Digging through old posts on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg

[Infinitron]

This is pretty fun. Also, lots of Cleve references if you look for them!

23/1/1996 - "The Decline of Computer Gaming": https://groups.google.com/forum/#!s...sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg/_b7L-lZ18uQ/5vANimA82voJ

The last year has seen a transformation of the computer gaming world. The
small niche market of people who were mostly dedicated computer users with
lots of time on their hands suddenly exploded into a new realm of casual
users who only wanted a quick fix. Many of them are migrants from the video
game world, drawn into the world of computers by dropping prices and an
explosion of advertising. Computer game designers quickly realized that they
could make a great deal of money by designing games for this new market. New
technologies like FMV and the tendency of many companies of using live actors
with bigger and bigger names only feeds into this trend.

This is wonderful for the casual user or the computer novice, who doesn't
expect anything more than a vaguely interactive movie or a platform arcade
game. Unfortunately, for the dedicated computer gamer like myself it signals
the death of the hobby as we know it.

Why do I believe this? There are several reasons:

1) The Hollywood factor. As I said above, more and more games are designed
now as interactive movies with gorgeous graphics and big name stars. As the
graphics get more gorgeous and the stars get bigger, however, the game gets
lost in the shuffle. If we're lucky, we get a game the quality of Wing
Commander 3, which maintained the WC engine and gave us a reasonably decent
interactive movie plotline to go with it. Of course, far more often we get
games like Phantasmagoria, simplistic adventure games which can be completed
in an evening overlaid with a B-grade slasher flick. If that's the direction
computer games are taking, count me out.

2) The merging of the video game and computer game markets. The 16 bit
console machine is fading as technology supercedes it; the 32 bit machines
are pretty similar in what they can do to a Pentium-level PC as far as
traditional video games go. What this means is that there are a lot of video
game conversions in the works, so many in fact that the computer game genre
as a whole is being diluted. This is aided and abetted by companies like
Microsoft, which is jumping on the gaming bandwagon but doesn't seem to
realize that computer games were ever more sophisticated than Terminal
Velocity or its ilk. By far the greatest number of new titles to be released
in the next year will be either interactive movies like I described above or
arcade games of one kind or another. The other sub-genres, like non-arcade
RPGs, turn-based strategy games and sophisticated simulations of one kind or
another, are all declining rapidly. I believe that 1996 will be the last year
that will see any significant releases in these areas (except for any
stragglers that were delayed from this year).

3) The exploding cost of development and the resultant contraction of the
number of companies able to produce games and also the time it takes to
create anything but the most simplistic sort of computer game. Take for
example Bethesda's attempt to create a new standard in RPGs, Daggerfall. How
many delays have we seen as they continue to develop this product? They are
already well over six months overdue. How many copies will they have to sell
to make good their production costs? They'll be lucky to break even. Think
how much simpler it would be for them to switch over to flashy graphical
productions with limited gameplay but great "wow!" potential for the millions
of new users. Even with the increased technical costs in the graphics
department and possibly the cost of name actors, the much larger market for
these sorts of games will more than make good on their transition. I'm sure a
design house like Simtex is coming under pressure to start creating real-time
strategy games which will appeal to a less sophisticated but much larger
audience of gamers. Hey, I enjoyed Command & Conquer and Warcraft even as I
lamented the sad lack of anything that equalled Civilization or Master of
Orion, just as I had fun with Stonekeep while wishing there was a new
Wizardry game to play.

But I guess I'll have to make do. I do have a backlog of games to play
accumulated over a busy year. I suppose I wish for the "good old days", so to
speak. Only a few years, but that's a long time in the computer world. I
think those days are gone forever.

12/29/1996 - "Missing the good old CRPG Days": https://groups.google.com/forum/#!s...sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg/j_MjXs1qALk/TiUs1oXVnGMJ

Where has all the CRPG gone?
There has been such a dry spell of true RPG that I think I might as well
force myself to enjoy other kinds of games (flight sims, action or the
dreaded action/adventure).

Even though there have been many games lately that are touting RPG status
they are really nothing more than action/adventure games.

Games that say they are RPG:

Daggerfalland Arena, ES(played for two weeks): Yes, it does have some RPG
elements but is more of an action/adventure than a true RPG. Example--go
to town (looks same as all others), talk to cardboard people (no real
interaction), get quest, hack, slash, hack, slash, crash (ha, ha).

Diablo demo(played thru with hacks): even less of a RPG than Daggerfall.
Hack, slash, hach, slash (reminds me of Gauntlet the video game with
better graphics).

Dungeon Keeper: Will it ever come out? Looks more like a sofisticated
Warcraft 2.

Ultima 8: Can we say Super Mario in Avatar gear?

I believe one has to look back a few years to remember when the last true
RPG was released.

Ultima 4,5,6,7: Now we're talking. Britannia wasn't a huge world but was
more detailed than any game above. Real NPC's with lives of their own.
They could actually interact with you/had names/jobs/information about
that strange artifact, etc. EACH TOWN AND DUNGEON HAD ITS OWN IDENTITY!!!
They looked and felt different with different people and ITEMS!!! WHEN YOU
GO TO ANOTHER LAND/TOWN/DUNGEON IT SHOULD BE DIFFERENT. THAT MAKES ONE
WANT TO EXPLORE THAT TINY LITLLE VILLAGE ON THAT ISLAND OR THAT DUNGEON
WHICH NO ONE (that people say) HAS RETURNED FROM.

My biggest problem with RPG of today is the quests are way too linear and
easy. Example--Daggerfall, kill off this evil xxxx in dungeon yyyy. In
Ultima the quests were intertwined with many people and places who you had
to find/meet/extract the info. from to complete the quest. Made for a much
more enjoyable journey.

Another feature lacking with RPG of today....no party system!!!!
Everything is moving to the single person DOOM interface. I really enjoy
using my warrior (equipped with obsidian weapons of course) taking out the
front "baddies" while my wizard casts the ever popular fireball along with
my cleric healing the mortal wound my useless thief just got from a fire
breathing dragon (ahh, the good old days).

Other REAL RPG I enjoyed:

Wizardry series (especially 7, great party system, great magic system)

Lands of Lore (sleeper of a game, a little too linear but solid, no
character generation system, boo, hoo)

Darklands (can think of as Daggerfall/Arena with poor graphics, great game
but NPC interaction was lacking a bit)

Might & Magic Series (great party system and magic system, NPC lacking).

MY WISH

Give me a good old party system RPG with:

Lots of magic and exotic items (can't have too many +5 obsidian magic axes
on hand)

Decent sized world with a few tough dungeons

NPC's that are integral to the plot!!!!!!

Enough hack & slash to aquire enough gold to obtain the better "goodies"
in the game.

Some tough adversaries (ex. The Guardian)

Some tough, intricate quests

A system to create your own characters

VGA GRAPHICS MINIMUM. If the game has all the above I don't care what it
looks like. I still boot up the old Ultima's just to remember the "good
old days".

Will a game in the future even come close to the total package given with
..say Ultima 4 or 5??

It's also amazing that these "old" games fit on ONE floppy disk. How can a
game such as Daggerfall (over 400MB in size) be so empty compared to these
"tiny" RPG's???

Anyone out there feel the same way?

Can anyone give me a ray of hope and tell me that there is a true RPG on
the horizon?

IS CRPG DEAD?????????????????????

CAN ANYONE SAVE ME FROM BECOMING JUST ANOTHER ACTION GAME PLAYER (maybe
I'll watch tv instead, I hear Melrose Place has a good episode on
tonight.)

ORIGIN save me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jeff

4/9/1998 - "RPG RPG Where is my RPG": https://groups.google.com/forum/#!s...sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg/t0isV092w1Y/Rn2m7ZrgvAgJ

What I like about game developers is how they tell us what we like. We
tell
the develepers that we want an rpg, we want imersion, we want a story.
We
tell them we want good game play. We tell them we want a dynamic world.
We want our rpg to pull us in. We tell them no we don,t want it to end
in
1 hour. We say we do not want real time combat. We would like a game
that
has sequels or and add ons. We want our world to evolve. We would like
to
be able to play with friends and alone. And what do they tell us
NO you don't, we are going to give you what you want ????

DJM

And two slightly newer ones:

1/1/2003 - "Consoles, computers & the evolution of gaming": https://groups.google.com/forum/#!s...sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg/10Ru3GZ2mcU/imBn-EzHmdgJ (includes posts by RPG Codex founder Saint Proverbius!)

Console gaming is clearly an emerging force. Video game revenues dwarf
those from computer game sales. Shelf space at the major retail
vendors has continued to decline over the past year, and software
companies continue to merge or go under.
Some would say this means the death of computer gaming. I don't think
it's that simple. I see the death of certain genres, but others will
continue to thrive. Blockbuster PC games will come to revolve around
online components which go beyond any console's capabilities, while
solo games will become a niche market or reflect specific genres where
consoles do not excel. In other words, games like Galactic
Civilizations (niche) and Diablo / Warcraft (battle.net will
inevitably become a paid service) will still be produced, and the MMOG
market will continue to draw developers. I think epic solo CRPGs, for
instance, will be rare outside of the shareware market, as will solo
shooters; games like Counterstrike and Unreal Tournament will remain
PC dominated, but players will be expected to pay to play online. The
days of free online play are definitely drawing to an end for major PC
releases.

Thoughts?

7/30/2003 - "The future is Bioware?": https://groups.google.com/forum/#!s...sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg/k25m3nEYK_0/su2fU5QJrYQJ

After playing Shadows of Udrentide and reading the X-box player reports
of KOTOR, it seems like Bioware is the best hope for decent future
CRPGs. They are producing games that look decent graphically, have good
stories/characters and pretty solid gameplay. Can't think of another
company that can now rival the professionalism and polish of these CRPGs.
In the past, I would see their main rivals as their former collaborators
Black Isle/Interplay, but they seem to be enmeshed in money, licence,
staff and other problems. IWD2 was locked in the past, a generation
behind Bioware stuff, and Lionheart from the demo is awful. They also
can't seem to get away from the - presumably more lucrative - hack
n'slash to do the deep epic story/character games that made their name.

 

[Athelas]

Daggerfalland Arena, ES(played for two weeks): Yes, it does have some RPG
elements but is more of an action/adventure than a true RPG. Example--go
to town (looks same as all others), talk to cardboard people (no real
interaction), get quest, hack, slash, hack, slash, crash (ha, ha).

Amazing how accurate this complaint about the Elder Scrolls games is...two decades later.

 

[St Antony of Padua]

Ultima 8: Can we say Super Mario in Avatar gear?

Mario never killed children.

 

[Infinitron]

Ultima 8: Can we say Super Mario in Avatar gear?

Mario never killed children.

It's funny how "Super Avatar Brothers" became a meme. It seems nobody realized that they were trying to copy Prince of Persia.

At least, I don't remember anybody talking about it. Hmm, let's find out.

1/6/1994 - "Ultima 8 bashing": https://groups.google.com/forum/#!s...sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg/4VyX2_ulvJc/xdYTkTyqm04J

Why can't you just stop whining about ultima 8 needing to big computers, why
don't you start complaining about what ultima 8 will be like ?
It won't be Ultima at all, i guess it will be more like a mix between
King's Quest and Prince of Persia !
No more party members ! BAD,BAD,BAD !
Smaller Area to explore ! BAD,BAD, Terrible !
Jumping, and all that movement stuff ? That's not an RPG, that will
be a jump&run game ! BAD !
What happened to the game concept ? I guess one of my deepest fears will
come true : Ultima 10 and Kings Quest 8 will be the same game !

And you complain about memory requirements !
I have better reasons not to play it, I will wait for Wizardry 8 !

This guy knew what was coming! But he had to wait 7 years for Wizardry 8.

 

[Severian Silk]

I think if these people were still around, they would have been Codexers.</Justin Bieber>

 

[Luzur]

heh, nice, i would love to find and read any of me and my brothers BBS posts from the Amiga years, but i guess those are gone forever, like tears in the rain.

 

[St Antony of Padua]

Ultima 8: Can we say Super Mario in Avatar gear?

Mario never killed children.

It's funny how "Super Avatar Brothers" became a meme. It seems nobody realized that they were trying to copy Prince of Persia.

At least, I don't remember anybody talking about it. Hmm, let's find out.

1/6/1994 - "Ultima 8 bashing": https://groups.google.com/forum/#!s...sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg/4VyX2_ulvJc/xdYTkTyqm04J

Why can't you just stop whining about ultima 8 needing to big computers, why
don't you start complaining about what ultima 8 will be like ?
It won't be Ultima at all, i guess it will be more like a mix between
King's Quest and Prince of Persia !
No more party members ! BAD,BAD,BAD !
Smaller Area to explore ! BAD,BAD, Terrible !
Jumping, and all that movement stuff ? That's not an RPG, that will
be a jump&run game ! BAD !
What happened to the game concept ? I guess one of my deepest fears will
come true : Ultima 10 and Kings Quest 8 will be the same game !

And you complain about memory requirements !
I have better reasons not to play it, I will wait for Wizardry 8 !

This guy knew what was coming! But he had to wait 7 years for Wizardry 8.

I wonder what the world would have been if Stones of Arnhem was released. "It won't be Wizardry at all! It would be more like a mix between 'Inherit the Earth' and 'Bound & Gagged' BAD, BAD, BAD!"

Nice finds infinitron. Eternal Recurrence.

 

[Luzur]

Ultima 8: Can we say Super Mario in Avatar gear?

Mario never killed children.

It's funny how "Super Avatar Brothers" became a meme. It seems nobody realized that they were trying to copy Prince of Persia.

At least, I don't remember anybody talking about it. Hmm, let's find out.

1/6/1994 - "Ultima 8 bashing": https://groups.google.com/forum/#!s...sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg/4VyX2_ulvJc/xdYTkTyqm04J

Why can't you just stop whining about ultima 8 needing to big computers, why
don't you start complaining about what ultima 8 will be like ?
It won't be Ultima at all, i guess it will be more like a mix between
King's Quest and Prince of Persia !
No more party members ! BAD,BAD,BAD !
Smaller Area to explore ! BAD,BAD, Terrible !
Jumping, and all that movement stuff ? That's not an RPG, that will
be a jump&run game ! BAD !
What happened to the game concept ? I guess one of my deepest fears will
come true : Ultima 10 and Kings Quest 8 will be the same game !

And you complain about memory requirements !
I have better reasons not to play it, I will wait for Wizardry 8 !

This guy knew what was coming! But he had to wait 7 years for Wizardry 8.

I wonder what the world would have been if Stones of Arnhem was released. "It won't be Wizardry at all! It would be more like a mix between 'Inherit the Earth' and 'Bound & Gagged' BAD, BAD, BAD!"

Nice finds infinitron. Eternal Recurrence.

Inherit the Earth wasnt bad, just....abit furry.

 

[St Antony of Padua]

That is what I mean. Those concept art books for Arnhem....

 

[octavius]

23/1/1996 - "The Decline of Computer Gaming": https://groups.google.com/forum/#!s...sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg/_b7L-lZ18uQ/5vANimA82voJ

The ironic thing is that the Golden Age of PC Gaming started not long after this. The merging of video and computer games only became a real problem with the release of the X-Box in 2002.

 

[Infinitron]

2/24/1998 - "You know RPG gaming has gone downhill when...": https://groups.google.com/forum/#!s...sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg/llx_pd08Lkk/2ckjAwzEljwJ

...gamers are finding more value in 10 year old RPGs than in current
ones.

4/24/1998 - "Are most computer gamers STUPID?": https://groups.google.com/forum/#!s...sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg/SEonJF7gA9U/0iuc-z_fd2sJ

While I appreciate the new wave of RPG's arriving this year, I'm
rather disappointed about the developments surrounding Ultima:
Ascension. Most of you bitch about the lack of a party or the missing
statistics, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. Our actual
problem is an evermore prevalent reduction of the complexity of RPGs;
it has been a trend within the computer gaming industry for some time.
Now, to me at least, the real charm of RPG's is their complexity in
terms of the environment and the characters within. The term virtual
reality can after all only make sense if the virtual world resembles
reality as much as possible. Even the complex character generation in
games such a Wizardry reflects a small part of reality: People have
more than a face and a name - they have a personality, skills, etc..
Why do we want a party? Because in reality nobody sane would wish to
defeat the overlords of evil just alone. (hey, we are supposed to be a
social species, right?) The loss of RPG features in many newer games
is not the problem in itself; it is the loss of reality that makes it
so sad.

Ulitma and Ultima Underworld were released in 1992 (?). Since then
there has been no improvement in terms of RPG complexity, except
possibly System Shock, which was no success at all. Instead we have
been given Ultima 8 (a jump'n'run), Diablo (you can't even call it an
RPG), Daggerfall & Co (the void has a new name) and now there is
Ultima: Ascension ... plus a number of other more promising RPGs, most
of which - I believe - will nevertheless be at least a slight
disappointment in terms of their size, complexity and story density.

Can you blame the companies for that? Not really. They just produce
something that will hopefully sell well. System shock has shown that
some games are too much for some gamers (as a matter of fact, most
gamers). If a game requires the whole human brain, a lot of people
will turn away and buy Quake instead. Considering that it takes a lot
of effort to create a complex game such as system shock, it is no
wonder that game developers turn to more profitable, simpler stuff (3D
BOOM BANG).

Most gamers are just too stupid to appreciate a good game.

Your thoughts?

Of course, they had their popamolers too.

8/30/2002 - "Where did all the good RPGs go?": https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg/pRXN4TGPV-w[1-25-false]

I've been into video games since my Mom bought me a nintendo with "Super
Mario Bros." when I was a little kid. Since then I've played my share of
games, and lately I've been trying to get back into playing RPGs now that I
have a bit more free time on my hands.
What I've found is that I feel like an old man (at the ripe old age of 21).
None of the RPGs on the market have gripped me. Don't get me wrong, I've
always thought of myself as a big fan of RPGs. But I think the definition
must have changed since the last time I was serious about it.

In my mind, every time I try out an RPG it will always be compared to
memories of all the great SNES titles like FF2, Chrono Trigger, Zelda,
Illusion of Gaia, SoulBlazer, etc.

When the next-gen consoles came out, I purcahsed a psx to play FF7. I was in
awe! To this day I don't think I have gotten into a game as much as FF7. I
was practically in tears when Aeris died. I thought that things were really
looking up for RPG fans.

Well, a little after that time I got a decent career started up, a
girlfriend, etc. Gradually the only games I had time to play were
"pick-up-and-go" games like Quake 2. And to this day I still spend a good
amount of time in games like Grand Theft Auto 3, or Unreal Tournament.

But over the past few years I've been making frequent attempts at getting
back into a gripping RPG to consume my time. I tried Diablo II when it came
out, but I almost fell asleep. This is now called an "action" RPG? I
remember when a game like Secret of Mana might come to mind for that
category. I can't remember for the life of me what my motivation was
supposed to be when I was playing Diablo 2. When my character died I
couldn't have cared less.

I picked up Balders Gate 2 when it was released. This game had characters
and story, but it took me hours to figure out all of the obscure "dice"
references like Thac-0 and what all the stats & items meant. By the time I
did figure everything out, I had forgotten why I was playing.

The main thing that I think irked me about Baldurs Gate was that I had to
create the lead character. How can you create the main character of a
story-based game? How are you supposed to care about that person? I think of
all the great RPGs, and theres no way you could "create" Cloud, or "create"
Chrono.

Things got worse when I picked up a copy Everquest a few months back. Not
only do you play just some random person with little to no back-story, but
there is also no main goal! The entire game seemed like dull mini-missions
and chit-chats with lifeless bots.

Playing Final Fantasy X helped lift my spirits a bit, as the fighting system
is still one of the best systems I've played. But I have problems getting
into the story of the game. For one, I really don't care about Tidus. I
mean, I'm sad that his father didn't love him and all, but his character
seems a bit flat otherwise. And his apparent love interest seems similarly
one-dimensional, and I don't see the two having any chemistry together.

So today, I've played both of the current top RPGs Morrowin and Neverwinter
nights, and have similar problems enjoying both of those games. I currently
have a rental of Morrowind for x-box, and no matter how many second chances
I give that game I just can't seem to get past the whole chit-chatting with
bots interface and lifeless plot to enjoy it.

So, now I'm starting to wonder if I'm just becomming a relic of gaming's
past. Are the games of my youth just too old-school to work today? Am I
missing something from the create-a-character games or the hack-and-slash
games that others who rate these games as 5 stars understand? Have I become
too tainted from so-called "mindless" games like Grand Theft Auto 3, and
other games like it, that I can no longer appreciate a good RPG?

I saw an article the other day on rpgplanet that spoke of people not slowing
down enough to enjoy games like these. Is this really the issue? Or are
there other people like myself who are looking to re-capture the magic of
the classic console RPGs? Are there other people like me who read these 5
star reviews for games like Diablo, Neverwinter Nights, Everquest, etc, and
just don't get it? I sure don't.

 

[Infinitron]

Now THIS is interesting. A poster claiming to be one of the founders of Blizzard North, Max Schaefer, defending Diablo's status as an RPG.

6/5/2000 - "What constitutes an RPG.": https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg/AiSg1gPmz6I[1-25-false]

Hello,

First, I have to make the disclaimer that I'm extremely biased
about this issue. I'm one of the co-founders of Blizzard North,
and am heavily involved with making Diablo II. Obviously, the
topic of whether the Diablo games are RPGs is of more than
passing interest to me.

I will go on record here as claiming that both Diablo and Diablo
II are absolutely RPGs in the classic sense. Obviously, whether
or not one agrees with this depends on the working definition of
RPG.

However, most people here would say that the old-school
pen-and-paper Dungeons and Dragons was clearly an RPG.
Obviously, those of us responsible for Diablo and Diablo II
played a lot of D&D in our past. Perhaps we weren't quite as
highbrow as some of the readers of this forum, but our adventures
tended towards revolving around killing monsters and finding cool
stuff. The characters we "role-played" were really only
semi-developed archetypes of the sort of personality that struck
our fancy at the time. We did not use the opportunity to make
cookie-cutter characters with cheesy mystical names like
"Northwynde" who spoke at length in "olde" English. The word "ye"
rarely crossed our lips.

Today, it seems that to be considered a true Computer RPG, game
designers must comlpetely saturate their games with pre-written
dialogue. Conversations with NPC's usually involve listening to a
poorly written story-driving soliloquy followed by an opportunity
for the "role-player" to choose between three canned responses
(none of which ever correspond to what I would really like to say
in those situations.) It seems that the more defined and rigid
the storyline, the more it's considered an RPG. And the more
actual sword-fighting or adventuring there is, the less it's RPG
credentials.

Perhaps again it was just our youthful ignorance, or our
borderline ADD, but our Dungeons and Dragons experiences never
found us choosing A), B), or C) responses, and never had
inflexible, overwrought storylines. Like I said, we made cool
characters, invented cool worlds, and went out to slay monsters
and find cool stuff.

I'm not saying the aforementioned (and semi-mocked) CRPG
structures cannot result in a compelling game-play experience.
Clearly it can, and Baldur's Gate is an excellent and
high-quality example. But for us, staying true to our RPG roots
found us creating the Diablos.

We make a loosely structured world in which you can truely be
whatever sort of character you'd like: from chivalrous hero to
brutal warrior to annoying mennace. Within this world, you can
explore at length, develop and improve your character, kill cool
monsters and find cool stuff.

Call it Short Attention Span Theater, call it instant
gratification. Maybe it is somewhat mindless. Maybe the emphasis
is on hacking and slashing. Maybe we weren't quite the
computer/RPG nerds that we were thought of growing up. But for us
at least, Diablo IS our vision of RPGs.

Max Schaefer
Vice President, Blizzard North

PS: The opinions expressed above are mine alone, and I do not
speak for the company.

 

[Infinitron]

Hey, a response by J.E. Sawyer! Roguey

> However, most people here would say that the old-school
> pen-and-paper Dungeons and Dragons was clearly an RPG.
> Obviously, those of us responsible for Diablo and Diablo II
> played a lot of D&D in our past. Perhaps we weren't quite as
> highbrow as some of the readers of this forum, but our adventures
> tended towards revolving around killing monsters and finding cool
> stuff. The characters we "role-played" were really only
> semi-developed archetypes of the sort of personality that struck
> our fancy at the time. We did not use the opportunity to make
> cookie-cutter characters with cheesy mystical names like
> "Northwynde" who spoke at length in "olde" English. The word "ye"
> rarely crossed our lips.

When I play AD&D and other fantasy RPGs, none of my characters ever
have cheesy mystical names, and they never speak in pseudo-olde-
English. They generally have names like "Edward" and "Jack" and they
tell people to "shut the hell up" and "quit being whiny jackasses." I
don't play characters in hyper-mythic versions of Europe. Just because
someone doesn't play games in the same manner as you, that doesn't mean
they're LARPing freaks. You don't have to get faux-anachronistic to
role-play a character in a fantasy setting.

For instance, if I role-play a paladin, he's not leaping about
yelling "thou" and "have at thee!" but my character does conform to a
certain personality code. He seeks out evil, promotes his religion,
follows the tenets of his faith, and acts as a living exemplar of
virtue. It's actually very easy to do this *while* you're killing
monsters and seizing loot. Kill evil monsters, try to reform villains,
smite them when they don't, and donate their stolen goods to charity.
Hooray.

When I play an RPG, I'm not trying to transplant my personality into a
virtual world. I spend enough time playing "me" as it is. I want my
characters to not only do things that I cannot do, but also *be*
fundamentally different than I am.

Also, I'm somewhat confused about your last few sentences -- you admit
to making semi-developed archetypical character but then seem to
bash "cookie cutter" character. Am I missing something?

>
> Today, it seems that to be considered a true Computer RPG, game
> designers must comlpetely saturate their games with pre-written
> dialogue. Conversations with NPC's usually involve listening to a
> poorly written story-driving soliloquy followed by an opportunity
> for the "role-player" to choose between three canned responses
> (none of which ever correspond to what I would really like to say
> in those situations.) It seems that the more defined and rigid
> the storyline, the more it's considered an RPG. And the more
> actual sword-fighting or adventuring there is, the less it's RPG
> credentials.
>

Well, at least you're not biased against it or anything. Ha.

> Perhaps again it was just our youthful ignorance, or our
> borderline ADD, but our Dungeons and Dragons experiences never
> found us choosing A), B), or C) responses, and never had
> inflexible, overwrought storylines. Like I said, we made cool
> characters, invented cool worlds, and went out to slay monsters
> and find cool stuff.
>

I don't believe that these elements are inherently contradictory.
However, I'd like to address your comments here.

1) Stories in CRPGs are linear. You can try to make them non-linear,
but then the developer has a pretty difficult time forming any sort of
narrative. It's completely up to the player to form narrative in those
situations. If you have a linear story with problems that can be
handled in different ways, the player has a choice in how he or she
deals with the situations. Some of this variation can, obviously, be
combat-oriented ("First, I'll kill the mages with arrows, then the
clerics will buff the party here.") and some of them can be
dialogue/skill oriented ("I talked to the mercenaries and convinced
them to leave. Then my thief went to the prison and set all of the
monks free. That made the battle a lot easier.")

2) Making cool characters. Yes, people like it when they can make
cool characters. Pride in characters comes from a sense of ownership
and individuality that the player has established. This can be power-
based ("Dude, my guy is 94th level and he has Demon Fire Armor and a
Heavenly Cruciform Sword of Might! He's JAWESOME!") or it can be
personality based ("When I played through the game, I decided to be a
total bastard. I played all of these factions against each other and
reaped the rewards! Woo-ha!") With games like Diablo, the emphasis is
more on powering up and getting unique items, sets, and the like.
Uniqueness is derived through player skill more than player choices.
In a game like Fallout 2, the emphasis is on making choices that affect
the world around the character. Let's face it -- by the end of Fallout
2, characters pretty much all have the same equipment and a lot of the
same skills. What changes is the state of the world that your
character left in his or her wake.

3) Slaying monsters and finding cool stuff can certainly exist in a
game where "role-playing" (in the personality-oriented use of the word)
is emphasized. It's not going to be the focus, obviously, but that
doesn't mean it sucks.

> I'm not saying the aforementioned (and semi-mocked) CRPG
> structures cannot result in a compelling game-play experience.
> Clearly it can, and Baldur's Gate is an excellent and
> high-quality example. But for us, staying true to our RPG roots
> found us creating the Diablos.
>
> We make a loosely structured world in which you can truely be
> whatever sort of character you'd like: from chivalrous hero to
> brutal warrior to annoying mennace. Within this world, you can
> explore at length, develop and improve your character, kill cool
> monsters and find cool stuff.
>

I disagree with you here. Diablo had three classes of more-or-less set
appearance. Diablo II has five classes of more-or-less set
appearance. Aside from that, it's pretty hard to create "whatever sort
of character" I'd like. I can specialize in certain skills and choose
to wear or wield different armor and weapons, respectively, but that
doesn't distinguish me very much from everyone else. In a game like
Asheron's Call, customization of your character and his or her
appearance is a major part of the game. If I see someone that looks
like Foozle Jones, it probably is Foozle Jones. Foozle's player can
take pride in the fact that his character is unique and well known for
his deeds. I can take pride in the fact that my Diablo Warrior can
crush just about everything put in front of him. It's a different
focus.

> Call it Short Attention Span Theater, call it instant
> gratification. Maybe it is somewhat mindless. Maybe the emphasis
> is on hacking and slashing. Maybe we weren't quite the
> computer/RPG nerds that we were thought of growing up. But for us
> at least, Diablo IS our vision of RPGs.
>

Now, if you're confident that Diablo and Diablo II are RPGs in every
sense of the term, you don't need us to answer your question. Everyone
has their own opinions on what makes an RPG -- stats, advancement,
personality development, non-linearity -- but they are just that:
opinions. Unless we all want to sit down with Greg Costikyan and
establish Ye Olde Canon of computer gaming vocabulary, we're probably
not going to settle any of these old arguments in here.

J.E. Sawyer
Designer
Black Isle Studios

And Max's response to him:

J.E.,

While I grant that it's a cool feature to have a nearly infinite
variety of character looks, I disagree that it defines who you
are or makes it very much more "role-playing."

In Diablo II, there are hundreds of unique looks, and in fact,
it's unlikely you'll ever meet an Amazon, for example, who is
identical in appearance to you (provided you've played at least
a modest amount of time.) Regardless, the practical fact is that
people associate you with your words and deeds by NAME more than
anything. You change your appearance over time, not your
identity. There is far, far more going on in Diablo I and II than
just monster killing. There are PKers, PKKers, bounty hunters,
newbies, people who help newbies, hero clans, villian clans,
goofballs, angry drunk people, and so forth. People are known by
their words and deeds apart from what level and class they are.

To simplify Diablo to simple monster killing is to make the same
mistake as saying ANY computer game is just hitting a keyboard or
moving a mouse. There are tons of people still playing Diablo,
and we anticipate many tens of thousands playing Diablo II at
any given moment. Within that community, you will find all kinds
of people, and a ton of them are not at all consumed with just
hacking monsters. There are people recruiting for guilds,
airing grievances, trading and buying and selling items, and
making friends. Visit battle.net, and look at the number of
people in chat rooms. Do a quick web search and notice how many
guilds and clans there are associated with Diablo.

Yes, the focus of the game-play itself is on killing monsters and
finding items. But the focus of the player is on character
develpment. And for a lot of people, that transcends level,
skills and equipment.

Thanks for your comments,
Max Schaefer

More:

> While I grant that it's a cool feature to have a nearly infinite
> variety of character looks, I disagree that it defines who you
> are or makes it very much more "role-playing."

Certainly, but is an element of it. Bodies are always read. Unique
character appearance is an instant method of distinguishing individuals.

> ...the practical fact is that
> people associate you with your words and deeds by NAME more than
> anything. You change your appearance over time, not your
> identity. There is far, far more going on in Diablo I and II than
> just monster killing. There are PKers, PKKers, bounty hunters,
> newbies, people who help newbies, hero clans, villian clans,
> goofballs, angry drunk people, and so forth. People are known by
> their words and deeds apart from what level and class they are.

The players are always going to have an effect on how they and their
players are percieved, but the Diablo world, like the BG world and the
Icewind Dale world, is largely static. Diablo is probably the least
static in terms of how its environments and items are constructed.
Once again, though, using Asheron's Call as an unfair comparison -- AC
is built around the idea that characters can run around in a dynamic
world. This is something that's lacking in PS:T, BG, IWD, and, yes, in
Diablo. For me, the core of role-playing is the ability to have an
effect on the characters and environment around my character through
their actions. This is why I, personally, am not attracted to games
like Everquest. My actions always have a microscopic effect in the
grand scheme of things. If there are expansions and modifications to
Diablo II (as I'm certain there will be), it can change over time as
well, perhaps incorporating some of the larger player factions into the
game world. That, IMO, would be pretty cool. One of my own personal
biases is that I don't jive with class-based systems very much. That
might seem kind of odd, considering that I'm working on an AD&D title
right now -- but like I said, it's just my personal preference. Skill-
based systems, like SPECIAL and the AC system, are more to my liking
because they allow me to customize my character and change his or her
focus very easily. Diablo II seems to be making strides in this
direction as well with skill trees, but ultimately it's a class-based
system. Things like the Allegiance system (even though it is Pyramid
Schemey) in AC also help to make the world seem more alive and dynamic.

>
> To simplify Diablo to simple monster killing is to make the same
> mistake as saying ANY computer game is just hitting a keyboard or
> moving a mouse...

Whoa, whoa, whoa there. I certainly wasn't trying to reduce Diablo to
simple monster killing. However, I think that even you can (and do)
admit that Diablo is more focused on combat and power advancement than
a game like Torment (admittedly combat-lite). The system scales
differently, the combat is refined, the powers are much more central to
the experience. The community aspects that you talk about are
certainly made more cool by developer involvement, but they really are
a "meta-game" aspect. The players are the ones that develop
communities.

I think when people level criticisms at Diablo for being "role-playing
lite" or not a "true RPG," they're really looking at the single player
experience. Blizzard made a choice to not make NPC-interaction a focal
point of the game. That's fine, but it's certainly a cause for concern
with some people who are more into single-player games than multi-
player games. In a game where player-to-player interaction is king,
the community will really define the nature of that interaction. The
developers merely facilitate this activity.

In the past, BIS has been more dedicated to single-player games and
Blizzard has been more dedicated to multi-player games. As a result,
our emphases have differed.

J.E. Sawyer
Designer
Black Isle Studios

And Max concedes his point:

I'll buy that, J.E. I'm speaking more about the multi-player
aspects of Diablo, which are our emphasis. Can't really argue
with any of your points here. Nice work.

So, are we going to be able to work out a product swap, or what?

Max Schaefer
Blizzard North

 

[Kane]

When I play an RPG, I'm not trying to transplant my personality into a
virtual world. I spend enough time playing "me" as it is. I want my
characters to not only do things that I cannot do, but also *be*
fundamentally different than I am.

At least he understands RP!

 

[J_C]

People in 1996 are complaining that CRPGs are dead. Oh if they knew what awaits them from the late 2000s. :D

When I play an RPG, I'm not trying to transplant my personality into a
virtual world. I spend enough time playing "me" as it is. I want my
characters to not only do things that I cannot do, but also *be*
fundamentally different than I am.

At least he understands RP!

 

[Exar Kun]

Blizzard North arguing with Black Isle Studios on the nature of CRPG's... I can't stop touching myself..

 

[Stainless Veteran]

1) The Hollywood factor. As I said above, more and more games are designed
now as interactive movies with gorgeous graphics and big name stars. As the
graphics get more gorgeous and the stars get bigger, however, the game gets
lost in the shuffle.

Huh, replace FMV with "Next Gen Graphixx!11" and you'll have today's situation. Interesting how things turned out. Though, sad to say, I doubt that chasing the "Nextgen visuals" will fade out as FMV did back in the day.

3) The exploding cost of development and the resultant contraction of the
number of companies able to produce games and also the time it takes to
create anything but the most simplistic sort of computer game.

I wonder what that guy would thought if he saw current budget for Destiny or some other AAA+ title. Probably would have died of aneurysm.

It's funny that most of my favorite games came out after '97 (barring Dark Sun and Daggerfall), and there were people back then for whom that games seemed like a decline.
Interesting read, thanks Infinitron .

 

[tuluse]

The ironic thing is that the Golden Age of PC Gaming started not long after this. The merging of video and computer games only became a real problem with the release of the X-Box in 2002.

I wonder if you think of '97-'01 as an Indian Summer of computer gaming with the decline already happening behind the scenes if it's not more accurate.

The main thing that I think irked me about Baldurs Gate was that I had to
create the lead character. How can you create the main character of a
story-based game? How are you supposed to care about that person? I think of
all the great RPGs, and theres no way you could "create" Cloud, or "create"
Chrono.

This is great. How can I care about the character I can make myself to be whatever I want over some character forced upon me?

 

[octavius]

The ironic thing is that the Golden Age of PC Gaming started not long after this. The merging of video and computer games only became a real problem with the release of the X-Box in 2002.

I wonder if you think of '97-'01 as an Indian Summer of computer gaming with the decline already happening behind the scenes if it's not more accurate.

No, that's not how I experienced it. To me it was a time of rapid techological development, with new processors and video cards pushing the limits of the PC, and I felt things were moving in the right direction, despite the over abundance of RTS games.
But the X-Box was a game changer that effectively halted all development for many years, and instead of pushing the limits developers had to squeeze their games into the creative straight jacket that the X-Box was due to its limitations.

 

[shihonage]

Ah, console evolution. Each new generation moaned about "limitations" of the past, then proceeded to spend 90% of its power on graphics management and 10% on gameplay. At least that's how it started. In reality, the latter number has been decreasing, because gameplay remains largely the same, while the CPU power grows.

 

[thesheeep]

Well, this is most interesting. This probably interests a lot of people.
Must be the first time I shared a Codex forum thread on Facebook.



In before "quick, throw all the tranny pics we have at this topic!".

 

[Jaedar]

I will go on record here as claiming that both Diablo and Diablo
II are absolutely RPGs in the classic sense. Obviously, whether
or not one agrees with this depends on the working definition of
RPG.

But first, we must define: What is an RPG?

This thread is very interesting.

 

[Old Hans]

1993-96 was pretty shitty times for rpg games. I was all about scanning 3d models into pixilated turd sprites & hideous portraits

 

[octavius]

1993-96 was pretty shitty times for rpg games. I was all about scanning 3d models into pixilated turd sprites & hideous portraits

Make that 1994-1996. 1993 was a great year for CRPGs (the Indian Summer of CRPGs?).

 

[Old Hans]

1993-96 was pretty shitty times for rpg games. I was all about scanning 3d models into pixilated turd sprites & hideous portraits

Make that 1994-1996. 1993 was a great year for CRPGs (the Indian Summer of CRPGs?).

its been so long I barely remember! Although 93 did have Magic Candle 3 which ruuuled