Where did all the RPGs go?

[Rokc Cadarn]

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 ]

[aleph_null1]

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).

[Rokc Cadarn]

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.

[Luvian]

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.

[The Hierophant]

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 ]

[Rokc Cadarn]

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 ]

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Rokc Cadarn: 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.

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]

[Cerek]

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 Heirophant's 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.

[silencer]

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

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.

Originally posted by Rokc Cadarn: 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.

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 ]

[shadowhound]

Originally posted by Cerek: The core game alone would keep gamers busy for months...

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.