Open Call for Reviews

[octavius]

Which part? About the last part being a bit tedious or about the actual ending?

This part: "Speaking of the end, Magic Candle has one of the most unique ways of winning a CRPG."

That's not much of a spoiler, is it?
Anyway, the sentence is rather weak. Suggestions for improvement?

 

[felipepepe]

That's not much of a spoiler, is it?
Anyway, the sentence is rather weak. Suggestions for improvement?

The problem is that it adds nothing, it reads like an empty tease. I suggest that either you spoil the ending a bit more or replace that with something else. Like, in the text you also talk about how stats can be raised "in a more adventurous way" - you should give one or two examples.

Baldur's Gate has real time tactical elements, like a Commandos with stats. Saying it has RTS elements is a pretty big stretch. Baldur's Gate would also not stop being a RPG if you added base/troop building and management, it would simply expand on another facet of gameplay. A better comparison is between Warlords Battlecry 3 and Warcraft 3. Both have clear, well developed RTS elements but one has a well developed character system on par with Baldur's Gate (which is what makes it an RPG) while the other is Warcraft 3.

You are entering "define RPG" territorry. I don't think that a well defined character system turn a game into an RPG - Football Manager clearly isn't an RPG, even though its system is more complex than most RPGs.

 

[Mastermind]

You are entering "define RPG" territorry. I don't think that a well defined character system turn a game into an RPG -

What does then?

Football Manager clearly isn't an RPG, even though its system is more complex than most RPGs.

I haven't played it so I can't comment.

 

[felipepepe]

You are entering "define RPG" territorry. I don't think that a well defined character system turn a game into an RPG -

What does then?

We've been trying to figure that one out for a few decades now... everyone has a different answer. Personally, I agree with Doug Church that genres are a shorthand to describe how the games play:

Here's an example; I'll say "you have two swords and you beat people up". If I told you it was a role playing game you'd assume you had a bunch of stats, and you'd pick strategies and you'd watch it happening. If I told you it was a real-time strategy game, that might be the cool animation that your guys run, but you actually have nothing to do with it because all you're doing is grabbing twenty guys on-screen and moving them left. Whereas if I told you it was Soul Calibur III, you'd assume you'd have to master a set of crazy combos.

So when you say I have to build bases, handle resources and train & control various types of troops through various mission scenarios (instead of a open world), that game plays primarily as a strategy game. Adding a character system doesn't change that.

 

[Mastermind]

Here's an example; I'll say "you have two swords and you beat people up". If I told you it was a role playing game you'd assume you had a bunch of stats, and you'd pick strategies and you'd watch it happening.

This can also describe just about any tactical game so it's clearly not helpful in defining an RPG. It further excludes RPGs like Daggerfall where you don't pick a strategy and watch what happens but actively control your character and his/her actions.

If I told you it was a real-time strategy game, that might be the cool animation that your guys run, but you actually have nothing to do with it because all you're doing is grabbing twenty guys on-screen and moving them left. Whereas if I told you it was Soul Calibur III, you'd assume you'd have to master a set of crazy combos.

So when you say I have to build bases, handle resources and train & control various types of troops through various mission scenarios (instead of a open world), that game plays primarily as a strategy game. Adding a character system doesn't change that.

And when you can build bases, handle resources and train & control various troops and also have a character with a bunch of stats where you pick strategies and watch it happening? The problem here is that there is no one way that RPGs play like. Fallout, Wizardry, Baldur's Gate and Daggerfall all play very differently from each other. I don't even think RPG is a genre in the same way, say, beat-em ups or first person shooters are, it's a dimension on its own.

 

[felipepepe]

And when you can build bases, handle resources and train & control various troops and also have a character with a bunch of stats where you pick strategies and watch it happening?

Then you have a Startegy/RPG hybrid, a category that's too vast to cover one by one and so will be compiled into a separate article.

The problem here is that there is no one way that RPGs play like. Fallout, Wizardry, Baldur's Gate and Daggerfall all play very differently from each other. I don't even think RPG is a genre in the same way, say, beat-em ups or first person shooters are, it's a dimension on its own.

There are patterns... 1-8 characters in a party, plenty of stats, XP & level up, equipment, exploration, dungeon-crawling, killing baddies, talking to NPCs... that describes Fallout, Wizardry, Baldur's Gate and Daggerfall, but don't fit Warlords Battlecry 3.

 

[Mastermind]

And when you can build bases, handle resources and train & control various troops and also have a character with a bunch of stats where you pick strategies and watch it happening?

Then you have a Startegy/RPG hybrid, a category that's too vast to cover one by one and so will be compiled into a separate article.

It's a hybrid in the same sense every other RPG is a hybrid. As far as I can tell people call some RPGs hybrids but not others based purely on their novelty. Strategy rpgs actually aren't even all that common in the first place. Only a handful were listed in this thread and some (like Warcraft 3) barely even have any RPG elements.

There are patterns... 1-8 characters in a party, plenty of stats, XP & level up, equipment, exploration, dungeon-crawling, killing baddies, talking to NPCs... that describes Fallout, Wizardry, Baldur's Gate and Daggerfall, but don't fit Warlords Battlecry 3.

Have you actually played Warlords Battlecry 3? All of these describe Warlords Battlecry 3. The dungeon crawling is rare and shallow but even that is there. You have a character (and you can rename the units in your retinue for a pseudo-party), it has plenty of stats, xp & level up, equipment, exploration, killing baddies and talking to NPCs. The stat system is varied and deep enough that you can even build up a hero that ignores the strategy element altogether. My Daemon Warrior plays like a Diablo character with autoattacking, i have a high level fey druid that can run around the map invisible dropping lightning on shit and periodically sending out swarms of level 20 fire elementals to sodomize everything that moves, a high elf pyromancer that can armageddon an entire opposing army then ressurect it, raise its experience with soul flame then buff it up with invigorate, white ward, resist fire, etc, send it against its previous owner and keep it in top shape by periodically spamming a map-wide healing spell. Fuck, I could write a small book on fun to play builds that require little to no player input on the strategic part, which I don't mean to minimize because that part is well developed and entertaining too.

 

[J_C]

 

[Crooked Bee]

felipepepe's the editor, so whatever he decides to be (or not be) an RPG for the purpose of the book, is (or isn't) one, duh.

 

[Deuce Traveler]

It's funny, but I keep thinking that one of the easiest times we had of categorizing games was through parody. DarkUnderlord had created forum titles that read "RPGs Jaesun likes" and "RPGs Jaesun thinks are shit", and although it created some butthurt, no one outside of Jaesun could dispute what games belonged in what forums. Anyway, I digress and it is the editor's job to choose as was just mentioned by Bee.

felipepe may have to add a piece to his introduction explaining why some games are not included. Aasimov had to do something similar when he edited a collection of writings in his The Hugo Winners volumes, and wrote a solid explanation of what was not included and why. He lays it down that he could not include everyone, so he as editor, chose what he thought were the best stories that stuck to the science part of science fiction, or ones that he found too influential and enjoyable not to include if softer on the science. I don't have the copy on me, so I'll have to add the quote in when I'm back in the states, but I do recall it having a bit of entertaining snark to it; mostly as he had not yet won a Hugo for any of his writings.

 

[felipepepe]

Honestly, this is why I decided that either I would edit the book (mostly) alone or it would never be done. Imagine having a council debating which games to add and how many pages to give each entry...

Look Mastermind , if we could agree on a definition of RPG, we would have done so years ago. There are dozens of games like that: Spellforce, Age of Wonder, Warlords, Warlords Battlecry, HOMM, King's Bounty, Eador, Warcraft III, Masters of Magic, Lords of Magic, Disciples, King Arthur, Fantasy Wars, Dark Omen, Shadow of the Horned Rat, Etherlords, Battle for Wesnoth, Sacrifice, Dawn of War II, Dragonshard, Mark of Chaos... that's a quick list, I'm sure thre are many more. And some of these are long series, with various expansions and sequels. I'm not saying they won't be in the book, but that they'll be presented in a different way, just like I'll do with MMOs and MUDs.

 

[Mastermind]

My main issue is that you have non-rpg shit like:

Jagged Alliance
X-Com
The Bard's Tale Construction Set (not only not a RPG but not even a game)
STALKER
possibly others, I just skimmed through the list.

in the main RPG section, but for some reason you want to segregate games who check off just about every RPG trait into their own section. There's no logic to your current division.

And there's no need to pull rank, ultimately it's your book so you can do what you want with it, I'm just saying the current system's shit.

 

[J_C]

My main issue is that you have non-rpg shit like:

Jagged Alliance
X-Com
The Bard's Tale Construction Set (not only not a RPG but not even a game)
STALKER
possibly others, I just skimmed through the list.

in the main RPG section, but for some reason you want to segregate games who check off just about every RPG trait into their own section. There's no logic to your current division.

And there's no need to pull rank, ultimately it's your book so you can do what you want with it, I'm just saying the current system's shit.

That's actually a good point felipe. I didn't realised that these are on the list, but to be fair, they don't beling into the book more than say HOMM.

 

[octavius]

What makes Jagged Alliance "non-rpg shit"?

 

[Alchemist]

Wait... some of you are saying Bard's Tale Construction Set doesn't belong in a book about CRPGs and their history? What are you guys smoking?? It was one of the earliest toolsets to make your own CRPG - how is that not relevant?

I trust Felipe's judgement on this stuff.

 

[Mastermind]

What makes Jagged Alliance "non-rpg shit"?

The same thing that makes Starcraft non-rpg shit.

 

[octavius]

What makes Jagged Alliance "non-rpg shit"?

The same thing that makes Starcraft non-rpg shit.

I'm not familiar with Starcraft, so please enlighten me.

 

[Mastermind]

What makes Jagged Alliance "non-rpg shit"?

The same thing that makes Starcraft non-rpg shit.

I'm not familiar with Starcraft, so please enlighten me.

You're a commander managing a bunch of little men (well, sometimes aliens in Starcraft's case). The player character has no presence in the actual game so there's no actual role-playing.

 

[felipepepe]

Bard's Tale Construction Set was Tim Cain's first game, that alone makes it wonderful. Seriously speaking, it's a cornerstone of RPG history AND it comes with a pre-made campaign that's quite decent, if you need it to "qualify as a game".

That's actually a good point felipe. I didn't realised that these are on the list, but to be fair, they don't beling into the book more than say HOMM.

They both belong in the book and they both will be on the book, but presented in different ways FFS. I would love to make a 2-page spread for every single RPG or hybrid in history, but I have a page limit and I must focus on what's important.

If I added the HOMM series to the main list, I would have to follow the page layout I use there and would waste like 6-8 pages to cover the entire series. Even if I focus only on the most important games, they are very dissimilar; I cannot cover HOMM I, III and V in the same review, like I did with the Phantasie or Bard's Tale series.

Moving them to a separate session allows me to change the layout, remove the header image and cover them in a broad sense, together with other similar titles. Especially since strategy/RPG hybrids are a tangential thing. I can spare 1-2 pages to cover an extremely influential title like X-COM with great detail in a book about RPGs, but spending like 30-40 pages to cover all strategy/RPG hybrids individually is nonsense.

You're a commander managing a bunch of little men (well, sometimes aliens in Starcraft's case). The player character has no presence in the actual game so there's no actual role-playing.

This coming from someone that's defending Warlords III as an RPG is ridiculous...

 

[octavius]

What makes Jagged Alliance "non-rpg shit"?

The same thing that makes Starcraft non-rpg shit.

I'm not familiar with Starcraft, so please enlighten me.

You're a commander managing a bunch of little men (well, sometimes aliens in Starcraft's case). The player character has no presence in the actual game so there's no actual role-playing.

By following that logic most partry based CRPGs are not RPGs.

 

[Mastermind]

This coming from someone that's defending Warlords III as an RPG is ridiculous...

Warlords BATTLECRY 3, not Warlords 3. They are entirely different games FFS.

Warlords 3.

Warlords BATTLECRY 3.

The RPG elements in Warlords are even lighter than HOMM. The WBC series OTOH could probably smoke a lot of "vanilla" RPG character systems.

 

[Mastermind]

What makes Jagged Alliance "non-rpg shit"?

The same thing that makes Starcraft non-rpg shit.

I'm not familiar with Starcraft, so please enlighten me.

You're a commander managing a bunch of little men (well, sometimes aliens in Starcraft's case). The player character has no presence in the actual game so there's no actual role-playing.

By following that logic most partry based CRPGs are not RPGs.

No, the characters (or rather, at least one of the characters) in a party based RPG are the player. The player isn't some disconnected commander giving orders from a remote location. Jagged Alliance identifies the player as a commander, just like Starcraft does. Meanwhile nobody in Daggerfall or Baldur's Gate or Fallout (or Warlords Battlecry for that matter) hires a disconnected voice to order them around.

 

[Mastermind]

Anyway, I think I've said all about I need to say on the subject. If felipepepe includes WBC (in whatever section) let me know, I'll happily review it.

 

[MRY]

The player isn't some disconnected commander giving orders from a remote location. Jagged Alliance identifies the player as a commander, just like Starcraft does. Meanwhile nobody in Daggerfall or Baldur's Gate or Fallout (or Warlords Battlecry for that matter) hires a disconnected voice to order them around.

Isn't Dungeon Master based around a disconnected commander giving orders? I know Captive explicitly is. Was Wizardry? I can't remember.

Incidentally, I tend to agree that JA and X-Com are not really RPGs.

I remember somewhat enjoying the WBC games (when I was writing some promotional fan-fic schlock for a Warlords game, I played through the whole Warlords series), but they always felt like RTSs with some RPG elements and TBS elements thrown in. I've had many a debate on how to define RPGs, but my general approach is the Glenn Beck (!!!) theory that you come up with a list of core values and say, "If you have X/Y of these, it's an RPG." WBC has some of those core values (as you note), but it doesn't have a continuous map (it uses separate stages), you can't meaningfully return to those stages, it doesn't have non-combat ways to interact with the world, and it doesn't have NPCs to talk to. (Though maybe it had some of these; it's been like 15 years since I played it.) I think it's just missing too many core features to be called an RPG.

 

[felipepepe]

No, the characters (or rather, at least one of the characters) in a party based RPG are the player. The player isn't some disconnected commander giving orders from a remote location. Jagged Alliance identifies the player as a commander, just like Starcraft does. Meanwhile nobody in Daggerfall or Baldur's Gate or Fallout (or Warlords Battlecry for that matter) hires a disconnected voice to order them around.

Nonsense, Dungeon Master has you playing a invisible character that selects and controls 4 heroes. Same thing in Phantasie, X-COM, Captive, FTL and a few others. What JA doesn't have are "a bunch of little men"; it only has named characters that you directly control, each with unique stats, skills and inventory. Even X-COM only has squads of named, individual soldiers, with unique stats.

Unlike Warlords OR Warlords Battlecry, that both feature nameless, generic clone soldiers alongside the heroes. That's a defining "strategy game" aspect, and where I draw the line.