The current state of role playing, whether utilizing the computer or not, may be summarized in the phrase, "hack and slash." Even pen and paper games do not tell players how to set up adventures. Campaign building instructions are minimal, at best. After a dozen years, there is still no decent set of introductory rules for role playing games (RPGs), nothing to meet the needs of a novice. In spite of all the space that RPGs take up in the shelves of game stores across the country, there is still a lack of quality.
Therefore, even though I believe that computers will never replace a decent Dungeonmaster at anytime in the foreseeable future, let me state that I do believe a good computer role playing game (CRPG) can still accomplish a lot. By this I mean that a good CRPG could: 1) teach lots of
people how to play RPGs; 2) teach players how to set up their own campaigns/quests; 3) supply reasonably interesting situations while doing this teaching; and 4) give instruction about using role playing in games. Yet, we have not seen CRPGs accomplish this.
Perhaps an examination of how RPGs and CRPGs interacted in, the past can point the way towards a mutually beneficial future. For example, computers were doing "find your own adventure" text games long before publishers filled the shelves with these books. These books did what the computer "text" games could not do, provide more words to describe events. "Text" games could not go beyond the bare bones messages. Words take up a lot of programming space! Books are also able to include artwork or neat maps. This makes the books more graphically appealing, but what about the computer games?
One major marketing ploy on behalf of computer games is "the thrill of discovery." Yet, is it always a thrill? For example, when my character takes a key in his hand. I hope that it will open the door that he is standing in front of. The message comes up that "You need a key!" Perhaps, I have the wrong key. So, I try all of them and get the same message. "Rats!" I mutter, "I must have missed one . . ." Off I go, killing guards and searching rooms. Later, I "accidentally" discover that the proper command to use a key was to "Operate" the key, not use the key to "Unlock" the door. Silly me.
No, this little tidbit was not in the "rule book." No, I did not feel any "thrill" at my discovery of the proper command word to use. The aroma emitting from the corpse-filled corridors of the castle seemed more accurate. Thus, in my book, we have more the stink of the feet than the thrill of discovery. Indeed, beyond the parser problem, we have an expression of one of the most significant problems in most CRPGs today. Role playing should not be held captive by the "if it moves, kill it" syndrome.
Good Graphics or a Good Game?
Another common problem in CRPGs may be an emphasis in glitz and glamour rather than substance. If it is pretty, the assumption is that people will buy it. Whether in the print media or in computer games, this seems only too true. Ask any sales or marketing department. The question is, however, do these beautiful graphics really add anything substantial to the game? Seldom is this a consideration by the publisher.
Today, the adventurer's figure moves across the screen in an incredible sixteen color, three-dimensional masterpiece. It took hours to program and uses lots of memory space on the disk. Too often in the rush to get the product out the door, the programming was sloppily done and the figure took up more space than was expected. Time is always short, however, so . .
.. Of course, the figure moving across the screen is the information being conveyed to the player. Now, a one color figure with limited animation conveys that information in a lot less program space. The additional memory could be used to further enhance the game itself. Unfortunately, such an attitude does not sell games.
Frankly, computers crunch numbers beautifully. They can form intricate patterns in less time than you can read this sentence. Words and pictures take up a lot of memory, so shouldn't designers have computers do what they are good at instead of what they are less adept at.
Morale Check
In any given battle, our surrogate warriors will beat each other to a pulp until one side or the other comes out on top.
If the player wins, loot is gathered, wounds healed, and experience points gained. If the nasty Nazis (or supply your
own villain) win, they just vanish back into the nether regions that spawned them.
In Dungeons and Dragons, there called "Morale." This deals with the situation where creatures see that they are going to get killed. Then, they pack up their claws and scamper off into the shadows rather than be slaughtered. It is a pretty basic and simple rule.
Each creature has a certain courage rating. Then, when losses reach a certain percentage, a die is thrown. If the courage number is exceeded, the critters take off. The same procedure is used for large numbers of human troops and adventurers.
Players don't like it. They, and the referee, consider it to be one more number to keep track of. Besides, you don't get any experience points when the bad guys run away. Of course, a "good" referee (speaking of efficiency, not alignment) will still award the players points, even though such an event is not specifically mentioned in the rule book(s). On the computer, working such an equation into the program should be no problem at all. It also ought to be able to award partial points, even if the goblins did run away. Most experience points should come from the treasure, anyway, not in killing the monsters.
Of course, some players won't like it when their "friends" leave them to face the music. "Well, tough noogies!" Non-player characters would have their morale affected by the Charisma of their leader. This, in turn, could be affected by the leader's "Reputation" which would be an evaluation of how well that leader has been in the past.
Another problem would involve division of the spoils. Max of Marysport may be better with a sword than Felix, but will Felix really just hand his new magic sword over to Max. No! Felix's actions will be based on Group Loyalty or Personal Loyalty. This may sound like a complex problem, but it is one a computer can crunch numbers to handle. The Group Loyalty evaluation would be a numerical estimate of how successful the group has been to that point, which indicates how likely it is that there will be more loot in the future. The Personal Loyalty quotient would be a numerical calculation which determines how much the NPC likes the group's present leader.
Fortunately, CRPGs are becoming more interactive. In days of yore, one delved into the dungeon's depths. Then, CRPG emerged into open country and villages. Today, they are vivid animated graphic spectacles. Yet, players must still hack and loot again and again in order to gain experience.
In general, characters in CRPGs only develop their fighting techniques or learn more spells. A character's alignment is represented only by occasional comments from the computer to"Not be such a goody two shoes." A character's profession is still Fighter/Magic User/Cleric/Thief. Players get to name their surrogate robot . . . er . . . adventurer, assign a few numbers, and give the character its marching orders. Whoopee! . . .
Many players and reviewers have reflected on this robotic mentality. Another deficiency is games that over-emphasize "Combat Mechanics." When major player decisions revolve around whether Marfeldt the Barbarian will use his #3 Axe or #7 Mace to deal with monsters, it hardly seems like role playing (rather "roll" playing).
Hope was expressed that Ultima IV would break new ground. It did give the character more depth and new text games have given the characters more choices. Unfortunately, rather than being harbingers of a new age, these games have stood pretty much alone as quirks instead of trend setters.
Today, many new games claim to be the "cutting edge." Among them are Strategic Simulations, Inc.'s Advanced Dungeons and Dragons and Electronic Arts' Wasteland. Each will shortly be released. Both are touted as being "state of the art." Each does contain "new" features.
In the SSI product, a new feature to CRPGs is that of NPC character alignment and objectives. NPCs will actually leave the party, due to alignment or because their "personal" goals have been achieved. In other areas, AD &D will only be a refinement of existing features. Better graphics, more magic spells, etc. will be available, but the product will turn out to be a cross, in many respects, between Questron and Wizard's Crown presented in a new setting.
Wasteland promises to provide something quite different in the area of NPCs, skills, and information gathering. Mike Stackpole, who assisted Alan Pavlish in the design, has an extensive background as a respected designer of RPGs and scenarios. Thus, he is well qualified to add aspects of "Live" RPGs to CRPGs. Wasteland contains some of the best features of Ultima IV mapping and Bard's Tale combat. In the game, characters have skills, but the only way to improve them is to use them. Also, NPCs will refuse to march off to death and glory like little robots. Beyond this, Wasteland contains a vast amount of information. It is the 200 paragraphs of text in the accompanying booklet that set it apart. It looks like players will really be able to communicate with the creatures of Wasteland. All this and graphics, too.
Where is character development taking place in CRPGs? Each of the newer games mentioned brings in a significant addition to the CRPG scene. Will there be more improvements, additions, and expansions? Or are we still dealing with quirks?
Only tomorrow will tell, but it would be nice to see all of these RPG features in the same game! That would be a real step forward. Then again, maybe that would make it too much like the real thing.