Larian Studios Forums General Chat RPG Chat What is happening to RPG's?

Note, this can be a big read, and it is an opinion. Some people will disagree,of course,but this is how I see it. Please don't make this a flame thread. This is my first post, so sorry if there are topics like this.

What is happening with all RPG's in this century? I loved the Baldur's Gate series. You really felt as if you were walking in that world, it was all so fleshed out. When you right-clicked on a weapon, there was a history, and not a small one, no, sometimes a whole page. When you met a new NPC, they told something interesting, they were no clones of each other, but they were just...a person. All those little details, like romances, NPC's hating each other, drawn art when you right-clicked anything in your inventory, and even the main menu. While the graphics were technically not very good, they were so detailed that many found them amazing. The dialoges weren't bad either; you could say what you wanted, because there were many options and many different responses.

I am not talking solely about BG II, because Icewind Dale, Divine Divinty, Might and Magic VII, Planescape: Torment, Fallout, and Wizardry all have this sort of nice toutches.

The spiritual successor to BG II was Neverwinter Nights. Technically, the graphics were better. However, there was almost zero detail. The inventory was horrible, with computer-made drawings of weapons/armor, lacking any detail. In the world, all the corridors and doors seemed the same. And that could be said of most of the game. The plot was a bit far-fetched, and the characters were just clones of each other, with only a few exceptions. The so-called plot-twist was not amazing either; in fact I knew 'She' was bad in the beginning.

Neverwinter Nights is not the only game with these problems. Recent games like Dungeon Lords or Beyond Divinity are plagued with bugs, have no personality and are a complete mess. Yes, Beyond Divinity too. Why make characters 3D? Why make the game completely linear, populated by creepy Imps with voices that are comparable to a car driving over your computer? It is just terrible that games lack immersion, which could be archieved by adding good voice actors.

Morrowind is another story. I like the world and all, but there is almost no interaction with the characters (aka Clones), and the voice-acting is horrible. The combat is a clickfest too, not tactical at all. Though I can understand that people love this game, I just can't seem to like it very much.

The only game that came even close to the sort of RPG's like BGII, is KotOR. Yes, it is a pity it is the Star Wars universe, but the characters where fascinating and the story was amazing. Graphics weren't great, but that doesn't matter; It's gameplay that counts.

Note that I am only talking about RPG's, not some games that call themselves RPG's. Dungeon Siege, Diablo or MMORPG's are nice for a change, but not real RPG's.

The only two games that looks promising at this time for me are Dragon Age, and TES: Oblivion. There is almost no info on DA, but Bioware says they want to make it the best RPG ever made. If Oblivon has all the things they promise, I am a very happy person. It is then better than Morrowind in every way.

So, how do you think RPG's will evolve the next few years?

Welcome to the forum <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Truth to tell, I think the future of RPGs will depend on Dragon Age to a huge extent. If it's successful, we might just see a resurgence of 'true' RPGs, with genuine characterisation, proper storytelling and a plot that does NOT just give the player an excuse to go around hitting things.

Neverwinter Nights only got the idea in Hordes Of The Underdark, and then only to some extent. Party based RPGs seem to be dead and buried, sadly.

The best 'true' RPG ever - the closest to the genuine tabletop experience - was Planescape: Torment, which did very poorly in sales, despite being wholly unequalled before or since. The market doubtless took note of that fact, which is probably WHY it remains unequalled.

Games companies make what they think will sell. The only thing we can do is cross our fingers and hope everyone buys Dragon Age - AND that's it's as good as the promise it seems to be showing.

although i'm no RPG gamer by tradition or origin, i would have to defend the self-claimed RPGs, namely action RPGs such as Nox, Diablo 2 (not as good as Nox), Dungeon Siege (never mind the first, i like the second), Fallout Tactics, Grom (RPG-lite), Freedom Force etc as because of them, i as a RTS game do not feel intimidated by all the technicalities of RPG proper to dip in & start enjoy the genre as a noob.

NWN was the first RPG proper i've ever played though according to u, Mervor, it's not as pure as it should to be. have to admit, i almost give up the first 10 minutes but thanks to a friend who explained to me about RPGs & tabletop games where CRPG was originated, i persevered & finished it with better understanding of the system & culture of RPG.

so it's not that all bad actually for games like those as entry-level for gamers who would like to try out RPG, specifically CRPG.

due to the popularity of the sub-genre (action RPG), almost all game developers dived into it, hoping to have some substantial cut of the cash cow. can't blame them though, they have to make a living somehow. only those who won't or can't deny the voices in their heads would dare to try something different.

but as for the future of RPG, it seems like it's heading towards multiplayer, especially MMOG. something i don't like at all.

Is the first one better than the second in this aspect? I've only tried the second one (and hated it. After the first town it was nothing but a bunch of gang battles. I gave up somewhere in the goblin (or whatever) stronghold, which is the second place you go to by the way).

Otherwise I agree with you. RPGs today so lack of fantasy, all you do is kill things. I'm trying to play BG2 now, but is giving up due to the old, sucky D&D (verision 2, right?) system, and the in todays mesure old graphics. And you can't do the evil quests in a good guy manner (don't kill him as they tell you to do, tell him to go underground for a while, and finnish the quest that way. Might not be very good, really, but it's about breaking a thievers guild, and you're neutral good so...). And a bit too many quests contain a bit too much fighting, otherwise it's kind of good. Maybe I should get going with that main story...

Oh, and wellcome to the forum <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />.

Übereil

Icewind Dale I was better than II in every way, because it was much more true roleplaying. The characters were nice, and the dialoges were much better too. Neverwinter Nights ís a true RPG, but I found it very blocky, unconvincing and lacking every detail. Look at the graphics of something in your inventory for example, it is horrible.

As for the graphics of BGII.. I really like them, only the models aren't very good. Well, graphics don't matter much for me.

And Janggut, I do like Dungeon Siege II for example. It is a nice game, with detail. However, it is not a RPG, and thus it is not really my type of game. Because you dont feel as if you are the character.

And thanks for the replies. Also, is my english acceptable? I am from the Netherlands, and I am not very old myself, though I play RPG's since I was 5 years old. (Baldur's Gate, and well, I didn't understand everything, but I loved it)

Your English is allright <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

And games you thought looked great the first time you played it (like fallout) doesn't look that great five years later. When you're used to the detail level of today, the detail level of yesterday bother you so much more (I used to think Arcanum looked different, if not good. But nowadays...). But as you say, graphics is not the important bit. But there are other things too, minor things, but they add up. Like the not very good journal. And the not very good fighting (it's not very good, really...). And the not very good graphics. I mean, they look decent, it's five years old and all that. But still, it bothers you a little, and when you get too much of it... It's far from a bad game, it's just... old. And therefore I'm getting tired of it. And your character never develops really. He just gets more hp. And never any level ups (you shouldn't get the all the time, but once in a while at least! Played for like 20 hours and gotten three level ups, meaning 20 hp and another point in two-handed fighting). And yet I'd rather play that game than most rubbish that comes out on the market today.

Übereil

I don't like to repeat my self again, but basically it's to me like that :

- Publishers are interested in money, not in gamers
- therefore they have a tendency to sell what sells
- and that is Action-RPGs

That's all.

And that's in my opinion the reason why we won't see games like Wizardry or PS:T for a looong time now.


(Apart from the fact that there are too much implementations of the (A)D&D system out there for my very own taste. But that's a personal thing. I'd rather prefer DSA.)

Uhm .... correct me if I'm wrong. Aren't the two games you mentioned also action-oriented RPGs? Have you ever imagined what PS : Torment would be like if there were no battles in it? There would be no reason for character development at all. Besides, what's wrong with action RPGs? They're fun! For me, no fighting, no play. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

It's commonsense that publishers are concerned about making as much profit as possible. They need the money to work on their future projects and to survive in the business. Next time you're in a game store and see this endless array of violent games, don't blame the publishers/developers. They're there because that's what the majority of gamers want.

Just my two cents. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Action-oriented means they're based on action, and at least Ps:T isn't, it's based on the story and the characterinteraction.

And we've never said we blame them, we've just complained that the majority of the gamers have such bad taste <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />.

Übereil

AD&D system is not sucky! It's probably much more complex than the ones used in most other games you've played, but it's interesting because it's original and the character development system really gives you the sense of progress. It's a pity that you quit. You have really missed out on the best thing that's ever happened in the history of role playing games.

Like you, I was quickly discouraged by the complex ruleset in my first attempt at playing BG 2. I put it aside to play KotOR for a while. I had tons of fun with it and after a few months, I stumbled across this really good guide about AD&D ruleset (2nd Edition) by Dan Simpson at Gamefaqs. I learned it for a few days and decided to give the game another shot. I couldn't stop playing it for months after. I suggest you check the guide at the site. Sorry I can't provide you with the link because I don't know how. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/offtopic.gif" alt="" />

How do you get an avatar?

Well, to each his own. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I didn't say D&D is sucky, I said verision 2 is sucky. My brother (who knows tons about D&D) agrees. And I don't feel like I'm progressing really. Without the perks and skills (which you have in 3rd edition), it's a pretty useless system. I allso hate the rolling stats, the 3rd edition is better on this too. What I would really like is BG2 with the full 3rd edition ruleset (all kinds of races, all kinds of classes/prestige classes). THAT would be an interesting system <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

You mean this faq?

Übereil

I like the 2nd edition ruleset ALOT more than the 3rd. I don't like feats, I like rolling stats, and most of all, I love the kits. With 3rd edition, mages can wear mail armor and such, while I just like that they have restrictions.

Can't argue about taste... I've heard that before somewhere <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />... Anyway:

I hate rolling. It's a useless wate of time IMO, and it can give you 18 in all stats if you only have the patience, something I allso hate. They only good thing about 2nd edition is the kits, but it doesn't weight up for the disadvantages. And you can't say that D&D is better without skills! And if you don't want your mage to wear full plate, then don't do it! It's really that simple...

Übereil

Well it is just, that I find it unrealistic that mages can wear those things. About rolling, I always feel happy when I finally get good rolls after a time. Feats, hmm well dislike is a big word, but I can live without them. The kits are for me REALLY important, and the best thing about the 2nd edition ruleset.

I personally find this *very* typical for ALL C-RPGS : The talk is now about (A)D&D instead of C-RPGs in general. The development is even so that most people consider C-RPGs either = (A)D&D based or = D2-based.

Thre is not much room between both flavours left, sadly. (To put it rather extreme.)

1st ed AD&D was better than 2nd; 2nd is better than 3rd, IMO. 3rd ed has attempted to kill off all creative use of spellcasting, which is unforgivable as it takes most of the fun out of being a mage. The alignment definitions are also the worst of the three systems, and should have been dropped as it's pretty obvious the writers didn't really have any idea of what guidelines to give. 3rd ed has die rolls for everything, and it is a lot harder to play fast and loose with the system, which ruins a lot of the fun for DMs and players alike.

***

Alrik...

D&D was the first ever RPG, and by far the most influential, so it's inevitable that every RPG discussion will involve it. No system exists that is not strongly influenced by D&D, because the very concept and underlying principles of every RPG owe their very existence to it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Elliot, I know that. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> My concern is just the domination. I don't want a Microsoft of RPG games. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

1: Are we still talking cRPGS?

2: What did 1st edition look like?

And what do you mean about spellcasting?

Übereil

I'm talking the actual systems, not the computer versions <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

A creative player can find all sorts of ways to use spells that can disrupt an enemy attack or otherwise do nasty things that weren't thought of by the game designers, but nonetheless do not destroy game balance.

Magic Missile, for example, in the case of a low level mage does very little damage to a person, but could be used to cut bow strings. When the spell was defined as 'single target' rather than 'living target'.

Unseen Servant can be used to gently comb an enemy spell caster's hair, or anything else that does no actual damage but will certainly stop him casting spells until the distraction is dealt with.

Shrink, used on a helmet or chain mail can seriously damage and possibly kill an enemy.

Just three examples of unconventional uses of first level spells that made a low level mage a whole lot more than a one-shot tag-along. All completely proscribed by third ed. I think you get the idea, right? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Computer uses of spells have to be limited because the programs will always be limited. Human DMs have no limits. This SHOULD give a pen & paper system huge advantages. Unless they are stuck using third ed...