General News - The Future of RPGs

[HiddenX]

Some developers discuss how RPGs could evolve on PC Gamer:

What does the future hold for RPGs?

Developers discuss how roleplaying games need to evolve.

Imagine a roleplaying game in which you aren’t Champion of the Realm, but a homely bystander such as an innkeeper or a carpenter’s apprentice. Imagine an RPG in which you aren’t able to hand-craft your own posse of adventurers, fussing over everything from eye colour to movement modifiers, but must do your best with the character or characters you’re given. Imagine an RPG in which you aren’t there to save the world but simply find your way through it, as cleverly as you can. If there’s a common theme to my discussions with developers about the future of roleplaying games, it’s that the old “pick your stats, level up by killing stuff, decide the fate of the universe” premise is in sore need of an overhaul, or at least some decent alternatives.

“There have been dozens of attempts to reinvent the RPG story, but the heart of the gameplay is always bodding from one combat to the next, gathering rewards that make you better at combat,” says Alexis Kennedy, creative director for Failbetter’s acclaimed Sunless Sea, who now divides his time between the forthcoming boardgame Cultist Simulator and freelance design work for major studios like BioWare. “So characters tend to be warrior-adventurers and stories tend to have a big showdown fight conclusion and generally you’re combing the countryside for things to fight. That’s a really compelling core, and it’s been perfected, but I like seeing other activities emphasised in RPGs. There are other loops than these.”

“I feel like in spite of what some people have been saying, there’s been a lack of really amazing RPGs for a few years now,” says Katherine Holden, a Cumbria based manga artist and designer whose projects include the RPG series Vacant Sky. “I’m sure that’ll be an unpopular opinion, but I feel like all these ‘create your own character, run around doing busywork in a sandbox and meet NPCs who all fall over themselves to give you power and authority’ games get a little tiresome after a while.” Holden points to 2015’s incredibly accomplished but slightly uninspiring Dragon Age: Inquisition as evidence of this stagnation. “Inquisition wasn’t bad, but it was such a shallow, toothless game compared to Dragon Age II, which featured deeply flawed, yet likeable characters and also a very timely story about refugees, prejudice and religious tension.”

[...]

Thanks henriquejr!

More information.

 

[Morbus]

There have been dozens of attempts to reinvent the RPG story, but the heart of the gameplay is always bodding from one combat to the next, gathering rewards that make you better at combat

Very informed.
Until you think of Fallout 1, one of the greatest RPGs of all time.
Or until you just think.

RPGs are not about combat. That's action games. Or strategy games. And sure, you have have action RPGs or strategy RPGs, but combat does not an RPG make.

Disclaimer: I didn't read more than after I read that sentence in the highlight.

 

[lackblogger]

Very informed.
Until you think of Fallout 1, one of the greatest RPGs of all time.
Or until you just think.

RPGs are not about combat. That's action games. Or strategy games. And sure, you have have action RPGs or strategy RPGs, but combat does not an RPG make.

Disclaimer: I didn't read more than after I read that sentence in the highlight.

As is per usual on forums, you're reading an extreme into a sentence that is not an extreme. The guy said "at the heart of all RPGs", not "that's all RPGs are".

At the heart of even Fallout 1 was a combat game where the primary mechanic was improving your combat skills.

The extent to which the game has other stuff available for interaction besides combat is irrelleavnt to the statement that "at the heart of all RPGs is a combat system combined with a system that promotes improving your combat prowess throughout the game."

 

[mesmeris]

But ... but ... I want to be Champion of the Realm!!! I'm already a peasant ... in real life.

 

[GabrielMP_19]

RPGs are, mostly, all about combat, which is a shame. There are tons of not very well explored options for gameplay. Games like Planescape Torment and Fallout are perfect examples for how to develop on more than combat.

 

[Deleted User]

The future of RPGs, IMO, is also going to be the future of catering to different groups of gamers within the RPG genre itself. In other words, options. Difficulty options, different modes, slider set implementations, etc. That way an RPG will be playable by all parties and will be able to be tailored to the individual's wants.

 

[henriquejr]

Very informed.
Until you think of Fallout 1, one of the greatest RPGs of all time.
Or until you just think.

RPGs are not about combat. That's action games. Or strategy games. And sure, you have have action RPGs or strategy RPGs, but combat does not an RPG make.

Disclaimer: I didn't read more than after I read that sentence in the highlight.

That is not the idea of the whole paragraph. If you kept reading, he added:
“So characters tend to be warrior-adventurers and stories tend to have a big showdown fight conclusion and generally you’re combing the countryside for things to fight. That’s a really compelling core, and it’s been perfected, but I like seeing other activities emphasised in RPGs. There are other loops than these.”

Note: I put the bold.

He is just saying what we all know: most RPGs are combat-oriented. And he wishes what we all wish: that should exist other relevant activities in a RPG, besides combat alone.

 

[Deleted User]

I skimmed the article a bit and it seems like a lot it is basically saying "RPGs need more story". The thing is, there is no "one size fits all" RPG design, IMO.

I've said it a billion times already I'm sure, but there are plenty of lanes to take to achieve a good RPG. I think the benefit to having all these developers and people getting in where they fit in is the diversity in the end products. That way everybody wins and can play the RPGs they enjoy.

I don't really see a need to evolve much of anything in RPGs, but maybe that's just me.

 

[wolfgrimdark]

I read the whole article and agree with some points and not with others ... which is to be expected.

What I found interesting was they seemed to feel that people might only role play if forced into the role (like being Geralt or Shepherd) and when giving a sandbox style people would just play themselves. While many do that (myself included) I know most of the people I interact with on Flickr and Nexus prefer to make a role that is not themselves and play it. So I think the author is very off there. Some people may lack the imagination/restraint to play a different role and hence need to be forced into it ... so maybe the author is one of those.

Life seldom provides the ability to chose what you want but instead you have to chose from what is provided or with-in your capabilities. For me personally I like freedom in my games as real life is so often very constrained and restricted.

When it comes to the "hero" or "apprentice stable hand" idea I am okay with either depending on how it works out. I find in games I often prefer to be more the helper to the hero than the actual hero. But at the same time I also don't want to be just some ordinary Joe Smoe. Get to do that in real life and frankly don't want to be a Joe Smoe sitting at a computer playing another Joe Smoe in my free time.

 

[fadedc]

I definitely thought about roleplaying more in witcher, but I don't think it was because I was forced into a role. I think it was because it was a world with rich backstory and complicated choices and because the game really reacts to your decisions. The same was true in tyranny, which did not force me into playing a specific person.

 

[RickTheWatch]

I played baldurs gate 1 and 2 with a custom party and loved every minute of it. I know of the npcs in it but ignored them in my playthrough...my brother thought i was insane and played it a half dozen times to experience what all the party members had to offer...i love rpgs for combat and searching every nook and cranny for all the secrets and loot i can find, i have never really cared much for role playing the person i am playing...to each their own i guess.

 

[Deleted User]

I played baldurs gate 1 and 2 with a custom party and loved every minute of it. I know of the npcs in it but ignored them in my playthrough…my brother thought i was insane and played it a half dozen times to experience what all the party members had to offer…i love rpgs for combat and searching every nook and cranny for all the secrets and loot i can find, i have never really cared much for role playing the person i am playing…to each their own i guess.

I love this about RPGs, too. It's not so much that I don't care about the person/persons I'm controlling, it's that I don't personally need every detail of their backstory and lives to be detailed and explained to me. I'm playing a tactical RPG now where you create your own party (it's a secret which game that is because I'm making videos for it soon ), but in this game you develop your characters and just use your imagination for their stories. Although there is a story in the game and some minor dialogue throughout, but it's far from the focus.

I would love to see more RPGs like Baldur's Gate but that emphasize the gameplay, party/character-building, exploration, etc., much more than story. Icewind Dale, Temple of Elemental Evil, Lords of Xulima, etc.. More like these, please.

 

[rjshae]

For me, the drive to reach the widest possible audience is a big part of what is causing this supposed stagnation in cRPGs. It leads to simplified mechanics, a reduction in choice, and an emphasis on eye candy rather than creativity. MMORPGs in particular can't afford to stray far from the norm of mass appeal, or else they risk not drawing a large audience for a lengthy run. The element of creativity needs to be returned to the small group, rather than depending on massive conglomerates to crank out AAA titles.

 

[Deleted User]

For me, the drive to reach the widest possible audience is a big part of what is causing this supposed stagnation in cRPGs. It leads to simplified mechanics, a reduction in choice, and an emphasis on eye candy rather than creativity. MMORPGs in particular can't afford to stray far from the norm, or else they risk not drawing a large audience for a lengthy run. The element of creativity needs to be returned to the small group, rather than depending on massive conglomerates to crank out AAA titles.

Preach, brotha!

 

[Deleted User]

I'll follow up by saying I do agree. Although it's not all doom and gloom, as there are plenty of good RPGs to go around right now, IMO. I do wish pen-and-paper style CRPGs came back into style more, but there are indies, the Kickstarter-fueled developers and places like GOG making the old, sometimes obscure RPGs playable on modern systems. So it's a great time to be an RPG gamer right now no matter how you slice it.

That said, I had a recent thought about how creative and unique we would see RPG game design become if the number one goal of the studio in question wasn't to keep them financially afloat. In other words, remove the necessity of making money and what would you have? Probably even more of a Renaissance in RPG gaming then what we have ever seen. Not even just in the creative sense, but also in the sense of, "I don't have to sell a single copy of this game, so I could just add whatever the heck I want!" The prospect of that is interesting to think about. I think you would see some of the old-school RPG guys adding all sorts of archaic and crazy mechanics in their RPGs.

 

[Silver]

For me, the drive to reach the widest possible audience is a big part of what is causing this supposed stagnation in cRPGs. It leads to simplified mechanics, a reduction in choice, and an emphasis on eye candy rather than creativity. MMORPGs in particular can't afford to stray far from the norm of mass appeal, or else they risk not drawing a large audience for a lengthy run. The element of creativity needs to be returned to the small group, rather than depending on massive conglomerates to crank out AAA titles.

Echoes my own thoughts. I'll add that targeting rpg niches like Baldurs Gate has always been possible but so many developers fall into the trap of needing the latest technology for everything leading to cost blowouts and ultimately targeting a larger audience to cover costs. Having a toggle for everything is a sign of this desire to have a broader appeal and should be called out for what it is.

P.S Yes Baldurs Gate was mainstream in its time but the market is many times larger today.

 

[Deleted User]

I think having a toggle for many options is a *good* thing, though. Since we all acknowledge that developing for a larger audience will likely cause casualization of the game in question, why not balance the game for the hard difficulties to begin with? That way you don't lose the hardcore RPG heads who want that, but you also give the options to the casual players to reduce elements of the game and make them more casual and easier.

I think not including these sorts of options hurts the hardcore RPG fans more than anything, since the games have to cater to a larger market to begin with. I think we should be pushing for them to add Story Mode and these sorts of things since we'll also benefit. They could then make an RPG be more intense for those that want it, yet scale it down for those who just want the story or a relaxing, casual game. IMO.

 

[Deleted User]

I think Jeff Vogel agrees with me:

http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2009/11/make-your-game-easy-then-make-it-easier.html

 

[purpleblob]

I want a good mix of everything. I am sure I said this before somewhere, but what I don't like about developers is they seem to think there is a "winning formula" and tend to produce similar types of games all at once - boring!

My personal favourite is RPG that does everything well - IMHO like BG2. But is it possible for developers to come up with games like BG2 so often? Not likely. Hence, the need of variety of RPGs focusing on different things. Like D:OS - great combat, Skyrim/Morrowind - open world with more freedom, PS:T - story telling, ME series - great cinematic experience.

 

[Silver]

I think having a toggle for many options is a *good* thing, though. Since we all acknowledge that developing for a larger audience will likely cause casualization of the game in question, why not balance the game for the hard difficulties to begin with?

If you are talking about difficulty options that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the gameplay that is lost in translation trying to appeal to too many different audiences. Ultimately you base your design around the most common denominator and toggles function the same way. For instance with map markers for quest givers you could make them optional but journal entries will not automatically get more descriptive to compensate. You lose that gameplay element to toggles.

I would prefer a game with rougher aesthetics if it meant getting the gameplay I'm after like Jeff Vogels games.