Decline The lack of recovery among American RPGs, visualised with graphs

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

USA has always been a console market first, PC market second. KotOR and Morrowind were the games that showed you could profitably sell your RPG to console players, and if those games had come out 5 years earlier, the pandering to console players would've started 5 years earlier, and we wouldn't have Arcanum or Wizardry 8. It was only the perception that RPGs were inherently niche that gave us those Golden Age classics.

You'd probably still have Arcanum and Wizardry 8, (at least in theory) they'd of just been on the PS2 or Xbox...and maybe Sir-Tech and Troika Games are still around or at least don't die when they do. If Obsidian could survive on consoles (especially with a lot of the hype around them being former Black Isle Fallout guys) I'm sure Troika could have made it; I'm actually surprised Bloodlines never got an Xbox release.

Hell, Wizardry is so fucking big in Japan (seemingly bigger there than it ever was here) that it doesn't really make any sense that Sir-Tech never took a big stab at the console market with it; especially after Final Fantasy 7 comes out in '97 and is the biggest game on the fucking planet. You'd think after FF7 you'd see the western developers making RPGs on PC at least try to capitalize on that huge success. But nothing. Their thinking almost seemed to be "well that's just a total different thing" as opposed to trying to get some of that pie for themselves. Instead of Interplay trying to figure out some way to bring the actual Fallout experience to a wider console market, (a market that already had tactical JRPGs, so it's not exactly like the combat wouldn't have been something that audience couldn't wrap their heads around) they do something like fuckin' Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel game that nobody was interested in. I know there's this dumb outlook that console gamers are just too stupid to get the types of games that were on PC, but I've never gotten this attitude, and as far as I can tell it basically did in most all the PC RPG studios that were around in the '90s outside of fucking BioWare and Bethesda.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Even earlier, SSI commissioned Westwood to develop two D&D-based RPGs for consoles --- Warriors of the Eternal Sun for the Sega Genesis and Order of the Griffon for the Turbografx-16 --- that were released in 1992. Aside from the obvious mistake of releasing on the Turbografx-16 rather than the SNES, it seems these games didn't sell that well, along with a port of Pool of Radiance to the NES. Granted, as time passed the console market not only became larger but also older, so perhaps a console audience for these types of CRPGs would have been much larger in the late-90s than it had been in the early-90s.

 

[eli]

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

Even earlier, SSI commissioned Westwood to develop two D&D-based RPGs for consoles --- Warriors of the Eternal Sun for the Sega Genesis and Order of the Griffon for the Turbografx-16 --- that were released in 1992. Aside from the obvious mistake of releasing on the Turbografx-16 rather than the SNES, it seems these games didn't sell that well, along with a port of Pool of Radiance to the NES. Granted, as time passed the console market not only became larger but also older, so perhaps a console audience for these types of CRPGs would have been much larger in the late-90s than it had been in the early-90s.

I almost said something specifically about that, but figured the post was long enough already. To me, of all of them, it almost makes less sense that Westwood didn't jump back into the console market. They not only did those D&D RPGs you brought up, they also did stuff like that Lion King game; for a little while in the early and mid '90s Westwood was also a console developer. Pre Final Fantasy 7 and post Final Fantasy 7 I'd say the market, and not just JRPGs, but RPGs in general were two different things in the west. Before Final Fantasy 7 I think it's perfectly reasonable western developers would mostly focus on PC, but after, when you've got something that sells like 6 million in a year (and a million in North America in a few months) it just doesn't make any sense they'd do nothing. Shit, FF7 sold more in a few months in America than Fallout's lifetime sales worldwide..and Fallout was a hit for Interplay. I think Baldur's Gate was the biggest of those late '90s CRPGs, and it took something like two year for it to hit half a million. Now those were great numbers on PC at the time, Fallout and Baldur's Gate were big successes for CRPGs and PC games in general; but it also makes zero sense at all they'd never try their hand at the console market after some JRPG comes out and does so well.

Of all the western developers that could have done an RPG on the PSX in the late '90 and made a splash I think Westwood wouldn've been primed to do the best, not just because of their previous work on consoles, but because a lot of what Square was getting praised for with FF7 Westwood would end up doing later that year with Blade Runner. Likewise they could have probably also taken on Resident Evil with some kind of similar adventure game. Instead when Westwood would try their hand at console games during that era it was Red Alert releases.

SSI didn't release those console games. They were released by Sega and Capcom. Capcom also released their stuff in Japan, which is how they end up doing those beat 'em up games; Capcom had been releasing other people's D&D games for years and wanted to make one themselves. SSI may had released the TurboGrafx game, but they didn't do the Sega and Nintendo ones.

It's all speculation of course. Someone like Black Isle could've made an RPG on the PSX and totally eaten shit making a game that was right in line with what they were doing on PC, or because they made something really bad because they assumed the audience were total morons, but you look at the numbers of even what could be considered more niche PSX JRPGS in comparison to the successes on PC and it's hard to imagine they wouldn't have sold even more on the PSX.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

Western developers were definitely very slow to understand the JRPG phenomenon. FF7 and later successful JRPGs had also basically "old school" TB combat, while western developers (in particular in US) where under the market analysts spell that RPGs, in particular those with TB, were a thing of the past not apt for a modern audience.
US people give too much importance to market mantras, to the point that they don't see even what is in front of their eyes.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

I almost said something specifically about that, but figured the post was long enough already. To me, of all of them, it almost makes less sense that Westwood didn't jump back into the console market. They not only did those D&D RPGs you brought up, they also did stuff like that Lion King game; for a little while in the early and mid '90s Westwood was also a console developer. Pre Final Fantasy 7 and post Final Fantasy 7 I'd say the market, and not just JRPGs, but RPGs in general were two different things in the west. Before Final Fantasy 7 I think it's perfectly reasonable western developers would mostly focus on PC, but after, when you've got something that sells like 6 million in a year (and a million in North America in a few months) it just doesn't make any sense they'd do nothing. Shit, FF7 sold more in a few months in America than Fallout's lifetime sales worldwide..and Fallout was a hit for Interplay. I think Baldur's Gate was the biggest of those late '90s CRPGs, and it took something like two year for it to hit half a million. Now those were great numbers on PC at the time, Fallout and Baldur's Gate were big successes for CRPGs and PC games in general; but it also makes zero sense at all they'd never try their hand at the console market after some JRPG comes out and does so well.

In regard to the commercial success of Final Fantasy VII, it's worth noting that its gameplay is squarely within the JRPG subgenre, meaning a focus on narrative and predetermined characters with relatively simplistic combat (though turn-based, yes) and exploration. Prior to Baldur's Gate in 1998, the various RPG subgenres popular in Western computer games were quite different. Earlier, on 16-bit consoles, JRPGs had already attained considerable popularity in the West with Final Fantasy 2 (IV) and 3 (VI) on the SNES, Phantasy Star II/III/IV on the Sega Genesis/Megadrive, and other series, while the various Western CRPGs ported to consoles had more limited success. SSI's best route to console success would have been to make their own JRPG-style games, which could easily have been accomplished with the AD&D Dragonlance setting and story, but instead the only Dragonlance adaptations were a trio of poorly-conceived action games starting in 1989. Interplay could have done likewise, and by the time it obtained AD&D licenses in late-1994 it was obvious that the JRPG subgenre on consoles was a substantial market, except that it never bothered obtaining a license for Dragonlance (just the Forgotten Realms and Planescape settings) and the only console RPG it attempted was a Planescape game based on King's Field that was terminated early in development.

An enormous missed opportunity.

 

[Ladonna]

JRPGs had already attained considerable popularity in the West with Final Fantasy 2 (IV) and 3 (VI) on the SNES, Phantasy Star II/III/IV

And the funniest thing is those games have a souped up version of Phantasie combat. SSI was on a winning ticket and they never even knew it lol

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Ladonna
JRPGs had already attained considerable popularity in the West with Final Fantasy 2 (IV) and 3 (VI) on the SNES, Phantasy Star II/III/IV
And the funniest thing is those games have a souped up version of Phantasie combat. SSI was on a winning ticket and they never even knew it lol

Yeah, they really liked the end of combat celebration with all the jumping and arm waving.

I never recalled the console BOS. I do recall the PC Fallout Tactics: BOS which I assume was mirroring Jagged Alliance or tyring to in some odd fashion.

Perhaps newer generations of players are spoiled. I recall when the polygon craze hit PC and consoles. It was "FUCK 2D GFX" and play with POLY!.


Look at that Laura Croft and her Poly tits and arse.

Spoiler

Look at all those awesome poly fighting games. Fuck Vector and get with the Poly program. Hasn't it always been a race of software vs hardware to be the top of the newest fad in gfx and sfx to get the most $$$ from clueless consumers?

Spoiler

The Witcher 3 sucks rocks and Polish women are dogs.

WOOF WOOF!

 

[Konjad]

You guys see the decline of American RPGs, but I see the growth of Central European RPGs

 

[Nifft Batuff]

The "RPG" tag these days can be used as an offense.

 

[Rincewind]

It can all be explained by the radical change in the demographics of computer owners starting from the early 90s. The truth is, only rather well-situated people could afford a PC in the 80s, so quite naturally those were educated, literate people. Can you imagine a lawyer, a dentist, or a scientist playing some DOOM clone for more than five minutes or some kiddie platformer? Naturally, those folks were drawn towards more cerebral games such as strategy games, adventures, and RPGs. Who do you think Sierra sold all those rather expensive Roland MT-32s to? Elementary school kids?

Then prices went down, suddenly everybody had a PC, and you had to sell something to those masses... Guess what, they were not into strategy games and adventures, neither RPGs. But their money had the same worth, and there were a *lot* of them. You can work out the rest.

It's a bit disingenuous to think that Americans = stupid, Easter Europeans = prestigious. The birthplace of AD&D and cRPGS was most definitely the USA, then there were some much smaller scale efforts in Europe with a phase delay throughout the 90s. The "decline" is simply the result of changing market conditions and US people generally being good at the business side of things—more complex and demanding games were no longer a lucrative business after the early 90s. And maybe there's an element of Europeans being perhaps less money-driven in general, so some studios have this "fuck it all; we'll do what we love no matter what" attitude over there a bit more often perhaps.

 

[fantadomat]

You guys see the decline of American RPGs, but I see the growth of Central European RPGs

Just evropa,not center.

 

[ropetight]

It can all be explained by the radical change in the demographics of computer owners starting from the early 90s. The truth is, only rather well-situated people could afford a PC in the 80s, so quite naturally those were educated, literate people. Can you imagine a lawyer, a dentist, or a scientist playing some DOOM clone for more than five minutes or some kiddie platformer? Naturally, those folks were drawn towards more cerebral games such as strategy games, adventures, and RPGs. Who do you think Sierra sold all those rather expensive Roland MT-32s to? Elementary school kids?

Then prices went down, suddenly everybody had a PC, and you had to sell something to those masses... Guess what, they were not into strategy games and adventures, neither RPGs. But their money had the same worth, and there were a *lot* of them. You can work out the rest.

It's a bit disingenuous to think that Americans = stupid, Easter Europeans = prestigious. The birthplace of AD&D and cRPGS was most definitely the USA, then there were some much smaller scale efforts in Europe with a phase delay throughout the 90s. The "decline" is simply the result of changing market conditions and US people generally being good at the business side of things—more complex and demanding games were no longer a lucrative business after the early 90s. And maybe there's an element of Europeans being perhaps less money-driven in general, so some studios have this "fuck it all; we'll do what we love no matter what" attitude over there a bit more often perhaps.

The same thing happened with internet - in the 90s online forums were dominant form of communication - the place to read news about your favorite writers, TV Shows (remember the Babylon 5 revolutionary online presence?) and debate about it.
As the less tech skilled and dumber people got online when internet got more accessible, it became much more prevalent to read and watch about women with giant plastic asses on twitter and instagram.
It is absolutely insane to compare popularity of places like Codex with thot money machines - I think you can apply the same metric to RPGs and microtransactional looter shooter, Battle Royal or whatever is the hot shit for industry right now.

Times when RPGs and strategies were the most popular or biggest budget games are long gone with couple of exceptions now and then, but as long there are people willing and able to make new RPGs, I'm fine.
Mainstream can have all their AAAs, AAs, Ass or whatever.

 

[Desiderius]

It can all be explained by the radical change in the demographics of computer owners starting from the early 90s. The truth is, only rather well-situated people could afford a PC in the 80s, so quite naturally those were educated, literate people. Can you imagine a lawyer, a dentist, or a scientist playing some DOOM clone for more than five minutes or some kiddie platformer? Naturally, those folks were drawn towards more cerebral games such as strategy games, adventures, and RPGs. Who do you think Sierra sold all those rather expensive Roland MT-32s to? Elementary school kids?

Then prices went down, suddenly everybody had a PC, and you had to sell something to those masses... Guess what, they were not into strategy games and adventures, neither RPGs. But their money had the same worth, and there were a *lot* of them. You can work out the rest.

It's a bit disingenuous to think that Americans = stupid, Easter Europeans = prestigious. The birthplace of AD&D and cRPGS was most definitely the USA, then there were some much smaller scale efforts in Europe with a phase delay throughout the 90s. The "decline" is simply the result of changing market conditions and US people generally being good at the business side of things—more complex and demanding games were no longer a lucrative business after the early 90s. And maybe there's an element of Europeans being perhaps less money-driven in general, so some studios have this "fuck it all; we'll do what we love no matter what" attitude over there a bit more often perhaps.

Nobody ever went broke with the PT Barnum approach of appealing to the lowest common denominator. That said the most successful products have always followed Shakespeare in speaking to both pit and box, and marketing to the aspirations of the masses rather than simply their base instincts. The D:OS games are not in fact trivial, and take a good bit of strategic thinking and mastery of the mechanics to get by things like the Voidwoken fight in DOS:2, and they sold like hotcakes on the mass market.

Suits need to think they're not only smarter but also morally superior to the masses so will enthusiastically glom onto the PT Barnum narrative to rationalize their schlock, but that isn't the only thing that sells, and in fact it often flops since people - even regular schmucks - don't play games to insult their intelligence.

 

[Rincewind]

It can all be explained by the radical change in the demographics of computer owners starting from the early 90s. The truth is, only rather well-situated people could afford a PC in the 80s, so quite naturally those were educated, literate people. Can you imagine a lawyer, a dentist, or a scientist playing some DOOM clone for more than five minutes or some kiddie platformer? Naturally, those folks were drawn towards more cerebral games such as strategy games, adventures, and RPGs. Who do you think Sierra sold all those rather expensive Roland MT-32s to? Elementary school kids?

Then prices went down, suddenly everybody had a PC, and you had to sell something to those masses... Guess what, they were not into strategy games and adventures, neither RPGs. But their money had the same worth, and there were a *lot* of them. You can work out the rest.

It's a bit disingenuous to think that Americans = stupid, Easter Europeans = prestigious. The birthplace of AD&D and cRPGS was most definitely the USA, then there were some much smaller scale efforts in Europe with a phase delay throughout the 90s. The "decline" is simply the result of changing market conditions and US people generally being good at the business side of things—more complex and demanding games were no longer a lucrative business after the early 90s. And maybe there's an element of Europeans being perhaps less money-driven in general, so some studios have this "fuck it all; we'll do what we love no matter what" attitude over there a bit more often perhaps.

Nobody ever went broke with the PT Barnum approach of appealing to the lowest common denominator. That said the most successful products have always followed Shakespeare in speaking to both pit and box, and marketing to the aspirations of the masses rather than simply their base instincts. The D:OS games are not in fact trivial, and take a good bit of strategic thinking and mastery of the mechanics to get by things like the Voidwoken fight in DOS:2, and they sold like hotcakes on the mass market.

Suits need to think they're not only smarter but also morally superior to the masses so will enthusiastically glom onto the PT Barnum narrative to rationalize their schlock, but that isn't the only thing that sells, and in fact it often flops since people - even regular schmucks - don't play games to insult their intelligence.

It's rare that someone can phrase this so eloquently, thank you.

 

[luj1]

Ok my 2c

Stats dont make RPGs. People began adding stats to every game, disregarding RPG format.

open world shooter + stats = you get something like cyberpunk or borderlands
Choose your own adventure game + stats = disco elysium, pentiment

So you see why we have problems about RPG definitions. Neither of these groups can be RPGs. The first group uses reflexes and player skill. So its an action game. The second group is turn-based but it has no active gameplay, no combat or conflict. So its an adventure or puzzle game.

You see RPG is not an "attribute" you can add on another game. Why dont you add FPS on something as an element? Or RTS? Because its a genre and its stupid. So dont treat RPGs as some kind of element but legit genre

 

[Norfleet]

So you see why we have problems about RPG definitions. Neither of these groups can be RPGs. The first group uses reflexes and player skill. So its an action game.

You have this wish to define categories in exclusionary terms. The answer is "Why not Both?". Besides, the argument of "uses player skill" is nonsensical: A thing which does not use player skill is not a game. Everything uses player skill. Whether your ability at tactical thinking or your reflexes, your player skills are always going to be involved somehow. There is no particular reason to privilege one set of player skills over another.

The second group is turn-based but it has no active gameplay, no combat or conflict. So its an adventure or puzzle game.

So, the defining characteristic of an RPG is some kind of combat/conflict system? I'm not sure that's a strict requirement, but the thing is that RPG itself isn't well-defined because it was an unholy hybrid genre to begin with, when somebody decided to staple an adventure game onto a tacticool game.

You see RPG is not an "attribute" you can add on another game.

Sure it is. You can absolutely bolt RPG mechanics onto another genre, leaving players to debate whether JA2 is an RPG based on the nature of Laptop Guy.

Why dont you add FPS on something as an element?

I bring your attention to "Oblivion With Guns", and its sequel, "Skyrim With Guns". Are these RPGs or FPSes?

Or RTS? Because its a genre and its stupid.

I submit Battlezone, which manages to bolt an FPS, an RTS, and a tank simulator into a single game. Clearly a bit lacking in the RPG front, though. Probably because the player character doesn't have stats.

 

[luj1]

You can absolutely bolt RPG mechanics onto another genre, leaving players to debate whether JA2 is an RPG

but JA2 *is* an RPG you potato

This is what an actual tabletop role playing game looks like:

JA2:

 

[Norfleet]

but JA2 *is* an RPG you potato

Well, I certainly agree, but you'll find plenty of people trying to argue it isn't, usually with arguments along the lines of "laptop guy has no stats" or somesuch.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Somebody bought a lot of floor & wall assets for their tabletop.

The best CRPG with stats is ms-excel. So many stats in them spreadsheets. It is just crazy.

THE ULTIMATE GAME

 

[Atlantico]

but JA2 *is* an RPG you potato

I just finished playing JA2 and loved it. It's not an RPG tho IMO. No more than Fallout Tactics or Xenonauts/XCom.

JA2 could have been an RPG, easily and it has almost all the fundamentals to be one — but I can't see how it is an RPG. It lacks the storytelling and interaction elements that make an RPG and has an obvious focus on tactics and strategy.

Still a wonderful game. Loved every moment of it.

Well, I certainly agree, but you'll find plenty of people trying to argue it isn't, usually with arguments along the lines of "laptop guy has no stats" or somesuch.

I really wanted and expected it to be an RPG, but it's stretching the term too far to call JA2 an RPG. If you consider the laptop guy to be the role played, then why isn't nu-XCOM an RPG where you are the "tactical controller guy" — because that isn't an actual role in the game. The game is the tactical part.

 

[lukaszek]

So you see why we have problems about RPG definitions.

its rpg when you spend more time planning your character than playing the game. And when you do actually play stuff on the screen just disappears

 

[Cross]

but JA2 *is* an RPG you potato

I just finished playing JA2 and loved it. It's not an RPG tho IMO. No more than Fallout Tactics or Xenonauts/XCom.

JA2 could have been an RPG, easily and it has almost all the fundamentals to be one — but I can't see how it is an RPG. It lacks the storytelling and interaction elements that make an RPG and has an obvious focus on tactics and strategy.

Still a wonderful game. Loved every moment of it.

Jagged Alliance 2 isn't a tactics game. You don't go on missions, you have a persistent game world that you're free to explore and interact with like you would in any regular RPG.

It lacks the storytelling and interaction elements that make an RPG

The mercs have more lines of dialogue and interactions than the companions in Baldur's Gate, despite there being far more of them.

 

[Atlantico]

Jagged Alliance 2 isn't a tactics game. You don't go on missions, you have a persistent game world that you're free to explore and interact with like you would in any regular RPG.

There's nothing in that world that you're free to "explore". Yeah you can look at all the empty maps as long as you want, find the two or three random encounters in the game and that is all. That's literally everything in this "exploration" that you speak of. You can find an icecream truck, helicopter and a prison. You can "talk" to the very rare NPC who actually just talks at you and has two or three lines.

The missions are implied, you form a task force and you send them somewhere. I refuse to participate in a more autistic definition of an obvious tactics game where the placement, stance and armament of a character is infinitely more important than any other attribute.

The mercs have more lines of dialogue and interactions than the companions in Baldur's Gate, despite there being far more of them.

In Baldur's Gate and JA2 character dialogue is nothing more than flavor. Sorry, JA2 is not an RPG. Could have been an RPG, but isn't.

 

[Cross]

Jagged Alliance 2 isn't a tactics game. You don't go on missions, you have a persistent game world that you're free to explore and interact with like you would in any regular RPG.

There's nothing in that world that you're free to "explore". Yeah you can look at all the empty maps as long as you want, find the two or three random encounters in the game and that is all. That's literally everything in this "exploration" that you speak of. You can find an icecream truck, helicopter and a prison. You can "talk" to the very rare NPC who actually just talks at you and has two or three lines.

There are towns to explore, items and equipment to find, side quests to do and NPCs to interact with, some of which can be recruited as party members. Characters have attributes and (non-combat) skills they can improve as they gain experience. It's an RPG.

You can find an icecream truck, helicopter

That's more transportation options than the Highwayman you get in Fallout 2.

In Baldur's Gate and JA2 character dialogue is nothing more than flavor. Sorry, JA2 is not an RPG. Could have been an RPG, but isn't.

It affects gameplay, so it's clearly not just flavor. The mercs will perform better or worse depending on your choices and the mercs they're paired up with, and they may leave or not extend their contract depending on your choices.

 

[Atlantico]

There are towns to explore, items and equipment to find, side quests to do and NPCs to interact with, some of which can be recruited as party members. Characters have attributes and (non-combat) skills they can improve as they gain experience. It's an RPG.

Town exploration has nothing to do with being an RPG or not, there's plenty of RPGs that have no town exploration. That being said, there's nothing in those towns. They are empty. There some random items and NPCs that do nothing, and that's it. It could have been an RPG, but it isn't. Too bad so sad, but it's not an RPG.

That's more transportation options than the Highwayman you get in Fallout 2.

Good thing I wasn't talking about transportation options. I was talking about there being nothing in the entire world map except three things.

It affects gameplay, so it's clearly not just flavor.

That flavor, omg character A and B don't want to work together. This is flavor, and you can confirm that by removing it from the game and realizing nothing has changed at all. That's what we call flavor, something easy to make things more interesting, but ultimately changes nothing.

The mercs will perform better or worse depending on your choices and the mercs they're paired up with, and they may leave or not extend their contract depending on your choices.

tfw you claim something is an RPG but it sounds like a management sim — which is actually a good point. JA2 is a tactical management sim. Certainly is not an RPG lmao