Computer Role-playing Game Definition
cRPG stands for computer role-playing game. Due to the increase in popularity of computer games, the acronym "RPG" has also become acceptable in computer gaming circles (indeed, it now dominates) though RPG more strictly refers to traditional tabletop role-playing games. Hence, the uncapitalized "c" stands for "computer" in the acronym. As every cRPG veteran knows, the "c" does not, never has and never will stand for "classic" or "console."
While RPG Game has become the broad and flippant mainstream term that encapsulates cRPGs, veterans only employ that term tongue-in-cheek due to its lack of specificity and negative, newbie and casual connotation. Since it amounts to a literal insult, no cRPG veteran would refer to Fallout 1 as an RPG Game. Fallout 1 is a cRPG.
Broadly speaking, cRPGs can be defined as computer games in which we play or assume the role of characters or combat units. For example, the traditional class-based roles of Fighter, Mage, Cleric or Thief. Or, as it pertains to descriptive role: of tank, bombardier, healbot and skill-monkey / scout.
In some cRPGs we assume the roles of multiple characters in a party. Examples include Icewind Dale 1, ToEE and Jagged Alliance 2. These are still cRPGs even though we control an impersonal party of adventurers or a band of mercenaries rather than a primary, personal protagonist. Indeed, one person role-playing multiple characters is not as uncommon in tabletop / PnP as some would imagine.
cRPG Examples Based on the cRPG Definition
Prime examples of cRPGs are Fallout 1, Baldur's Gate 1 and Arcanum, and the most famous cRPGs employ the AD&D 2nd Edition or D&D 3rd Edition rulesets. However, some of the best cRPGs employ custom rulesets that are not found elsewhere.
Perhaps the greatest or most concerted attempt at genuine cRPG creation is Troika's Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura. However, Arcanum failed tragically in its combat system and can therefore, not by any stretch of the imagination, dethrone Interplay's Fallout.
Defining cRPGs via Stats, Simulation & Authenticity
cRPG meaning is derived from cRPG stats and campaign reactivity to stats; that is, it is derived from the interplay of game mechanics that constitute core computer-game design.
Statistical Foundation & Statistical Progression are Integral to cRPGs
In cRPGs there is usually a statistical foundation to the character (some form of chargen) as well as a statistical progression or "a building of the character" at work through leveling the character as well as through the likes of successive skill, proficiency and feat selections. Thus, characters and combat units are usually referred to as cRPG Builds.
Not just the ability of the player (wits, reflexes) but also the stats and properties of characters and combat units are important in determining success or failure in, for example:
In cRPGs, it is preferred that player reflexes do not factor into the above determinations; that instead, stats are checked and stat-rolls are made in order to determine success or failure. Before the "dice" are rolled players can increase their chance of success by buffing, equipping certain items and activating specific character abilities. In doing so players are consciously modifying statistical probabilities in their favor.
Ideally, there is no player-reflex admixture in the determination of success or failure in combat sequences or utility tasks:
- The more that player reflexes determine outcomes in a game, the harder it becomes to classify the game as a cRPG.
- cRPGs consist largely in stats. And the more that stats dictate actions and outcomes, the more is it cRPG.
The problem with realtime hybrid FPS/RPGs (such as Deus Ex 1) is that player reflexes aka FPS aptitude can compensate for stats -- especially as it pertains to WASD movement, leaning, crouching and jumping, which are FPS skills.
Even though its aiming is somewhat stat-based and its hits are determined by stat-rolls, FPS players find Deus Ex much easier than tacticians and strategists do.
But in ToEE, X-COM UFO Defense and Jagged Alliance 2 player reflexes do not factor in AT ALL due to the discrete, locked-in nature of turn-based tactical combat systems, which measure offensive and evasive cRPG movement based solely on standardized and player-interpretable combat unit mobility stats, not player skill.
For the above-given reason and others besides, Doom-style action RPGs can never attain the prestige of tactics or pure cRPGs. Ever.
Turn-based the Authentic Combat System of cRPGs
Since they lack active pause of any kind, the combat in turn-based cRPGs involves no player reflexes whatsoever. And while such a combat system is therefore considered more authentic (because player skill is less of a factor and because wargaming and tabletop are turn-based), active pause and even fully realtime games CAN be considered cRPGs if stats are integral and dictate what characters can and cannot do.
That said, in cRPG Design turn-based combat systems are always preferable to realtime and active pause combat systems. Always, and without exception. Name a cRPG that isn't turn-based or isometric, and I can tell you now that cRPG would have been better if it was turn-based and isometric.
Turn-based isometric is King. X-COM UFO Defense proved that all by itself in 1994.
Isometric the Defining Perspective of cRPGs
cRPGs that employ isometric projection and isometric-esque angles are favored (cf. Isometric cRPGs). The isometric perspective is notable for its facilitation of tactics and visual superiority.
While 3D is frowned upon as a rule 3D cams that lock to an isometric-like perspective can be acceptable (Silent Storm) though rotation, zooming and dollying along axes rarely results in superior tactics or increased gameplay efficiency. Indeed, in most cases the opposite is true: the player ends up wasting time with cam-wrangling or even stuffs up their tactics thanks to the cam.
As is evidenced by the likes of Jagged Alliance 2 there is no limitation of the isometric perspective that cannot be overcome by coding and design. For the most part the employment of 3D in cRPGs was a mistake.
Narrative is NOT Integral to Defining cRPGs
Contrary to popular belief narrative aka storytelling (see: Best Story cRPGs) is NOT a precondition of cRPG-hood because players can craft their own story by role-playing their character, adventuring in the gameworld and fighting monsters. How else could I have written paragraph upon paragraph of combat-centric commentary with no admixture of storytelling by "narrative designers" whatsoever?
The best cRPGs write themselves. They are not about, or ideally should not be about being led by the nose through driving narratives and their accompanying cutscenes, but are rather about OUR player-generated stories that evolve within the framework of potentialities presented.
There we have a diametric opposition to being led by the nose or LARPing in one's head: every axe swing, every blow dodged and every square explored becomes the story; that is, the story of the cRPG is a series of MECHANICAL OUTCOMES, be they successes or failures.
cRPG Quest Design
Likewise, structured rammed-down-the-throat quests are NOT integral to cRPGs. In most cases quest-heavy cRPGs are lazily designed ones. That is, the adventure or campaign is not strong enough to allow for natural, organic player-generated questing but instead needs to have NPC signposts leading players by the nose to its points of debateable interest, along with an updating journal that spoon-feeds insipid, incremental info lest players be left to think for themselves and explore of their own accord.
In other words, the campaign can't hold the player's interest for extended intervals. Thus do "designers" break up their "content" into easily digestible bite-sized chunks in order to keep players ticking boxes in the journal that keeps track of their forgettable garbage. Even more laughably they add puerile "achievements" for their player-base to chase, which are naught but low-brow meta that promotes digital distribution platforms (such as Steam), which have nothing to do with the game itself.
Also, quests should never be gated by character level. cf. Frog Morton Fallout 2.
Predefined Protagonists do not Preclude cRPG-hood
Games with predefined protagonists can still be considered cRPGs. For example, it is impossible to argue against Planescape: Torment's cRPG designation. But even if there is no chargen procedure whatsoever, and our character stats and properties are set at the exact same values at the start of each and every playthough we conduct, the game can STILL be considered a cRPG if the character can be tailored to different roles by way of in-campaign stat allocations, property acquisitions and/or other choices.
For example, some cRPGs feature in-campaign class selections and even support in-campaign class switching (again, PS:T). Indeed, such characters can also be considered builds: we didn't set its foundations entirely, but we did build it.
That being said, no cRPG veteran prefers predefined protagonists over clean slates.
Mixing Dialogue with Combat
In dialogue with NPCs some characters can employ social stats such as diplomacy, cunning or intimidation. Or physical stats can themselves be checked in social situations. For example, the Strength stat could be checked in dialogue in order to get an aggressive NPC to back down from a fight. Thus, combat-based resolutions are not mandatory in cRPG encounter design.
In addition, encounters can switch back and forth between or phase in and out of combat and dialogue segments (e.g., mid-combat parley, surrendering and other reactive states). However, this is an advanced form of encounter design that most cPRGs, and games in general, shy away from.
cf. Iuz Temple of Elemental Evil for an example.
Multi-player cRPGs: A Contradiction in Terms
cRPGs are not multi-player games, they are single-player games that are designed to be played alone in peace, offline and away from others. cRPGs are 100% solo gaming experiences.
While some cRPGs have included token multi-player capability in a sad attempt to broaden their mainstream appeal and cash-in on the rabble's love for shallow virtual socializing, the quality of single-player gameplay invariably suffers as a result of multi-player design considerations.
You cannot make cRPG campaigns for solo players as well as two or more players without their foundational cRPG Design being compromised or even ruined. Neverwinter Nights 1 is a prime example:
- First, it isn't turn-based. Epic fail right there because D&D 3rd Edition is a TB game.
- Second, it lacks full party control which is standard in D&D cRPGs. Another epic fail that is complained about even two decades subsequent.
- Third, its dungeon design is wrap-around in nature: "You guys head east, we'll head west! Then, we'll converge at the center and descend to the next level for more copy-pasta!"
- Fourth, itemization is overly randomized, there are far too many items, and there are far too many receptacles to loot.
- Fifth, its combat encounters scale based on party size to accommodate frivolous players dropping in and out.
- Sixth, unlocking chests, disarming traps and resting actions have progress bars. You have to stare blankly at progress bars while your character unlocks, disarms and rests.
- Seventh, its dialogue mode is not screen-centered and does not pause the game, which is absolutely pathetic.
In the case of NWN these seven design decisions have their germ in multi-player. I bet BioWare jumped on the 3D bandwagon because they thought 3D would enhance the social aspect of their game, too.
Practically a contradiction in terms multi-player cRPGs make for bad cRPGs. In the case of NWN the multi-player fad relegated a potentially great cRPG to mediocrity, and only its ruleset and toolset saved it from being buried and forgotten. cf. NWN1 vs NWN2 for more criticisms.
Another example is furnished by Troika's Arcanum: the publisher's multi-player requirement was the reason its combat system was utterly ruined. Otherwise Troika would have made Arcanum a purely turn-based cRPG which could have resulted in Arcanum toppling Fallout 1 to become the best cRPG of all-time.
Initial Perception of Inaccessibility Indicative of cRPG Quality
The more accessible a game is the less likely it is to be a cRPG or the more likely it is to be a bad cRPG. And if a cRPG is popular with the masses and said to be easy to get into or quick to blindly beat, you can be sure that it isn't worth playing in the first place.
Real cRPGs are famous for their steep learning curves that can be overcome by patience, endurance and dedication. If you went in blind and didn't get killed in the first combat encounter, if everything was easy and you encountered no roadblocks, you probably weren't playing a cRPG but rather a Reddit RPG Game.
Back in the day questions were answered with "RTFM". And when people complained about game difficulty the unanimous response was "get good." Thereby was gaming aptitude honed by players who were forced to think for themselves.
You cannot get good unless you are forced to get good.
Ah, the good ol' days... Before the bad taste and casual gamers came along to ruin the genre; the origins and traditions of which they didn't even begin to understand -- or if they did have an inkling, utterly loathed.
Casual gamers detest uphill battles, they only want cakewalks. But the uphill battle is the best part of the cRPG.
Simulation of Tabletop & Wargaming in cRPGs
Fallout 1 is the seminal pure cRPG and genre exemplar since it was the first cRPG to attempt to simulate tabletop gaming by employing extensive cRPG reactivity and multiple ways to solve problems (by force, by wits or by stealth -- based on stats).
Thus did I coin: Fallout as The Formalizer.
With its isometric perspective, turn-based combat and non-linearity in an open world, it felt more like tabletop / PnP than any cRPG that came before, as well as most that came after.
And while its character building and dialogue systems were not perfect in execution, they were leagues ahead of previous attempts by primitive predecessors which were not so much overshadowed by Fallout as utterly destroyed by it. To emphasize, we are talking about complete and utter destruction of what came before; indirectly making an absolute mockery of what came before -- when it comes to the advent of Fallout 1, we are talking about defining the genre.
Criticism of pre-Fallout cRPGs
Many of the so-called "cRPGs" that came before Fallout can barely be considered such: they were crude first-person dungeon crawlers in which we stepped our party forwards, backwards and sideways as a singular unit in discrete increments; just awful, mostly twitch-based gameplay. Remember what I said before: a defining characteristic of cRPGs is that player reflexes do not impact let alone dictate outcomes.
Along with casual quest games and arcade adventures -- which can also only be called cRPGs by drawing a long bow (quest games and arcade adventures are lowly genre in comparison to cRPGs) -- these dungeon crawlers had barely any reactivity, tactics or player-discernible cRPG stats. It makes me wonder if some of the developers knew what tabletop gaming even was; certainly, there is very little of the tabletop and wargaming spirit to be found in such primitive garbage.
Fallout basically defined the cRPG because it set the bar across the board by formalizing almost every standard for cRPGs to aspire to though most emulation attempts by imitators have been feeble in comparison, which is unsurprising.
The same can be said for Jagged Alliance 2 as it pertains to the simulation of adventuring parties (the so-called tactics cRPG): it remains unequaled more than two decades subsequent to its release.
From Best cRPGs:
Do you know what else Fallout 1 did? It rendered an entire classic genre redundant: the point-and-click adventure game. I used to play adventure games all the time: Secret of Monkey Island, Beneath a Steel Sky -- you name it, big fan. And those games have a special place in my heart. But after Fallout 1, I never played an adventure game ever again, only cRPGs like Fallout 1.
cRPG vs RPG
RPGs are traditional tabletop aka PnP role-playing games whereas cRPGs are computer role-playing games. An uncapitalized "c" is prefixed because cRPGs are secondary and subordinate to actual role-playing games.
The cRPG acronym was first employed by grognards to differentiate their traditional hobby from mere computerizations of their traditional hobby.
Thus, the likes of Fallout, Arcanum and Planescape: Torment should not be referred to as RPGs, but rather as cRPGs.
Most comical is that, in most circles, the cRPG genre was not even strong enough to hold onto its authentic, grognard-given name: Computer Role-playing Games aka cRPGs. The genre fanbase was so weak-willed that unlettered casuals came along and renamed the genre to RPGs or RPG Games, both of which are simply incorrect. cf. Criticism of Game Journalism.
If you refer to cRPGs as RPGs or RPG Games then by measure of classic computer-game commentary you are simply speaking or writing about the genre incorrectly.And if you have "RPG" in your site or channel name yet you do not actually cover tabletop role-playing but only lowly computerizations thereof, then your site or channel is incorrectly named as well.If you refer to cRPGs as RPGs, you KNOW that you are wrong. Because you KNOW that cRPGs do not deserve to be called RPGs.You don't refer to lesser things as greater things or vice versa; it invites Darkness.RPGs are much greater than cRPGs.And those who play RPGs are much greater gamers than those who play cRPGs.And those who design and write RPGs are much greater designers and writers than cRPG designers and writers.The difference between cRPG writers and RPG writers might as well be akin to the difference between RPG writers and Tolkien, Howard or Asimov.The difference is that of night and day.
cRPGs come from RPGs and wargames but are decidedly not RPGs or wargames. Even though they attempt to simulate aspects of the tabletop gaming tradition cRPGs are nevertheless their own thing and expectations of them differ from their origins, which definitions make clear.
For example, when someone undertakes to play a cRPG they don't expect freedom of action that is remotely comparable to role-playing games, which are adapted on-the-fly by Dungeon Masters in response to player-character actions, which are of a variety and complexity unrepresentable by cRPGs (in terms of, for example, the descriptive, the mechanical and the reactive).
Another example: cRPGs are solitaire computer games, NOT multi-player games like RPGs traditionally have been (friends gathered around a table with a GM at the helm). A computer game that focuses on multi-player, a computer game whose design relies on more than one player taking part simultaneously, such a computer game cannot claim cRPG-hood -- it is a virtualized RPG at best and an MMO at worst.
cRPGs are not RPGs, wargames, visual novels or MMOs, but rather they are their own thing and without drawing a line in the sand they wouldn't be a thing.
Referring to cRPGs as RPGs is even more vague and misleading than referring to them as RPG Games. [1]
cRPG is the standard acronym to employ in commentary on computer role-playing games.
The cRPG Language
This section ties in with the broader subject of Computer Game Language.
The incorrect application of acronyms and lack of consistency in employed terminology stems from historically unclear commentary dating back to the 8 bit 1980s. Without at least some formalizing of cRPG concepts and categories, gamers cannot think in or communicate clearly and efficiently in cRPG terms.
For example, someone may labor to describe a scenario indicative of the concept of reactivity instead of simply saying the word that represents the concept, which is "reactivity". And then we have the forms of reactivity, which include time-based, alignment-based and companion-based.
- What do people mean when they say these things?
- What does "By Force, by Wits or By Stealth -- Based on Stats" mean?
(It is a descriptive reference to reactivity originated by Interplay for Fallout 1.)
The same goes for other concepts such as full party control, seamless transition, verticality and itemization, all of which need to be explored and explained in cRPG terms.
For me, the object is to think in and communicate using a clearer and more efficient cRPG language.
***
Footnotes:
[1]
Moreover, computer games are NOT video games, they are computer games. Video games are console games. Thus, cRPGs should not be referred to as or lumped in with Role-playing Video Games. cf. Criticism of Wikipedia's 1990s in Video Games Article.
| cRPG Blog | cRPG Design | cRPG Reviews | cRPG List |
| cRPG Definition | cRPG History | cRPG Rankings | cRPG vs cRPG |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.