Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General I always knew they listened to us really :)

Yes, as much as I very strongly prefer RTwP over TB combat, I don't associated either of them with a game being a cRPG. Same thing with the game's perspective: iso versus first/third person. But I do think the game being primarily single-player is a cRPG thing. The game can have MP as a secondary add-on, but the SP experience must be at its core. I also believe cRPGs don't care about fancy graphics or voice-acting.

For me, the only CRPG characteristic I find valid is the reason why it has a "C" in its name. It is the only difference between a computer and other devices : mouse input. As long as a RPG feels like it has been made with mouse controls in mind, it qualifies.

I'd have to agree here. Keeping it simple, the C in computer. A game designed with a computer Mouse and Keyboard in mind.
Designing a complex party base, stat heavy tactical RPG game around controllers changes so many parameters. You have to dumb everything down to its core. Or make everything extremely annoying to use.
Adapting a game to use a controller is less impactful but still annoying (changes in UI to accommodate controllers...LIKE THAT TOILET CHAIN SYSTEM LOL).
Or just say, screw game pads, deal with it and use your mouse. Not many devs brave enough to do this sadly.

Wait a minute. Is that why DOS 2 was such a hit, was it big on consoles?

@Saito Hikari - okay, I can understand your logic and arguments. Although you do seem to be defining cRPGs as being RtwP, which I disagree with, but could certainly be an acceptable definition.

Looking at @GM4Him's list, I suppose I'd put PoE, Tyranny, Wasteland 2, Underrail, and the Shadowrun series as the beginning of the cRPG resurgence then (even though 2-3 of those are TB).


@Sozz: I think that's partly why DOS2 was such a big hit, but it released first on PC and was already hugely popular by the time it came to consoles a ~year later.

Well, what the "c" in cRPG stands for is a debatable topic. If you look it up online this debate is very clear. For me it stands for "classic." If it stands for "computer" then we shouldn't even be talking about any other label, including just plain RPG, because in the context of video games ALL RPGs are computer RPGs.

Here's an article that gives a bit of the history of where we are now with these acronyms. There are many similar articles out there but I like this one:
https://www.makeuseof.com/what-does-crpg-mean/

I mean, it can still stand for "computer" and just be terribly named. As I understand it, originally it stood for Computer but has since shifted (in some people's view) to mean Classic or old-school? (I actually had that article open before you edited in your link! Glad to know I have good taste :P)

So basically, whether it is "computer" vs "classic" determines whether RPGs like Shadowrun, Disco Elysium, etc would be included. If "classic", then no because they're TB, not RtwP. If "computer," then yes because they evoke many of the same feelings, contain similar rpg elements, and have similar gameplay as old school cRPGs.

And then games like Solasta and Wasteland 3 might be another type of cRPG: (tactical) Combat RPGs!

To be fair, I think the mainstream definition of cRPG is "these ugly, old and slow games with too much menus and maths involved"

I find that by the time the debate reaches this level of semantics, nothing productive is forthcoming. But, I'll take snowram's definition.
I remember listening to a video game podcast where the "what is an RPG?" debate came up, and after a few parameters came out, the moderator said, "so is Call of Duty an RPG?" because it had stats, and progression mechanics, the "RPG mechanics", which had been the underpinning of every definition. Maybe that's the true RPG renaissance, a lot of the mechanics that were once only found in RPGs now are standard in every genre of game.

C for computer & Rpg for any game in the fantasy genre as I understood it- turn based or rtwp had nothing to do with it other than being a method of gameplay.
I think the definition of crpg is actually very broad as a game only has to have a few elements of role playing I.e controlling a party through an adventure to be defined as a rpg. Some developers are just leagues ahead at actually making rpgs.

I don't see how what "c" means would be relevant. cRPG is a term from certain period of time to refer to certain type of an RPG. When people use cRPG it is precisely because they want to distinguish the game from what RPGs became. It's a bit like arguing if "j" in jRPGs stands for japanese, if there are jRPGs not made in Japan. That doesn't matter. jRPGs was coined to represent certain type of games, and that is what this term means.

Is Dragon Age: Origins a cRPGs? I don't think so. It is a call back to those games, but at the same time it is a very shallow one and it's extremely restrictive with interaction it allows for, very unlike cRPGs of old. You can't really role-play or make active decision about your characters. You can't turn on NPCs unless it's part of a script - it's a narrative adventure, with MMO like combat. RPG, perhaps, but far from recreating a cRPG experience that would respect player decisions and imputs.

I see D:OS2 and BG3 as games that are true to cRPG principles, even if I don't like their focus and priorities. To me they are missing the point of the genre, a bit like Pathfinder games, but the fact that they lack in aspects for which I enjoy cRPGs doesn't mean they are something different. Though I would describe them as coop cRPGs if I wanted to be precise, as I think it neatly highlights their unique nature.

I also don't think we get THAT many cRPGs to really need to find an individual term that would perfectly incapsulate every single one. Just as Fallout1&2, Baldur's Gates or Planescape have very different strenghs, weaknesses and focuses but they are still cRPG. PoE, Pathfinder, Wasteland, D:OS2/BG3 are very different cRPGs, but they are cRPGs nonetheless. Larian came up with their own designs, style and structure, but being original or new doesn't necessarily make them something else.

Solasta advertises itself as "Turn-Based Tactical RPG", so yeah. I also wouldnt' call Icewind Dale 1&2 a cRPG as I think they lack a lot of social/role-playing aspect that I would expect of a cRPGs. From what I played of Wasteland3 it seemed like a proper cRPG, no?

Edit. I always post to early. I would argue that computer Role-Playing Game is a great term for all those titles. Those are games that attempt to translate an experience of playing a table-top Role-playing game in a form of a computer game, sometimes using licenced system (D&D, Pathfinder) or using a custom one (Fallouts, PoE).

That is the core difference from other RPGs - like Dragon Ages, Witchers, Mass Effects and in general all post D&D Bioware games. They have some aspects of RPGs - quests with choices to make and perhaps reactivity, vertical progression, some combat customisability - but overall those are minor elements of the game. Witcher3 is mostly an open world action adventure, Mass Effect is mostly a narrative third person shooter. Dragon Age: Origins I think is the most of a hybrid thing, but I still think it is too controlling of player actions to count as a cRPG - it lacks the player initiative, and character build impact.

I’m not defining cRPGs as needing to be RTwP or turn based, I would still consider Disco Elysium to be one despite it not really containing either. It’s just merely commentary on the current state of the genre as opposed to the so-called renaissance, which looks rather dire because after BG3 is out, there’s only Rogue Trader to look forward to.

Regarding crpgs being made with computers in mind, I was just watching Mark Darrah on his youtube channel talking about creating the Dragon Age series and he said that porting Dragon Age to consoles was a very good idea that greatly impacted the success of the game, since it allowed the game to be seen by a larger audience.

Sorry about the double-post but I didn't see your post until after I'd made mine. To address your first point about the 'c' in crpg being relevant, I think it's relevant as far as everyone having a baseline understanding of what everyone else is talking about. I always get a little annoyed when I think about how broad and innefective the rpg title is at communicating the various subgenres it tries to refer to. But that's just a minor quibble.

My main question is this; you posit that Dragon Age: Origins isn't a crpg but BG3 is. And you also say that Pathfinder and Pillars of Eternity are crpgs. I feel like BG3 is more restrictive of my character than DA:O, and DA:O is far closer to PoE and Pathfinder. I'm curious what you're seeing in BG3 that I'm not. Note that I myself consider both BG3 and DA:O crpgs, for whatever that's really worth in practice.

Sure, to be honest I am torn on Dragon Age: Origins. I have rewritten my post above 3 times changing my mind if I would categorise DA:O as cRPG. I decided not to, but I honestly won't fight on that hill.

I think it taps a lot into what cRPG players find appealing in those games. Where I decided to draw the line (and I think it is a very thin line between Dragon Age, BG1&2 and PoE) is that games that I would consider a cRPG give player agency regarding actions they take - of course, your options are limited due to the nature of the game, but you have a constant access to verbs - talk, fix, attack etc. and you can use those verbs at your discression.

Dragon Age doesn't do that. You are following set path and what actions you can take is scripted. You can't decide to do anything, unless it is one of few options presented by the game. Dragon Age has some nice choices to make, but so do narative adventures.

To some extend it is not so different then cRPGs - creating believable characters requires handscripting and writing, and that means pre-determined, linear quests. I think almost all cRPG expect players to nicely follow paths set for them for a good experience. As such I don't think playing DA:O feels that much different then playing a cRPG. However, as the game removes player ability to act unless permitted is the point for me. It doesn't present players with situations and asks: What do you do? It asks will you do A or B. For example unless Bioware scripted such a possibility attacking an NPC is not an option. You see I wouldn't call KOTOR a cRPG, and I just see Dragon Age:O as a bigger, more branching KOTOR. Would I dare to say that Dragon Age:O is closer to a jRPG with a lot of branching paths, then a cRPG? Maybe I would, but I don't think I know jRPGs well enough to sign my name under it.

BG3 on the other hand gives a lot agency to the player - the table-top feeling of players deciding what they will do is ever present. The quality and result is a seperate thing - I do think that BG3 is so open, that our choices lack impact. Due to game master being pre-made cRPGs will be by their very nature limited. But I can see how Larian and WotC would thing that this is a great way of translating table-top D&D experience into a computer game. I might even consider Neverwinter Nights a cRPG, but I do consider it more of a toolbox then a game.

And that's where I am conflicted, as this limitation could be used to defend Dragon Age: Origins or even Witchers or Mass Effect - afterall, how hard the limitation need to be for the game to move from cRPG, to RPG, to a game with RPG elements. I think at some point it becomes people ways of expressing their experience with the game, rather then academic definition. To me personally, there is a difference is enough to consider Witcher3 and Mass Effects as narrative driven action games/RPG hybrids, and Dragon Age a narrative driven adventure, evoking classic Baldur's Gate RPG. Where's in PoE, as limited as it was, the first test I did is attack the caravan master, and journal entry changed to reflect the choice - and I smiled as it's been a long time since Bioware allowed me to think for myself.

Edit. I also have to say, that I think BG3 goes again a what I would consider a spirit of a cRPG - stuff, like not really allowing us to characterise our PC well, or choices being more player driven then character driven. In a way I had better roleplaying experience with Pentiment (which is definitely NOT a cRPG or even an RPG) then I did with BG3, but that's stuff I would attribute to game's priority, focus and quality of it's features. BG3's devotion to mutliplayer and origins is not something I will hold against it cRPGness - afterall, tabletop is a multiplayer experience by default and in some ways Larian might be better translating D&D to PC then classing cRPGs (ccRPGs? spcRPGs [single player cRPGs])? Changing structure, and focus doesn't necessarily move genre, but might require clarification - therefore my suggestion for coop cRPG.

I had a whole post written but yours ^ addressed a lot of it. I'll summarize.

I'd put DAO in a similar category as you put BG3/DOSII.
You can't kill NPCs (companions or shopkeepers) unless it's part of a script, sure, but there's a ton of choice in the game and opportunity for roleplaying your character that make up for that imo. I suppose I place less weight on the "constant access to all the verbs."

I'll concede that it is more restrictive and maybe less of what old cRPGs are. But that's a matter of scale, not intrinsic differences, at least imo. But as you and others have said, DAO is in a hybrid space, moving from old-school cRPGs to newer ARPGs/MMORPGs.

The common way to denigrate a lot of modern crpgs is to say they're dressed up 'visual novels' . But like you've said Wormerine, our DM is a game, a game that was finished before we play it, that's been true of every cRPG since they started. The games that are just 'sandboxes' just have less defined parameters, making them more reactive you the player's input, but less specific with their outcome. I like playing a game with a story to tell, but I don't think either sort isn't a cRPG. Of course we've probably had this conversation before when talking about the Origin/Custom character debate.

Sure. There is also this awkward thing called BG2 - which as I was younger I saw it as a seed from which sprawling, full of choices RPGs could emerge, while with time and wider knowledge I realised that a more focused cinematic feel was this game's strongest point. As such later Bioware games, gradually increasing production value and reducing player choice as the result feel like a natural progression for Bioware, rather then departure from their younger ambitions.

I also have to clarify that me calling something not a cRPG is not a criticism. As it happens I don't like DA:O but for different reasons, than its "visual novel" feel (thanks @Sozz),

Yeah, I agree with @Gray Ghost.

Firstly, if C is for "computer," then every single RPG that we're talking about is a CRPG, in which case what's the point of adding in that extra letter? It is entirely redundant. Secondly, the language does matter because otherwise we're all just talking in isolation here. We can have conversations with each other, and especially engage in comparisons, only if we have a common understanding of our language being used.

And finally, I also would question how DA:O is not a cRPG (where the C is classic or old-school) but BG3 is? Sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense to me. DA:O is far more close to old-school RPGs than BG3. And if anything, for me, BG3 is more closer to DA:I and Fallout 4. The whole point of BG3 is to be a very modern game, complete with all the modern crap that today's gamers apparently demand in their game at the expense of the things that were at the heart of old-school RPGs. BG3 is no cRPG.

Thanks Wormerine, your answer is really interesting and in-depth and I appreciate it. It was a very interesting read. I have to imagine that my perspective is heavily impacted by DA:O being my first choice-driven rpg where my choices really mattered. But also it might be that I'm just the sort of person who doesn't tend to try the really out of the box approaches to things. Because I would never even think of attacking the caravan guard in PoE, and my knee-jerk reaction to the idea is to find it weird that someone would. But again, how much of that was the dragon age games shaping my expectations and behaviour? I love both PoE games, but I love them and Dragon Age for my ability to characterise my player character, to make them really feel like mine. I've said a couple times on this forum that I've given my characters in PoE entire personal arcs completely separate from the game plots and felt entirely supported by the game. And in DA:O I've been making more and more complex characters in it. To contrast BG3, there have been conversations where I straight up didn't have an option to say something that I thought would fit my character. I think that I'm with mrfuji13 in the end, and that DA:O is still a crpg, but it's a matter of scale and where they applies their focus, and DA:O opted to focus more on giving you breadth to define your character and the choices your character can make that the game can then support, rather than letting you do potentially anything and having to deal with it when the game can't really make that choice meaningful.