I'm curious if others agree with me that roleplaying games don't really involve much roleplaying anymore. I recently bought Neverwinter Nights (finally) and while I admit that it is fun, I feel that once again pretty graphics have trumped good gameplay. I thought if anyone could make a good 3-d RPG it would be Bioware, but they succumbed to the action-RPG formula as well. I played KOTOR before NN, so I know that Bioware still makes great games, but even KOTOR seems simplified when compared to BG.
It seems that since the majority of games have moved to the third dimension, mindless action has replaced strategy. One of the only true 3-d RPGs I can think of is Morrowind -- and while this game is incredibly complex, the combat is still nothing more than standing in front of a monster and clicking (I played through as an orc fighter, so if magic requires more thought than I believe, let me know.) Sure, its fun to split mudcrabs in half with an adamantium axe +100 fire damage for a while, but...
I'm beginning to think that games like the Fallouts, BGs, Icewind Dales, etc., are no longer being made because developers think that people would rather experience pretty graphics then solid roleplaying. I'm tired of action games that claim to be RPGs because the character gets stronger over time. These days marketing execs. would probably call an old school brawler like Double Dragon an RPG because you get to learn how to do an uppercut after the second level.
What do the rest of you think about the transition to 3-d? Do you agree with me that it has been a detriment to RPGs? If you know of any new RPGs that can compare with the other games that I've mentioned please let me know because I'm feeling pretty cynical at the moment. Thanks.

[ 09-28-2004, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Rokc Cadarn ]

I share your cynicism; the Fallouts are my favorite games of all time, and I've yet to find an RPG to match them (IMO).

Fallout 2 is my favorite too. I can't express how pissed off I was when I found out that Interplay had finally been working on Fallout 3 (in the same isometric view) when they folded. Now Bethesda has the rights and they're making it first person. At least they're not Atari, I guess.

I agree... I've made multiple posts about this.

They are putting everything in graphics to impress us, and trying to please everyone at the same time. That's why they make real time rpgs now. They want to lure the action crowd, the roleplayers, those that play games for graphics...

It's not about originality or good concepts anymore, it's about marketing and money.

Lots of game companies that were doing this are going bankrupt, and I'm very happy about this. My hope is that all those corporate company will die, and it will leave room for the companies actually managed by game developpers.

With some luck we'll be getting real games again soon, when the execs realise we are tired of them trying to please everyone with generic action-rpg-shooter half finished hybrid "games" with graphics requiring the newest video card of the month to run.

I pretty much agree with all of the points you guys have raised.

BUT

How financially successful have most of the 'good' CRPG's mentioned so far (the Fallouts, the Baldur's Gates etc) been in comparison to more action-oriented games such as Diablo, DOOM or Tomb Raider? When a game developer wants to release their product, they usually have to convince a corporate funding committee that their title will make a substantial profit. Just making a little return from selling to a hard-core target market (such as role playing enthusiasts) isn't good enough for most large promoters when they could be making mega-bucks by selling some generic action title to the masses.

Role Playing Games are usually enjoyed by reasonably intelligent (though often quite geeky, heh heh) people. Tapping into the 'mass market' does not involve selling to such small, select groups as 'intelligent people', you need to water your product down enough so that the multitudinous throngs of consumer morons, (that vast, swelling ocean of cash just waiting to be had by the corporate exec with the schmooz to dive in and bathe in its filth! ;) ) will find it attractive.

Most 'good' CRPGs (such as the BG series) have turned a profit, certainly, but did they turn enough of a profit to convince multimedia execs that they are a worthwhile investment? Not really... Electronic gaming is not the cottage industry it used to be, nowadays there is simply too much money invested in a game for any major publisher to risk going with anything too 'revolutionary' or 'complicated'. It's tacky, soulless, greedy, hand-wringing, plastic, 'safe', inoffensive, bland, tasteless, corporate capitalism in action. And I hate it as much as you guys do. Such is the plight of any person with artistic spirit that lives among a mindless plebeian multitude ;)

[ 09-28-2004, 03:59 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

Your right about the corporate mindset, I've heard your explanation many times before, just like everyone here has probably heard my complaint. I just don't think the argument is a valid one. The BGs were actually huge hits, as were the Icewind Dales. It's true that both Fallout RPGs (and the underrated Tactics) had lackluster sales, but they still turned a profit. Not to mention the huge cult following that they created, which allowed Interplay to make more money off a crappy Xbox game and then sell the rights to Bethesda.
I understand that creating games is a business and everyone needs to get paid, but watering down the game quality until you reach the lowest common denominator is not the right way to do it. I love great graphics as much as the next person, but it's the cutting edge technology that makes development costs so astronomical in the first place. If I have to sacrifice everything else to see pretty pictures I might as well just sit and stare at my screen saver.
Financially, it makes more sense for developers to concentrate on the rest of the gameplay -- it will make their customers happy, and hiring someone to write a good story will cost them less than paying a team of 100 programmers, artists, sound engineers, etc. Lower development costs mean lower risk for the company, and ultimately greater rewards.

[ 09-28-2004, 04:22 AM: Message edited by: Rokc Cadarn ]

A very good point. One need only look at the abysmal flop that was Ultima 9 to see the regrettable consequences of laying off one's creative writing department and leaving a team comprised almost entirely of visual artists with the task of writing an epic saga. An aesthetically pleasing mess is a mess nonetheless eh? [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font color=plum>Hmmmm....I don't have much of an opinion on this subject since BG 1&2 are my favorite games - but even they can't compare to the thrill and uniqueness of a PnP game. I do have the NWN series, but I haven't even bothered to reload them onto my PC after upgrading it.

I majored in Marketing in college, so I agree completely with <font color=white>Heirophant's</font> analogy of the corporate mindset - but corporate exec's would only need to visit the BGII forum here to see the almost unlimited potential of creating a good, solid ROLE-Playing game with multiple character possibilities, NPC's and storyline variations. The core game alone would keep gamers busy for months...then you can always start selling the ever-popular expansion packs.

Imagine if somebody like Weimer decided to start manufacturing BGII mods full-time. I know there have been complaints about some of the "improvements" he has made, but he managed to completely revamp an already exciting game so that the players get a whole new level of excitement and challenge after beating the "vanilla" version 6 dozen different ways.

A game that was boring, old and blase' suddenly becomes freshly exciting (and far more challenging) with the addition of Tactics Mod. Weapons Upgrade improves the amount of ammo PC's and the party can carry - along with creating many NEW items by combining several of the ones already in the game.

The point is, a corporation could build their entire gaming market around a single, well and fully developed game that was a TRUE CRPG.

And as many have stated so far, it doesn't necessarily have to have the fancy 3D graphics to make it work.

Sooner or later, the corp execs WILL take notice when the current market DOES get tired of generic games that only have a single path for the player to follow. That's when a company will put the time and research into creating the "next" Baldur's Gate game.

Chances are, it will be a small company made up of people like Weimer and others that have done the Mods over the years. Guys and gals that know the programming code inside out, but don't have the capital to build a game with the latest, greatest graphics.

Ahh well, one can always HOPE, anyway.</font>

This is only true if a company wishes to retain customers for a long period of time; something almost rare in today's world. One of the reasons not many invest in doing so is because it has a VERY high chance of failing. Creating an immersive/replayable/fun environment is not something to be taken lightly.

Another reason is development time. Besides creating the engine, which can take years, content can take another few years. This may or may not be something worthwhile for a company to pursue, depending on company priorities. Creating a simple but fun game which lasts two or three years, compared to creating a more complex game which lasts longer, can often outweigh the compared. Development time is minimized, it's less of a gamble, and gains high but short-term profits.

That made no sense. With more complexity comes more well, complexity. More artists (in a broad scope), more programmers (though 100 sure is, ehm, quite off the scale ;) ), more designers, more producers, more funds. It is more of a risk.

In short, as stated already, everything is about the money.

[ 09-28-2004, 05:50 AM: Message edited by: silencer ]

But is that such a good thing? I think it makes more sense from a business point of view to produce games that can be completed in approx 60 straight hours. If a prospective customer is playing one game for months on end then they are less likely to purchase a new game.

Precisely. Making people happy isn't what corporate salesmanship is about. It's about making people want to spend money. This may involve making people happy at times (customer satisfaction makes for a 'loyal' consumer base), but the bottom line is that a game publisher needs to keep their clientelle hungry for more... not unsatisfied as such, but rather: unsated.

[ 09-28-2004, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

I agree as well, I see a game in the stores, I read the box, I check out info n it, and everything says it is a great RPG, but when I get it home, there is not much to do except click on a monster. the best RPG I have owned honestly would have to be Arcanum, now most peoplr will probably disagree, but this game requires alot of stratagey, and it is limited to what your character can do, and it really does base its attacks on the DnD ground rules. I miss that game, but my kids lost the play disk to it while back, and have not bought a new one yet. the only thing about Arcanum I did not like, is that it had to much narative play in it, but I guess it is alright because you do get alot of character interaction [img]smile.gif[/img]

One of the absolute best true role playing games to come in recent years was Planescape:Torment and it BARELY sold enough to make a profit, and far less than needed to make a profit. The lack of sales certainly wasn't the result of bad reviews as the game was critically praised by reviewers and gamers alike, yet sales still suffered. Perhaps it was just too far afield of the "mainstream" RPG.

Neverwinter Nights is best played online, Rokc, so if you have the ability to do so, you should give it a shot.

I loved Planescape: Torment, but I couldn't even talk Piestrider into playing it, when it was already loaded. He says it is too dark, depressing, etc. I admit that the idea of playing a huge, scarred man with no name put me off for a while, too. I suspect that it is too dark for the mainstream gamer, and that is why it sold, poorly. I also understand that while the BG series was a huge hit, and Icewind Dale I rode on their coattails, IWD II was a flop, and caused the demise of Black Isle and Interplay. Neverwinter Nights, on the other hand, was a huge success, as were its expansion packs. KotOR was a success, too, and both those games are being redone by Obsidian, which has many of the people that worked on PS:T working for them. KotOR II is going to come out this winter, NWNII in 2006.

I do miss the old RPGs. Wasteland is still one of my favs. as well as the fallouts. The industry does seem to be syclical so here's to hoping for a new sycle. I don't play on line games, are they worth the time? Someone did pick up Jagged alliance 3 so that is great news.

Precisely. Making people happy isn't what corporate salesmanship is about. It's about making people want to spend money. This may involve making people happy at times (customer satisfaction makes for a 'loyal' consumer base), but the bottom line is that a game publisher needs to keep their clientelle hungry for more... not unsatisfied as such, but rather: unsated. </font>[/QUOTE]Well... in our current PC Gaming market, they NEED to make us happy. We have seen too many failed games.

Take a look at Lionheart, Temple of elemental Evil...

There was a time when I bought every PC rpg games that came out, the day they came out, no questions asked. But now I rarely buy one. The PC roleplaying gaming market lost my money. I didn't buy those two games, I didn't buy lots of other.

I'm not the only one like that. And I think more people are wising up. Especially with how easy it is to get information now.

They might have been able to get away with this 20 years ago when the internet wasn't so pupolar. People might only have realised a game is a sham 4 months later in a magazine review, if they ever found out, but now we know the truth the day the game come out, if not sooner...

You just explained why games are failing and why we are getting dissatisfied. You should remplace the "BUT" with "because". [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Games are a form of art. I'm pretty sure Picasso didn't have a marketter looking over his shoulder and telling him what to paint...

"Safe" game might become avarage games, and that's changing for worse, but it's always the original games that ever become the big success.

Originally posted by Rokc Cadarn:
"Financially, it makes more sense for developers to concentrate on the rest of the gameplay..."

Originally posted by silencer:
"This is only true if a company wishes to retain customers for a long period of time; something almost rare in today's world."

-----
Are you telling me that game developers don't care about long-term customers? Look at companies like id, Blizzard, and Bioware. I don't care what they release, it's a going to be a hit because of their following. Gamers are fanatically loyal to their brands. Sure, not every company is going to make it no matter how good their games are (nobodies denying that the industry is cutthroat), but if a developer is planning on lasting very long it better have a strong fan base.

-----
Originally posted by silencer:
"Another reason is development time. Besides creating the engine, which can take years, content can take another few years. This may or may not be something worthwhile for a company to pursue, depending on company priorities. Creating a simple but fun game which lasts two or three years, compared to creating a more complex game which lasts longer, can often outweigh the compared. Development time is minimized, it's less of a gamble, and gains high but short-term profits.
With more complexity comes more well, complexity. More artists (in a broad scope), more programmers (though 100 sure is, ehm, quite off the scale ;) ), more designers, more producers, more funds. It is more of a risk."

-----
I think you missed my point. I know that development time is one of the factors that determines development costs, but when it comes to crpgs its the technology that should be sacrificed -- not the gameplay. I'm not saying that great looking games don't have a place too, just that rpgs require more depth than other genres. Developers aren't creating rpgs anymore, they're creating action games with some rpg elements. Don't try to tell me that there isn't an audience for true rpgs, either. Recently we've been ignored, but we're still here. Waiting.

By the way, if you think I was exaggerating about the size of development teams these day, think again. The new Medal of Honor, for instance, has an 85 person team just for the single player mission and a 45 person team for multiplayer. That doesn't even include EA's independent sound division and the hundreds of play testers who are also working on it. I know that's the extreme end, but if everyone else wants to stay on the bleeding edge of technology they'll be there soon enough.

Edited - Sorry, can't figure out how to make the quotes look right. :]

[ 09-28-2004, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Rokc Cadarn ]

most MMORPGs end up developing their own system of communication that involve the tools, but some small groups on those MMORPGs DO actually role play. I was on a role playing Linkshell on FFXI but for some reason the leader and his girl friend only wanted to role play alone >_>;...

Instead of waiting for corporate exec's to come here, you could always go there. [img]smile.gif[/img]

http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?showforum=26

There have been some really good ideas in this thread/site, but if the developers don't know about them how do they implement them?

Luvian,

Temple of ELemental Evil is a great example of a failed CRPG, but NOT Lionheart. I've played BOTH and TOEE is AWFUL and buggy beyond belief but Lionheart is actually fun and NOT buggy. I didn't have ONE crash or problem throughout the ENTIRE game. I would urge you to give it a chance if you find a copy in the bargain bin at your local computer store. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Lionheart may not be buggy, but I've heard it is WAY too combat oriented and too much of a click-fest.

And stormymystic, I totally agree about Arcanum. An excellent game and a welcome surprise.

I've just think that the time for good computer/roleplaying games is over with. There will be another spurr in the years to come, but I think we just ended up finishing one of the greats. Let action/shoot em take over for awhile, and people will soon come back to RPG's.

I just went out and bought Arcanum earlier this evening. Two modes of turn based? Please let my early impressions of this game be the right ones...if they are, I'm in gamer heaven. Of course, I had to buy a game four years old to get there.

In my opinion, Lionheart is a failed game. I tried it two times, and both time, I was horrified by it.

There are so many problems with it. Everything is bad. The only interesting thing is the character creation.

I don't feel like getting into this again, I made lots of posts about that game already...

Rokc, you're going to love Arcanum, it's huge and you don't have to play it too linier. The hardest part is character development because there are sooo many ways to go.

How can you like a game where a pistol bullet does less damage than a blow from a fist?

How can you like a game where a pistol bullet does less damage than a blow from a fist? </font>[/QUOTE]Simple. If you have a paper bullet... Besides, if realism is your issue then just take one good look at RPG's.

Arcanum is pretty decent, but unbalanced in so many ways.

No - I said a lot care much more about profit than customer satisfaction. SOE (EQ/SWG/PlanetSide/etc ...) is a perfect example of this. As long as they rake in enough cash they could care less about their customers; hence their constant (if untruthful) advertising. A lot of FPS games are like this also - little or no SP, with maybe a dozen playable maps. Yet because they hold appeal at first glance they sell enough anyway, even with a crap reputation.

Possibly 10 years ago. With new technology and graphical expectations nothing will sell unless it's cutting edge except to diehard fans - who might make up at most 1/20 of total sales. Game hype in this age is graphics, not so much as content. If a developer can manage both of these well then they've got a killer product on their hands. This just remains to be done (NWN was close). I also never said there wasn't an audience for true RPG's either - I'm on the same boat as you.

I really doubt it is all programmers - a large portion is probably designers/artists.

[ 09-29-2004, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: silencer ]

I don't want realism. I want believability. For me, Arcanum failed that test.