SecretMaster wrote:I disagree, I think a lot of the "classic" cRPG's really were about roleplaying a character, but it was done within the context of the story. I still let my imagination run wild and had fun with the characters I created, and at the end of the day it was roleplaying my character, not progressing to "beat the game." Which is why I often enjoy sandbox style games a la Elder Scrolls. Baldur's Gate was phenomenal in that aspect, as well as creating a really compelling story. Baldur's Gate 2, while still a very good game, was more confining than Baldur's Gate. But typically I find that the older games, like the early mid 1990 cRPG's, are absolute gold. We still have the box, manual, strategy guide + CD for ES II: Daggerfall. In all these years, I don't think there has been a single computer I didn't install it on. That game is simply so much fun. Likewise another great game was Wizardry 7: Crusaders of the Dark Savant. That game was amazing, and I think one of the most challenging games I've ever played.
I know it's been a while since I posted that, but I've been busy. In order to fully understand what I'm about to say, I ask you read my blog (main page is here:
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DarrenTomlyn/3291/), though I recommend you really start with the contents post, starting at the top and working your way down - (it's all meant to be read in a particular order):
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DarrenTomlyn/20100523/5220/Contents.php(Please note that this blog is still very much incomplete - cRPG's are what I'm hoping to wind up at).
If you read all that, (and I hope it makes sense), then the following should also do so:
1) The ONLY type of story that a game requires to be told, in order to exist, is it's setting. However, this story does NOT need to be
created in order to exist - (we can use our normal surroundings for instance). Of course, computer games require a setting and everything else to be created too - this is part of what makes computer games what they are.
2) However, there is only one type of game that I am aware of that is defined by its setting: board games. EVERY other game in existence is defined by one of two things, (if not both): what they player DOES in a game, and the media used to do so - (the boards in board games are actually just the latter, though they affect it's setting rather than what the player uses directly). Stories that are TOLD, especially plot/narrative have NO place in such a definition - why? Because they are already defined elsewhere: as ART.
3) Games in general, even types of games, can NOT be defined by ART, PUZZLES or COMPETITIONS - they are all represented by separate words for a good reason.
4) The only media that matters for computer games, is the computer (or console etc.) itself. Because of this, the ONLY thing that can define types of computer games, is what the player DOES (for him/herself) in a game.
5)Just as monopoly can not be defined as chess if you happen to use a chess piece whilst playing the game - computer games cannot be defined by what it is the player controls (beyond the media (computer/console) used itself). For this reason, just using a character in a game is not enough to define it as a cRPG - it's what you DO with the character that should define the type of game, nothing more.
Unfortunately, it is here that we have a problem with cRPG's. What is it that cRPG's allows players to DO (for themselves) that makes them unique, and distinct from any other type of game?
Or, to put it in a slightly different light - what is it a player can, (or SHOULD/must?) be able DO for him/herself in a (all) cRPG(s), that they cannot do in an action adventure game, such as the Grand Theft Auto series/Zelda etc.?
(Note: as I said above, puzzles, including interactive dialogue etc. (mazes in literary form), have no place in the definition of games!).
It's 15 parsecs to Kessel, we've replaced the negative power-coupling, it's dark and we're wearing welding goggles. Hit it.
