next »

[iffi]

What does this mean? In most games you're literally playing a role...

In most traditional narrative-heavy games you're not playing a role, you're being directed through a predefined one. In a true RPG the player would have an extremely high degree of freedom that would let him be able to actually act out any decisions he would want to make if he was in the same situation as his avatar (in other words, role playing), with the game world around him adjusting and reacting dynamically. It's an important and interesting problem which ties into a ton of other CS concepts, and like I said in my edit the new game by the Facade guys looks fairly interesting in this regard (at least as a small tech demo for what might be possible in the future; I doubt it'll be very good as a game, and the scenario doesn't really seem that interesting to me.)

So kinda like The Sims?

[Derek]

J. R. I loved your performance in Ocarina of Time! Very convincing.

 

What does this mean? In most games you're literally playing a role...

In most traditional narrative-heavy games you're not playing a role, you're being directed through a predefined one. In a true RPG the player would have an extremely high degree of freedom that would let him be able to actually act out any decisions he would want to make if he was in the same situation as his avatar (in other words, role playing), with the game world around him adjusting and reacting dynamically. It's an important and interesting problem which ties into a ton of other CS concepts, and like I said in my edit the new game by the Facade guys looks fairly interesting in this regard (at least as a small tech demo for what might be possible in the future; I doubt it'll be very good as a game, and the scenario doesn't really seem that interesting to me.)

It seems like we do have RPGs, then... but at various levels of fidelity. From what I've heard about Dwarf Fortress's Adventure Mode, it's quite close to what you're describing (lots of freedom, very few pre-made scenarios, a reactive world). Maybe even closer than a lot of table-top RPGs, which also direct you through linear storylines.

I don't know, is it useful to say that we don't have "true" RPGs? What's a "true" fighting game? Or a "true" platformer? Are we defining these genres by what they imply semantically, or is it based more on convention?

[J. R. Hill]

J. R. I loved your performance in Ocarina of Time! Very convincing.

Thanks, I do consider it a highlight of my career.

[starsrift]

I think an RPG is literally a role playing game and no one has made one yet in videogame form

 

Is this the new artware-is-it-a-gam argument?

[DavidCaruso]

So kinda like The Sims?

Someone else brought this up recently too, and I don't really know. On some level I feel like being in control of multiple characters at the same time doesn't gel well with the idea of a CRPG (where the point is to be immersed within the role of a single character), the scenario isn't very appealing to me, characters take actions on their own by default unless the option is disabled, and there's way more boring micromanagement than meaningful decisions that affect the overall narrative. Even if it is a role-playing game, I don't think it's a particularly interesting one.

It seems like we do have RPGs, then... but at various levels of fidelity. From what I've heard about Dwarf Fortress's Adventure Mode, it's quite close to what you're describing (lots of freedom, very few pre-made scenarios, a reactive world). Maybe even closer than a lot of table-top RPGs, which also direct you through linear storylines.

I don't know, is it useful to say that we don't have "true" RPGs? What's a "true" fighting game? Or a "true" platformer? Are we defining these genres by what they imply semantically, or is it based more on convention?

I guess you could say, while there have been some pretty cool experiments (like Planescape: Torment, Fallout 2, or Deus Ex, and apparently the Gothic series too but I haven't played those yet), the genre hasn't really come into its own yet thanks to technical and design limitations. I remember Gilbert and I had a huge discussion about the current problems facing action recognition, natural language processing, etc. in game AI back in some thread, but I can't find it right now... Either way, I'll look more into DF's adventure mode, although the setting and initial setup seem lame (only goal is survival) and that's something that would be important for this type of game.

Is this the new artware-is-it-a-gam argument?

Nah, it's a bit less important than the art thing. All the "artware" (how many terms do y'all have for these things) stuff is p. obviously games.

I guess all this stuff should be split into a new topic, since it's not very relevant to the IGF aside from the article that Craig Stern wrote.

[Uykered]

Maybe even closer than a lot of table-top RPGs, which also direct you through linear storylines.

I haven't played an RPG before, but I thought that would depend on how good the Gamemaster would be?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Craig's own narrow definition of what makes an RPG is probably just as much to blame for their absence in the noms list than any sort of  judging bias. I've always saw the IGF as one of those cooking competitions where you take everyday ingredients that anyone has access to and make dishes that are clever and unique. And I think if you look at the ingredients that make up RPGs, you would find they are actually quite prevalent. But to limit your definition of an RPG to a game that uses ALL those ingredients and none of those action/adventure ingredients and wonder why no RPGs get nominated, it's like wondering why no plain hamburgers ever win Iron Chef.

there's still the issue that, even by his narrow definition, the % of entries to the igf that are rpgs-by-his-definition is much larger than the % of igf finalists/winners that are rpgs-by-his-definition

but i don't actually think his definition is that far from the norm. if you ask most gamers what they'd consider a rpg, they'd usually consider the following to be rpgs: jrpgs, wrpgs, mmorpgs, dungeon crawlers, strategy/tactical rpgs, roguelikes. and maybe action-rpgs. they would not usually consider games that merely have some rpg elements (such as dota or starcraft or resident evil 4) to be rpgs

his definition also pretty much coincides with the industry's definition; what he would call a rpg is also largely what steam calls the rpg genre, and is also what amazon.com calls the rpg genre, and is also what wikipedia calls the rpg genre -- although wikipecia calls them 'console rpg' (jrpg) and 'computer rpg' (wrpg)

[bento_smile]

I want to see more roll playing games. I cannot think of any games where you play a roll! 

[iffi]

I think the only true role-playing game is this thing I like to call "real life." The only problem is that its status as a "game" is debatable, so even that may or may not be a role-playing game.

...howabout we just accept that terms such as "RPG" aren't to be taken literally? That just made me wonder how the term came about in the first place.

[esc]

I want to see more roll playing games. I cannot think of any games where you play a roll!  

http://www.increpare.com/2011/07/salome/

[Rob Lach]

RPG is dumbest genre name in the game world. As Derek said, all games make you assume a role.

Is Madden an RPG because you play the role of a football quarterback? (@biomechanic mentions different roles in the same environment, well a football quarterback has a much different role than kicker, etc.) Obviously not.

What most people consider an RPG, I'd call it something like "statistical adventure game".

That said, I see an issue with RPGs in that once you put a unique or interesting take on an RPG, all of sudden you're not considered an RPG anymore. So if you want to "make an RPG", you're confining yourself to the tight boundaries of the definition.

Of course there are good RPGs and bad RPGs in the classical definition, but the primary differentiation between good and bad in the RPG world is the content. I think in the case of the IGF, content isn't the primary factor considered (or at least not as important as to an RPG player), so RPG's entered tend to be your typical RPG affair.

It's rare that RPG's push game mechanics anywhere new, and if they do, they tend to not be considered RPGs anymore.

[SirNiko]

I'm surprised nobody has brought up MMORPGs yet.

Say what you want about easy, skinner box directed mechanics, any Massively Multiplayer Online game allows for true roleplaying. Players can develop in-character personalities which are tempered against the world around them. Communities with distinct goals develop, whether they're elite players trying to be first to win the game, guilds intended to help newbies, social guilds that hold events for fun, or players who just want to make the game different for others (eg, the Goonsquad).

Visit any MMO message board and they can rattle off a list of personalities and describe them in detail using in-game explanations. The player who researches all the new spells in the game, the guy who collects helmets obsessively, the kleptomaniacal player with a lisp, the silly newbie who just likes the pets and struggles with PvP, etc. You can find all these things in-game by noticing players manipulating markets, unusual gatherings in places where normally players have no reason to gather, or in-game memes that reference popular/famous players (eg. WoW's "Leeroy Jenkins").

That said, back in the 8 and 16 bit era RPG was a useful naming convention, as it described a relatively narrow selection of games that emphasized (mechanical) character development, sprawling worlds, lots of (mechanical) character customization and focus on a narrative. Even if those things don't contribute to role playing in the literal sense, the genre was useful because it let the player know what to expect within a pretty narrow category.

Fast forward to today, (mechanical) character development, sprawling worlds, lots of (mechanical) character customization and focus on a narrative are par for the course for all but a few titles. As a result, "RPG" as a term is not as useful. Either you use it to refer strictly to JRPGs and WRPGs (Which are very narrow categories) or you tack it on to everything with the above factors and ultimately tell the player nothing about a particular game. Hence, "Symphony of the Night" has a lot of similarities to "Dragon Warrior" (Character accumulates equipment and items, grows steadily stronger so old foes no longer pose a threat, slowly increases his roaming area with new abilities, is defined by a wide set of numerical traits that include a measure of randomness) but is in a more crowded market where those traits do not make it stand out like it would have in 1989.

[Craig Stern]

but i think he specified that he included only self-described rpgs

Yup. I was combing manually through well over 1500 games; I didn't have time to double-check everything. If you didn't use the term "RPG" in your description, it didn't make it into the count (I'm pretty sure I mentioned this in a footnote in the article).

If it makes you feel any better, Bastion and Recettear ended up getting left off the lists in this same way.

Craig's own narrow definition of what makes an RPG is probably just as much to blame for their absence in the noms list than any sort of  judging bias.

Which ones do you think I missed?

[brog]

I recall Soren Johnson (IGF judge, not indie, has worked on Civ and other strategy stuff) complaining about the "strategy game stigma" in the IGF.

The other day someone was pointing out on Twitter how the judging system works against multiplayer games (although some multiplayer games are present in finalists, they're ones that already had plenty of buzz, that judges upvote based on having played at other events).

Not sure it's possible for some subset of games not to be excluded whatever they do.

[Craig Stern]

Strategy games do pretty well in the IGF, though, at least compared to RPGs. (Frozen Synapse and Dyson both come immediately to mind.)

[brog]

So do Bastion, Desktop Dungeons, Realm of the Mad God.  You're not claiming there are no RPGs at all right? - just that they're underrepresented.  I'm just sharing the observation that some people involved in other genres feel the same way.

[s0]

From what I've heard about Dwarf Fortress's Adventure Mode, it's quite close to what you're describing (lots of freedom, very few pre-made scenarios, a reactive world).

DF Adventure mode isn't ALL that reactive at the moment though that's going to change in a big way with the next update out due this or next month.

Maybe even closer than a lot of table-top RPGs, which also direct you through linear storylines.

I've played RPG sessions that were almost 100% pure improv. The linearity of a pen and paper RPG is up to the DM.

I don't know, is it useful to say that we don't have "true" RPGs? What's a "true" fighting game? Or a "true" platformer? Are we defining these genres by what they imply semantically, or is it based more on convention?

I personally think all the discussion about RPG being a "misnomer" is kinda pointless because genre names don't have to be descriptive (Rock music is a misnomer because it's not actually made with rocks derp derp).

BUT the problem with the (C)RPG genre is that there isn't a universally agreed on definition of it. We know what a "true" platformer and a "true" fighting game are (i.e. we can identify their core qualities) but we don't really know what a "true" RPG is.

I came across a flowchart recently (y'know the kind Gimmy likes to post) purporting to describe "every RPG ever" that was really just a listing of JRPG cliches. When someone says "I like RPGs," they could mean anything from Gothic to Dragon Quest to Diablo, all very dissimilar games.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

It's rare that RPG's push game mechanics anywhere new, and if they do, they tend to not be considered RPGs anymore.

i don't see this as true at all -- plenty of rpgs each year innovate the rpg game mechanics drastically, and still fall within the boundaries of what is considered a rpg. it's not like they're all using the standard d&d ruleset, they invent new rulesets and new systems for practically every single rpg

[starsrift]

I think the only true role-playing game is this thing I like to call "real life."

I wanna reroll my stats.

[David Bailey]

The definition of 'role-playing game' was established back when most games featured a dot rolling across the screen eating other dots. The distinction was easier to identify. These days, it's a bit more difficult to define if only because most games live up to the traditional definition of role playing game today in some capacity - most games feature the user living out some role in the avatar. The best way to define a role-playing game is how the game is completed and how you progress through its obstacles.