Friday, January 01, 2010
So What Does "Old-School" RPG Style Mean?
Kat Bailey comments on efforts to bring back that old-school flavah by mainstream RPGs in 2009:
2009: The Year of the Old-School RPG at 1Up
Dang - I refuse to get a PS3, but Demon's Souls and Valkyria Chronicles are looking pretty cool. But that's besides the point. As an indie game developer and self-proclaimed "indie evangelist," I have to admit to feeling a little defensive at the premise here. Hey, whadayamean mainstream games are going old-school? That's now the indie niche, leave it alone, guys! But really, I'm not exactly seeing a return to the era of Might & Magic, Wizardry, Baldur's Gate, and 16-bit console games here from the mainstream biz.
It sounds a little like on some levels Kat is equating "old-school" with "hard" (and I have heard that Demon's Souls is frickin' punishing), and I don't think that's necessarily the case. Some of my favorite RPGs of yesteryear never struck me as being particularly difficult. Intimidating to newbies to the genre, I may grant you. But difficulty was more of a characteristic of particular series / brands, not the genre in general.
And dropping references to older games and adopting a slightly less action-oriented gameplay doesn't really constitute "old-school feel" to me. But I do welcome these features. It's long been my contention that the trends in modern RPGs that some people call evolution was simply homogenization. Me? I'm for greater diversity. Let's borrow some of those old-school features where they fit (there are a LOT which, as I mentioned earlier this week, which may not be appropriate for all games but could still make for wonderfully entertainment in the right game), take advantage of new-school design elements and sensibilities where they fit, throw in a healthy spoonful of innovation, and see just how ginormously huge this genre can really be!
But the premise of the article also opens up another can of worms. What really constitutes "old-school?" This is a wonderfully subjective question, conjuring up images of our biggest early influences in the genre. But the truth is, "old school" games - while typically more deeply rooted in early Dungeons & Dragons tabletop gaming than their modern descendants - were still a wildly diverse bunch. Especially now that gaming now spans generations of gamers - I still have a tough time thinking of Baldur's Gate or Fallout as "old-school" RPGs, though as they are well over a decade old now, I think it's time I let go and admit that they have joined that fraternity. But compare someone who's biggest influences were games like the Ultima series with someone who grew up playing 8- and 16-bit Japanese console imports, or someone who got their start playing the old D&D "Gold Box" and Eye of the Beholder games, and you will see vastly different opinions on what constitutes "old-school."
(And as an aside, I was playing the action-RPG Gateway to Apshai over a decade before Diablo "invented" that style of game, making that way less modern and "evolved" than some designers and marketers like to claim. That's old-school, baby! Just a few steps removed from Venture!)
So what does "old-school" mean to you? What would be the features you'd look for in a modern game that would speak to your retro-lovin' heart, if any?
Labels: retro, Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 7:54 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
"Old School," for me, means no dumbing down, hand holding, design by committee for the lowest common denominator games.
# posted by 
: January 01, 2010 10:45 AM
: January 01, 2010 10:45 AM
Turn-based combat and 2d gameplay. (Bonus points if the game uses pixel art instead of vector art or pre-rendered 3d.)
I got my start in RPG's playing the shareware demo of Exile III, believe it or not. May not have been the first one I ever played, but it largely defined what I look for even today. After that, my RPG's were on the Game Boy Advance, which continued the turn-based, pixel-2d tradition.
Now, for computer games in general, I'd have to go with Secret Agent as the first I can remember.
I got my start in RPG's playing the shareware demo of Exile III, believe it or not. May not have been the first one I ever played, but it largely defined what I look for even today. After that, my RPG's were on the Game Boy Advance, which continued the turn-based, pixel-2d tradition.
Now, for computer games in general, I'd have to go with Secret Agent as the first I can remember.
Just Demon's Souls and Valkyria Chronicles make a ps3 worthwhile for me. They instantly became two of my favourite games.
# posted by : January 01, 2010 12:36 PM
: January 01, 2010 12:36 PM
I agree with some of the comments: no hand holding, turn-based combat, making your own maps and keeping your own journals, etc.
But more than that what I think of when I think of old school games is endless, random, repetitive, boring, generally pointless combat. Haha. That sounds so awful, but really... that's what a lot of it was. I loved the Apshai trilogy. I loved Legacy of the Ancients. I loved Ultima 3, 4, and 5. I loved the entire gold box series. And heck, I even loved the combat. I remember spending something like three hours trying to strategize my way through a fight in Pool of Radiance (and winning, and feeling elated), but now-a-days I just couldn't do that. I fired up Ultima 6 recently and every time I saw a monster on the screen I felt a little annoyed.
You're right that games like Torment and BG *should* be considered old school since they've been around for so long. But I still have trouble reconciling that since those games still feel pretty modern to me. :D
But more than that what I think of when I think of old school games is endless, random, repetitive, boring, generally pointless combat. Haha. That sounds so awful, but really... that's what a lot of it was. I loved the Apshai trilogy. I loved Legacy of the Ancients. I loved Ultima 3, 4, and 5. I loved the entire gold box series. And heck, I even loved the combat. I remember spending something like three hours trying to strategize my way through a fight in Pool of Radiance (and winning, and feeling elated), but now-a-days I just couldn't do that. I fired up Ultima 6 recently and every time I saw a monster on the screen I felt a little annoyed.
You're right that games like Torment and BG *should* be considered old school since they've been around for so long. But I still have trouble reconciling that since those games still feel pretty modern to me. :D
The "old school" usually brings up a certain kind of nostalgia and as we all know: We only want the good, romantic kind of nostalgia like re-living the better parts of older games.
Like bobisimo put so well: There was a lot of stupid grinding and boredom back then, too, and game designers have learnt a lot since the early days - some of it easily acquired because of the ridiculously increased computing power (speed, memory and storage space), some of it because people have become specialists (story writing for example) and the rest because of simple common sense.
I also dislike the relativity of "old school" as a description - it's way too unprecise (your question is therefore spot on!).
Instead I'd like to plug the RPG compendium "Dungeons & Desktops" by Matt Barton here as he doesn't simply call old RPGs or their characteristics "old school". He establishes an RPG timeline with dark age, bronze age, golden age etc.
When reading this book and revisiting the older games one comes to the conclusion that while some of them were groundbreaking and offered things not seen or experienced before, most of them were pretty cumbersome and needed real dedication to complete them. Perhaps this is "old school" after all...
Like bobisimo put so well: There was a lot of stupid grinding and boredom back then, too, and game designers have learnt a lot since the early days - some of it easily acquired because of the ridiculously increased computing power (speed, memory and storage space), some of it because people have become specialists (story writing for example) and the rest because of simple common sense.
I also dislike the relativity of "old school" as a description - it's way too unprecise (your question is therefore spot on!).
Instead I'd like to plug the RPG compendium "Dungeons & Desktops" by Matt Barton here as he doesn't simply call old RPGs or their characteristics "old school". He establishes an RPG timeline with dark age, bronze age, golden age etc.
When reading this book and revisiting the older games one comes to the conclusion that while some of them were groundbreaking and offered things not seen or experienced before, most of them were pretty cumbersome and needed real dedication to complete them. Perhaps this is "old school" after all...
# posted by : January 02, 2010 10:17 AM
: January 02, 2010 10:17 AM
I have to agree with what a lot of the previous posters have said.
* No dumbing down.
* Turn based combat.
* 2D artwork. I never really understood why 3D took off so big w/ RPGs other than jumping on the bandwagon/new and shiny syndrome.
* Make your own map or limited automap.
I'd also like to add that old school seemed simpler to me. Not in the quests but that the game didn't try to include everything under the sun.
Also, I miss exploring and finding new stuff just because you went somewhere to see what was there.
* No dumbing down.
* Turn based combat.
* 2D artwork. I never really understood why 3D took off so big w/ RPGs other than jumping on the bandwagon/new and shiny syndrome.
* Make your own map or limited automap.
I'd also like to add that old school seemed simpler to me. Not in the quests but that the game didn't try to include everything under the sun.
Also, I miss exploring and finding new stuff just because you went somewhere to see what was there.
If Baldur's Gate now qualifies as Old School, maybe we need a new category for the really old stuff like Ultima 2, Wizardry, and their ilk. Ancient School? =)
Well, let's see... "old school" suggests a style of design that was universally applied due to every designer having a similar training background.
The thing is, the term doesn't really fit the video game industry, because most game designers of the "old days", circa 1975-1990, didn't learn their stuff in schools, or even from each other.
For "old school" RPG's, I'd say the only real definition is this:
- Adapted from Dungeons & Dragons rules systems, so it has ability scores, classes, levels, and hit points
- Most non-combat mechanics removed, due to memory and CPU limitations
- Arbitrary and sometimes completely random combat and encounters that could end the game without warning
- Severe imbalances caused by a lack of play-testing and poor design elements. Very common since tabletop D&D wasn't known for either of these
- Little to no in-game tutorials, help menus, auto-mapping, and other tools to make gameplay easier. Again, due to lack of computer resources
- Either procedurally generated content using simple algorithms with random seeds, or rigid static data structures that could be compressed easily or stored homogeneously
- Turn-based combat over real-time due to timing constraints and lack of resources for complex control interfaces
It doesn't surprise me that modern game designers mistake "absurdly hard" with "old school", but it is an incorrect assumption.
Playing CRPG's usually follows this pattern:
- The player initially loses the game a few times, while they become familiar with the controls and paradigms of the game engine
- The player eventually hits a play threshold, after which they can sustain their characters and progression in the game at a consistent stable pace
- The player wins the game
The thing is, the harder step one is to achieve, or the more it demands of the player, the less likely you are to retain the player. Eventually they'll get bored/frustrated and quit. I've nearly reached this stage with Dragon Age: Origins.
The thing is, the term doesn't really fit the video game industry, because most game designers of the "old days", circa 1975-1990, didn't learn their stuff in schools, or even from each other.
For "old school" RPG's, I'd say the only real definition is this:
- Adapted from Dungeons & Dragons rules systems, so it has ability scores, classes, levels, and hit points
- Most non-combat mechanics removed, due to memory and CPU limitations
- Arbitrary and sometimes completely random combat and encounters that could end the game without warning
- Severe imbalances caused by a lack of play-testing and poor design elements. Very common since tabletop D&D wasn't known for either of these
- Little to no in-game tutorials, help menus, auto-mapping, and other tools to make gameplay easier. Again, due to lack of computer resources
- Either procedurally generated content using simple algorithms with random seeds, or rigid static data structures that could be compressed easily or stored homogeneously
- Turn-based combat over real-time due to timing constraints and lack of resources for complex control interfaces
It doesn't surprise me that modern game designers mistake "absurdly hard" with "old school", but it is an incorrect assumption.
Playing CRPG's usually follows this pattern:
- The player initially loses the game a few times, while they become familiar with the controls and paradigms of the game engine
- The player eventually hits a play threshold, after which they can sustain their characters and progression in the game at a consistent stable pace
- The player wins the game
The thing is, the harder step one is to achieve, or the more it demands of the player, the less likely you are to retain the player. Eventually they'll get bored/frustrated and quit. I've nearly reached this stage with Dragon Age: Origins.
From what I've read through many articles and probably some that were on this site as well is that because of computing limitations these early games' emmersion value relied heavily on included published materials and props (thick instruction manuals/storybooks, figurines, cloth maps) and the DnD-style imagination of the player. Also, even in these supplemental materials the identity of the pc(s) and what was considered "acting in character" was fundamentally left up to the player (seeing as there is no GM) as a way to put that person directly "into the game."
Many point to turn-based combat as old-school, but from many computer rpgs described in one three part article of what the author termed the Bronze, Gold (Gold Box wink wink), and Platinum Ages of the CRPG more than a fair amount of crpgs were real-time fps's (which the article informed at that time stood for first person slasher; also, one person noted this was done so that quick plays could be accomplished during the short sessions allowed in his/er university computer lab).
In conclusion these are only broad generalizations based on the published memories of others from sources someone could google.
My own thoughts are that I do not necessarily agree that having a blank slate character to shape as one likes makes for greater emmersion. On one hand I can re-imagine myself as that person and on the other I cannot get past all of who I am and feel more like some OCD puppet master with the most gullible, manipulatable character imaginable (how can you love something that can't ever act outside "your box").
The story now can all be told in game and rather well if the necessary work is put into how that story is presented. People may argue for open-endedness that leaves more freedom to the player, but I would counter that the curve toward "the game is what you put into it" becomes a lot steeper and there can be a sense of anti-climax. Having a more linear story clears up the latter two issues. Again, just generalizing.
Finally, turn-based versus real-time combat I think can best be equated to smoother party combat versus more emmersive first-person combat.
Please respond Rampant Coyote,
Glass2099
Post a Comment
Many point to turn-based combat as old-school, but from many computer rpgs described in one three part article of what the author termed the Bronze, Gold (Gold Box wink wink), and Platinum Ages of the CRPG more than a fair amount of crpgs were real-time fps's (which the article informed at that time stood for first person slasher; also, one person noted this was done so that quick plays could be accomplished during the short sessions allowed in his/er university computer lab).
In conclusion these are only broad generalizations based on the published memories of others from sources someone could google.
My own thoughts are that I do not necessarily agree that having a blank slate character to shape as one likes makes for greater emmersion. On one hand I can re-imagine myself as that person and on the other I cannot get past all of who I am and feel more like some OCD puppet master with the most gullible, manipulatable character imaginable (how can you love something that can't ever act outside "your box").
The story now can all be told in game and rather well if the necessary work is put into how that story is presented. People may argue for open-endedness that leaves more freedom to the player, but I would counter that the curve toward "the game is what you put into it" becomes a lot steeper and there can be a sense of anti-climax. Having a more linear story clears up the latter two issues. Again, just generalizing.
Finally, turn-based versus real-time combat I think can best be equated to smoother party combat versus more emmersive first-person combat.
Please respond Rampant Coyote,
Glass2099
# posted by : February 08, 2010 12:27 AM
: February 08, 2010 12:27 AMLinks to this post:
<< Home
