Why Do RPGs Suck Now?
Adding their voices to Jeff Vogel's controversial, "Why I Hate Fantasy RPGs" article, we've got yet more discussion on the web this week as to why computer & console RPGs are broken - and what can be done to fix them. They could always stand to suck less, doncha think?

Why RPG Stories Suck
Game Journalist Leigh Alexander chimes in with the thought-provoking first of (hopefully) a series of columns entitled, "Building a Better RPG." She opens with a manifesto of sorts that will probably ring true to most RPG fans that have been enjoying CRPGs for more than four years:

"Nobody wants to play 60-hour console RPGs anymore. So we hear quite often these days, and many of us even say as much ourselves. Yet I don’t think that’s quite correct -- the truth is, nobody wants to play the same console RPG anymore.... It’s a genre that once inspired legions of gamers to near-thoughtless devotion—and now draws ire from its once solidly-ensconced core fanbase for its perpetual stagnation."

She goes on to explain the problem with story and character in modern games (hitting a couple of nails on the head, IMO):

"The characters have every lash, freckle and stray hair painted in stunning clarity. And similarly, their stories are fully drawn, too. With very little for the player to “do” in terms of filling in their own ideas, the standard ratchets up—and here’s one of the key areas RPGs fall short... Even though technology has fleshed out what was once a basic formula, adding lifelike details and the full cinema experience, it hasn’t advanced the formula in any way. There really is yet to be a modern role-playing game where the character is someone we can empathize with and care for in an enduring way. We’re still being asked to devote hours and hours to people who, despite how intricate they look, are little more than constructs -- making it even more ridiculous when they behave in their trademark histrionic, overemotional fashion. The emotional moment -- prime territory of RPGs -- is little more than a joke now."

And later summarizes:

"Gamers don’t want story. It’s the mantra we’ve gotten used to hearing recently. But I’m inclined to think all this anti-story backlash is rooted in the total absence of realistic, believable player characters and companions in RPGs. True, we play for the action, for the events -- but if that were all we wanted, we’d just play an action game. The fact is, story becomes nothing but an inconvenience when its characters are meaningless to us—and perhaps we hate it all the more for the disappointment."

Alexander's article references a recent review of Final Fantasy XII that has struck a chord with many players. The author's bottom line was that "Final Fantasy XII is perfect in form and function; otherwise, bad." The experience seemed, to him, hollow and empty, which puzzled him as he "... had never played a game with superior production values, nor with superior depth. I loved the characters, and the lush, expansive world they inhabited. But somehow, in this Final Fantasy, which had more substance than any of its ancestors, the core experience seemed to be absent. I had to wonder what secret spice was missing which would have recreated the elation I felt at the end of installments VII, VIII and X."

RPGs: Getting Dumbed Down?
This week also brought us an interview with Thomas Riegsecker of Basilisk Games, creators of the upcoming indie RPG "Eschalon: Book 1." The whole interview is fascinating (particularly from an old-school RPG fan's point of view), but he also brings up an interesting comment:

"I think the biggest problem with the current crop of RPGs is that publishers are continually looking to get bigger returns on their investments, and to do so developers must make a game that is going to attract the largest possible customer base. To achieve this, RPGs have become simpler and more action-oriented over the years. Today’s RPGs must compete for market share with first-person shooters and third-person adventure games, and they do this by eliminating most of the complexity inherent to the genre. Publishers don’t seem to care that the hard-core RPGers who gave birth to the role-playing genre are the very customers they are squeezing out of their sales. These RPG enthusiasts are looking for a true role-playing experience, not a medieval version of Halo. "

Eschalon: Book 1 is itself a turn-based RPG taking its cures from such classics as Ultima, Might & Magic, and Wizardry - eschewing the "dumbing down" of the modern action-RPG for something a little more classic in flavor. Just so long as I don't have to do the mapping myself on graph paper --- that part sucked.

Console Versus PC
To some degree, Alexander and Riegsecker are disagreeing with each other. Alexander seems to be contending that we are simply dolling up the same old gameplay with new graphics... and finding that what worked ten years ago is failing because the gameplay is stale and the improved graphics are making the deficiencies more apparent (if not exacerbating the problem). Riegsecker is invoking the popular "they were better in the good ol' days" cry, and complaining that the game mechanics HAVE been changing --- for the worse.

Note that Alexander keeps talking about console RPGs, and Riegsecker invoked the names of PC game franchises. For the most part, the console games started fairly simple (though Ultima III was something of a hit on the consoles back in the day), and haven't changed much in complexity since Final Fantasy IV (II in the U.S.). PC RPGs, on the other hand, have run the gamut in complexity from simple point-and-click affairs to tactical wargames.

They are also discussing the two different aspects of RPGs: Story versus mechanics. Fluff versus crunch. Some RPG fans really want a game system they can sink their teeth into. Others want a world and story they can get lost in. Most of us want a nice blend of both --- though the contents of the optimum mix are a subject of endless Internet debates.

As to mechanics - I've got some thoughts on that, but I've enjoyed games on both ends of the spectrum. I tend to favor the "crunchier" systems like Fallout or the D20 licenses over the simpler systems (like Aveyond or Final Fantasy VII), but I can have fun either way.

On Engaging Emotion
On story - I ain't an expert. But I have some thoughts on the subject. In my mind, the game needs to allow the player to project themselves into the characters on some level. This might be easier with simpler graphics (read Scott McCloud's book, "Understanding Comics," for some commentary on this) or a more abstract definition of the hero. But I can project myself into the protagonist's role in a good book easily enough, so long as I can connect with the protagonist on some emotional level.

And maybe that's what's missing in too many games --- that emotional connection. Developers try so hard in many modern games with the cargo-cult mentality of emulating the forms of cinema, but fail to understand how to adapt the principles of storytelling to a medium that is different from cinema on a fundamental level.

I look back on Final Fantasy VII - one of my favorite RPGs of all time - and it occurs to me that I never really identified with the protagonist at all. Cloud Strife was one screwed-up kid. He was some lame wannabe uber-cool loner at the beginning of the game, and as it turns out was just mentally imbalanced and shouldering a bit too much angst for player who was no longer a teen to really tolerate. Watching some of the special features that came with the movie Advent Children, I realized how much of his story I'd forgotten. None of that was important to me.

Now, the character I did like was Aeris. The cute, perky little flower-selling girl with the destiny to save the world. Who was brutally murdered by the villain - Sephiroth - halfway through the game by means a a six-foot long katana. While she was defenseless and praying, durn it!

The game's whole eco-friendly theme, the Christian analogy, the love triangle with Tifa, the backstories of all the characters coming to the front for brief side-quests... all that was wonderful. It contributed to a feeling of satisfaction and epic awesomeness at the end of the game. But what the game REALLY was - to me - was a story about justice. Or - let's be honest here - revenge. Sephiroth murdered Aeris halfway into the game, and I made that S.O.B. PAY!!!!

The most basic human emotions are the easiest ones to engage.

Maybe we should be working harder to do that, instead of simulating every freckle and out-of-place strand of hair on the protagonist.


(Vaguely) related gibberish:
* Are Graphics Really Killing Gameplay?
* The Evolution of Computer RPGs
* The History of RPGs - Should We Go Back To Go Forward?
* Big World, Small Dungeon - Does Size Matter in RPGs?
* Action Versus Turn-Based RPGs: Evolution, Trend, or Catering to the Lowest Common Denominator?

Read or Post Comments on the Forum

Labels: Game Design, Roleplaying Games

- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 8:46 AM (Permalink)