Search String

cRPG History: The cRPG Renaissance



History of Computer Role-playing Games: The cRPG Renaissance


As it pertains to cRPG History or computer role-playing game history, the cRPG Renaissance was sparked by Blizzard North's Diablo 1 (1996), Interplay's Fallout 1 (1997) and BioWare's Baldur's Gate 1 (1998): a trio of indisputable masterpieces that formalized feature-sets of the cRPG genre.


Of those three Diablo has been the most influential followed by Baldur's Gate and Fallout. Most subsequent cRPGs have attempted to replicate the historic cRPG Design of these three, either in whole or in part -- and going so far to cite them in pitches -- but all have failed to be as good as them, including their direct sequels.

During the Renaissance cRPGs increased greatly in complexity, creativity flourished and developer technical proficiency hit its high point of refinement; so much so, that cRPGs that came before and afterwards are, as a rule of thumb, Baby's First RPG Games in comparison.

The cRPG Renaissance was the only time the genre was firing on all cylinders; for many, it was the best time to be a gamer. Before 1995 the genre was stuck in the Stone Age due to hardware and software limitations as well as developer, community and commentator ignorance of traditional RPG and wargaming hobbies that together constitute cRPG origin.


cRPGs History By Year: Chronology


  • 1995-2000 cRPGs: cRPG Renaissance is sparked; cRPG standards are formalized (primarily by Fallout 1).
  • 2000-2005 cRPGs: The genre fails to uphold the standards; it starts to go down hill even in the face of the modding revolution -- or partially because of it (modders are by definition not professional coders or game designers).
  • 2005-2010 cRPGs: Epic and unrecoverable nose-dive by reason of big money, bad taste and laughably ignorant Reddit RPG Games and Computer Game Journalism.
  • Consoles and the casuals that came along with them poisoned the genre, as did emphasis on 3D graphics, cinematics and social simulation. It wasn't so much a downward spiral at it was a headlong plumeting into the Dark Ages of Computer Gaming.
  • Whereas the heyday cRPG presented a challenge, the RPG Game is all about the cakewalk.

Advent of the API



By Advent of the API I mean the beginning of the era in which the employment of Application Programmer Interfaces enhanced the technical aspects of computer games, which improved their gameplay or playability. APIs such as WinG, DirectX and OpenGL also coincided with advances in hardware engineering, such as much faster CPUs and RAM as well as custom graphics and sound chipsets. [1]

As a rule, coupled with the developer talent that came onboard, it wasn't until the advent of DirectX (Windows), video cards (VGA) and Pentium CPUs -- advances in both software and hardware engineering by the likes of Microsoft, IBM and Intel -- that "pure" cRPGs began to gain some ground on Turn-based strategy games and Real-time Strategy Games in terms of coding and design prowess. [2]

Consider for example that Simtex's Master of Magic, Mythos Games' X-COM and Colonization left their dungeon crawler contemporaries in the dust; absolutely destroyed them in terms of game logic, technical performance, presentation, vision and sheer playability. Yet who can say that Jagged Alliance 2, in terms of coding and design prowess, was beaten out by its cross-genre contemporaries in the late 90s -- or to this day for that matter?

Smashing pure cRPGs to pieces, JA2 came out in 1999. Guess what other game did? Alpha Centauri.

Interesting. It is evident that 1999 was an exceptional year in terms of game design. Indeed, 1999 was god-tier. And as it pertains to the genre in question, the first tech-breakpoint came in 1986, the second in 1996 and the third in 1999, but since around 1999 there have been no tech-breakpoints that have made cRPGs, TBS or RTS games objectively better. For example, no one in their right mind would argue that Fallout, Jagged Alliance 2 or SMAC have been beaten by sequels or imitators.

And as great as they are due to pre-API coding wizardry and apex-level design, imagine how MoM, X-COM and Command & Conquer could have turned out if their development began just one or two years later, all else being equal:

Imagine X-COM coded for WinG on 3.x à la Civ2. Or coded exclusively for Amiga 4000 040s.
Can you say BEAST MODE? Have gamers a conception of how great X-COM could have been?

Let me tell you this right now: If X-COM had been an API-era game its franchise player-base would have been massive, not niche. And Baldur's Gate would be buried and forgotten if it came out before DirectX.

The problem with most of the MS-DOS era was that IBM PCs with custom chipsets (e.g., Amiga) did not typically have hard disk drives, and PCs with hard disk drives did not have custom chipsets (IBM PCs). [3]


Not until developers started harnessing custom chipsets, HDDs, strong control systems and tactile user interfaces did cRPGs come into their own, circa 1996.

It is rare that sequels eclipse originals, but Civ2 (1996) is superior to Civ1 (1991) in terms of strategy, tactics, user interface, presentation and playability. However, this is almost wholly due to the Advent of the API: the difference between Civ1 and Civ2 is far greater than the difference between Civ2 and SMAC (1999) or any subsequent TBS game. Make no mistake: the Advent of the API was an Event.

And yes, Civ1-2 are relevant to the history of cRPGs since the Civ franchise is a Prime Mover of the computer-game industry -- the Gold Standard of Computer-gaming for the past 33 years as of 2024. No computer- or video-gaming franchise is on par with Civ.

It is difficult to devalue the importance of display fidelity (VGA resolution and color depth), since it enhances gameplay, combat unit locatability and visual clarity.

The difference between the ridiculous 320x200px [4] and proper square-pixel 640x480 is immense in terms of viewport functionality and font readability in dialogue modes and cRPG stat panels -- but nothing is gained by going higher than 800x600 and 256 colors -- indeed, superior 2D pixel art, graphic design and traditional animation became devalued by the mainstream at photorealistic-capable fidelities.

That's right: fidelity above 800x600 and 8 bit color depth ruined 2D art in computer games. By expanding screen dimensions and increasing the palette range you only lose your per-pixel artists because their art is based on strict limitations and expert dithering techniques. That is what makes pixel art impressive: strict limitations.

Yet old 2D computer games have aged far better than 3D ones and new, high-res 2D ones (that look like absolute soulless garbage), proving that the mainstream was wrong: 2D computer graphics from circa 1996 to 2000 are ageless and thus stand as the epitome of aesthetic taste.


cf.


Never forget how the drooling masses eschewed vertex pixel art and silky smooth multi-directional screen-scrolling in favor of blocky 3D graphics, cam-wrangling, slideshow framerates and clunky control schemes.


cf. NWN1 vs NWN2 for more on the ridiculous 3D fad of the 2000s.

3D cRPGs were just trying to be like id Software's Quake (1996), but none of them looked as good or played as well as Quake even after a full decade of trying so incredibly hard to be like Quake.

In the API era marquee selection group bandboxing enhanced control over combat units and snappy multi-layered UIs are far superior to static, lagging and barely readable UIs, which are part and parcel of most pre-1995 cRPGs, such as Darklands.

And again, at screen resolutions above 4:3 800x600 mouse-pointer selections are slowed down due to unscalable UIs and sprites. Thus is 4:3 800x600 256 colors the pinnacle for our purposes.

To be clear:

  • 4:3 is your aspect ratio (letterbox > widescreen)
  • 800x600 are your screen dimensions (though 640x480 also suffices because square pixels)
  • 256 colors is your color depth aka palette range. Though truth be told competent artists can make 16 colors look as good as 256. Want proof? Look at Falcon 1987 (16 cols) vs. Falcon 3 1991 (256 cols) in my Falcon comparison.
 
The simple truth is that 256 colors is often too many: the extra colors bore both artist and observer. And moreover, extra colors often reduce graphical clarity in that seamless color gradation is blurry, concealing edges. Precision gamers want discernable, rigidly-defined edges for exacting movement, positioning and aiming: low resolutions and limited palette ranges are King.

Which brings us to yesteryear tech-dearth + obvious talent versus present-day tech-excess + questionable talent as it pertains to both coder and artist:

Overall, the expert employment of limited computer tech, the pushing of restrictive hardware to the max, is infinitely more impressive than the all-too-common rank-amateur employment of excess high-tech.
And whereas tech of the 80s often didn't do game coders and artists justice, game coders and artists of the 2020s often don't do tech of the 2020s justice. [3]

In the genre I cover the 1990s was when talent and tech stood on equal footing. Thus, the best games.

Standouts of cRPG History


In this era of cRPG History we are talking not only about the best and most complex cRPGs, but also about the cRPGs that looked the best, functioned the best and offered the best gameplay. This is due to two intersecting things -- talent and technology.


The cRPG Renaissance hosts the following cRPGs:


And by "best" I mean best ever -- never been beaten. cf. Best cRPGs.

Nothing beats this grouping. No era is even in the same ballpark as the cRPG Renaissance.

cRPG Renaissance Parameters



  • Release years are mostly North America/English. PC = DOS, Windows, Linux, Amiga and Mac.
  • MMOs and MMORPGs are ignored. I acknowledge the (mostly bad) influence of WarCraft (1994), EverQuest (1999) and Asheron's Call (1999) on cRPGs, but this list is for single-player cRPGs whose design does not rely on other people playing. cRPGs are solitaire computer games.
  • Some strategy games, space-traders, tactics games, roguelikes and Diablo clones have been included, perhaps on whimsical grounds and blurring the genre lines. But really, they deserve a mention because they scratch the same itch. At bottom, I don't care about the "definition" of something that is arbitrary.
  • Expansions and DLCs are also included but mods and TCMs are not.
  • Total number of titles listed: 263.


Footnotes:

[1]

By chipsets, I mean soundcards and 2D video controllers that facilitated big-bitmap switching and shifting as well as hardware scrolling and hardware sprites. I don't mean PCI Voodoo Graphics because 3dfx PCI only offered 3D acceleration, not 2D acceleration (3D fad).

[2]

cRPGs versus Other Classic Genre


The problem with pre-1996 cRPG graphics stems not just from the art assets themselves, but also from how the game engine displays and manipulates art assets in terms of gameplay facilitation; that is, not only did cRPG artists lack talent but cRPG programmers lacked the graphics-coding pedigree that Command & Conquer 1 and WarCraft 2 coders exhibited. I'm referring to efficiency: how the engine displays, shifts around and switches between viewport and UI bitmaps; as well as to animation routines and framerates. Make no mistake, Westwood and Blizzard were graphics-coding Kings, and RTS is the King-genre of Advent of the API.

One could be forgiven for wondering if it was the dregs of game design, coding, writing and art that ended up making cRPGs. Because RTS and TBS games are just so much better.

It wasn't until about 1996 that computer role-playing games began to gain some ground on turn-based strategy games in terms of coding and design prowess, though cRPGs continued to lag badly behind TBS games, and still do even to this day, now in 2024 more than ever before. Despite their popularity cRPGs haven't in the past, don't now and never will attain the level of expert acclaim that TBS games have steadily garnered for four decades.

Short of including hybrids there isn't a single cRPG that comes close to the 20th best TBS game.

cRPGs are weak. In fact, cRPGs are the weakest classic genre with the worst legacy.

Even classic adventure games garner more acclaim yet cRPGs -- by their very nature -- were supposed to have rendered them redundant. No cRPG can reach the heights of Meier, Barcia, Grigsby or Gollop games. Ever. As a rule, cRPGs are not only poorly designed, written and coded but are also lacking in vision, scope and educational value.

As a rule, TBS games make those who play them smarter. But cRPGs? Dumber.

The only thing I have learned from cRPGs is how laughable a genre can get and how hard a genre will run through walls to pander to a crowd of casuals. cRPGs are popular with the mainstream and make lots of money as a result, but they will never be revered like, for example, Civ games.

Remember how 1980s cRPGs sold well merely because of their painterly boxart that made them stand out on store shelves? Nothing has changed.

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.


[3]

This is pre-IDE hard drive tech. So we are talking ST506 HDDs for PCs and A590 sidecars for Amiga 500s. Most Amigans simply did not have A590s in 1989.

Yesteryear Tech-excess?


Outside of extremely expensive graphics workstations and coin-op chipsets, the Amiga was the only tech that could have displayed Diablo 1-esque visuals in 1985; that is, 10 years before Diablo 1 came out.

In 1985 your average computer user was staring at ASCII text on monochrome monitors. Bow down to the Original Alienware of the Amiga.

The Amiga is a rare example of yesteryear tech-excess. As it pertains to games, it took several years for the average designer, coder and artist to harness its power.

Remember that (as Silicon & Synapse) Blizzard had been Amiga coders before Diablo 1. They knew the Amiga. But by the time Diablo 1 was in the pipeline the Amiga had lost the race to IBM PCs. But let's say someone -- anyone --- had the idea for Diablo 1 a few years earlier... yes, they could have made a Diablo-esque game for the Amiga in the 80s, no question.

[4]

The pixels are not even square. Spell out: the artist's bitmaps are vertically squashed. And if you force square pixels the fonts distort.

Back to:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)