Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Non-Combat RPG: A Fool's Errand?
Besides Apocalypse Cow, I'm also working on an RPG that is still in the "engine" stages. I had a good discussion with an old game-programmer buddy about the complications of RPG design, and I thought I'd kinda open it up here on the blog. Though this sort of thing makes me wanna resurrect my forums if people have some good input on the subject.
The problem was I came up with a great little design that would work famously for a Pen & Paper (or as I usually call 'em, "Dice & Paper") game - targeted towards more hardcore roleplaying geeks (like me). But once I started prototyping, I ran into some roadblocks with certain elements just not working. I decided I needed to re-evaluate my system, starting with figuring out exactly what skills and stats are needed by the game. That comes down to something of a chicken-and-egg problem of what sort of activities the player would actually do in the game - and what sort of granularity my target audience would want and expect over the character's abilities. A new activity could conceivably require a new "stat," which in turn could suggest a multitude of new activities.One of the problems with computer RPGs (CRPGs) is that they fail to capture the breadth and depth of other forms of storytelling - or even that of their dice & paper cousins. The games are largely combat encounters strung together by (usually) crappy dialog and wandering-around sequences. Maybe the occasional irritating puzzle (Final Fantasy X, I'm talking about YOU!). You do get some semblance of it peeking through - from the angsty-and-eco-friendly stories of the Final Fantasy games to the hints of political intrigue in Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines.
But look at movies and books. Combat sequences are usually few and far between even in action-packed 'summer blockbuster' films. There are usually action "beats" between plot and character development "beats." These action beats can be combat, or chase scenes, or hunt scenes (the opposite of chase scenes, I guess), or maybe a race, an obstacle, survival against the elements, sneaking past the enemies, escaping a deathtrap, or the like. We get a few of these in RPGs, though they are usually heavily scripted, and rarely dependent upon character skills or much player interaction.
And what about the non-action plot elements of courtroom dramas, or romantic comedies, or psychological thrillers? Things like trying to convince the evil mastermind's underling to join your cause, or secretly spying on the enemy plans, or trying to talk your friend out of getting involved in a relationship with a known womanizer, or fast-talking your way past a guard. How about planting a bug in a suspect's room and escaping before he returns, or negotiating a treaty? Maybe convincing the policemen that you aren't crazy and that they should help you track down the vampire before it kills someone else? Impress the ladies with your mad tango skillz? All of these are cool, dramatic, or funny story elements that SHOULD be perfectly workable in an RPG - alternatives to combat which could / should in theory be fun to play.
But we almost never see 'em, except in scripted cut-scenes. Why? Three reasons:
#1 - They branch the storyline. Combat doesn't do this, because if you fail, the game ends. But what happens if you are allowed to save your girlfriend from being murdered in the first chapter, when the rest of the game is built around the idea of you avenging her death? You failed to plant the bug in the agent's hotel room, but you did sneak out without him seeing you. Now how will you find out the location of the secret base? Most games are structured in a linear storytelling format - you can vary the order of some activities, or skip certain subquests, or have the possibility of failing certain insignificant elements - but anything that would actually have a real effect on the game is too dangerous.
#2 - Even if the game developers go the extra mile and actually allow the branching from #1, they often remain unexplored by the players. This happened a bit with Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, one of the few games that really tried to give you things to do with non-combat skills. So as a player, you have a choice between adding a skill point in "Basket Weaving" or " Dodging Bullets." WHICH ONE WILL YOU CHOOSE? Chances are, a failed Basket Weaving roll won't leave your character half-dead en route to the final confrontation with a boss. Players will naturally put their points in skills that have the greatest risk on failure, and only "splurge" on non-combat options if they feel comfortable with their current level of survival skills.
Alternately, in a single-player game, the players will avoid the 'failure' side of the branch by simply re-loading the game. Origin discovered this with the first Wing Commander game - they very carefully created a mission tree with success and failure paths for all missions. They discovered that players were simply re-playing missions until they received total success. All that work on the 'failing' missions was wasted, because few players bothered to allow themselves down that path. Consequently, future Wing Commander games were extremely linear, with only non-performance based branching (if any at all).
#3 - There's a belief (and not unjustified) that in spite of the vocal minority claiming that they'd LOVE a non-combat CRPG, people still play those games to beat the pulp out of something. I read an article by a freelancer who has written Dice & Paper sourcebooks emphasizing non-combat resolutions to situations --- and so far sales have sucked in comparison to similar-but-more-violent supplements in the same line.
I am working on a game that is set in a more-or-less contemporary setting (with fantastic and horrific differences). This really restricts the opportunity for combat - going around town killing your neighbors isn't a recipe for success. Even if you KNOW the guy working the night shift at the local convenience store is actually a brain-sucking alien or something. So I want to pack it full of exciting things to do that are NOT lethal and violent, to supplement the slightly-less-frequent conventional fights to the death.
I think I have problem #2 licked by a couple of different ways. One is to unlink skill advancement such that improving a non-combat skill has no bearing on the more critical "survival" skills. The other is to incentivize or disguise the "failure" branches such that the player is not only willing to accept and explore them, but if given full control over the branching and knowledge of the outcomes they'd still face an interesting choice.
Problem #1 and #3 are harder nuts to crack. Games like "The Sims" and "Civilization" resolve this problem by leaving the system completely open-ended. The Elder Scrolls games (so far - I haven't played Oblivion yet) are also open-ended and allow for this to some degree, but mostly dodged the problem by having failures have no impact on the main plot, or they derailed the main plot entirely (usually with a warning to that effect in the case of Morrowind). Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines avoided the branch by making the noncombat elements optional subquests. If you failed to place the hidden cameras in the model's apartment without being detected, you didn't get the reward. No other harm done. Actually, a bug in the game prevented you from getting that reward ANYWAY, so it didn't really matter. But I digress...
What about problem #3 - will people actually BUY (or even PLAY, if it's free?) a non-combat (or non-combat-emphasizing) roleplaying game? I dunno. They picked up The Sims in droves - while it didn't profess to be a roleplaying game, it sure shared a lot of mechanics with RPGs. Façade was a fascinating little title that really amounted to a social adventure game. Make the responses not purely deterministic but rather based on skill checks, and you've turned it into something of an RPG. Would it sell?
What do you think? Is it possible AND commercially viable to create a non-combat RPG?
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 4:35 PM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I don't know how well it will do in the market. I'm inclined to believe that if it is implemented well and you convince the right people to try it, they might like it and tell their friends. Good reviews will be written. People can't help but hear about this different yet enjoyable game.
It isn't that far-fetched to think that perhaps the reason why good games fail is a lack of sufficient marketing.
I think it is great that you're developing a game in this direction. It's refreshing and emphasizes the strengths of games over other media. Most games designed today are still stuck in the 80s as far as their potential. More developers should try to make games that are based on more than operant conditioning and flashy graphics.
It isn't that far-fetched to think that perhaps the reason why good games fail is a lack of sufficient marketing.
I think it is great that you're developing a game in this direction. It's refreshing and emphasizes the strengths of games over other media. Most games designed today are still stuck in the 80s as far as their potential. More developers should try to make games that are based on more than operant conditioning and flashy graphics.
I think what you're really talking about here at the end dovetails with what you were saying about innovation. Non-combat RPG is something that hasn't been done yet, really. So framing it in terms of what you've said about innovation the question really is: is this innovation too far out of the comfort zone of consumers or is it something that is just enough out of the ordinary that it'll be seen as a plus.
I think it might depend on how you market it. When push comes to shove, how is this non-combat RPG different from Adventure titles like Monkey Island or Grim Fandango? Is it similar enough that you should concentrate your angle on extending *that* "genre" rather than extending "RPG"? Is it a non-combat RPG or a character-based Adventure game?
I think it might depend on how you market it. When push comes to shove, how is this non-combat RPG different from Adventure titles like Monkey Island or Grim Fandango? Is it similar enough that you should concentrate your angle on extending *that* "genre" rather than extending "RPG"? Is it a non-combat RPG or a character-based Adventure game?
One other solution to #2 that you didn't really bring out is to branch it in a way that isn't a win/lose. If the player's choice is between two good things or between two bad things, there isn't an obvious right choice for everyone.
That gives you a way to inject some of those non-combat issues in a way that can add interest and diversity in how people can play the game.
That gives you a way to inject some of those non-combat issues in a way that can add interest and diversity in how people can play the game.
I would agree with the sentiment that RPGs, which are as fundamental a gaming genre as drama is to narrative, would be more interesting if they explored more non-combat interactions. I also agree with your reasonings behind your three points. I would add a fourth that's likely the root of the other three: how?
What I mean, is how do we interact other than combat? This is not well established in the gaming world. Sure, there are other mechanics than the classic RPG combat mechanic, but how exactly do you implement the interaction of persuading a friend to not date a girl? What do the mechanics look like? At the lowest level, how do we model this interaction through a series of calculations on a computer?
I'm not saying it's impossible, nor am I saying that it's necessarily difficult; I think that at this point it's simply undefined (or at best poorly defined). Sure, I can imagine a lot of discrete interaction scenarios to model this dynamic, such as branching dialogue trees. But discrete interaction, particularly in potentially subtle area such as influence or persuasion, rapidly becomes unsatisfactory as the gamer quickly feels out all of the possible options and subconciously begins to optimize them. While this is no different that what they may do in "real life," drama or tension doesn't arise from simply weighing ones options.
Hence, the advantage of continous or analog interactions: we essentially crack open the play space into a far more fine-grained decision tree, often with a temporal component, that gives the player a true sense of complete freedom (within the constraints of the play space). This is why "3D" a been such a huge boon to gaming (at least superficially), because it gives the player the impression of freedom (at least in the narrow play space of "movement" or "aiming" if not other areas dependent on the game).
I have trouble imagining what the analog/continous mechanics of more social interactions would look like. I can certainly imagine a scenario given perfect natural language processing and appropriate knowledge bases, i.e. an accurate simulation of actual human social interaction. But that's obviously a distant, distant possiblity and not one we can depend on for many decades (at least).
Maybe I'm missing something... while I want to see RPG interactions that consist of more than combat or traditional exploratory mechanics, I have trouble imagining how we capture the more interesting interactions.
What I mean, is how do we interact other than combat? This is not well established in the gaming world. Sure, there are other mechanics than the classic RPG combat mechanic, but how exactly do you implement the interaction of persuading a friend to not date a girl? What do the mechanics look like? At the lowest level, how do we model this interaction through a series of calculations on a computer?
I'm not saying it's impossible, nor am I saying that it's necessarily difficult; I think that at this point it's simply undefined (or at best poorly defined). Sure, I can imagine a lot of discrete interaction scenarios to model this dynamic, such as branching dialogue trees. But discrete interaction, particularly in potentially subtle area such as influence or persuasion, rapidly becomes unsatisfactory as the gamer quickly feels out all of the possible options and subconciously begins to optimize them. While this is no different that what they may do in "real life," drama or tension doesn't arise from simply weighing ones options.
Hence, the advantage of continous or analog interactions: we essentially crack open the play space into a far more fine-grained decision tree, often with a temporal component, that gives the player a true sense of complete freedom (within the constraints of the play space). This is why "3D" a been such a huge boon to gaming (at least superficially), because it gives the player the impression of freedom (at least in the narrow play space of "movement" or "aiming" if not other areas dependent on the game).
I have trouble imagining what the analog/continous mechanics of more social interactions would look like. I can certainly imagine a scenario given perfect natural language processing and appropriate knowledge bases, i.e. an accurate simulation of actual human social interaction. But that's obviously a distant, distant possiblity and not one we can depend on for many decades (at least).
Maybe I'm missing something... while I want to see RPG interactions that consist of more than combat or traditional exploratory mechanics, I have trouble imagining how we capture the more interesting interactions.
Look at "The Sims." Or some of the "Dating Sims" / "Dating RPGs" out there (be really careful on those - the ones I've tried have been fairly tame, but I understand there are a lot that are, shall we say, "Not Safe For Work."). Or look up the recent indie game, "Facade."
It has BEEN done. Maybe not incredibly well. Chris Crawford has been noodling over modeling social interactions in computer games for two decades now. I think we're getting there, by baby steps.
And like you said - with Facade it doesn't take long before you start seeing the repetition of events, and realize that while it's a REALLY fuzzy and tangled tree with branches merging back in with one another, it's still a tree. Kinda. The Sims avoids that somewhat by abstracting out the conversations with "Simlish," allowing the player's imagination to fill in the blanks.
Expanding these smaller sub-games into the context of a larger, richer game is a bit trickier. Still doable, but there's no way we'll be able to resemble the fullness of human dialog anytime soon. But is that even the goal?
Look at combat in a game (we'll say real-time combat). What's the game mechanic? You've got a set of stats - both visible and integral to the combatants (how much damage they'll take from this type of hit, for example). You have a two inputs: Combat Action (let's say 'aggressive', 'normal', 'defensive', 'drink healing potion', 'block', and 'run away'), and TIMING. The combination of action + timing, your opponent's action + timing, a comparison of relevant stats between the opposing characters, plus (in an RPG) a random factor results in an effect on dynamic statistics (let's say "endurance," "health," and a count of health potions).
Finally, the two enemies have a set of opposing goals. For the player, there's usually three: Survive the Encounter, Defeat the Foe, and use Minimum resources (the dynamic statistics) in the process. In most RPGs, the "non-player characters" have a single goal: Kill the player character(s).
A partial set of goals may be fulfilled, and some goals can be achieved with varying levels of success (such as the preservation of resource goal). In the case of combat, it's impossible for the primary goals of both opponents (Survive vs. Kill) to be satisfied.
Now let's take that same mechanic, and map it to a conversation. Party A (the player) probably has a complex series of goals, but we'll assume it is to convince Party B to allow him to interrogate a prisoner, to minimize expenditure of resources, and to minimize the length of the conversation (since the clock is ticking). Party B (the NPC) has another set of goals - like keeping his job, and minimizing the duration of the conversation (because he' a busy man). He's got a bunch of stats including confidence, patience, cordiality, professionalism, whatever.
Now map those combat options into non-combat give-and-take social elements like "bribe," "cajole," "promise to phone your superiors to convince HIS superiors that it's okay," "allow him to be in the room with you," "Exert authority," etc.
(Can you tell I've been catching up on watching "24" lately?)
Now, it might not be quite as exciting without death being the penalty for failure, but it's entirely possible to remap the mechanic to non-combat actions this way. More interestingly, it's possible for BOTH of the participants to satisfy their goals to some degree.
It has BEEN done. Maybe not incredibly well. Chris Crawford has been noodling over modeling social interactions in computer games for two decades now. I think we're getting there, by baby steps.
And like you said - with Facade it doesn't take long before you start seeing the repetition of events, and realize that while it's a REALLY fuzzy and tangled tree with branches merging back in with one another, it's still a tree. Kinda. The Sims avoids that somewhat by abstracting out the conversations with "Simlish," allowing the player's imagination to fill in the blanks.
Expanding these smaller sub-games into the context of a larger, richer game is a bit trickier. Still doable, but there's no way we'll be able to resemble the fullness of human dialog anytime soon. But is that even the goal?
Look at combat in a game (we'll say real-time combat). What's the game mechanic? You've got a set of stats - both visible and integral to the combatants (how much damage they'll take from this type of hit, for example). You have a two inputs: Combat Action (let's say 'aggressive', 'normal', 'defensive', 'drink healing potion', 'block', and 'run away'), and TIMING. The combination of action + timing, your opponent's action + timing, a comparison of relevant stats between the opposing characters, plus (in an RPG) a random factor results in an effect on dynamic statistics (let's say "endurance," "health," and a count of health potions).
Finally, the two enemies have a set of opposing goals. For the player, there's usually three: Survive the Encounter, Defeat the Foe, and use Minimum resources (the dynamic statistics) in the process. In most RPGs, the "non-player characters" have a single goal: Kill the player character(s).
A partial set of goals may be fulfilled, and some goals can be achieved with varying levels of success (such as the preservation of resource goal). In the case of combat, it's impossible for the primary goals of both opponents (Survive vs. Kill) to be satisfied.
Now let's take that same mechanic, and map it to a conversation. Party A (the player) probably has a complex series of goals, but we'll assume it is to convince Party B to allow him to interrogate a prisoner, to minimize expenditure of resources, and to minimize the length of the conversation (since the clock is ticking). Party B (the NPC) has another set of goals - like keeping his job, and minimizing the duration of the conversation (because he' a busy man). He's got a bunch of stats including confidence, patience, cordiality, professionalism, whatever.
Now map those combat options into non-combat give-and-take social elements like "bribe," "cajole," "promise to phone your superiors to convince HIS superiors that it's okay," "allow him to be in the room with you," "Exert authority," etc.
(Can you tell I've been catching up on watching "24" lately?)
Now, it might not be quite as exciting without death being the penalty for failure, but it's entirely possible to remap the mechanic to non-combat actions this way. More interestingly, it's possible for BOTH of the participants to satisfy their goals to some degree.
Non-Combat RPG: A Fool's Errand?
I think there are a number of games that approach the periphery of this from various angles (Thief, Animal Crossing, and Nintendogs are all RPGs). But from what I understand, you're taking the tried-and-true fantasy CRPG and axing (ha!) the central system that's been pretty much unchanged since Wizardry. I like fantasy CRPGs -- the setting still interests me -- but I'm really sick of the CRPG combat grind. Maybe people like me are your target?
#1 - They branch the storyline... [W]hat happens if you are allowed to save your girlfriend from being murdered in the first chapter, when the rest of the game is built around the idea of you avenging her death? ...Chris Crawford has been noodling over modeling social interactions in computer games for two decades now.
Apparently he's finally planning to make something of Erasmatazz with Storytron. That seems to be the one design that's most "story-centric." But narratives can arise in sufficiently complex systems, no? They removed the following from Wikipedia, but an earlier entry for Elder Scrolls: Oblivion had this to say about the AI (pardon the long quote):
''Oblivion'' boasts a new [[artificial intelligence]] system, fully developed in house by Bethesda, codenamed 'Radiant AI'... Radiant AI gives every NPC a set of 'needs' (such as hunger) that they will need to fulfill, thus creating a more lifelike world.
The following are examples of unexpected behavior discovered during early testing:
# One character was given a rake and the goal "rake leaves"; another was given a broom and the goal "sweep paths," and this worked smoothly. Then they swapped the items, so that the raker was given a broom and the sweeper was given the rake. In the end, one of them killed the other so he could get the proper item.
# Another test had an on-duty NPC guard become hungry. The guard went into the forest to hunt for food. The other guards also left to arrest the truant guard, leaving the town unprotected. The villager NPCs then looted all of the shops, due to the lack of law enforcement.
# In one Dark Brotherhood quest, the player can meet up with a shady merchant who sells [[skooma]], an in-game drug. During testing, the NPC would be dead when the player got to him. The reason was that NPCs from the local skooma den were trying to get their fix, didn't have any money, and so were killing the merchant to get it.
# While testing to confirm that the physics models for a magical item known as the "Skull of Corruption," which creates an evil copy of the character/monster it is used on, were working properly, a tester dropped the item on the ground. An NPC immediately picked it up and used it on the player character, creating a copy of him that proceeded to kill every NPC in sight.
This is pretty exciting. Being that we're just now starting to see the beginnings of this meta-level AI (i.e., modelling an entity's desires, rather than simply pathfinding), I'd guess that small studios can do some impressive things.
And what about the non-action plot elements of courtroom dramas, or romantic comedies, or psychological thrillers?
I haven't been able to get my hands on this, but Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney promises "drama." From what I've read, much of the gameplay involves tracking down evidence and (based on that) intimidating witnesses you know are lying about their testimony (presumably with detrimental effects if you're wrong).
#2 - Even if the game developers go the extra mile and actually allow the branching from #1, they often remain unexplored by the players.
I blame the designer! A counterexample would be Deus Ex, where I could approach a problem from a number of angles. Since many of the choices were mutually exclusive, I didn't get to explore them, but other people did. Hail Warren!
What about problem #3 - will people actually BUY (or even PLAY, if it's free?) a non-combat (or non-combat-emphasizing) roleplaying game?
It makes for a great high-concept: "A fantasy CRPG without combat." There are popular games that are distant cousins of this. Lately, I've been seeking out non-PC games in order to come up with a generalization for "what's fun." Picking up games I wouldn't normally play has been invaluable R&D (though I sometimes feel guilty, since I end up enjoying them). Consider grabbing the following:
Animal Crossing -- I sometimes think of this as a Zelda-style CRPG without the combat. Fishing is the closest it gets; and there's plenty of incentive to catch an exotic one, what with that jerk, Lobo, telling me he can outdo me.
Nintendogs -- It has the earmarks of an RPG in the background. Your dogs gain skills the more you train them. There are random encounters. There's buying and selling of items. There's exploration. But, again, no traditional CRPG combat.
Harvest Moon -- This one hasn't come out on the DS yet, but from what I understand, they've replaced combat with...farming.
While these games are probably not exactly what you want to accomplish, I think there's ample evidence that there's room for a non-combat-centric CRPG.
I think there are a number of games that approach the periphery of this from various angles (Thief, Animal Crossing, and Nintendogs are all RPGs). But from what I understand, you're taking the tried-and-true fantasy CRPG and axing (ha!) the central system that's been pretty much unchanged since Wizardry. I like fantasy CRPGs -- the setting still interests me -- but I'm really sick of the CRPG combat grind. Maybe people like me are your target?
#1 - They branch the storyline... [W]hat happens if you are allowed to save your girlfriend from being murdered in the first chapter, when the rest of the game is built around the idea of you avenging her death? ...Chris Crawford has been noodling over modeling social interactions in computer games for two decades now.
Apparently he's finally planning to make something of Erasmatazz with Storytron. That seems to be the one design that's most "story-centric." But narratives can arise in sufficiently complex systems, no? They removed the following from Wikipedia, but an earlier entry for Elder Scrolls: Oblivion had this to say about the AI (pardon the long quote):
''Oblivion'' boasts a new [[artificial intelligence]] system, fully developed in house by Bethesda, codenamed 'Radiant AI'... Radiant AI gives every NPC a set of 'needs' (such as hunger) that they will need to fulfill, thus creating a more lifelike world.
The following are examples of unexpected behavior discovered during early testing:
# One character was given a rake and the goal "rake leaves"; another was given a broom and the goal "sweep paths," and this worked smoothly. Then they swapped the items, so that the raker was given a broom and the sweeper was given the rake. In the end, one of them killed the other so he could get the proper item.
# Another test had an on-duty NPC guard become hungry. The guard went into the forest to hunt for food. The other guards also left to arrest the truant guard, leaving the town unprotected. The villager NPCs then looted all of the shops, due to the lack of law enforcement.
# In one Dark Brotherhood quest, the player can meet up with a shady merchant who sells [[skooma]], an in-game drug. During testing, the NPC would be dead when the player got to him. The reason was that NPCs from the local skooma den were trying to get their fix, didn't have any money, and so were killing the merchant to get it.
# While testing to confirm that the physics models for a magical item known as the "Skull of Corruption," which creates an evil copy of the character/monster it is used on, were working properly, a tester dropped the item on the ground. An NPC immediately picked it up and used it on the player character, creating a copy of him that proceeded to kill every NPC in sight.
This is pretty exciting. Being that we're just now starting to see the beginnings of this meta-level AI (i.e., modelling an entity's desires, rather than simply pathfinding), I'd guess that small studios can do some impressive things.
And what about the non-action plot elements of courtroom dramas, or romantic comedies, or psychological thrillers?
I haven't been able to get my hands on this, but Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney promises "drama." From what I've read, much of the gameplay involves tracking down evidence and (based on that) intimidating witnesses you know are lying about their testimony (presumably with detrimental effects if you're wrong).
#2 - Even if the game developers go the extra mile and actually allow the branching from #1, they often remain unexplored by the players.
I blame the designer! A counterexample would be Deus Ex, where I could approach a problem from a number of angles. Since many of the choices were mutually exclusive, I didn't get to explore them, but other people did. Hail Warren!
What about problem #3 - will people actually BUY (or even PLAY, if it's free?) a non-combat (or non-combat-emphasizing) roleplaying game?
It makes for a great high-concept: "A fantasy CRPG without combat." There are popular games that are distant cousins of this. Lately, I've been seeking out non-PC games in order to come up with a generalization for "what's fun." Picking up games I wouldn't normally play has been invaluable R&D (though I sometimes feel guilty, since I end up enjoying them). Consider grabbing the following:
Animal Crossing -- I sometimes think of this as a Zelda-style CRPG without the combat. Fishing is the closest it gets; and there's plenty of incentive to catch an exotic one, what with that jerk, Lobo, telling me he can outdo me.
Nintendogs -- It has the earmarks of an RPG in the background. Your dogs gain skills the more you train them. There are random encounters. There's buying and selling of items. There's exploration. But, again, no traditional CRPG combat.
Harvest Moon -- This one hasn't come out on the DS yet, but from what I understand, they've replaced combat with...farming.
While these games are probably not exactly what you want to accomplish, I think there's ample evidence that there's room for a non-combat-centric CRPG.
John Olsen and I were just chatting about this subject right before you posted, and I brought up Harvest Moon (I've ONLY played the SNES version, so I don't know what the later versions were like).
Really, what it comes down to is to making interesting choices that have an impact on the game. That means there must be a risk / reward structure for ALL decisions.
One of the famous fantasy CRPG examples that I love to hate are the locked chests. Classic "non-combat" opportunity there, which is an absolutely BORING gameplay-wise, because it's a non-decision.
There's a chest. It's locked. What do you do? *DUH* - you unlock the chest if it's possible. If you can't - then you can't. It's not a decision. You've got nothing to lose by trying to open it. Some games add "expendable lockpicks" (the old Ultimas, and the new Dungeons and Dragons Online) to add some risk, but the risk is so minimal that it's still a non-decision. The reward is too great, and the risk is minimal.
Just like real life, the lock is not a deterrent. The lock merely slows you down. Why does it slow you down? So that other things could happen - the real deterrents. The owners of the chest find you. The opposing team that's maybe racing you for the goal will get ahead of you. The bad guys send a patrol while you are fiddling with the lock. Or maybe you get spotted and reported to local authorities, becoming a wanted man. *NOW* it becomes interesting.
To make it even more interesting, add a risk for NOT opening it as well. There's a chance a competing group might come behind you and steal the treasure instead. Or maybe the monsters feel threatened in their lair that is constantly being invaded, so they pick up their treasure and leave. Or they use the treasure to hire assassins to hunt you down.
Really, what it comes down to is to making interesting choices that have an impact on the game. That means there must be a risk / reward structure for ALL decisions.
One of the famous fantasy CRPG examples that I love to hate are the locked chests. Classic "non-combat" opportunity there, which is an absolutely BORING gameplay-wise, because it's a non-decision.
There's a chest. It's locked. What do you do? *DUH* - you unlock the chest if it's possible. If you can't - then you can't. It's not a decision. You've got nothing to lose by trying to open it. Some games add "expendable lockpicks" (the old Ultimas, and the new Dungeons and Dragons Online) to add some risk, but the risk is so minimal that it's still a non-decision. The reward is too great, and the risk is minimal.
Just like real life, the lock is not a deterrent. The lock merely slows you down. Why does it slow you down? So that other things could happen - the real deterrents. The owners of the chest find you. The opposing team that's maybe racing you for the goal will get ahead of you. The bad guys send a patrol while you are fiddling with the lock. Or maybe you get spotted and reported to local authorities, becoming a wanted man. *NOW* it becomes interesting.
To make it even more interesting, add a risk for NOT opening it as well. There's a chance a competing group might come behind you and steal the treasure instead. Or maybe the monsters feel threatened in their lair that is constantly being invaded, so they pick up their treasure and leave. Or they use the treasure to hire assassins to hunt you down.
Oh, and I have to say...
DANG YOU FOR POSTING THAT INFO ON OBLIVION! I can't buy it until after April 2nd, and now I'm dying to play it! :)
DANG YOU FOR POSTING THAT INFO ON OBLIVION! I can't buy it until after April 2nd, and now I'm dying to play it! :)
Modeling of NPC desires has been done for quite some time with good success (Sims), but the cool new part is automating the NPC to meet those needs on their own rather than making the player do stuff to make them happy. I second Jay's comment. Oblivion is on the "buy" list now.
We've been bouncing ideas around for another RPG-style game that adds some interesting challenges and opportunities. I want a bartering system that uses no text whatsoever. To do that, you need to figure out the motivation of the NPC traders, what they value the most, what they're willing to trade, and how trading certain things to them can influence future game events. So far it's just thought experiments though.
We've been bouncing ideas around for another RPG-style game that adds some interesting challenges and opportunities. I want a bartering system that uses no text whatsoever. To do that, you need to figure out the motivation of the NPC traders, what they value the most, what they're willing to trade, and how trading certain things to them can influence future game events. So far it's just thought experiments though.
D'oh! Looks like I'll have to stop by EB tomorrow to pickup a copy of Oblivion. There goes my development time.
As for the topic, non-combat RPGs are certainly possible and, dare I say, commercially viable.
As dejobaan pointed out, Harvest Moon is a good example. It completely replaced combat with the intricacies of farming, social interactions and exploration and, most importantly, it did so in a fun way.
I'm not sure how successful it's been financially but judging from the sheer number of sequels/prequels/spinoffs that Natsume have made, it must be doing fairly well.
Another game to take into consideration is A Tale in the Desert. While I've never played it, it seems to fit in the 'non-combat RPG' category. In this instance, combat has been replaced by city building/management, trading, and the social interaction you tend to get from MMOs.
The thing to take away from these two examples is how they've implemented otherwise boring tasks ('gather the vegetables and milk the cow' in the case of Harvest Moon) in a simple but fun manner.
As for the topic, non-combat RPGs are certainly possible and, dare I say, commercially viable.
As dejobaan pointed out, Harvest Moon is a good example. It completely replaced combat with the intricacies of farming, social interactions and exploration and, most importantly, it did so in a fun way.
I'm not sure how successful it's been financially but judging from the sheer number of sequels/prequels/spinoffs that Natsume have made, it must be doing fairly well.
Another game to take into consideration is A Tale in the Desert. While I've never played it, it seems to fit in the 'non-combat RPG' category. In this instance, combat has been replaced by city building/management, trading, and the social interaction you tend to get from MMOs.
The thing to take away from these two examples is how they've implemented otherwise boring tasks ('gather the vegetables and milk the cow' in the case of Harvest Moon) in a simple but fun manner.
as said above (or below, im not sure what direction it goes), animal crossing and Nintendogs seemed to capture it very nicely.
harvest moon, however, and if i remebmer correctly, had time limits that permanently prevented you from certain events.
moajora's mask was also good, as i spent days on the "side quests" before i even had any clue there was a main story line.
runescape, despite what the whiny little kids say, has WAY more content than just a battle system.
my dream videogame would never "end".. it may have several different stories/quests, involving loads of different professions and skills, and even a reward/consequence system, but the game never gets to a stopping point where the player has done everything.
Post a Comment
harvest moon, however, and if i remebmer correctly, had time limits that permanently prevented you from certain events.
moajora's mask was also good, as i spent days on the "side quests" before i even had any clue there was a main story line.
runescape, despite what the whiny little kids say, has WAY more content than just a battle system.
my dream videogame would never "end".. it may have several different stories/quests, involving loads of different professions and skills, and even a reward/consequence system, but the game never gets to a stopping point where the player has done everything.
Links to this post:
<< Home
