What is a cRPG? 2014 edition

Okay guys, do you all just like to fuck around with your own amateurish definitions or is anyones opinion here actually informed by some book or essay about RPGs, video games, genre theory or whatever? Not that I don't enjoy your debate but I would like to read up something on the matter by people who .. you know .. actually know what they are talking about. Any book or essay recommendations? (I mean actual academic stuff, don't link me to some shitty blog)

 

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...ity-formerly-known-as-project-eternity.75947/

 

There is no one better and more knowledgeable then us. This is Science! at its finest faggot. History in the making! - and you are privileged to see it. Now fuck off.

 

What is a CRPG by CRPG Addict

SF Encyclopedia

Every RPG ever

Classifying CRPGs

Ranking and Rating CRPGs

Defining the CRPG

Matt Barton says something really interesting in the first chapter of Dungeons and Desktops: The History of Computer Role-Playing Games:

Jimmy Maher:
But I wanted to define the CRPG, didn’t I? Okay, here goes:

What Makes a Great Role-Playing Video Game?

In the book "Fundamentals of Game Design" by Ernest Adams you can find the following short definition of CRPGs:

 

HiddenX, your list based definition sucks. Many posters already gave you the reason why. It's too inclusive, all sorts of games, not only CRPGs, have the features you set as "must have" in abundance.
I'm sorry to say it but the tremendous amount of work and sweat and brainfarts you put into it was all for naught.

Still, there has to be a short and fitting definition somewhere, else it wouldn't be that simple to say if a certain game is a CRPG most of the time (okay, if you are a hipster douche who rules out all gameplay concepts he doesn't like then it becomes more difficult ofc). And I for one think Flunklesnarkin nailed it early in this thread.

Maybe this one is a bit too short though, because you still have to define "level up" i think.
But yes, CRPGs revolve around leveling up your little avatar(s), living out a power fantasy trip and everything else is means to that end. Like in PnP games your character is in the center of the narrative and the gamemaster/CRPG has to adopt the challenges so they kinda fit your char's talents. There is just no point in presenting you a Machiavellian diplomacy/scheming narrative when your char or party are a bunch of sword-wielding retarded ruffians.

 

This is great, but when was this written? Certainly before CYOA-style design became the norm in the genre

 

The RPG Codex

Character Development
Describes ways to change or enhance your characters in order to increase their effectiveness in the game.

• Must Have
  C1: you can control one or more characters -> yes
  C2: you can progressively develop your characters' stats or abilities (=> e.g. through quests, exploration, conversation, combat, …) -> yes: brofists, Kodex Kool Kredits, improve trolling skill
  C3: you can equip and enhance your characters with items you acquire -> yes, getting custom tags and banners
• Should Have
  C4: you can create your characters -> yes: name, gender, avatar
  C5: character development requires careful thought and planning -> yes, creating a believable alter-ego and staying in-character when posting

Exploration
Includes how you can move through the game world, as well as everything you can find, see, manipulate or interact with, like locations, items and other objects.

• Must Have
  E1: by exploring the gameworld you can find new locations -> yes, such as stumbling into GD or Prosperland
  E2: you can find items that can be collected in an inventory (=> not only puzzle items) -> yes: tags, banners, potato
  E3: you can find information sources (=> e.g. NPCs, entities, objects that provide info) -> yes, a lot
• Should Have
  E4: there are NPCs in the game -> yes, many
  E5: you can choose a path (=> there is at least some branching) -> yes, users can decide where discussion will lead
  E6: you can manipulate the game world in some way (=> e.g. pull levers, push buttons, open chests, …) -> yes, emphasis on manipulate; also funding campaigns
  E7: the gameworld can affect your party (=> e.g. weather, traps, closed doors, poisoned areas, …) -> yes, such as receiving an unexpected pizza delivery
  E8: you may have to think or plan to progress or overcome obstacles (=> e.g. unlock locked areas, repair bridges, dispel barriers, …) -> yes, such as being redirected to the Watch, concealing an alt account's IP, attempting to lose unwanted tags in site feedback, 1 year waiting time for GD

Story
Concerns all narrative elements like setting, lore, plot, characters, dialogue, quests, descriptions, storyline(s) and similar, including how you can interact with them.

• Must Have
  S1: you can get info from information sources (=> e.g. hints, goals, quests, skills, spells, training, …) -> yes
  S2: you can follow quests (=> there is at least one main quest) -> yes, but there is no main quest
  S3: you can progress through connected events (= Story) -> yes, many
• Should Have
  S4: the story is influenced more or less by your actions -> yes, to an extent, since the story can go on without a particular user's actions
  S5: you can interact with information sources (=> e.g. NPC conversation, riddle statue question, …) -> yes
  S6: you can make choices in those interactions -> yes, some better than others
  S7: your choices have consequences -> yes, oh yes
  S8: advancing in the story requires thought (=> e.g. irreversible choices, moral dilemma, riddles, …) -> no, if some posts are of any indication; on the other hand, there are many irreversible choices possible

Combat
Describes how combat is influenced by elements of Character Development, Exploration and Story.

• Should Have
  F1: Combat efficiency is in some way tied to character stats or abilities (=> e.g. amount of damage, chance to hit, weapon access, …) -> yes: trolling skills, google-fu, butthurt generation ability, intelligence
  F2: Combat works with some random elements (game internal dice rolls) -> yes, there is the random die feature, and random thread derailing
  F3: Combat should be challenging (=> e.g. preparing, use of tactics or environment possible) -> yes, does not scale to your level

 

You can't deny that going through the checklists (Must Have, Should Have, Nice to Have) for a game review will reveal a lot of CRPG elements for a given game. We already used these lists for reviews - it works great.

If you call the game finally CRPG or not is only the last step.

I learned a lot about CRPG elements in the books I read and in the discussions with other CRPG enthusiasts.

We don't have to agree all 100% - the journey is the reward. The discussion about CRPG elements with CRPG enthusiasts sharpens the knowlege about CRPGs.

Question:
Which conditions would you add to the definition as Must Haves / Should Haves to exclude games you don't consider CRPGs (list examples, please)

 

Whatever it is, Dark Souls is not it.

 

Superficial bullshit about secondary features.

 

You don't have to define the elements of the strategy and adventure genres because they are obvious. That part of the definition is superfluous. I would then just add a requirement that an rpg have a significant amount of both genres so as not to include games that are closer to pure strategy or pure adventure.

 

Oh sweet, I always wanted my knowledge to be sharp!
Maybe more about really important stuff and less about categorizing games beyond the "fun" and "unfun" labels but being sharp is always a plus I guess.
...
But what happens if all those enthusiasts constantly fail their CRPG lore skill checks? Wouldn't investing points in that skill instead of discussing it endlessly be the wiser choice?

But there is, it's the quest to transform the grimdark world of today's CRPGs back to that legendary golden age of everybody heard so much about. Like in most RPGs with such a focus on a better past you have to listen to old and boring people a lot to learn more about the lore and what that legendary artifact named really was about. When all goes well you will finally meet that evil endboss called Publisher supported by a group of Popamoles ... and will get your ass handed again and again.

 

Here is my definition:

A genuine attempt at emulating tabletop RPGs where the tactical use of character skills is the primary means of problem solving and overcoming challenges rather than twitch gaming, and not all mentioned characters must necessarily have explicitly shown stats.

 

AoD should go to the left (since it's in a big part a CYOA game).

 

I really like this:

Could be a Should Have under the character category.

 

I really don't because it's just a tacked on limitation to rule out CRPGs Cassidy doesn't like.
I love the Gothic games so no, the player skills involved don't need to be tactical, twitch skills are okay too.

 

Because of this I said "Should Have" not "Must Have"

PS:
To do some useful things in Gothic besides picking flowers you have to build your character in Gothic, too.

 

Gothics take that to a ridiculous level too. You can't even hold a weapon if you don't meet the ridiculous requirements.

 

I know. Thats why it is most to the left of the bunch already.




- it took you guys long time to mention that. i already thought i would never get a chance to play out this one

 

This is not true and this misconception is exactly the reason why these discussions tend to go nowhere (which is not to say that they are not fun ).

Genre is a tool that helps one to classify stuff but is by nature flawed and the attempt by you guys to look for that one perfect definition is therefore futile. Genre theory is not natural science and we should not expect clear cut answers. Just look at all those hard to categorize movies and songs and books, all those weird compound thingies like comedy-fantasy-dramas, western-scifi-adventures and romantic-horror-musicals; or at the overabundance of sub-genres in specific fields (like 'metal' for example).
Making the attempt to clearly define a genre will always result in some overlaps, weird exceptions and all that shit. This uncertainty is just something one has to live with. Therefore HiddenX list of formal criteria can be considered a pretty helpful and workable tool for categorization and pointing out its flaws does not immediately disqualify it in its entirety but only shows that genre categorizations are not absolutes but merely flawed (but useful) approximations.

I would like to bring up one criteria that I personally deem very productive but may also rightfully be criticized as very vague - which is the recipients/players intent/response.

What exactly that is gets explained very nicely and entertaining in this video (at about 2:20).

This criterion is admittedly hard to quantify since its not a formal aspect but basically just based on 'muh feelings' but it still has an impact on all of us and should therefore be considered.
If you just try to apply a set of formal criteria with mathematical precision this avails you nothing, since our categories are based on a set of imperfect and sometimes rather arbitrary assumptions. Creators of cultural products also don't go through some sacred universal check-list they never stray from. Maybe they have one on their own, but its a rough idea, a basis to experiment with ("Why not combine RPG elements with Strategy games? Or shooter elements? Or...")
In short: Cultural products are far too multifarious that you can expect to fit them all into neat little packages. If you try, the result is that you get the same discussion again and again and again: Is System Shock 2 an RPG? It fulfills this criteria but not that. Is Jagged Alliance 2 an RPG? It fulfills this criteria but not that. Is Deus Ex an RPG? Quest For Glory? Surely you can try to pinpoint what they all have in common .. but then you find that one weird exception and the whole thing collapses. Carried to extremes you get the whole reason for this thread - someone makes an absurd suggestion, in this case for example, that a game that is widely considered a timeless classic of the genre is in reality not not part of the genre at all. Certainly one can try to justify such a claim.. but that only shows how imperfect pure formal criteria are for categorization - and at the very least that they should not be considered absolutes.

For exactly that reason, in the last Codex poll every game was counted as an RPG that a Codexer voted for. It was thus justified by consensus and rightfully included in the list (naturally, Ultima 7 shows up in that list, duh.). There was no abstract theoretical discourse about formal criteria needed, it just took the shared player response into account. This was a very pragmatical measure that you guys should take into account for theoretical discourse as well.

 

If you just say "all is relative" or "words are too vague to define that awesome piece of art so let's just stare at it" then there will be no theoretical discourse.

 

SausageInYourFace - I agree with you -> a short definition that fits for all CRPG variants (old and new) perfectly is not possible.
We can only deliver an approximation.

In other words - my favourite quote:

 

Fair enough, that would be another extreme. But of course, I didn't say that at all.

Edit:

That sums it up I think:

 

You both babbling nerds can feel free to dismantle mine and show that is true instead of blabbering about your aspergers.

 

hiver Naah. Btw Why did you get that White Knight tag? I think I've never seen that one before.