What do you believe is the common perception of what constitutes a CRPG?
This can differ wildly from gamer to gamer and on a whole, is not very easilly defined given its dilution when applied to computer or console RPGs. Perhaps the most blatant example of how perceptions are skewed is that the masses will most likely silently accept the RPG categorization made by the relative media, but isolated they can often display arguments or perceptions which run contrary to the games they seem to accept. In these situations, the most common perceptions seem to be that what constitutes a computer or console RPG are an ‘epic’ or ‘strong’ narrative, statistical character management, and combat.
Perhaps what is unfortunate about these common perceptions is that they are often held up by an unspoken majority or gamers that simply accepts industry perceptions and categorizations, instead of being set on any real consensus by all gamers involved. I think the lack of adequate communication channels where opinions can be discussed rather than manufactured, and the over dependency of centralized opinion makers has lead to the current state of things.
What are your own philosophies on the matter?
I suspect my philosophies will seem outdated when taken into the context of today’s genre-blending games or the perceptions of the majority. However it is my belief that a roleplaying game is, or should be about a player-defined and developed entity whose role and choices can be meaningfully expressed in a credibly reactive gameworld where it is placed on. For the most part, my philosophy goes hand in hand with what Pen and Paper usually allows .
To try and briefly expand on this, I think a player should be able to create, as well as define the intrinsic, defining attributes of a character and then play the role they design for it. Allowing the players to do so is important in order to make characters which can properly and satisfyingly interact with their surroundings, as well as creating a semblance of character development. Their attributes should define the possibilities open to them, and their skills should provide multiple forms of interaction. They should prove useful in defining just how a character can overcome the obstacles present before him wheter they are environmental or social in nature.
A character should also be his own entity. It should not, other than standard control necessitities, require extra player input. Any action performed by the character in the gameworld is or should be determined by his attributes or skills. If characters are succeeding in a situation because of my input instead of any skill they intrinsically possess, then the character is taking a back seat and so does his role because I, as the player, am stepping in and taking his role. Roleplaying is all about the premise that it is the character who, trough the use of his own skills and abilities, performs tasks ranging from the mundane to the exceptional – and not the player.
Also, I'd say that while meaningful choices are important, meaningful results to those choices are even moreso. Choice and consequence should be set on a solid, credible framework which stimulates the players’ decision-making and helps characters’ roles become more defined. There’s no point in creating an illusion of choice if a lack of proper consequence will destroy it.
I think I am malleable enough to accept some changes in these points, although it depends to what degree things are being changed.
To what degree does that philosophy actively define your enjoyment of a CRPG?
I’d say they have a pretty big impact. Although I am willing to accept certain compromises, or inherent limitations of the mediums involved, my enjoyment is definitely based on my philosophy, or in some elements of it. I can appreciate a roleplaying game just fine even if its design goes against my philosophy, but usually my appreciation is lowered depending on just how much it strays from it. However, if a game adheres to the core philosophy but only changes the presentation, it usually doesn’t prevent me from enjoying it.
What challenges should the game present to a player, and how integral should they be to the role playing elements?
For short, I believe the game should present to the player challenges that require the knowledge and use of their character’s skills.
But it’s somewhat difficult to come up with a middle ground because no matter how hard we try to separate both, at one point we’re going to fall into the discussion of mental abilities. While it is true that these challenges should be presented to the character, one can’t deny that all games by their very nature involve presenting challenges to the player as well. Wouldn’t you say a character who is extremely intelligent should use his intelligence to solve a puzzle? It should go without saying that a character with an Intelligence of 17 or 18 would see right trough a puzzle and solve it. But for the player, this isn’t satisfying because if the character automatically solves it, then there is no challenge presented to the player, other than dumping points into attribute. In situations like these, it isn’t always easy to present a satisfying conclusion.
However, I think that there can be a compromise.
If a character has enough perception to figure out a puzzle, this knowledge can be given to the player and let him decide what is best. A character with Intelligence 17 or 18 doesn’t necessarily need to automatically work out the situation just because he can. We already know he can do it, but can the player? This is where I think the challenge can be placed. The character figures out the required motions for solving a situation but instead of doing them, he conveys to the player the required steps so he can do them himself. At this point the player should try to solve the puzzle on his own, based on the character’s feedback.
Of course, a dumb Orc would not necessarily figure out the solution to the same puzzle, and this should be conveyed as well. In this case, his ineptude should lead the player into either searching for an alternate method of solving the puzzle that relies on the character’s best features, or for means of advancement which do not rely on the puzzle’s solving. We know the Orc can’t use his brains to solve it; why not try with his brawn? Granted, not all situations would logically have the chance to present this kind of possibility; an Orc would likely not fare very well if he tried to punch trough a magical trap. At times like this, I believe the best way would be to allow the character to observe the surroundings to try and find some clues to solving it. These don’t need to be standard cryptic clues lying around; the character may just as well use his own observation skills to figure out a pattern in the trap, or a perception skill to figure out what would seem out of place. Or just make it so environmental interaction and manipulation is open to characters who absolutely cannot rely on their skills.
I think this method is much better than removing the character’s importance from the situation and placing all the problem-solving elements in the hands of the player. This way, we leave behind the concept of a one-way challenge in order to present a problem possible of being worked out by both the player’s skill and the character’s skill.
However, while I openly admit that this barely touches the surface of the question, it is still a common point of dissention between player vs. character challenges that I thought I should bring up.
Where do you see the "evolution" of CRPGs headed?
I think there are two ways that the computer RPG will likely head towards.
The first way is tied to the mainstream RPGs and how they have, for better or worse, changed many of the attitudes towards the genre. Bluntly put, traditional RPGs will not survive in the mainstream. For the average gamer who sucks the marrow out of anything the media opinion makers say, traditional RPGs are cumbersome and filled with ‘outdated’ elements. The proliferation of this mindset and of games appealing to this mindset has led to games which are slowly, but surely moving away from roleplaying in order to present other elements deemed required to the genre, such as a ‘strong’ story which inexorably draws players into it’s spotlight, or firstperson perspectives which are reputedly more immersive or realistic.
Sure, we’re getting more technically and visually impressive titles but at the cost of a dillution of the concept of roleplaying. At best they cling to some of its old gameplay conventions, more often than not in an attempt to try and get a slice of the RPG market and gamer attention. Does this mean they are bad games? No, they might just be great games. It just means they are not necessarily good roleplaying games. You are more likely to find a good number of best-selling RPGs than good RPGs, and the majority of the best-selling ones lack some of the founding elements that made Wasteland, Ultima VII and Fallout such great roleplaying classics. Elements which we see less and less because they have no place in the mainstream RPG arena.
Also, Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games (MMORPGs) are getting to be the star child of publishers. Despite needing more money and resources, MMORPG’s abstract a great deal of the so-called convoluted rules and present a higher immediacy to the whole experience. They’re often touted as the evolution of RPGs, and unfortunately they may very well be. Converging established RPG mechanics with large virtual worlds, online communities and social interaction, they’ve set themselves up as an attractive and successful option for many gamers.
The second way is tied to indie developers, and their ability to develop and publish games which are not under market and publisher pressures. Let’s face it, publishers have been one of the banes of gaming for a long time. The development budgets, the following of trends, the glitz over gameplay, all these contribute to a funneling of game development and associated resources. Indie developers don’t have to deal with these constrains and can develop the games they want, how and when they want. They also don’t have to rely on the standard distribution channels. They don’t have to see their games fight for shelf space; they make their own shelf space. Perhaps more importantly than all else, they show that being based on a different business model isn’t bad and in the proccess give mainstream developers and publishers a clear message: they don't have to sell as much as The Sims 2 in order to stay in the business.
So, what does it mean?
I may be wrong (this wouldn’t be a first) but from a business standpoint, with the increasing importance that online gaming is having I suspect that singleplayer roleplaying games, insofar as the mainstream is concerned, are going to dwindle in the long run. They won’t completely disappear, as there is still a significant amount of home users who won’t play online games, but if trends keep dominating the market, I think it’s not totally wrong to consider that the major investments will likely focus on online entertainment. I also see the advent of online gaming in consoles and their popularity another reason for PC-based developers and publishers to try and make a claim in that territory.
This is where I see indie gaming potentially striking gold, with their distribution methods, accessible prices and solid games becoming an attractive and reliable choice for many PC gamers, especially in the development of roleplaying games. Also from a gameplay point of view, the mainstream is far too comitted to percentages and market shares to support innovation or the continuity of certain genres, like the adventure genre. The massification and streamlining that the genre has been going trough finds no equal in indie development and this may just be why it will keep on being appealing.
What direction would you take if you had a controlling stake?
There would be many scenarios to consider and to mention here; a controlling stake varies from case to case. It is entirely possible I would do things the same way as they are done now were I envolved in the mainstream industry, just as it would be possible I’d do them differently if I had no such pressure from publishers and vague market studies.
But assuming two distinct scenarios:
If I were a mainstream developer I would try to adapt the roleplaying conventions we are all fond of into a different level. Largely replacing skills and attributes with strictly player-driven choices and actions – with suitable consequences and reactions – but retaining the same gameplay experience that roleplaying games often provide. I assume this would be an understandable and acceptable (although not ideal) compromise for mainstream titles.
If I were a developer without such constrains I would likely try to implement much of my roleplaying philosophies discussed above into the games I’d develop.
.
