How do you feel about innovation in RPGs?

[Prime Junta]

I'm getting burned out on RPGs. They're stale and hidebound. When you crack open the virtual box you know exactly what you're going to get. You're a nobody/low-level adventurer starting from circumstances beyond your control, destined to rise to fame and fortune by killing thousands of mooks, to save/rule the world, by carefully considering which points to put in which slot of a spreadsheet and which shiny to equip in which slot. And then there's some kind of cliffhanger to make room for the next installment.

I'm not interested in that sort of thing anymore, and if I really feel the itch I can always go back to the classics.

So I'm firmly in the "Revolutionary" camp. I believe that RPGs must evolve. It's not enough to just make another power fantasy as another sequel in another franchise, or even to create a new franchise that's clearly inspired by some other franchise. We need new gameplay, new genre mashups, new systems, new worlds, new stories.

What's your take? Vote and explain your choice or we might never get this important question definitively settled.

 

[Daedalos]

I definitely fall in the centrist category.

I mean, i'm the kind of guy that asks, if something ain't broken, why fix it? And also says if there's a reason that tried and tested shit works and is good, no reason to tamper with that.

BUT

I do love innovation, I do love new things, ideas, twists, shit that actually blow my mind. How often does that come by in terms of games? Not often, but when it does, duuude...

How would you go about it in an RPG, though? That's the question, isn't it? I mean part of the reason why I think it's hard is actually because RPGs themselves are defined by what they are, things you described, that's the game, that's the gig, otherwise, it wouldnt really be an RPG.

Certainly there's innovation to be found within that etablished tradition, but again, how?
I would love a brainstorm on ideas, but I mean there's only so much you can do with a game and the ressources you have at your disposal.

I absolutely abhor trying "new" shit just for the sake of trying it, without thinking about whether it actually is a good idea or not. The best innovations build on something that has come before, and incorporates alot of what worked in the past.

I guess deep down, I'm the type that cares more about a good story and a thrilling experience, even if its told and experienced through traditional means. I mean a burgers a burger, but I do want to try new ingredients and condiments...

Disco Elysium obviously springs to mind as a recent example of what you might call "innovation" - it certainly felt FRESH, and it was fucking amazing. But you know, people are already arguing whether its actually an RPG, or this and that. Visual novel and so on.

 

[Atchodas]

In this day and age Innovation = Retardation

NO THANX

 

[Wunderbar]

Is this another Disco thread?

 

[Lilura]

I want more of the same. That is, more Jagged Alliance 2 and more ToEE. Thus, I await Realms Beyond.

Nothing new or on the horizon interests me except that one. BG3 doesn't interest me as a gamer.

 

[Shadenuat]

Junta, Disco is not really innovation.

 

[Atchodas]

Junta, Disco is not really RPG.

 

[Morality Games]

Junta, Disco is not really RPG.

First, we must ask ourselves, what is an RPG?

 

[Shadenuat]

and then what is Junta??

 

[Falksi]

Everything's good if it's done well. Everything's shit if it's done wank.

FWIW, I though the 2007-2014 period saw a really nice balance of innovation & old-school elements blended really well.

Dragon Age:Origins, Mass Effect 1, The Witcher 1 & 2, Shadowrun Returns + Dragonfall, Divinity 2 the Dks - some great games in that time which were rooted in traditional gaming, but which all tried to push things forward in different ways.

That should have been the foundation for another era of incline. Sadly we've had to endure this era of open-world shitness for several years now instead.

 

[MpuMngwana]

If the game is in every way identical to Fallout: Oh, so these retarded cargo cult retards think they can somehow hope compare in quality to a timeless classic? Such hubris! It is theoretically not possible to be nearly as good as Fallout, it is obvious the game is objectively shit! Why is everyone retreading the same ground, where is my innovation!? Everyone who likes this game is mentally handicapped retarded idiot gay faggot homosexual who likes to have anal sex with other men, and objectively has shitty taste in games to boot!

If the game differs from Fallout in any ways: Oh, these retarded "innovative" retards think they can somehow hope compare in quality to a timeless classic? Such hubris! It is cute that they believe that their so-called "innovations" can have any hope of improving upon the timeless classic, it is obvious the game is objectively shit! Why can't these morons appreciate objectively superior design decisions, do they have no respect for their elders!? Everyone who likes this game is mentally handicapped retarded idiot gay faggot homosexual who likes to have anal sex with other men, and objectively has shitty taste in games to boot!

 

[laclongquan]

...You're a nobody...

Ah~ I see you havent played the top RPG, number one in all time, Planescape Torment. You are starting out as a definite SOMEBODY who had been there, done that, and get a bloody dictionary, a freaking novel, a stupendous saga tattooed on your hide. Being a nobody is NOT your problem.

Or you havent played something newer like Fallout New Vegas. You are starting out as THE COURIER , who definitely had been there, done that, but not get any noticeable scars on your hide.

Or god forbid, a major player! You also havent played Star War KNight of the Old Republic ONE where you were, once, top dog of that universe, Darth SOMETHING where planets tremble to hear you approach. Or SWKOTOR TWO where you once are a walking calamity~

For something blander, more AAA, you can also try Mass Effect series where you were once a hero of humanity~

Do your homework, Junta~

 

[Shadenuat]

If the game is in every way identical to Fallout: Oh

you're not IHaveHugeNick , you don't get to do this stuff, you're bad at it, don't do it.

Spoiler

and even he is bad at it

 

[Morality Games]

So I'm firmly in the "Revolutionary" camp. I believe that RPGs must evolve. It's not enough to just make another power fantasy as another sequel in another franchise, or even to create a new franchise that's clearly inspired by some other franchise. We need new gameplay, new genre mashups, new systems, new worlds, new stories.

Hercules is a power fantasy, as are Samson, Grettir the Strong, and most other mythical or semi-mythical heroic figures in basically all mythologies. Given half the opportunity, power (in its many manifestations) is the thing people like to fantasize about having. Rejecting power fantasies is pretty much identical to rejecting role playing a hero, which is what audiences have repeatedly proven they want to be. I suppose the same would be true of being a villain, like Dark Lord of the Sith.

A tough sell to say the least.

Personally, I think badly written power fantasies suck the worst lemons, but a competently written power fantasy is much better than most (*most*, mind you) grounded stories and protagonists.

Grounded stories and protagonists are one of those things that sound cool until you get them. It works very well occasionally but it probably shouldn't define the genre.

I don't specifically disagree about the rest, but it's easier said than done.

 

[CryptRat]

I'm getting burned out on RPGs. They're stale and hidebound. When you crack open the virtual box you know exactly what you're going to get. You're a nobody/low-level adventurer starting from circumstances beyond your control, destined to rise to fame and fortune by killing thousands of mooks, to save/rule the world, by carefully considering which points to put in which slot of a spreadsheet and which shiny to equip in which slot. And then there's some kind of cliffhanger to make room for the next installment.

What the fuck is this retarded description focused on narrative and with no mention about game mechanisms apart from the presence of a spreadsheet and of an inventory which thank God are about the only thing we can still expect of RPGs. I want Gold Box games forever, I don't care if it's medieval fantasy, science fantasy, sci-fi or anything else where I can release fireballs, unfortunately nobody has made any since the Gold Box days, it's only dumbed-down action/dialog/chosen one (= no party creation) garbage, no idea how anybody would think people keep making these while the very rare, very closest games like ToEE or KoTC (or Natuk) already differ quite a bit from the initial formula.

 

[laclongquan]

On a separate note related to the question: Innovation in game.

Innovation is something overhyped among game developers and players. They love to say they love innovation. God forbid if they ever utter otherwise.

But the reality is that gamers dont like innovation that much. The top innovative game of all time, Final Fantasy 8, get a lukewarm rememberance among gamers. From the look of it, Death Stranding sound like a top innovative game coming up. In which case, I expect it also not very welcomed among players.

As for developers, the less said, the better. In the 90s, they experimented with all sort of shits. Sometime to their own detriment. Case in point: Prince of Qin. It start out as Diablo-like RPG with all sort of extra innovative feature. Its sequel, Seal of Evil, try something new, something MMO, and become a bland game nobody remember.

That's not to say they didnt innovate successful. Case in point: Fallout 1, Fallout 2, then we have Fallout Tactics which is the logical successor to Jagged Alliance 2. Though the deviation from heavy RPG of 1/2 into RPG-lite, tactical combat game that is Tactic, drive gamers into a frenzy and they said all sort of shits about FTBOS. It is a successful innovation, though not appreciated by audience. Of course, there's also the unmentionable Fallout Brotherhood of Steel for PS2. Now you can spit.

There's a clear difference, a clash of ideas between gamers and developers. Gamers, from the look of it, dont like innovation that much. But developers simply like to test or try something just for the sake of test something new. Reinforce the old success doesnt get done that often.

 

[Shadenuat]

Junta, Disco is not really RPG.

I don't entirely agree.

Disco at least executes one part of RPGs well, which is interacting with NPCs. Because of good writing and all the different reactions and outcomes when talking with them, it feels like having little cabinet sessions with DM who has good stories to tell and is great at storytelling.

It is a very linear DM though.

Compared to CYOA + Skills genre of games; if Disco just had a bit of extra branching and endings, people would't be bothered by its design so much.

 

[Atchodas]

Disco at least executes one part of RPGs well

So does NBA games are they rpg now ?

 

[Shadenuat]

Who the fuck cares what counts for what or doesn't?

We're gamers, not literary professors to discuss is Fantasy a literature or not.

 

[Lilura]

then we have Fallout Tactics which is the logical successor to Jagged Alliance 2

rofl

 

[Serious_Business]

The question of innovation in rpgs or video games seems to me to be partly a technical one. You get a medium that is inherently and intrinsically linked to the development of computer technology, and by extension a more abstract, world-wide financial economy. I suppose risking a wider analysis of this phenomenon would ultimately come off as pedantic, or rather, too abstract. Still, it's rather curious to think how these "genres" of computerized products establish themselves and how they're supposed to "evolve". The evolution of the technology is important here, but also, you can make the general point that too much technological innovation tends to make creativity stagnate by giving the creators simply too many tools and resources to work with. In order to be creative, you need to work in a fairly limited frame ; if you have infinite possibilities, you can't focus on anything. What is the creative frame of these games in general? This is the question - "what is an rpg". The question seems ridiculous because we assume that there is something like a logical essence of what rpgs are supposed to be, but they are in fact a kind of historical, social product and they should be regarded as such. I'm trying to educate a bunch of fucking monkeys here, of course, but this is the basis of what would be thinking about a kind of style, of aesthetics. The question is not whether or not you are "innovative" or "traditionalist" - it's not a "political" question. It's a question of what you do with what you have in front of you, in terms of possibilities and accepted practices. You can inject political gravitas on this crap by saying that you are "creating the new" (the socially new), and maybe you are ; or maybe you are "refusing the new" by, I don't know, feeding off old misogynistic fucks their little toys. But this isn't relevant to anything, except the stories you tell yourself.

 

[Nerevar]

Depends on the RPG mechanics. A game can have silly stories and characters as long as it has a good system.

More importantly special care should be taken as to not restrict the player character in any way shape or form for example in two recent games, adding a word filter to naming your character (The Outer Worlds) or censoring the word faggot (Disco Elexium) things like this are the height of decline.

 

[Prime Junta]

I made this thread kind of specifically to not make it about Disco, except perhaps about the innovation (or lack thereof) in it. But if that's what you'd rather talk about instead, don't let me stop you.

(Also, interesting responses. Thanks.)

 

[Shadenuat]

Innovation is something overhyped among game developers and players.

I think in current point RPGs need not innovation, but more like resurrecting things which were good and now lost (and there are many), looking at what worked and doing well the basics. You can add some new ideas on top of that.

As Felipe written in his book of RPGs, not throwing giants under the bus and all that.

I don't think Disco is innovator; I think Zaum got small part of what makes RPGs memorable good, unlike people who failed (like Numa team).

 

[Garbage]

Slight innovation is fine provided the right things are being innovated on and done for the right reasons.

ATB and ARPG are cancer. Brave and Default are incline.