Future RPG Evolution
Okay, anybody who was actually at this presentation... could you please enlighten me as to what was really discussed? I'm speaking of the presentation on "The Evolution of RPG Design" panel discussion reported in Next Generation. Unfortunately, they've broken it down into single-sentence statements, which ... on their own... leave me a little unenthusiastic.

Hironobu Sakaguchi said, “The biggest evolution comes from improved graphics. The more powerful expressions become, the easier it is to create a game that users can sympathize with, or relate to."

Ummm... you know, before I read Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics," I might have agreed that, if not the biggest evolution, it would be a significant factor. And maybe ten or fifteen years ago, that was really the case. I sure don't mind prettier graphics. I mean, Oblivion did an awesome job of making me feel like I was But as Scott McCloud, Stephen King, and many of the best movie directors understand, sometimes what is NOT shown is best.

While I loved what they did with Alyx in Half-Life 2, I thought some of the best emoting came from those earlier Final Fantasy games, where the lack of graphic detail actually encouraged the player to project their own emotional detail onto the melodramatically posing figures. The imagination filled in a ton of the infinitely small details the game would otherwise need to display, allowing the designers to focus on the larger issues.

I mean... sheesh... we have tons of movies coming out each year where real, live, TRAINED actors have trouble expressing believable emotion. We somehow imagine that computers will do a better job because our graphics are getting closer to photorealistic? I don't think so.

Maybe something got lost in the translation there, and obviously whatever he had to say was shortened into a one-liner in the magazine. So hopefully I'm misundersanding Mr. Sakaguchi's point.

Next was the notorious and outspoken Peter Molyneux, who noted that while the graphics have changed, the gameplay is largely the same. "The actual structure of RPGs hasn’t really changed that much. I think there’s some opportunities there.”

Amen to that. We've been saying that for years. I've added my voice to those calling for innovation in RPGs, too. Especially when the dice & paper world continues to innovate, yet we sometimes find outselves still trying to emulate the how the games were played in 1974. However, I'm gonna state a caveat here:

The actual structure of the novel hasn't changed that much in a couple of centuries, either. However, there have been many great novels --- and I expect, many more to come --- that work within that structure. I only dimly recall a couple of experiments to really play with the medium and do something weird with that structure.

I mean - face it, there's something like 7,000 fan-made Neverwinter Nights modules out there. And a few of them are actually pretty good. Some really broke a few boundaries, while staying within the D&D game mechanic and the NWN interface. The innovative modules didn't have a large intersection with the "pretty good" group, but many showed promise and had a very different feel to them. There's a lot that could still be done within that structure, and no doubt WILL be done within that stucture with Neverwinter Nights 2 and any other sequels.

So while I'm on board with the general concept of playing around with the structure and evolving it... I'm also cautious. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater just in the name of being different.

Ray Muzyka's comment was about other games incorporating more RPG elements. Which is definitely cool and all, though I don't know what it has to do with RPGs, other than perhaps helping to bring in more fans of the genre.

I'd really like to hear more about what was said. As it is, the article left me scratching my head a little.

Labels: Game Design, Roleplaying Games

- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 2:35 PM (Permalink)