Computer Role Playing Games: How would you design one?

[Buck Birdseed]

I have tried everything from half the Ultima games to NeverWinter nights to Diablo. All equally boring.

[loinburger]

Diablo certainly isn't a CRPG, any more than Stonekeep or Return to UnderMountain.

[Lemmy]

Originally posted by Snapcase
I have tried everything from half the Ultima games to NeverWinter nights to Diablo. All equally boring.

did that include Fallout?
what i think makes fallout 2 different from all those fantasy RPG's is it "adult-level", i mean did you ever play in a porn-movie in any of those console "RPG's"?, or accidently killed a child and then got some bounty hunters after you. Or did you had a choice to get married (well, technically you didn't have a choice once the father caught you with his daughter ) what i'm saying is, how can you roleplay, if the game is linear and there really is only one role to play.

[Moral Hazard]

Um how have you tried NWN? It's not out yet. Can you play as a Cyclops?

Ok. A quick list of what I consider great RPGs; have you tried any of these.
Ultima 6, 7, and the first part of 7.5
Fallout 1 & 2.
Baldurs Gate 2.
Planescape: Torment.
Wasteland.
Auto Duel.

The last two are really old so I wouldn't Recommend them.

edited out: slight flame.

[CygnusZ]

I think Snapcase has quite a few excellent points. Let's get down on them.

1)Combat Systems: Computer RPG's typically feature "real time" combat whereas Console RPG's typically feature "turn based" combat. Turn based tends to be more faithful to its D&D roots. And, as anybody on Apolyton knows, turn based is actually more strategic than Real-time. Turn based combat also has a tighter feel ,has a great many more interesting options and tends to actually look better.

2)Roleplaying a Character: The problem with Computer RPG's in this department is that although freedom is given to a character, the game world often feels like a shell within which a character must exist. This creates a feeling of "generic" areas. The characters you portray in Computer RPGs cannot develop specific and advanced interpersonal relationships, because if it goes too far it'll destroy the capacity of the game to control it. For example, in Baldur's Gate II their was a possibilty for 4 Romances. However, all the Romances amounted to absolutly nothing except a little bit of dialogue. In Console RPGs, it is more true to the P&P experince in that the characters tend to have complex backgrounds and the relationships the character has really effects their lives.

3)Story: Don't even pretend that computer RPGs can begin to hold a candle to Console RPG's.

Personally, I like both (but I _HATE HATE HATE HATE_ fallout). To me though, Computer RPGs represent the promise of a "virtual world" to explore. However, the world is hardly ever very interesting or alive. Neither is the story that accompanies the world. It is the exploration of this vast world which will spring the interest. Computer RPG's *NEED* to be big and have a tremendous number of diversions built in to be sucessful, which Console RPGs simply don't need.

In any event, I have plenty of background in both genre's, my first comptuer RPG was Bard's Tale and my first Console RPG was Dragon Warrior. Based on my years of experince this is what I generally find to be the difference.

[Skanky Burns]

So what would be an example of a good computer RPG??
Preferrably one that is available on the underdogs

[mactbone]

I like fleshed out characters, and I don't feel that in CRPGs, they really flesh out many of these characters. Planescape Torment, from what I've played is a definite exception, and I really like how combat is deemphasized. I'm really getting tired of Console RPGs and their need for random battles. I hate having to fight a pointless battle every two steps, which was handled pretty well in Earthbound I thought. If you were enough levels above the creature that you were randomly battle, you would automatically win the battle and all the experience.

BTW, how do you guys feel about an RPG without a definite main character? I kind of like it, as long as all the characters are fleshed out and have reasons. I think it's one of the reasons why I like FF6.

[General Ludd]

Oops.

Double post.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by MacTBone
I like fleshed out characters, and I don't feel that in CRPGs, they really flesh out many of these characters. Planescape Torment, from what I've played is a definite exception, and I really like how combat is deemphasized. I'm really getting tired of Console RPGs and their need for random battles. I hate having to fight a pointless battle every two steps, which was handled pretty well in Earthbound I thought. If you were enough levels above the creature that you were randomly battle, you would automatically win the battle and all the experience.

BTW, how do you guys feel about an RPG without a definite main character? I kind of like it, as long as all the characters are fleshed out and have reasons. I think it's one of the reasons why I like FF6.

I hate it when a game gives you a character. I want to create my character from scratch, decide it's traits, flaws, quirks, personality and write a biography to create a unique history and background. If a game forces you to play a certain character, and especailly over a certain path - how can you call it a role playing game?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Damn straight Oswald!

I mean, Snapcase seems to me to dislike CRPGs, so to explain their popularity cloaks the language and makes it something else . Seriously, he doesn't like what a CRPG is.

He liks Console RPGs, which ok... fine... I personally can't stand them. But we all have our choices .

[Lemmy]

Originally posted by CygnusZ
I think Snapcase has quite a few excellent points. Let's get down on them.

1)Combat Systems: Computer RPG's typically feature "real time" combat whereas Console RPG's typically feature "turn based" combat. Turn based tends to be more faithful to its D&D roots. And, as anybody on Apolyton knows, turn based is actually more strategic than Real-time. Turn based combat also has a tighter feel ,has a great many more interesting options and tends to actually look better.

uhm.. fallout, turn-based, maybe it's not D&D style, but who says an RPG or combat in RPG's has to be D&D style?, or that D&D is better, that is a matter of taste.

2)Roleplaying a Character: The problem with Computer RPG's in this department is that although freedom is given to a character, the game world often feels like a shell within which a character must exist. This creates a feeling of "generic" areas. The characters you portray in Computer RPGs cannot develop specific and advanced interpersonal relationships, because if it goes too far it'll destroy the capacity of the game to control it. For example, in Baldur's Gate II their was a possibilty for 4 Romances. However, all the Romances amounted to absolutly nothing except a little bit of dialogue. In Console RPGs, it is more true to the P&P experince in that the characters tend to have complex backgrounds and the relationships the character has really effects their lives.

in fallout 2 you got married, how more can a relation ship affect your live, your spouse followed you everywhere you went.

3)Story: Don't even pretend that computer RPGs can begin to hold a candle to Console RPG's.

never played a console RPG, but i suppose it's just a matter of opinion.

Personally, I like both (but I _HATE HATE HATE HATE_ fallout). To me though, Computer RPGs represent the promise of a "virtual world" to explore. However, the world is hardly ever very interesting or alive. Neither is the story that accompanies the world. It is the exploration of this vast world which will spring the interest. Computer RPG's *NEED* to be big and have a tremendous number of diversions built in to be sucessful, which Console RPGs simply don't need.

but don't the diversions add to the roleplaying aspect? if you only have one mission, one thing to do, it might as wel be a FPS

In any event, I have plenty of background in both genre's, my first comptuer RPG was Bard's Tale and my first Console RPG was Dragon Warrior. Based on my years of experince this is what I generally find to be the difference.

i must admit, you have more experience than me then...

[Grumbold]

The Final Fantasy games remind me a lot of the 'interactive movie' adventure games that were briefly popular. You get to make none of the important decisions governing your life, just fight the combats or click on screen hot spots to move the adventure along. They can be satisfying but personally if I want a good strong storyline controlled by someone else I reach for a book or if I want something visual I go to the cinema.

The open RPG's are far more challenging to script and the many many failures certainly do the genre no favours. There is no point in having total control over character generation and advancement if you still have to follow every plot twist rigidly from start to end (like Icewind Dale and numerous others). Daggerfall shows you the beauty of living in a very free and open world but ultimately runs out of interesting things to randomly generate for you to do. Fallout 2 scripts every main location but gives you many different ways of approaching or overcoming the set piece encounters. Probably the best example being all the many ways you can explore the crime syndicates without it being necessary to achieve a set outcome. Ultimately if the genre can advance enough to give us strong opportunities to role-play inventively in generated rather than set piece encounters then things will be looking good for CRPG's finally starting to assume the full role of the dungeon master.

[mactbone]

If you want to view the Final Fantasy games as just regular storys, then they'd be more like watching a cinema and deciding to try and find the extra scenes somewhere, or reading an reader's digest version or reading the full thing. You get what you want out of it. Sure, in 6 you could travel through it really fast, and not check out the cool stuff, or you could reunite Gau with his Dad, find Umaro, find Gogo, check out the Pheonix Cave, etc.

[CygnusZ]

Please, the AI in civilization can't even figure out not to build stone age units in the modern era, much less assume the role of a full dungeon maser. That day isn't coming any time soon.

I have thought a lot about what you're saying about Final Fantasy being the extension of the "interactive movie" games that were popular for a little while. While I'm tempted to agree with that to a large extent, I'd say that the games actually end up being somewhat deeper than movies (though not as deep as a good book). The games do feature at least an interesting mini-game in the form of the combat engine (well.. hopefully). In any event, I still believe firmly that the console combat engines tend to require more strategy and thought than their computer counterparts. Even Wizardry 8's difficult battles eventually just become a matter of routine, whereas in Final Fantasy X many battles are unique and challanging.

Sorry, I can't really comment much on Fallout2... I played/won Fallout 1 but I can't really get into it. Something about the whole thing feels sloppy to me, and I'm not into the art at all. It also feels tremendously generic. PST certainly broke a lot of the rules about character development in a computer RPG, and it delievered a story well beyond that of any other computer RPG I ever played. However, it did sacrifice a non-linear nature, and forced your character to be one thing with one past. If you read some of the literature on that game, you'll find that they were actually influenced by Final Fantasy VII when they created PST.

Well, I think that diversions create "Hack N' Slash"... there's another post on another message board which I got a bookmark for because I thought it so well described the differences between the two genres. Let me just get it:

http://www.elderscrolls.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=157893&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=

Scroll down a bit in that thread and Xylix makes what I feel to be a nearly perfect comparison.

[CygnusZ]

RPGs and things that go BOOM

Please, the AI in civilization can't even figure out not to build stone age units in the modern era, much less assume the role of a full dungeon maser. That day isn't coming any time soon.

I have thought a lot about what you're saying about Final Fantasy being the extension of the "interactive movie" games that were popular for a little while. While I'm tempted to agree with that to a large extent, I'd say that the games actually end up being somewhat deeper than movies (though not as deep as a good book). The games do feature at least an interesting mini-game in the form of the combat engine (well.. hopefully). In any event, I still believe firmly that the console combat engines tend to require more strategy and thought than their computer counterparts. Even Wizardry 8's difficult battles eventually just become a matter of routine, whereas in Final Fantasy X many battles are unique and challanging.

Sorry, I can't really comment much on Fallout2... I played/won Fallout 1 but I can't really get into it. Something about the whole thing feels sloppy to me, and I'm not into the art at all. It also feels tremendously generic. PST certainly broke a lot of the rules about character development in a computer RPG, and it delievered a story well beyond that of any other computer RPG I ever played. However, it did sacrifice a non-linear nature, and forced your character to be one thing with one past. If you read some of the literature on that game, you'll find that they were actually influenced by Final Fantasy VII when they created PST.

Well, I think that diversions create "Hack N' Slash"... there's another post on another message board which I got a bookmark for because I thought it so well described the differences between the two genres. Let me just get it:

http://www.elderscrolls.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=157893&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=

Scroll down a bit in that thread and Xylix makes what I feel to be a nearly perfect comparison.