All high values on the cubes, Chronos is with you. And today I will compare computer role-playing games with colleagues in the genre and try to identify the key differences between all the main types of role-playing games, and also announce the main problems of modern CRPGs in my opinion.
But if you don’t want to read a ton of text, welcome to the spoiler:
And just before the start, a small disclaimer so that there is less bombing.
“You have the right to consider any game a representative of any genre and love it for what it is. Games should be fun first and foremost, and not conform to certain formats and genres.”
And I’ll start right away with a definition, because they are extremely important in any thesis so that there is no confusion and misunderstanding. Term Role playing found in many places and often its definitions strongly conflict with each other. But if we bring it to a general form and try as much as possible to meet all the definitions, then the simplest thing will look like this:
Prim. translation: Role-playing is the player taking on the role of a fictional character.
Quite a simple definition that can throw dust in the eyes and set fire to some roleplayers. But let's go deeper, and what does it mean for a player to take on a role?? I mean, what does this roleplay mean?? This is where the fun begins.
But we will start from the first starting point, if we look chronologically.
Acting and the origins of role-playing games https://casino-sky.co.uk/
Initially, as you might guess, the term role-playing game came to us from the craft of acting. And there the actors often play a role according to a given script and follow pre-learned lines, which is fundamentally inconsistent with the concept of role-playing games that we have developed while playing NRIs or computer role-playing games. The thing is that acting initially did not include non-linearity and the creation of your own characters. This came to us later and there are reasons for it. But first, let's talk about acting. In it, the role-playing game is the reproduction of the character’s image through movements, intonation and expressiveness of speech. They give their movements to the characters and voice the lines of these characters with their voices, thereby creating a unique new old character image. That is why it can be considered a role-playing game, the actors simply act out the role with their movements and their voices. As proof for those who still doubt, I can give an example of the same character played by different people: Remember about such a character as Sherlock Holmes. I think you don’t have to be a fan of this character to remember at least 3 different images. I can even name 4 offhand, despite the fact that I have never been specifically interested in them. And what’s more important, all the images are quite original and differ from each other, largely thanks to the actors playing them.
Tabletop role-playing games
Now let's take a trip to the first tabletop role-playing games. As I mentioned earlier in my blog, they were not called role-playing games at all and were adventures in which players were asked to relive the stories of their favorite heroes or create their own. However, all the elements of acting role-playing were preserved here. Is there less movement?. But nonlinearity and the lack of a script, at least for most players, greatly changed the essence of acting role-playing game. Previously, it was aimed more at entertaining people watching it, but now those watching themselves became actors and entertained themselves, enjoying the adventures and experiencing them in the form of their characters. Yes, specifically their characters, because not all actors can play any role. Everyone has their own preferences and capabilities, let alone ordinary people without theater education. Therefore, it was easier for many to create their own character, because it is simply simpler and more fun to play it than someone else’s with a ready-made character and moral standards.
All subsequent changes in the role-playing game also happened due to the fact that its main task changed, along with entertaining the audience, it was now aimed at entertaining the player. Instrumentation began to shift from expressiveness and memorized dialogue to non-linearity and improvisation.
And here it is important to note the moment when people began to call board games role-playing games. The very moment when the term role-playing game ceased to be associated primarily with theater and actors. In tabletop role-playing games, to a large extent there was more role-playing than in theater or cinema, you could argue, but in my opinion this is obvious (no matter how well an actor plays his role and no matter how expressively reads his lines of dialogue, the actions made by the player as a character are many times more expressive and better reflect the essence of the character than memorized lines of ready-made dialogue), and therefore, as a result, the term role-playing game began to be associated with with geeks, cubes and board games.
Computer role-playing games (CPRG)
What's next in chronological order?? That's right, computer role-playing games. It’s worth noting right off the bat that, compared to other types of role-playing games, we lost the ability to play with the character’s voice and movements, we could now only control a pre-made character or a character that we create ourselves, without the ability to give him unique movements and intonations, improvisation also disappeared, leaving us with pre-written dialogues and actions, which brings us back to acting role-playing.
What did we get in return?? How computer role-playing games have expanded the concept of role-playing? Unfortunately, nothing. There is not a single new element in the CRPG that would help us roleplay. Yes, we now have tools to ignore calculations and play without constantly throwing dice and worrying about how to calculate the numbers correctly. But this is not a new element, but simply a simplification of old tools for determining the success of a character's action.
And here we come to a sad conclusion. The only thing that can make a computer game truly role-playing is nonlinearity. Think for yourself, in role-playing acting, dialogue is also limited and actions are pre-written. However, in computer RPGs, movements are also prescribed, and the intonations and voice are pre-voiced and will not change the character’s image in any way (If it was not planned by the developers, then you will never play a burry little guy who very funny stumbles on the word paravoz and has difficulty climbing up the stairs). At the same time, there is no improvisation in computer role-playing games. We are left with only the nonlinearity that came to us from tabletop RPGs. T.e. operating with the functions that the game developers gave us. And here either these options are enough for diverse roleplaying, or not. All this can be theoretically compared to modules in tabletop RPGs, where one system of rules is chosen. Yes, we have a set of restrictions and guidelines on how to determine the success of a particular action, but we can still play outside of these rules. This is why the DM (Dungeon Master) exists, to determine the consequences of our actions, which are certainly not stated in the rules of the game. But in a computer RPG, all the actions are pre-written and the result is known in advance at least to the developers, and at most to those who play this game for the second time (Yes, there is an option when the number of options is much more than 2, but it is in this case that such a game can strive to call itself a role-playing game). You won’t be able to invent something of your own and take the story in directions unique to your character. The physical limitation in the code and script of CRPG as a type of role-playing game itself affects. There is no point in blaming CRPGs for this, even with so many shortcomings, among them you can still find wonderful RPGs where you can roleplay no worse than in tabletop sessions or on theater stages. However, how to find them?
Where does Objectivity end and Subjectivity begin??
And here is the most disgusting and main stumbling block. How many options can a particular game be considered a role-playing game?? Two options are enough? Maybe three? Or do you still need all four?? And in general... And what are the options?? Ending options? Or maybe options for completing the main quest? Or are we talking about side quests in general?? What about combat and mecha?? A? After all, this is also part of the character’s image! And my answer will be, everything at once. In my opinion, any little thing that changes the character’s image and his role in the world should be taken into account when assessing. However, what to do with the fact that for some, appearance and the number of races are more important, and for others, diversity in types of weapons?? No way. From this moment pure subjectivity begins.
T.e. if a person considers the game to be a role-playing game because there are already ten playable races in the game, his right. However, in fact, for objective reasons, the sheer number of races cannot be considered one of the main elements of an RPG, without which a role-playing game cannot be called. Of course, this point should be taken into account when announcing the verdict, but it is clearly not worth making it the main point. The same applies to the number of types of weapons.
However, it is still possible to determine the required number of options in order to consider the game a role-playing game. Here again subjectivity begins, but I will try to be objective in this regard. Let's return to listing the important aspects. How many possible endings should there be for a good role-playing game?? My answer would be: At least as much. And one is enough too. As a clear example, I can give Divinity: Original Sin. There is one ending (except for defeat in the final battle, but kamon). Yes, there are different endings for party members and some other NPCs, but it is the main branch that ends in one option. But how can that be?! Isn't D:OS an RPG?? It's an RPG, it's just a role-playing game that sets the main storyline in such a way that the vast majority of player characters will act as written in the script. Or rather, at key moments in the script (in common parlance this option is called a rail to the face). So how does Divinity deserve its title of role-playing game?? Its nonlinearity of passage between key points. You can create a character with any character, any talents and principles, but most importantly, with almost any adequate character you will receive an adequate reaction to your actions. There are literally no restrictions on how you can achieve your goal. Do you want to cut out all the settlements?? No problem. On the contrary, you want to help everyone and save everyone? Please, in many quests you will be given a choice of what to do. Also in this game, character traits provide mechanical bonuses, which has a positive effect on the roleplaying of the character.
So, even with one ending option, the game can be considered a role-playing game? Yes, maybe it’s enough to make everything else non-linear and allow you to play any character with a free hand.
Then how many options do you need in side quests?? It is important to clarify that there is no need to make four options for completing each side quest, because this will most likely play into the minus logic. Often, some options may not be available, for example, negotiating through eloquence with someone who does not understand your language. In the same way, it will be extremely difficult to fill the face of a knight in full plate armor and with normal weapons with a wooden club and leather armor in his bosom. Of course, if we are not talking about a magician or some kind of monk. Thus, yes, there should not be many options, there should be exactly as many of them as there are logical and simplest options possible in solving this problem.
Let me give you an example: you need to get through security to the ball. Of the most obvious options, one can immediately assume bribery, dressing up as an aristocrat with a sharp tongue in the mouth, penetration using secrecy and, say, using teleportation or invisibility spells, if magic takes place in our world. Let's rule out the option of breaking through in battle because you are unlikely to want to fight with the entire garrison of guards, and even if you take the risk, if you succeed, there will be no more ball. Everyone will run away. Specifically in this example, we have 4 options that personally came to my mind literally in the first ten seconds. I don’t argue, perhaps there are more obvious options and simpler ones, which will also be logical and varied. But it is precisely by giving such laconic and different ways to solve problems in side quests that the game can be called a role-playing game in my opinion. Also, I would like to remind you that any action of the player character that does not have logical consequences and reactions from the game world cannot be considered perfect. T.e. if you have four options, but they all lead to the same consequences, although logically the results of the actions should be different, such variability sucks. For example, if you go to a thieves guild and get a job from them to sneak in and steal something from the house of an influential nobleman, there is no way you can break in there with brute force. No, you can run past the guards and, catching arrows with your back, grab the item you need and then hide in an unknown direction, but you shouldn’t hope for a career in the Thieves Guild. Most likely they will rat you out or simply send you to hang out somewhere far away from their organization. For any action, there must be a logical reaction, otherwise the action loses its value and is no different from any other. After all, if the thieves guild, from the previous example, takes a stolen item from you and gives you the next task without looking at how you completed the previous one, then this is either a very stupid thieves guild (which is very stupid, because such thieves guilds do not live long), or a big mess of the game creators. Think for yourself, what difference does it make how to complete a task, secretly and secretly, as befits a thief, or thoughtlessly and in earnest, if the result is always the same?. What's the point in roleplaying then?? Play as whoever you want and you’ll still get what you wanted, that’s not how it works, gentlemen. Why not? Because this kind of acting out happens entirely in your head. You don't act the way the character would act, resident living in an imaginary world, you act as a player having fun in a computer simulation, and this is no longer role-playing. Of course, you have the right to play games as you want, but then don’t fool yourself with the phrase: “I'm playing a role-playing game.”.
But let's talk about the combat component and its variability. Why is it needed?? It's simple, if your character is disgusted by the very thought of cunning or deception, most likely he will use a heavy weapon or something straightforward and a shield. Maces, swords, axes and so on. If your character does not want to take risks and go head-on, he can choose throwing daggers with poison applied to the blade, a bow and arrows, or any other “less risky” combat option. And yes, the way you play out the combat component greatly influences the character’s role portrait and shows his character. So how many options should there be?? It's hard to say, but I'll rely on the old proven three. Strength, Agility, Intelligence. As you already understood, one of the options for fighting should rely on strength, the second on dexterity and the third on intelligence. This is a minimally complete range of different archetypes, because one or another character’s character can, even by the ears, be drawn to one of three fighting styles. Of course, you can always add all sorts of faith, wisdom, charisma, physique and Matan knows what else, and yes, this will be a plus. The more diverse the combat system, the easier it is to choose the right fighting style for each character's character. In general, this is the very moment when you cannot worsen the game with quantity. Of course, this does not apply to those moments, like in the first edition of Dungeons and Dragons, when any weapon does the same damage. This is just stupid and de facto you are changing the skin.
The main problems of modern CRPGs
And in order to justify the name of this topic, based on all of the above, I will voice the main problems of modern computer role-playing games.
1) Linearity and low variability. As we have already discussed above, all that we can consider playing a role in a computer role-playing game is the actions of the characters and how variable they are. Everything that is considered to be roleplaying in other role-playing games is simply impossible in computer games at this stage of technology development.
2) False attributes for role-playing games. Often, what is usually considered an integral attribute of any role-playing game is in fact only a tool for immersion in the world. For example, who said that any role-playing game should have written characters with multi-level motivations?? Or who said that dialogue should literally be overflowing with lyrics and contain at least 100 words per phrase? All this is just a tool for creating an adventure and it can be performed in a project completely unrelated to the role-playing game genre. You can cram colorful dialogues and well-written characters into any game, but this is not what makes games role-playing. What difference does it make how big the world is and how many quests there are in it, if they all have two or three options for solving a problem that repeat each other?. And as I said above, even with two or three options you can make a normal side quest that will allow you to play different roles. However, if each side quest offers the same options for solving problems, this can hardly be called normal variability. But oh well, I’ll talk about this some other time.
3) Pre-made story characters. Another big problem with role-playing games was the introduction of pre-written characters as the main characters. We’re not talking about any nameless heroes and others whose appearance cannot be customized, but whose actions are determined by you, we’re talking about those who have behind them a ready-made set of moral principles and a fully written backstory without the ability to somehow influence it before the game starts. Yes, yes, this includes games such as The Witcher, all parts, new Deus Ex and other well-known projects that are considered role-playing games. Yes, some of them are, but due to the pre-written backstory of the main character, they seriously spoil this title for themselves. As I said earlier, if all the dialogues are spoken for you, if all the movements are reproduced for you and the timbre of the voice is chosen, then only nonlinearity remains. But when you are given control of a fully formed character, whose actions should not go beyond the scope of the role given to him, then there can be no talk of any non-linearity. Yes, you can provide a little room for roleplaying a more evil or kind character, more greedy or generous, but you don’t change anything fundamentally. Therefore, passing the game with such a character can hardly differ from running errands in some Call of Duty with the addition of a small variability: whether to give a coin to a beggar or not.
4) Open world. The third scourge of modern computer role-playing games is the open world. And it is a scourge not for players, but for developers. Instead of working on quest chains and creating variability, they work on the world around the player and think that this creates non-linearity. In fact, this is just her illusion, because which path you take to get to the task is not as important as how you complete the task. Yes, a large and detailed world is cool, but from the point of view of a role-playing game it is not particularly important. As proof, I can cite games such as the first two partsFallout, Age of Decadence, Wasteland 2 and many others. Yes, in theory, the world in these games is quite large, but in reality it is not a play area, in which you can only count on random encounters that will have little effect. But all these games can undoubtedly be called role-playing and there’s no need to even stretch anything here. They allow you to play a huge range of characters.
And that's all for this. Chronos was with you, high value to all on the cubes and see you soon.