course Crawl has the advantage, but only because it's so much more replayable.)

 

[rado907]

Combat and setting trump story for me.
Regarding combat, I want to play a game, not watch a movie. I want tactics, strategies, builds, items, tradeoffs, stats, the works. Some Matrix Games titles like Korsun Pocket and Steel Panthers are very memorable for me, despite having no story and the tritest of all settings. Ditto many Paradox Interactive games.
And regarding setting, sometimes I want to make my own story inside the game world. The main plot in Morrowind was extremely basic, but I didn't care, because I had a whole cool island to do with as I pleased.

 

[Lhynn]

Romances.

 

[Mustawd]

Romances.

 

[Onholyservicebound]

Which category do things like non combat skills/checks, branching narrative, reactivity and c&c fall into?
Those things are all part of or a result of gameplay, but have nothing to do with combat. All the best RPGs put emphasis on these features.

 

[Trip]

First-time poster, Hi all

To the question: I'd say, the role-playing part, so rarely attempted at any level beyond Reputation mechanics. I'd love a game where most mechanics are geared towards character development, and I mean it in the more or less novelistic sense of the word, not the "numbers going up" sense.
* Customizing preexisting relationships with NPCs
* More nuanced attitude to issues within the game-world (instead of the game half-assedly asking me for random opinions on ponderous philosophical questions)
* More nuanced opportunities for expressing and reflecting character (more characterful dialogue lines, maybe including gestures and mannerisms, NPCs reacting with more flavor to the PC, deeper reactivity when it comes to reactions and the game remembering what you said and did, maybe even building a dramatic character arc on the fly, incorporating stuff like how often you use a skill, how hard you try at it, the manner in which you win or lose certain battles, etc.)

I don't think a watertight plot is that much of a necessity, it's enough to have a sense of purpose at any given stage, as well as a lot of stuff to react to, and that reacts to you in interesting ways. Also, some character-building sprinkled into stuff like combat would make it much more interesting to me even if the actial mechanics are more or less bare-bones. (I do like a tactical challenge, but I'd prefer it not to be modular, like a mini-game within the game.) By the way, there are lots of structural frameworks in Literary Theory that work almost like proto RPG-mechanics, not to mention that apart from D&D there are tons of stuff in other PnP RPGs that would make for interesting additions to any design.

 

[Crooked Bee]

Holy fucking necro

I used to be a combatfag, but now my list of priorities of what I'm looking for in a CRPG is as follows:

1) Outstanding dungeon and puzzle design (ex.: Dark Heart of Uukrul, Wizardries) or, in case of Ultima-likes, outstanding world design/exploration/clue design (ex.: Ultima V, 2400 A.D., Tunnels & Trolls: Crusaders of Khazan)
2) Innovative/unorthodox RPG (combat/exploration/character development/whatever) mechanics (ex.: Dark Heart of Uukrul, Wizardry 4, Labyrinth of Touhou, Shin Megami Tensei)
3) Resource management (ex.: The Legacy)
4) Atmosphere (ex.: ShadoWorlds)

Good to see my priorities haven't changed since last February, at least. :D

Still there.

 

[prodigydancer]

So if everyone thinks combat is so important why does everyone like TW3 so much? *confused*

On topic: I'm not sure how to answer this. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Sometimes all parts are flawed, like in SRR, but the whole still works quite nicely, go figure.

 

[Lhynn]

Setting is literally the least important thing of anything. Any setting can be good provided theres a good enough writer behind the wheels with a interesting enough idea.

 

[mondblut]

Watching little numbers go up is the most important part.

 

[prodigydancer]

Setting is literally the least important thing of anything. Any setting can be good provided theres a good enough writer behind the wheels with a interesting enough idea.

I disagree. E.g. in D:OS that bland generic fantasy setting was probably the most off-putting part. I might even be able to suffer through Larian's writing if the world didn't feel like something designed for an ultra-cheap F2P MMO.

 

[Lhynn]

I disagree. E.g. in D:OS that bland generic fantasy setting was probably the most off-putting part. I might even be able to suffer through Larian's writing if the world didn't feel like something designed for an ultra-cheap F2P MMO.

Its the same world that they had in div 2, or in dragon commander, yet the 3 games have a distinct mood and artsyle. Not to mention that div 2 expansion is actually gud from a writing standpoint ive heard.

 

[Fenris 2.0]

Favourite Combat: Temple of Elemental Evil
Favourite Setting: Arcanum
Favourite Story: Torment

Now someone just has to combine this...

 

[MilesBeyond]

Depends what you mean by setting. If we're just talking the general background of the world, then yeah I'd say it's probably the least important. Not unimportant, mind you. Personally I've always been of the opinion that immersiveness covers a multitude of sins, as it were, and that a setting that really sucks you into the game can make up for all sorts of other flaws. Bugs, crappy mechanics, and other things become more tolerable when the game is set up in such a way that you want to like it. Hell, I don't know that I've ever played an RPG where combat is more of a mess than Arcanum, and yet it's probably one of my favourites, in large part just because of how detailed the world is.

Setting is that certain X factor that can result in a game that seems good actually being great - or a game that seems great being kind of disappointing.


Now, if by setting we're including the mechanics and the ways you can interact with the game world, then obviously it becomes a hell of a lot more important. I might even go so far as to say that it's the biggest thing, as often solid mechanics are going to be the foundation of good combat, as well as decent C&C (which is often the difference between a good story and a great one, IMHO). Hell, I'd argue that its implementation of D&D mechanics (even if it is some kind of weird 2.5e) is the dominant factor in most of BG2's awesomeness. One of the biggest disappointments in "spiritual successors" to BG2 (DA, PoE) are that they all feel so... game-y. Like everything in the game world was created specifically for the game. Which, I mean, it was. To me, truly great RPGs are ones where the setting transcends the game - where it feels like it could be viable as an actual world. Granted, the fact that the IE games used D&D rules and settings is kind of cheating, but hey, I'll take it.


Hmmm. Didn't I start this by saying it's the least important? Writing this out I've realized that maybe I value setting more than story.

 

[mondblut]

Favourite Combat: Temple of Elemental Evil
Favourite Setting: Arcanum
Favourite Story: Torment

Now someone just has to combine this...

Into Temple of Elemental Evil setting, Arcanum story and Torment combat? They do it all the time

 

[Mustawd]

Setting is literally the least important thing of anything. Any setting can be good provided theres a good enough writer behind the wheels with a interesting enough idea.

Gotta disagree...I'd almost say that Story is the least important thing. If a game has good combat; I'm good. If it has a good setting to make thing interesting (Gothic); I'm good; Story...meh. Yeah, it's nice to have in the right game (PST), but so many don't ever need it.

But I'm much more of a LARPER for my RPGs than anything (XCOM Captains dying was a hit to the gut....Noooo!!!)...so a setting allows my imagination to run a bit more wild than some on the rails story (F'in almost every Jrpg).

 

[Trip]

I think setting should include certain mechanics, yeah; specifically, the ones that model the "world", in a more general sense. By which I mean not just the physical surroundings, but stuff like, is it the kind of world where travelling times matter at all? Is it the kind of world where almost everything you do to people (in towns/encampments/castles/inns for instance) somehow changes your standing with them; do they have a degree of autonomy, or are they just a basic mash-up of quest'o'mats-slash-random monster types?

To me, the sets of mechanics the game uses to resolve your interaction with town NPCs on the one hand and wilderness critters on the other are a part of the setting. As are encumbrance mechanics, or disease mechanics, etc. More character-centric mechanics could be a part of it too, something like letting "empty time" pass by while your character learns a particular skill, or maybe have a mechanic where you stick them for a month in a village so they'll start blending in, opening up more quest/quest-solution/character-development options.
Of course, any and all of those could tie back to a single thing: combat, for instance, but not necessarily (why wouldn't they tie into "Story" as well?), and lumping them all under "Combat" would be playing a bit fast and loose with the term.

So, looking at it like that, I'd say "Setting" is probably the most key, since it defines how the player can and cannot interact with the game, how they'll approach it; it sets the tone for the entire game.

 

[razvedchiki]

I kinda dont mind about setting/story,if they at least do a decent job im fine with that.

Same goes for combat,expet if it uses 'dark souls' combat-rolling around with plate armor lol.
Usually cant stand games that utilize such kind of combat.



What really intrigues me in rpgs is everything about classes, builds,weapons ,armors generall items,abilities etc a bit 'combatish' stuff but i think in their own category.

 

[T. Reich]

I'm an explore-fag, so for me, the well-designed world is the most important aspect:
1. A world that is interesting to explore - not a half-empty procedurally-generated slog with bland quests and dungeons, but a carefully-crafted environment where exploring is rewarding (phat loot, interesting side-quests, nice expository lore bits, maybe cool optional battles, etc). The game doesn't need to be a hiking simulator to have a world that is interesting to explore.
2. Great dungeon design - dungeons have some flavour and theme, they are interesting to explore and clear.
3. Either great quest/puzzle design or great combat - I'm fine with either, it simply depends on what the game's focus is.
4. Decent, non-retardo RPG and/or combat mechanics - in combat-oriented RPGs combat system must be on-par since most of time is spent in combat, and in any case RPG mechanics must be sound and somewhat balanced, at least so that they wouldn't hinder points 1+2.
5. Story. A good story makes you want to go on playing, but lack of or bad story will not be a hindrance as long as the gameplay itself is sound. After all, if I want a good story, I'll go read a book.

 

[CryptRat]

5. Story. A good story makes you want to go on playing, but lack of or bad story will not be a hindrance as long as the gameplay itself is sound. After all, if I want a good story, I'll go read a book.

In my opinion the lack of story is not really an issue (like "Hello, you will kill the bad the guy at the end, Good bye"), but an intrusive bad story (for example unbearable talkative mandatory companions) can make the game really worse.

Combat is the most important thing, but I can play a game for combats only or for exploration only (good world design and/or good dialogs and/or good dungeon design).
The setting is important because a unusual setting can easily make you feel like you play a rather unique game, even if the mechanics are classic. Concerning the combats and the story, they must be particularly good to make you feel the same way.

 

[Vikter]

An interesting setting tends to be more immediately engaging than a good story told through the entire game, so I believe a good story should always be situated in a good setting, otherwise it's really hard to get into it, for me.
And combat is a little less important because I'm just considering combat itself, not exploration or other gameplay aspects of it. Even great combat can't save a game from a bad world or shitty exploration.

 

[Goral]

My vote was based on how my favourite games fit into this.

Fallout 1 (and 2): setting, story, followed by combat
Arcanum: the same
Vampire The Masquarade: Bloodlines: the same
P:T the same
The same goes for many other games from the RPG Codex Top 70 PC RPGs.

Underrail: combat, then setting followed by story
Age of Decadence: the setting and the story are superb but the combat is too so it fits to every option above.

So yeah, the last option by far. If I want a good, tactical combat I play Desperados or Jagged Alliance, the setting and the story are more important in cRPG IMO.