Sunday, November 11, 2007
Putting MORE Action into Action-RPG?
Taken from a recent Eurogamer interview of Chris Taylor's upcoming sci-fi "action-RPG" Space Siege (sorta-kinda a spin-off from the Dungeon Siege series):Taylor dismisses the experience system as "old school"... In fact, he dismisses a lot of things as being old schoolOkay, first off --- at what point does the "action-RPG" become "an action game that pays lip service to RPGs for marketing purposes?"
...
He's open and honest about his belief that the hardcore market for games is diminishing, and believes that what consumers want now is a fun "interactive entertainment" experience, rather than a traditional "videogame".
...
Indeed, there's a feeling that Taylor has had something of a Road to Damascus experience - and Space Siege is the result.
...
Part of Taylor's new approach, then, is putting more action into the action RPG. Players in Space Siege can mix and match tactics from traditional RPGs and tactics more familiar to players of action games - grenades bounce using real physics, which also applies to objects in the world, and enemies can be knocked off ledges and walkways with well-aimed attacks.
Joe Gamer probably doesn't care, so perhaps I shouldn't either. You could go ahead and label Halo 3 as an RPG if you want... whatever floats your boat. Yes, I will be snickering at you behind your back, but hey... knock yourself out. The videogame industry is hell-bent on robbing the term "role-playing game" of any meaning whatsoever, so why should I stand in the way of "progress"?
Point two: "old school" is being dismissed as a term of derision here. You know what? Why don't I dismiss the arcade-style gameplay of these games as "old-school?" Sheesh. Old-and-busted, man. It's all about hidden-object puzzles now! That, and ball bearings. It's all about ball bearings nowadays. Get with the now!
Seriously - there's a reason why classics remain classics, and why fads disappear after their fifteen minutes. I'm not gonna knock Gas Powered Games for going out on a limb and trying something different that they hope to be more accessible to the average gamer. That's cool. More power to you, Chris & Co. And I understand that for the purpose of marketing your upcoming game, you are pretty much required to define how your game stands apart from the pack as something akin to a major religious event (though the "road to Damascus" comment no doubt came from the interviewer, not Taylor). But man, ripping on the classics really makes you sound like a punk. Granted, you might not personally like Charles Dickens, but how much would you respect a writer who ripped on Dickens as being "old school" and claimed his upcoming book would just blow Dickens off the map?
Point the third, concerning interactive entertainment, rather than traditional hardcore videogame experiences: Okay. I'll concede this point. With a rather major caveat. People still like to be challenged. It's just that the average player, I think, has a lower tolerance for abusive difficulty than they used to have. This is probably because the average gamer is about 30 years old now instead of 13, with more disposable income for different games than time to actually play them.
So while I remain a fan of Chris Taylor (in spite of being bored to tears by Dungeon Siege), I have got to say this little preview / interview doesn't make me very excited about the direction Gas Powered Games is going. A Road to Damascus experience? Sounds to me more like a road to mediocrity.
But hey, depending upon the reviews, I may still be willing to give it a try. After all, I AM a fan of old-school arcade games, and Space Siege sounds right up that alley.
(Vaguely) related rants, absolutely free and worth every penny:
* Action vs. Turn-Based RPGs: Evolution, or Catering to the Lowest Common Denominator?
* But Is It An RPG?
* The Evolution of Computer RPGs
.
Labels: Mainstream Games, Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 4:00 PM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Any idea how Supreme Commander did? Kind of seemed to come and go really fast. A shame considering I know most of the guys who did the core programming on it.
Dunno. They are releasing an expansion very soon for the game --- so I guess it has done at least well enough to warrant that.
Re: #1 ... genre names, in video games, are largely irrelevant. Some speak to the game mechanics, other speak to the user interface, others speak to the content/subject matter. How do we reconcile FPS vs. management vs. horror/survival? We can't rely on the genre name along, but rather its pedigree. So when someone says "Action RPG" you look at Dungeon Siege and Diablo, not at Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior. Sounds to me like this is a pretty clear extension of the former.
In other words, when Chris Taylor says his game is in the "Action RPG" genre then I've got a pretty firm idea of what the mechanics are and I can relate his caveats to that.
Re: #2 ... there's a distinction between classics and "old school," particularly as its used in this context. The original Zork is a classic, but there's no question whether its appropriate for a modern market (in the exact same form). Space Invaders is classic, but there's no denying that we've learned a great deal about the craft of game design since that we can readily apply.
Re: #3 ... yes, people do like a challenge, its one of many ways to engage users. But games need to stop resorting to this the simplest of ways making otherwise abstract choices meaningful. Think about real life: sure, there are those who want to climb a mountain because its hard, but does that mean its sensible build an experience around the hard parts because people like a challenge? No, rather you extract the desirable parts and turn it into rock-climbing-walls and toss the "challenge" parts (surviving) aside -- for the larger audience.
But you reveal a bias in your thinking by attributing this shift to average age moving from 13 to 30. That shift is ancillary. The important shift is a broader demographic (which will naturally tend to be older since there are more "older" people than "younger" people). You suggest that the average player as a "lower tolerance for abusive difficulty" when in reality we measure ourselves against a player that has no tolerance for abusive difficulty. Grinding is not fun, at least not for most people.
At the end of the day, if we want folks to want to give us their hard-earned money (and we usually ask for a very generous share), we need to be giving them (give, give, give, not earn, earn, earn) a lot more than we do now. The totality of a game is not the designer's to keep behind tall barriers and locks, but rather a meaningful engagement for the user (ideally). If challenge is part of that "meaning" for the user, fine, but we need to realize (and recognize) that it's more often not the case for the broader audience.
In other words, when Chris Taylor says his game is in the "Action RPG" genre then I've got a pretty firm idea of what the mechanics are and I can relate his caveats to that.
Re: #2 ... there's a distinction between classics and "old school," particularly as its used in this context. The original Zork is a classic, but there's no question whether its appropriate for a modern market (in the exact same form). Space Invaders is classic, but there's no denying that we've learned a great deal about the craft of game design since that we can readily apply.
Re: #3 ... yes, people do like a challenge, its one of many ways to engage users. But games need to stop resorting to this the simplest of ways making otherwise abstract choices meaningful. Think about real life: sure, there are those who want to climb a mountain because its hard, but does that mean its sensible build an experience around the hard parts because people like a challenge? No, rather you extract the desirable parts and turn it into rock-climbing-walls and toss the "challenge" parts (surviving) aside -- for the larger audience.
But you reveal a bias in your thinking by attributing this shift to average age moving from 13 to 30. That shift is ancillary. The important shift is a broader demographic (which will naturally tend to be older since there are more "older" people than "younger" people). You suggest that the average player as a "lower tolerance for abusive difficulty" when in reality we measure ourselves against a player that has no tolerance for abusive difficulty. Grinding is not fun, at least not for most people.
At the end of the day, if we want folks to want to give us their hard-earned money (and we usually ask for a very generous share), we need to be giving them (give, give, give, not earn, earn, earn) a lot more than we do now. The totality of a game is not the designer's to keep behind tall barriers and locks, but rather a meaningful engagement for the user (ideally). If challenge is part of that "meaning" for the user, fine, but we need to realize (and recognize) that it's more often not the case for the broader audience.
Yesterday I followed your link to the underdogs and spent several hours there browsing and reading the rpg section. I did download a few, but had little time to really get into them.
One thing I noticed after reading many of them, was that several games were slated as very difficult or involved due to stats, and many of them were among my favorites. The two most notably in this category were Wizardry, and of course, The Realms of Arcania Trilogy.
I looked at where RPG's have been, at where RPG's are now, and where RPG's are going. Why put more Action into RPG's? I am completely in agreeance with the theory that at some point there is too much action to bother balancing out stats, or where stats are just a decoration so us old-schoolers can pretend to be playing an RPG.
I am of the opinion that we need to put more RPG back into the RPG. Make stats truly matter, and loosen restraints on exp gains. If I want to sink 5 extra hours killing rats in a basement to get an edge in the game, let me.
As it is, I have two moves in a modern rpg, there is, mash the mouse button fast, and then there is push the potion button fast. This is what a modern RPG has come to.
And as far as grinding goes, there used to be difficulty levels that helped with this. Wizardry 7 was in my opinion one of the best balanced games I have ever played. At normal I could still get it handed to me, and on easy I could usually walk through. (was this just in Gold?)
Does anyone else still enjoy advanced statistics and really dangerous life and death encounters in their RPG's?
Anyway, enough ranting. :-)
One thing I noticed after reading many of them, was that several games were slated as very difficult or involved due to stats, and many of them were among my favorites. The two most notably in this category were Wizardry, and of course, The Realms of Arcania Trilogy.
I looked at where RPG's have been, at where RPG's are now, and where RPG's are going. Why put more Action into RPG's? I am completely in agreeance with the theory that at some point there is too much action to bother balancing out stats, or where stats are just a decoration so us old-schoolers can pretend to be playing an RPG.
I am of the opinion that we need to put more RPG back into the RPG. Make stats truly matter, and loosen restraints on exp gains. If I want to sink 5 extra hours killing rats in a basement to get an edge in the game, let me.
As it is, I have two moves in a modern rpg, there is, mash the mouse button fast, and then there is push the potion button fast. This is what a modern RPG has come to.
And as far as grinding goes, there used to be difficulty levels that helped with this. Wizardry 7 was in my opinion one of the best balanced games I have ever played. At normal I could still get it handed to me, and on easy I could usually walk through. (was this just in Gold?)
Does anyone else still enjoy advanced statistics and really dangerous life and death encounters in their RPG's?
Anyway, enough ranting. :-)
I like the idea of more action. I don't think more action has to mean less RP gameplay. Look at Mass Effect. I'm looking forward to ducking behind crates (they're everywhere, aren't they?), throwing enemies with my gravity (magic) powers, and incinerating them with my specially tuned assault rifle.
RPG doesn't mean turn-taking or a slow pace. RPG highlights the importance of setting and customization. I think that stuff can be combined with visceral action.
RPG doesn't mean turn-taking or a slow pace. RPG highlights the importance of setting and customization. I think that stuff can be combined with visceral action.
IMO, though, action (and "more" action) isn't an "improvement" to an RPG. It's a lateral shift in the direction of the Space Invaders family. Which is neither good nor bad - it depends upon taste.
But at what point is the line going to get so blurry it becomes just another third-person shooter?
And my beef isn't with action RPGs per se. I've played and enjoyed several of them. I'm a huge fan of Depths of Peril, a totally awesome action-RPG which goes the opposite direction... more "thinky". But it's a game that is probably more for fans of the genre who want more out of their games. Taylor's game seems to be trying to appeal to a wider demographic who are normally intimidated by RPGs' reputation.
This isn't really a bad thing, but I guess I'm concerned that this is a trend I see about everyone following (except a few crazy indies). The lines just keep blurring until we end up with nothing but various shades of Devil May Cry.
As a customer / player, this disappoints me. I like variety.
As an indie developer, I just wish I had the money to truly take advantage of the huge, abandoned niche.
But at what point is the line going to get so blurry it becomes just another third-person shooter?
And my beef isn't with action RPGs per se. I've played and enjoyed several of them. I'm a huge fan of Depths of Peril, a totally awesome action-RPG which goes the opposite direction... more "thinky". But it's a game that is probably more for fans of the genre who want more out of their games. Taylor's game seems to be trying to appeal to a wider demographic who are normally intimidated by RPGs' reputation.
This isn't really a bad thing, but I guess I'm concerned that this is a trend I see about everyone following (except a few crazy indies). The lines just keep blurring until we end up with nothing but various shades of Devil May Cry.
As a customer / player, this disappoints me. I like variety.
As an indie developer, I just wish I had the money to truly take advantage of the huge, abandoned niche.
Coyote said:
"As an indie developer, I just wish I had the money to truly take advantage of the huge, abandoned niche."
I know, in fact, Jeff Vogel seems to be one of the last true RPG makers out there. I demo'd two of his games earlier this year and they are far better than any commercial RPG I have purchased in the last three years. Once I am done buying development tools, these games are on my hit list, I want to play more of both. Gene Forge 4 shocked me with how in depth the story line was. I finished the demo in just a couple of days, I was intrigued.
I enjoy having to think and strategize in RPG, not react. Reaction is why I have Medal of Honor, Doom 3, and Lord of The Rings. I enjoy these games, and I bought them for what they were, action/action adventure games. They don't dangle worthless stat systems in front of me in order to lure me into buying the game.
Diablo 2 is among my favorite Action RPG's. I can notice a difference from level to level and in my stat and skill choices. The only point in which it feels too simplified is in potion gargling. Of course, they made sure their bosses were tough enough to send me back to town to buy more if I decided to take on the boss standing.
RPG today is usually just a marketing gimmick, and that is what's so irritating about these games calling themselves RPGs. What Chris Taylor needs to do is ditch his worthless stats system and call his games action adventures. His games are reminicent of Gauntlet, and about as mindlessly entertaining.
I own both the Dungeon Seige games. The first is just an RTS without the strategy. The second, well, I was so dissappointed with it, I have tried playing it several times and I can't get more than a few hours into it. Not only is the game play boring, but I have to turn a 3rd person camera. Work + boredom + (their not paying me) = quit. :-)
Post a Comment
"As an indie developer, I just wish I had the money to truly take advantage of the huge, abandoned niche."
I know, in fact, Jeff Vogel seems to be one of the last true RPG makers out there. I demo'd two of his games earlier this year and they are far better than any commercial RPG I have purchased in the last three years. Once I am done buying development tools, these games are on my hit list, I want to play more of both. Gene Forge 4 shocked me with how in depth the story line was. I finished the demo in just a couple of days, I was intrigued.
I enjoy having to think and strategize in RPG, not react. Reaction is why I have Medal of Honor, Doom 3, and Lord of The Rings. I enjoy these games, and I bought them for what they were, action/action adventure games. They don't dangle worthless stat systems in front of me in order to lure me into buying the game.
Diablo 2 is among my favorite Action RPG's. I can notice a difference from level to level and in my stat and skill choices. The only point in which it feels too simplified is in potion gargling. Of course, they made sure their bosses were tough enough to send me back to town to buy more if I decided to take on the boss standing.
RPG today is usually just a marketing gimmick, and that is what's so irritating about these games calling themselves RPGs. What Chris Taylor needs to do is ditch his worthless stats system and call his games action adventures. His games are reminicent of Gauntlet, and about as mindlessly entertaining.
I own both the Dungeon Seige games. The first is just an RTS without the strategy. The second, well, I was so dissappointed with it, I have tried playing it several times and I can't get more than a few hours into it. Not only is the game play boring, but I have to turn a 3rd person camera. Work + boredom + (their not paying me) = quit. :-)
Links to this post:
<< Home
