History of Western CRPGs
I've been watching an extensive article on the evolution of computer RPGs by Drunken Irishman at Moby Games grow over the last week or so. His initial attitude pissed me off, but I kept finding myself nodding along in agreement through most of the article. It looks like it has finally reached a conclusion, and I'm going to put it on a Must Read list for anyone serious about computer RPGs. Right, all three of us:

The World of Western RPGs at Moby Games

For the most part, the Drunken Irishman seems to gold the following features as the key elements that make a great RPG:

* Real-Time, Visceral Combat
* Choice and consequences
* High-quality writing / dialog / characters
* Appealing Content

Okay. Now, I do take some issue with the idea that real-time combat is superior to turn-based. Granted, most of my favorite RPGs do feature real-time combat. But I still regard that as a preference, not superiority. If perfection was dictated by majority, we'd pretty much stop at Mario and Halo. Which isn't too far removed from my view of gamer hell. Give Mario a broken controller and make all your Halo opponents 14-year-old boys compensating for an inferiority complex, and you are pretty much there for me.

Anyway, I could quibble the article to death if I felt like it. And maybe I will, someday. But truth be told, he holds the same RPGs I do in the highest regard, knows his RPG history. A couple of great quotes from his briefs on two of the many great games of the 90's:

'While with some RPGs you already knew to expect a satisfying story, none of these stories were really above your typical pulp fiction. Ultima 7 does not tell a story, instead it is about the people; living, breathing, realistic people'

'Fallout still is the apex of Western RPGs. So much that every game was compared to it and found lacking. While much of it is because of rose tinted spectacles, the truth is that we have not had a game as influential as Fallout in this post-Fallout world.'

He makes an interesting point that most of the RPGs of the modern era are either Diablo clones, or descendants in one way or another from Black Isle / Interplay, and show obvious signs of their ancestry in their game design. The one notable exception? Bethesda.

He has an entire section on the indies. Now, he doesn't have much to say on the subject, and doesn't hold many indie RPGs in high regard, but he does mention Cute Knight, Aveyond, Eschalon: Book 1, Spiderweb's extensive RPG library, Mount & Blade, and one indie RPG I'd never heard about called Teudogar and the Alliance with Rome. Of the indies, he says, "I feel that the indie scene has not yet reached its full potential for this genre." I'd say that's an understatement - we ain't seen nothin' yet - but I'm also familiar with a lot more indie RPGs that I'd consider worthy of mention that are really pushing the envelope. I feel that Depths of Peril continues to be woefully overlooked for all of the innovation it provides to the genre, for one thing.

But I think for all his bluster and emphasis on sex scenes in RPGs, we do see eye-to-eye on the future of computer RPGs. He writes, "The future of PC gaming is in the hands of small groups of individuals. Just like in the old days when there only 7-8 people working on a game. PC gaming itself will not die, it just loses the exclusivity on the mainstream games, but through the loss it discovers a whole new market."

While not necessarily the same as saying that the future belongs to the indies, I think I'm looking through a similar crystal ball. PC gaming doesn't have the corporate sponsorship of the consoles to push brands down our throat. While it is still possible to sell a single-player PC game that sells in excess of a half-million, the market that puts the "mass" in massive is owned by the consoles now. I think it is still possible to make a business case for a game that sells 50 thousand, 100 thousand, or 200 thousand copies that goes beyond a quick-and-dirty console port. If said games could get the visibility they need above said console ports to sell those kinds of numbers, particularly selling a significant fraction directly rather than dispersing the return through layers of middlemen, I think a team of less than 10 people could do pretty well. They wouldn't be driving fly-yellow Ferraris or Hummers at that rate, but they'd do okay.

I'm of the opinion that a team of 4-8 developers (true developers - including artists, designers, programmers, and others putting the actual game together) is actually optimal. I think they can make a better game - albeit not as flashy - than today's bloated teams of dozens.

Here's hoping.

Labels: retro, Roleplaying Games

- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 5:18 AM (Permalink)