The evolution of Role-Playing-Games

Hi folks,

I think we all agree that Arcanum is to say the least a very good game. However it was released in 2001 and I feel and fear that since that time no substantial progress has been made in this genre. I'd like to elaborate that a little and to hear your oppinions about it.

The most important aspect of a RPG is the storyline and the possibility to interact and change that story. Although the freedom given to the player is always an illusion it should be quite a good illusion, featuring many, countless choices in main- and sidequests. Arcanum had that.
Another important Aspect is the richness and interactivity of the environment. And by that I do not mean its graphical representaion. I mean the reaction of NPCs towards certain actions (sounds, movements) and behaviour of the Player. I mean realism, not graphical but relevant realism, like day-night-cycles and sold-out-merchants. Arcanum had that.
The graphics of a RPG are only in so far important, as they contribute to the game-play. They should match and support the game, not make it out. That however is a problem with most RPGs.
The most notable change in the genre over the last years was the change from isometric perspective to first-person or general 3D perspective.
Interestingly I do not think that a 3D-World is particularily suited for an RPG. It holds many possibilities but also risks. What is a RPG with ugly, emotionless faces? It is better than with no faces at all? What's a fully animated terrain if you still can't run over a little bump?
I think many games of the last years were premature, using 3D without being fully up to the task. The advances in game-play were slim, often it was rather a step backwards than an improvement.

To put it short: My point is that since Arcanum the production costs and the power of the consumers PCs grew but this growth was probably put only into creating more graphically appealing RPGs than into better games. I won't deny that there were good games (Kotor, most recently Dragonage) but there was no real progress, only stagnation.

I'd like to hear your oppion on this.

PS: I'm not much of a gamer. In phases of game addiction I start various games but get bored of them after a few days. Arcanum is one of the few games I ever played through, thats why I hold it in such high regards. However my overview over RPGs is certainly not complete, so feel free to correct me.

 

The age of old-school RPG's a-la Arcanum is past. Nowadays, people go for the flashier, more immersive experience. See: Mass Effect 1/2. No, they are not bad games, just different.

 

I actually like Strategy Games (Turn Based more than RTS, but I still like RTS) more than RPGs. My favorite is Civilization IV, even though I'm not that good at it. Civ II was my first computer game, besides Chip's Challenge and Monster Mash, and I loved it. Civ III was pretty bad, but it was really just a work in progress to getting to the greatness that is Civ IV.

I also liked Warcraft III. Didn't see the big fuss over Starcraft, thought that is probably because I played Warcraft first.

Despite this, something is fishy about this topic...

 

I can't help but think the OP has a good point there. Certainly it's one that I agree with. Less and less RPGs with any real interactivity are coming out, and it kinda shits me. (Yes, this from the girl who's still playing Phantasy Star Online after a frickin' DECADE.)

And the massive graphical leap has certainly not helped. More and more developers are going 'hey, we'll make it pretty' instead of what they ought to be saying, which is 'hey, let's make a game with solid gameplay and a compelling plot'. And quite a few of the ones trying to make games with plot are fucking those up too. (Star Ocean: Til The End Of Time tops my list there. What. The. Fuck. Thank god for Last Hope or I'd give up on the series entirely.)

I suppose it's quite telling that my all-time top three games are Final Fantasy VI, Arcanum, and Atelier Iris: Eternal Mana...

 

Why make something deep and meaningful when the masses want something they can powerlevel through and calms their add with pretty scenery?

 

Preeetyyyy.....

Sorry, was distracted by Dragon Age's graphics.

What are we talking about?

 

I think one of the problems is that all the traditional, Tolkein-ish fantasy RPG plots have been beat to death, dug up, and sodomized with vehement, necrophilic eagerness. Nowadays, every game has to have some kind of gimic or hook to seperate itself from the rest of the pack with the same old rehashed save-the-world-from-the-evil-[insert army of blatant orc clones here]. The setting to an RPG is just as important as any other component because it's the longest lasting. It's the first impression, and the last impression. Arcanum worked not just because of its story, or because it was a traditional, turn-based RPG, but because of its setting. I don't know about anyone else, but when I hear of Arcanum, immediately the first thing that pops into my head is "Steampunk".

Since the thread is mostly on the topic of story, I think another thing RPGs really need to cut the crap on is all this open-ended bullshit. If RPGs are meant to be story-driven, you can't legitimately have a game centered around a specific plot and expect said plot to be truly engrossing when at the same time encouraging the player to step away from it with a sandbox world or 50 thousand sidequests. Time and again, I'm enticed by a game that has that "go anywhere, do anything, be anyone!" tagline and then when you finally get to it, you have the main quest is thrust in your face with NPCs screaming "ZOMG we got to save de worlds ASAPs! Don't delay! Help us !!1!!" Like...ok that's not distracting. It's difficult to become emersed in a game when you're told to save the world while at the same time being told you can just go fuck off, then come back 3 months later (game time) and just expect to the world and the main quest sitting where you left it, waiting to be saved. In this regards, I think the next big thing in computer RPGs is to make games more dynamic. Like have a main quest and world that progresses regardless of whether the character participates in it or not. And for once, can a dev team please have the balls to leave out the character romance? Sometimes it works, but mostly tt's become a cheesy plot gimick now, another distraction from a potentially good story line. Sometimes a guy (or girl) just wants to be one of the guys and go out and crack skulls with his posse. Romance just complicates shit.

Another thing writers need to realize is that not every RPG has to be the epic trilogy of the year. All too often I see games bite off more than they can chew. They throw this big, lush, expansive world at us then expect us to be entertained with cardboard cutouts of identical looking NPCs saying the exact same drudgery in every town. And everyone's always bummed or pissed because their quaint, little hamlet is about to be overrun by that army of big, asskicking badguys camped two miles outside the city walls. How about we scale things down a little and make everyone involved a little more interesting to interact with? I'd rather have one town with memorable characters and tons of witty dialogue options than an entire continent of lifeless dolls telling me the same bullshit every time I ask for the most recent rumors. I'd rather be able to have a heated conversation with the antagonist and blackmail him with information I've uncovered while creeping around town at night, than have to go outside and kill 50 orcs to get to the chief and have no other way of progressing the plot than to fight some more.

...and I'll stop there.

 

This is the major reason why the "golden age of gaming" was almost a decade a go. People weren't afraid of making the story personalized and engrossing.

Arcanum: find elder joachim so virgil will shut up about you being a god. But by the time you get there you notice there is something more, something evil that you've come to want to fight.

Fallout: get a new water filtration system. But then you learn about the Brotherhood and mutants and everything else in the world.

Planescape: figure out who you are and ultimately seek your own demise.


Now? We have the "bioware method" of intro, 3-4 main quests, big baddy. While it's not bad, Dragon Age and Mass Effect were well done, it's becoming the norm for RPGs.

But, over the last decade games have become less of a "geek" thing and has become a sport. As such, you aren't going to find the quality story of yore. Games now, even RPGs, are designed to get the Madden, NBA, and FPS crowds to spend more money on flashy graphics and hand holding. They want flashy, smooth graphics, a quality physics engine, and SHORT games that can be done in a weekend. As proof you just need to look at some of the more popular RPGs that have been released in the last 5-6 years. Fable takes 8 hrs tops. Dragon Age can be done in 30 hrs if you just main quest it. Witcher was about 20ish hrs. Fallout 3 has lasted me many a months though propping up my coffee table.

 

I can't remember the last time I felt so torn over the ending to a game, not just an RPG. That waltz through D.C. with the 40 ton robot thrashing everything left and right was one of the coolest, most gratifying things I'd been through in a game.

Spoiler

And then you get to the water purification system, fire it up, and...bam! End of game.

I was like "Are you fucking serious? That's it?" That deadline must've really been looming.

As for Bioware RPGs, I think I've purchased my last one. After NWN, KotOR, and Dragon Age, I've finally realized they're all the same game, just with different settings and characters and updated graphics. And I think that's part of the problem. There are a handful of companies who have a firm grasp on the RPG market these days, and all they're doing is "updating" their most recent release and cashing in on it by selling it as a new game. Bioware and Bethesda are especially guilty of this.

Gaming these days has gone the way of professional sports. It's no longer just a game, it's a business. All the companies are trying to make as much money as they can off every piece of crap they can crank out, and it's the fans who suffer in the end.

 

So much of what people call "new" or "innovative" today is just a facelift. Granted, some of these facelifts are pretty damn good, but it's all the same gameplay. I've yet to find a modern RPG quite as good initially as Chrono Trigger was, and that game came out 15 years ago. Arcanum stands out among RPGs because it's absolutely a diamond in the rough;
Fantasy-styled Steampunk with Victorian era racial tension. And, on top of the amazing subject matter, it's done right, despite any bugs or flaws in the system. You can't tell me the first time you played the game that you didn't love it, and yet there are so many today lacking in a quality Arcanum experience because of how much they've been spoiled by modern RPGs. They expect their games to have character models with thousands upon thousands of polygons, they expect realistic physics, they expect to be told what to do, but what they never equate for in their gaming mind is actual substance. These new games can be done well, they just shy from innovation because, as Grimmhatter sait, it's a business to make games. It's not art anymore. In art, you can lose yourself, as I have many times while playing the classic RPG's of old or in Arcanum and Fallout. I hate to ask for directions, so the first time I went to Tarant, I tried finding the Schuylers on my own. I spent an hour running around Tarant, completely lost in the detail. I even got pick-pocketed. And that, my friends, is true realism;
You're a tourist of the largest city on the continent, you get lost admiring the architecture, and someone takes advantage of your discombobulation.
The added bonus is you can deal with the problem yourself in the game, adding a sense of freedom to the tiny world within your screen. What game today comes out with NPCs that can do more than just attack or speak (I may eat my words on that sentence, but I've not played any recent game that allows me to be pick-pocketed by a passing NPC)?
Another problem is that games today are pan-marketed, as in, they're made for everyone of a certain age to play it. There are no niche markets for games anymore, and that makes me sad in the inside. What's the fun in playing a game that everyone will understand? Though, I can see from a marketing standpoint that it's not fiscally responsible to market a game to a closed group of consumers. However, the "play for everyone" mindset has lead to some staggering blows to the gaming industry, such as overplayed MMORPGs where, if I don't have friends playing, I'm bound to go solo on a quest that would be much, much easier in a group. Instead, I try to get groups together and people shun me as though I'm a leper. It may be my play style and mannerisms, but I know there are more people like me if I have friends (regardless of whether or not they're on). Perhaps if an innovative function such as like-mindset search was added, I'd feel more comfortable spending hours riding on my glorious white ram and then jumping off to brain orcs.

 

Quoted for truth.

Going on from what Grimm said earlier, One of the things I like best about Arcanum is the balance between its being linear (by which I mean, not matter how you play, you start in the same place, end up going to most of the same locations, talking to the same people, and fight the same boss), and being sandbox from the open world and multi-pathed branches that define your character beyaond being "good" or "evil" at the end. I mean how many games allow you to actually change the political landscapes in any meaningful way? Most of the time you're trying to gain influence with whatever faction suits you needs, and wars or alliences will be part of the main plot. Arcanum let you negotiate alliances for crying out loud! And if you muffed them, there would be wars! We would not see them in game to be sure, but they are presented to us with an attitude of seriousness towards the consequences which is far more weighty than a poorly-voiced npc telling us to kill the orcs which murdered his family.

But I'm just singing to the choir here. Perhaps what I'm trying to get at is that playing through Arcanum leaves you with a legacy which you remember even after you are finished. Play as a hero helping all those in need, resolving disputes, and the end will reflect those choices. Play as a evildoer, wipe out villages, sleep with dark elves, and corrupt your followers, and you will see those effects. Whatever you did, and said, matters, and will be counted when the chips are down. Too often in modern games, time seems to stop itself at the moment of your heroic triumph, but Arcanum implies with only a little text that its world was forever changed by your presence, and will go on in a new form.

Modern RPGs are doing better recently at creating characters I want to meet, and occationally, worlds I want to live in, but tend to always fail in relating my power to the world. If I am the only person who can save the galaxy, why even bother putting in quests to kill space-rats? If that is truly molecular disruptor why are those crates immune to it? If you're strong ebough to wield a sword twelve feet long, why are you incapable of breaking a wooden door outside of a cutscene? *sigh*

I love Arcanum because it took itself seriously, took me seriously, gave me options, and presented an engaging, cohesive world. I'm still waiting for another RPG to do that.

 

(I would dearly love to actually play KOTOR. I've heard so many good things about it, and my friend lost his fucking discs! *facepalm* I really ought to have just bought the copy myself, but he had money that day and I didn't...)

*ahem* One thing that bothers me these days is that, no matter what you do, the last few hours of RPGs are always, ALWAYS the goddamn same. I mean hell, in Dragon Age, my ultra-nice Mage and my devastatingly angry City Elf who basically slaughtered everything wound up with almost identical endings - the only difference was directly down to romance choices and pissing off Alistair. What the fuck? Don't get me wrong, Dragon Age is great fun, but I'll be going back to the Calnus long before I go back to Fereldan.

(As an offside, Dragon Age is far more advanced graphically, but Last Hope is a zillion times prettier despite the graphical difference. Hrm.)

I mean, I can understand how JRPGs don't often give you much in the way of game endings because they tend to be a lot more linear, but when a spin-off title for a handheld console gives you more ending freedom than the latest big Western RPG, there's SOMETHING WRONG. In all seriousness, apart from Mask of the Betrayer, which was excellent in every possible way except the obscene strain it puts on my system, I haven't played a Western RPG with decent multiple endings in forever. Even Baldur's Gate had more and better endings than most modern games, and there were seriously like three endings to that game.

Spoiler

(Random Obsessive Fangirl Aside Regarding PSZero: There is nothing more fun than being able to stand up after Mother Trinity unleashes holy hell and say 'Karma is a BITCH'. Thank you, Sega, for finally making a Phantasy Star game with decent characters and reasonable character responses. It only took you nigh-on sixteen years.)

 

I'm sure it won't surprise anyone to hear me say that I like to roleplay from time to time.

Why yes sir, I do.

 

Am I the only guy here who never finished Arcanum, Planescape, or Fallout I or II?

 

Finished Fallout 1&2 (I still consider Fallout 2, to this day, the greatest RPG ever made). Still have yet to finish Arcanum. Never played Planescape, though I did just dig up a copy last year.

I know I criticized RPG open-endedness before, but it takes a bit of a different turn where Arcanum is concerned. Arcanum did it right. I can't pinpoint exactly where or how, but the vastness of the game just flows, really well. And that's what I find so special about it. I have not finished it, not because it was too big and I got lost/bored with it, but because it literally made me think every step of the way "Wow, what if I had just done that plot quest differently, or traveled with this NPC instead of that one, or answered/talked to this NPC differently, or decided to major in Mechanics instead of Chemistry, etc, etc..." The list goes on. And so, time and agian and again and again, I scrap my current playthrough and start fresh. No other game has done that to me. For all I know, Troika never actually finished the game. I'd be none the wiser because I have more fun starting the game over with new characters than actually taking one character the whole way through. What other game can claim to have that effect on its fans?

 

Arcanum is actually extremely linear. You go to each new settlement in the order that you do them in the main quest. There are side quests, yes, but you typically do them in the order of the cities you come to.

It seems more open ended than it really is because of the map.

 

Kudos to the map then.

By the way has anyone here played Mass Effect 2? I need a clear portrait of the game and all I can find are various nerdgasms that make me want to play it less.

 

OMG IT'S SO GOOD AND THE SPECTRE AND HOLY SHIT AH AH AH AHAOGAODSFKDPGOKDG

 

I actually had that problem with Arcanum the first time I played it. I never actually finished the game until I had made my sixth character. Not for lack of trying (actually, that's what it was), but I liked how I could control each aspect of the characters, right down to the backgrounds I wrote to play each game.

I know, it's linear, but that doesn't stop me from completely destroying any chances I have of finishing the game when I get pissed off. You can't do that in many other games. Other games have back-tracking, and Arcanum has a hidden "free-mode" that you unlock by killing the librarian in Tarant for her biased world-views before you talk to Raven in Quintarra*.
*The Curse of T'sen-Ang will never spawn if the librarian dies