Decline Why 95% of the "modern" cRPG are so lame?

[JarlFrank]

One person directly controlling a group of characters = strategy game, not RPG. In PnP you always control a single character in a single session.

Ok.

Games that are not RPGs by this definition:

The entire Wizardry series.
The entire Might and Magic series.
The entire Gold Box series.
Dungeon Master.
Eye of the Beholder.
Dark Sun.
Baldur's Gate.
Dragon Age.
Divinity: Original Sin.
Pillars of Eternity.

Yeah guess we have just been mislabeling a lot of games as RPGs when they're in truth strategy/tactics games.

 

[Raghar]

People who consider JA2 to not be an RPG are just too small-minded to wrap their heads around the idea that one game can be an excellent entry in two genres at once (strategy and RPG).

Thing is, as RPG JA2 is somewhat lacking.

Z.B., each character has some skills available - which are more akin to perks in Fallout or feats in Underrail. But assignment of skills starts and ends at chargen. You have two "skillpoints" for your char, so you can pick up two skills or have one skill in expert. That's not great RPG design. Again, z.B., I make a sneaky char and pick up Stealth expert at chargen. Then, later, I would surely benefit from related perks - I may be interested in Night Ops, Camouflaged, Ambidextrous for better use of silenced weapons or Full Auto for better use of silenced SMGs. But I can't pick up any new skills. This limits character progression a lot.

It's the strategy game, and I always used questionnaire. That way I simply replied to set of questions, and I didn't have to select skills in some menu. Of course I played it about 20 years ago, I can remember it badly.

Actually this reminds me, when I played arena, I typed answers to several questions and it choose class for me. It was kinda nice because it tend to choose class I wanted to play. Current games are lacking in creativity. Instead of believable world with living feeling, they feel like dry documentary movie.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I think we had settled the question long ago. An rpg is a game where you run around with a sword and do stuff.

 

[JarlFrank]

I think we had settled the question long ago. An rpg is a game where you run around with a sword and do stuff.

Question: does the stuff you do require any connection to the sword you're running around with, or can they be completely unrelated?

 

[Black_Willow]

One person directly controlling a group of characters = strategy game, not RPG. In PnP you always control a single character in a single session.

Ok.

Games that are not RPGs by this definition:

The entire Wizardry series.
The entire Might and Magic series.
The entire Gold Box series.
Dungeon Master.
Eye of the Beholder.
Dark Sun.
Baldur's Gate.
Dragon Age.
Divinity: Original Sin.
Pillars of Eternity.

Yeah guess we have just been mislabeling a lot of games as RPGs when they're in truth strategy/tactics games.

AFAIK, you can play most of the above games with a single character, so they can be RPGs.
Cygax didn't say "this is a Role Playing Game" when he created the wargame Chainmail. He made Dungeons and Dragons, a game where a single player controls single character, to be the first RPG.

Wikipedia says "D&D departs from traditional wargaming by allowing each player to create their own character to play instead of a military formation"
When you're creating a small formation - a party - then you're playing a strategy game/wargame.

 

[JarlFrank]

AFAIK, you can play most of the above games with a single character, so they can be RPGs.

You can play Jagged Alliance 2 with a single character if you're good at it and cheese the tactics

Cygax didn't say "this is a Role Playing Game" when he created the wargame Chainmail. He made Dungeons and Dragons, a game where a single player controls single character, to be the first RPG.

Back in Gygax's day, it was usual for players to have multiple backup characters in case one of them died. It was also not uncommon for one player to play two or three characters, such games happened and Gygax was completely fine with that. You could have one player play both a fighter and a thief at the same time.

Wikipedia says "D&D departs from traditional wargaming by allowing each player to create their own character to play instead of a military formation"
When you're creating a small formation - a party - then you're playing a strategy game/wargame.

Wrong. The difference between D&D and a traditional wargame is that your unit counters depict individual characters with individual stats and abilities. Playing two D&D characters as a single player doesn't suddenly turn D&D into a wargame. Controlling two or three characters at the same time doesn't turn your characters into a "military formation".

In wargames, your figurines wouldn't represent a single guy or girl, but a squad of a dozen or a hundred soldiers. These soldiers are not important individually, but function as a military formation that acts as one unit. You can't just split off one or two guys from a formation of 100 swordsmen. In D&D your single characters can do whatever they want, one guy can go on his own lone wolf flanking mission against a dozen goblins while the rest of the party holds the line. How many characters one player controls plays no role in this. It's all about the mechanics of the gameplay.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I think we had settled the question long ago. An rpg is a game where you run around with a sword and do stuff.

Question: does the stuff you do require any connection to the sword you're running around with, or can they be completely unrelated?

I forgot.

Games go basically along the lines of:

Oblivion = RPG
Elite = Space Game
The Sims = Womens stuff
Hearts of Iron = strateghy game
Games with ugly graphics = indie game
Games without gameplay = immersive sim
Fortnite = kids game
Jagged Alliance = old stuff
everything else:
Battle Royale, MMO, daddy game or GTA clone

 

[Darth Canoli]

The Sims is an RPG

I understand where you are coming from

Me too, Franky comes from an asylum.

I'm ok about them releasing Lilura, she seems more relaxed but Frank, really, you're not cured, soon, you'll start to do polls about JRPG Goty and fake top 101 RPG polls just like Pepe.

 

[KK1001]

There aren't any actual RPGs.

Planescape, Disco, Torment = visual novels
Infinity Engine games = fantasy RTS
The Witcher, Mass Effect = third person action, skill system games
Skyrim, Fallout 3+ = first person open world shooters/swingers
Any turn-based game = turn-based tactics

 

[Melcar]

We need to define what is a RPG first.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

We need to define what is a game first.

 

[curds]

AFAIK, you can play most of the above games with a single character, so they can be RPGs.

Okay, so Knights of the Chalice is not a RPG, then? You must take a party of four in that game.

 

[NerevarineKing]

Are people forgetting about all of the bad games that came out in the 70s, 80s, and 90s? It only seems like RPGs are worse because we have hindsight to what the best ones are. Whether RPGs are actually getting worse is something that's really hard to measure or prove.

 

[Lilura]

AFAIK

Possibly Retarded +1

Cygax

Possibly Retarded +2

Wikipedia says "D&D departs from traditional wargaming by allowing each player to create their own character to play instead of a military formation"
When you're creating a small formation - a party - then you're playing a strategy game/wargame.

Possibly Retarded +10

 

[Ol' Willy]

Wikipedia says "D&D departs from traditional wargaming by allowing each player to create their own character to play instead of a military formation"
When you're creating a small formation - a party - then you're playing a strategy game/wargame.

Wargame is RPGs older brother so it's obvious that there's some similarities between the genres. Where to place the thin red line is the question, but in my opinion, we have Panzer General standing at wargames side and JA2 standing from the RPGs one.

That aside, Panzer General has the best C&C I ever seen in any game. No superficial bullshit, defeat/minor/major victory may lead to complete different scenario.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

AFAIK, you can play most of the above games with a single character, so they can be RPGs.
Cygax didn't say "this is a Role Playing Game" when he created the wargame Chainmail. He made Dungeons and Dragons, a game where a single player controls single character, to be the first RPG.

Wikipedia says "D&D departs from traditional wargaming by allowing each player to create their own character to play instead of a military formation"
When you're creating a small formation - a party - then you're playing a strategy game/wargame.

In Dungeons & Dragons, each player controls a single character, but it is expected that multiple players will participate and form a considerable party of player-characters. Since D&D stemmed from miniatures wargaming, the original expectations for party size, and therefore the number of PCs, was quite high, with 6 being a typical minimum party size of adventure modules into the early 80s --- not to mention henchmen, hirelings, and (for higher-level PCs) followers.

CRPGs had three possibilities for adapting the concept of players and PCs to the medium of a single-player game on a microcomputer (all of which substituted the computer for the Dungeon Master):

• Treat the multi-character party as fundamental and grant the single player control over all party members.
• Treat the player-character as fundamental and eliminate the party, with the player controlling the one remaining PC.
• Preserve both the single character per player element and the party of PCs element, by giving the player control over a single PC but having other party members under the control of the computer as a substitute for other players.

All three of these are valid options for CRPGs but should be selected with consideration for other game elements. The first option is preferable for nearly any turn-based combat system, since option two reduces the possible complexity of combat via the reduction of the party to a single character (e.g. Age of Decadence versus Dungeon Rats) and option three removes decision-making from the player and grants it to an always-frustrating computer AI (e.g. Fallout). Unsurprisingly, early CRPGs on microcomputers overwhelmingly adopted turn-based combat with a party of PCs under the player's control, as the best means of emulating D&D. As time passed, some CRPG subgenres adopted real-time combat systems from a desire not to separate combat from real-time exploration, to the detriment of the former and the benefit of the latter. Dungeon Master-likes were able to retain a party (of limited size) under the player's control, but this became increasingly infrequent in the 90s with the move into 3D graphics and later became all-but-impossible in combat systems that were not only real-time but also action-based. Dragon's Dogma in 2012/2013/2016 was a breath of fresh air for action-based combat, since it restored a party (albeit limited to 4 members) with effective interactions between characters aided by relatively-competent AI, which was one factor moving the overall design more in the direction of being a proper RPG and less of an action game.

 

[Lilura]

Back in Gygax's day, it was usual for players to have multiple backup characters in case one of them died. It was also not uncommon for one player to play two or three characters, such games happened and Gygax was completely fine with that. You could have one player play both a fighter and a thief at the same time.

I've seen experienced players doing that on EN World. For example, one guy took on the roles of several characters vs. one DM, and it was mostly about combat. All above board, with dice rolls shown.

 

[Ol' Willy]

I always thought that it is simple reason: in PnP you have one DM and x number of players, each controlling their own character. In PC RPGs, DM is computer, and player controls all the characters alone.

I mean, it's possible to play PnP with just DM and one guy controlling the entire party, right? And it's possible to play PC RPG when x number of people each controlling their own character. Like, imagine four people playing Dark Sun and each player controls exactly one character hot-seat style.

 

[Hobo Elf]

One person directly controlling a group of characters = strategy game, not RPG. In PnP you always control a single character in a single session.

Ok.

Games that are not RPGs by this definition:

The entire Wizardry series.
The entire Might and Magic series.
The entire Gold Box series.
Dungeon Master.
Eye of the Beholder.
Dark Sun.
Baldur's Gate.
Dragon Age.
Divinity: Original Sin.
Pillars of Eternity.

Yeah guess we have just been mislabeling a lot of games as RPGs when they're in truth strategy/tactics games.

Maybe we should rebrand these games just to distance them from what is considered an RPG these days, i.e Cyberpunk 2077 despite the fact that even CDP doesn't call it an RPG.

Anyway, it's stilly to claim that you couldn't have more than one character in PnP. In some systems you are meant to control larger groups and not just a singular character. I recently flipped through my copy of MYFAROG and one of the defining class progressions for fighter types were the fact that as they leveled up they grew their retinue from one character until they became a clan leader with a band of seasoned warriors.

 

[Black_Willow]

Back in Gygax's day, it was usual for players to have multiple backup characters in case one of them died. It was also not uncommon for one player to play two or three characters, such games happened and Gygax was completely fine with that. You could have one player play both a fighter and a thief at the same time.

Ok, so maybe we can count that it was possible in early RPGs, like the first DnD. Gold Box games were ADnD, this rule no longer existed. Hence, they're wargames.

In wargames, your figurines wouldn't represent a single guy or girl, but a squad of a dozen or a hundred soldiers. These soldiers are not important individually, but function as a military formation that acts as one unit. You can't just split off one or two guys from a formation of 100 swordsmen.

Wrong. Look at Chainmail or Warhammer games - every figurine there represents a single entity. So, is WH40k and RPG?

Okay, so Knights of the Chalice is not a RPG, then? You must take a party of four in that game.

Fun fact - Chess is a game in which you command a party of 16. Both Chess and KotC are strategy games.

 

[curds]

Black_Willow ...

 

[Cleveland Mark Blakemore]

We already had this discussion.
It's partially cultural, more and more commercial shit cornering the market and the good stuff can't reach the mass audience anymore.
Also game devs tethering on this mass market garbage.

But it's also because of the players.
You grow a child on white industrial bread, fizzy drinks and candy and he'll be perfectly happy about it, he won't even want to eat anything else.

Same goes for video games, no studio with money (they're not AAA they're more like ZZZ) released a good cRPG in 20 years.
The new generations don't even know what a cRPG is, let alone a good one.

They're the perfect consumers for the mass market, they never developed their taste because they're only fed with garbage and they can't get enough of it.

So, when a studio develops something half baked but that looks good and even looks like the real deal at first glance, the fan boys jizz all over themselves.
It's like offering a glass of half filtered Ganges water to someone who only drank Ganges water his whole life.

Fails to make deduction about diet and outcomes, even though he describes it succinctly. He could break the fourth wall Cleve/Deadpool style if he suddenly wondered what the effect of the diet might be on his own neural hardware. Will never happen.

 

[Cleveland Mark Blakemore]

Because devs are lame, they played lame games and thought they are cool (subjective I know, but if you're feed on McDonalds and cola you gonna become fatlard, same with brain food). Also corporative culture.

Same inputs, this guy nails it so perfectly he only needs one sentence. Except for the very last corollary ...

What is corporate culture itself if not a result of fatlard soyboy swayback sunken chested biology moving into corporate management?

 

[madhouse]

What games?

 

[Darth Canoli]

Fails to make deduction about diet and outcomes, even though he describes it succinctly. He could break the fourth wall Cleve/Deadpool style if he suddenly wondered what the effect of the diet might be on his own neural hardware. Will never happen.

Diet is just a consequence of something going wrong in one's brain, a symptom, you're not going to turn into felipepe anytime soon if you stop eating aligator skewer and replace it with soy milk and grass seeds.