The Future of RPGs

[belowmecoldhands]

(....)
The apparent lack of good ideas in modern gaming comes down to risk-averse management and rapidly inflating development budgets. THAT is the most significant change since the 90s, not the pool of talent -- if anything, there are more talented developers than ever before.

(.....)
You simply don't understand the major trends of the last ten years that have made video games a less attractive medium for attention. For one thing, the idea that there is an endless supply of talent willing to grind to the bone for video games is an archaic idea......

More importantly, the culture that shaped video games for the first thirty years has been transplanted to social media....

Finally, any new cultural form (artistic, political, economic) can be judged by how much female influence has effected it....

Currently, Microsoft is spending billions of dollars on worldwide cloud computing infrastructure developed and maintained by minimum wage 20x productivity third worlders so kids playing crackdown 2 can see the buildings they destroy collapse "according to the actual law of physics." We are entering the post-video games as relevant pop art phase, son.

(I tried to reduce the quote to the primary points.)

Idk Higher Animal, I think you got some good ideas, but I'm agreeing more with Keldryn.

I think kickstarter is just a place for game developers who might have made games in the 1980's or 1990's, but can't make them now because they'd be too niche. It's also a place for other experimenting game developers to find backing for their project. The fact people on kickstater have to be convincing and careful with their funders is actually a GOOD thing! It weeds out the halfwits. And nothing stops someone from going the traditional route and trying to make an indie game on private funding. Maybe they got a lot of money? Or maybe they got a friend who does and wants to make a niche game.

I think nothing fundamental has really changed in the industry. I've noticed many of hte people on the codex who complain about a decline confuse a larger gaming industry and a larger audience with the decline. It'd be like if a restaurant broadened its menu and removed some of the older (niche) menu items in order to appeal to more people. The former people who liked going there will no longer want to go there and they'll complain and see dark skies everywhere. For them everything is alien invasion and apocalypse. But now hte restaurant will appeal to more people and might pull in more $$$. Thing is, the former people who no longer like it can find another restaurant. It's a pain because it'll take some time and they'll still be fuming at the old beastie who bit them, but they'll find something. I know they will because I got bit too and found something else to like.

The fact it's now easier than it has ever been to make a game and to distribute it has to be a great sign. The internet is so much more capable now. Software is too. Almost every one has access to a computer and the internet. There're TONS of amateur game programmers out there! Even I've dabbled in it. There're (tens of?) thousands of games online right now I could play, all the way back into the 1980's!!!! There're larger numbers of open source projects. Kickstarter has given promising developers a way to fund their project, while bigger companies are reaching more and more people. My God, game makers have never had it better!

EDIT: I actually like to see physics in games, btw. Your last comment bothered me. Look here:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/284160/

I know it's not really a game. But damn the nerd in me is jerking off.

 

[naossano]

I think kickstarter is just a place for game developers who might have made games in the 1980's or 1990's, but can't make them now because they'd be too niche..

They were already niche at the time. They just happened to have some publishers that were interested in money, BUT also interested in games as well.

 

[Neanderthal]

The thing about "innovation" is that it ties into Trashos' "I want an RPG that's good at everything" lament.

When hardcore gamers talk about "innovation" that they'd like to see, what they mean is "I want the ultimate game that keeps all the breadth and depth of the classics of the past, and also adds even more mechanics".

When developers "innovate", what that often means is taking a particular mechanic or aspect of one of their past games, and focusing heavily on it, typically to the exclusion of other mechanics (and thus to the detriment of the game's overall breadth).

Like I said, that's what professional creatives seem to enjoy doing, what they find intellectually rewarding as designers. They want to explore concepts, not to engage in an eternal feature race with their previous works. (It happens to be commercially rewarding too, but I don't think that's the full story.)

Thing is after twenty to thirty years of this feature streamlining and content dumping there's not much left o gameplay in RPGs anymore is there? What has replaced it = grinding fetch quests, combat, or collecting crap, standard MMO shit and there's been fuck all innovation in most cases. Thing is you can innovate and pursue a central theme, mechanic or whatever and still have a lot of game around it for the player to play and have fun with in meantime, its not a binary choice. Look at Arcanum or Fallout wi all them little details and reactivity to your choices and player design, they pursued their vision but also remembered to be ambitious and try and make a living world that wasn't just a theatre for player, but in general made sense and behaved in a logical manner.

Now i'm not saying every RPG has to have every feature dreamed of, and all the shitty player acknowledgement and achievement ticking we've seen rise up lately, and personally I prefer small scoped, more detailed settings, but you can't keep ripping content out of a game and expect it to stand on its own two legs. Nowadays you get RPGs that try through their art design and subject matter to project an image in one direction, while because of there illogical mechanics and handwaved away features they immediately shatter their own attempt at image setting creating a dissonance. They're working against themselves in my opinion.

To me a game should have the features its gameworld needs, no more and no less, and a smart designer'll find ways to cheat in and implement these in a clever way. Most modern games though have nothing, do not innovate or focus on one thing, just trot out the same simple rote combat, conversation and linear progression within a dead uninteractable backgrounds until a final combat is reached, dull, predictable and unimaginative. Set decoration is exactly that, you don't get lost in worlds anymore and grow fond of people and places, you observe them to see if theres anything to be gained and move on.

I can see what you're saying Infinitron, and I thought a perfect example o this were MCAs Dead Money in New Vegas, an innovative and breakaway departure from the typical gameplay of New Vegas, but that was jam packed with content and features from the base game, and ones that it introduced itself. Course i'm biased here and speaking purely as a player, because I want more game in my hands and on screen, rather than the sparse, minimalist and streamlined "core" experience we see all too often now. Thing is as i've said before, with a few exceptions there doesn't seem to have been anything built on, no lessons learned and no advancement made, its just decline and degeneration.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

I think kickstarter is just a place for game developers who might have made games in the 1980's or 1990's, but can't make them now because they'd be too niche..

They were already niche at the time. They just happened to have some publishers that were interested in money, BUT also interested in games as well.

No the PC games industry was MUCH smaller. Today a PC game maker is trying to appeal to many more players. They're attempting to port their game to the console and even portable devices (in limited amounts), blurring it even further to make porting easier. (Blurring means finding a common denominator.) Almost everybody has a PC now or portable. This was not true in the past. And there're many more female gamers today. A big game maker wants to appeal to a large audiecne.

Back then "niche" games were the standard because the industry was still small. It'll continue to become more streamlined and casual the larger it gets. But that's only true for the bigger game companies. We still got small game studios going on kickstarter (or not) and other amateurs and open source developers. They will take up the slack and give us the niche games.

In my eyes nothing has changed. We're simply evolving to facilitate more consumers. Maybe there is some decline, but I don't think it's as much as commonly claimed on the codex. I think the codex, like yourself, is confusing a larger consumer population and the blurring in big game companies (resulting from trying to sell to a larger consumer base) with decline. All you people need to do is STOP looking at the big companies and focus on the small ones and the amateurs and open source makers.

 

[laclongquan]

The most obvious fundamental change sto the gaming industry NOW compare to two decades ago are the number of gamers, the hardwares, and the way gamers speak to others.

Two decades ago, gamers mostly speak through BBS, or some limited forum/channels, which is a text media. Nowaday the communication occur there, and FB-like platform, which is both text and visual, and audio in the form of live chat in certain game/platform. The quality of communication expand, as well as the size of participants.

Two decades ago you have a handful of game consoles to play, mostly stationary. Hardware limitation mean games are limited in visual and gamers had to accept that. Nowadays gamers can play anywhere, and the most powerful form can offer visual quality same as movie. Bad visual is now nearly unacceptable unless you got powerful gameplay to offset.

The size of gaming audience has expanded from certain groups of young adult nerds (and smaller children) in the past now to billion-size, with all age group, all sex.

They are fundamental changes and you ignore them at your own peril.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

The most obvious fundamental change sto the gaming industry NOW compare to two decades ago are the number of gamers, the hardwares, and the way gamers speak to others.

Two decades ago, gamers mostly speak through BBS, or some limited forum/channels, which is a text media. Nowaday the communication occur there, and FB-like platform, which is both text and visual, and audio in the form of live chat in certain game/platform. The quality of communication expand, as well as the size of participants.

Two decades ago you have a handful of game consoles to play, mostly stationary. Hardware limitation mean games are limited in visual and gamers had to accept that. Nowadays gamers can play anywhere, and the most powerful form can offer visual quality same as movie. Bad visual is now nearly unacceptable unless you got powerful gameplay to offset.

The size of gaming audience has expanded from certain groups of young adult nerds (and smaller children) in the past now to billion-size, with all age group, all sex.

They are fundamental changes and you ignore them at your own peril.

A big game company in 1999 might spend 5 million tops to produce their game. These days they're spending upwards of 30 million or more. If you adjust for inflation, 5 million is about 7.1 million maximum, meaning budgets are much bigger now.

That's because the consumer base is larger and and htey can afford to spend more on the game.

The only difference between now and the past is hte big game companies are producing for a larger audience. That's all. It doesn't mean games are dumber unless there's nothing available for you. In my case, I've found enough games to appeal to me. This not be true for everybody, but I think there's always hope. There're lots of indies and kickstarter is popular and I've never seen more active open source projects than there're now. Things are truly looking up for anyone who's niche.

EDIT: Skyrim's budget was about 80 million. That's about 56 million in 1999.

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

The only difference between now and the past is hte big game companies are producing for a larger audience. That's all. It doesn't mean games are dumber unless there's nothing available for you. In my case, I've found enough games to appeal to me. This not be true for everybody, but I think there's always hope. There're lots of indies and kickstarter is popular and I've never seen more active open source projects than there're now. Things are truly looking up for anyone who's niche.

Attempts to appeal to a larger audience are necessarily attempts to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Universal appeal isn't created through a focus group, it's created by innovating to produce a new product that fills an unserved niche in the market.

 

[Azarkon]

The industry is nothing like it was in the 90s and established developers don't hire talented "young guns" anymore. They hire mediocrities who have no ideas. Why? Because it's a cheaper and more sustainable approach.

Umm.... no.

The game development industry is incredibly demanding and competitive. There is an infinite supply of teenage boys and young men whose dream job is to make video/computer games. This keeps the salaries low compared to software development jobs outside the gaming industry. Crunch time is legendary and the turnover rate is very high.

So you end up with a steady stream of people coming into the industry and a large percentage of them leaving within a few years. What you're left with are a core group of dedicated and passionate developers who make all the important decisions regarding a game's development. Mediocrity doesn't survive long in the industry. The shitty pay and often shittier working conditions weed out anyone who doesn't have both the passion and the talent.

Trust me, there is no shortage of talented developers with good ideas. Unfortunately many of them burn out and leave the industry before they acquire enough experience to be able to fully realize their talents and ideas.

The apparent lack of good ideas in modern gaming comes down to risk-averse management and rapidly inflating development budgets. THAT is the most significant change since the 90s, not the pool of talent -- if anything, there are more talented developers than ever before.

Competitive is not the same as selective.

There is an infinite supply of wide-eyed youths who go into the industry thinking it is what it isn't, and leaving within a few years because their illusions were shattered. The bulk of these people get into the industry via corporations such as EA and Activision. Those corporations in turn get to lay off people by the thousands every year. That's the "competitive" aspect, but it isn't at all "selective" because no one with talent and dignity would agree to work in the industry after getting treated that way. I know several people who went through just that, and have no desire to ever go back even though they love games. The only people who'd remain after that treatment are 1) people so dedicated to making games that they'd let management walk all over them, in which case I don't see how they're ever going to be placed in a position to lead and 2) people cannot find work elsewhere, in which case they just suck.

The only way to avoid this fate is to work for smaller studios, especially indie studios. But the problem with those studios is that many of them are incredibly incestuous in who they hire, and basically rotate the same in-group over and over. This is especially the case for upper level designers and companies formed by veterans. But there are exceptions, and those exceptions are why smaller indie studios are the future of the gaming industry, despite the fact that the big corporations are the main recruiters.

 

[Telengard]

The main (but not sole) reason for the "broad appeal" aspect and the loss of the niche scene is the well-documented but not oft-mentioned nature of game sales. Back in the 90s, there was that tech race that everybody always praises. But a tech race is fueled by money, it is quite literally a giant money furnace, since it costs money to acquire new tech and new training, money to acquire new people with new skills, money for the conversion process, and money for R&D if you want to be on the cutting edge. Gamers ('cept for strategy grognards) demanded cutting edge graphics, dumping anyone like SSI who couldn't adapt (with endless "outdated" and "subpar" comments on reviews and forums), and the market gave the graphics whores public what they demanded, as it tends to do.

Now, in a normal environment, these costs would be sent right back on those who are demanding them, which would naturally cause a check on those demands as prices rise and people start refusing to pay more. But gamers have refused to pay more for games period, right form the start, leaving prices relatively stagnant for nigh on 25 years. (And so, even if the rising cost of graphics weren't a factor, inflation certainly would be.) So, what do companies who don't want to go the way of SSI do when they can't raise the price but their costs are skyrocketing? Well, if you can't go up, you go out. Broad appeal. New markets. Dump the niche. And on top of that, you form large companies fueled by investment to mitigate the rising risk. (Because putting a couple hundred thousand of your own money on the line is one thing, doing a couple million quite another.)

 

[Azarkon]

Another fact to keep in mind: the average age of gamers is increasing. I think, depending on study, it's now anywhere from 30 to 37. Mobile gamers are younger but only by about 3-4 years.

Importantly, 25% of present day gamers are over 50 years old. People don't just stop playing games, and while I'm pretty sure it won't ever get to the stage where the average age of gamers is 50 - because kids do still play games - there's going to be a definite need to appeal to the older audience as time goes on.

What do people in their 30s and 40s want from games vs. what people in their 10s and 20s do? It's a problem we've only began to answer, yet is especially in need of an answer when you think about the fact that older people tend to have money to spare, while the kids, not so much.

 

[naossano]

I think kickstarter is just a place for game developers who might have made games in the 1980's or 1990's, but can't make them now because they'd be too niche..

They were already niche at the time. They just happened to have some publishers that were interested in money, BUT also interested in games as well.

No the PC games industry was MUCH smaller. Today a PC game maker is trying to appeal to many more players. They're attempting to port their game to the console and even portable devices (in limited amounts), blurring it even further to make porting easier. (Blurring means finding a common denominator.) Almost everybody has a PC now or portable. This was not true in the past. And there're many more female gamers today. A big game maker wants to appeal to a large audiecne.

Back then "niche" games were the standard because the industry was still small. It'll continue to become more streamlined and casual the larger it gets. But that's only true for the bigger game companies. We still got small game studios going on kickstarter (or not) and other amateurs and open source developers. They will take up the slack and give us the niche games.

In my eyes nothing has changed. We're simply evolving to facilitate more consumers. Maybe there is some decline, but I don't think it's as much as commonly claimed on the codex. I think the codex, like yourself, is confusing a larger consumer population and the blurring in big game companies (resulting from trying to sell to a larger consumer base) with decline. All you people need to do is STOP looking at the big companies and focus on the small ones and the amateurs and open source makers.

Still. The the RPG were still niche in the late 1990s. It was the golden age of FPS, from Wolfenstein to Half-Life, it was the Blizzard madness with Starcraft/Diablo, there was also a big market for console games like Tomb Raider, Metal Gear, Resident Evil etc... If we except Baldur's Gate, i don't think there was any single (actual) western RPG that had wide mainstream success (some like Fallout, Arcanum or Planescape had critical success, but i don't think the publishers were swimming with money, like Blizzard or the japanese). Sure, some genre, like sierra adventure games or isometric FPS were more successfull in the 1990s, but i still maintain that westerns rpg were already smalls niches amongs bigger blockbusters in the 1990s. Sure AAA grew bigger, which increased the gap, but indie grew bigger too in a way, as the cost of distribution really decreased. (some indie games were nightmarish to distribute in the 1990s)

 

[Lacrymas]

I'd say the RPG is still niche lulz. Fallout 3/4, Skyrim and Twitcher 3 are so far away from the RPG that they might as well not count. The shameful amount of copies sold by AoD and UnderRail (for UnderRail I'm presuming since I haven't seen actual numbers) attest to that.

 

[Archibald]

From bigger players I think only Larian has any hopes of pushing genre forward, everyone else is too busy cashing in on that nostalgia.

 

[naossano]

I'd say the RPG is still niche lulz. Fallout 3/4, Skyrim and Twitcher 3 are so far away from the RPG that they might as well not count. The shameful amount of copies sold by AoD and UnderRail (for UnderRail I'm presuming since I haven't seen actual numbers) attest to that.

Might ?

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

Might ?

[Insert "But what is an RPG?" shitpost here.]

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

In the 1980s, Wizardry and Ultima were mainstream. As were Might & Magic, The Bard's Tale, Faery Tale Adventure, Dungeon Master, Pool of Radiance, et cetera. RPGs weren't the single dominant genre of computer games, but there wasn't any such thing as a single dominant genre, and RPGs were one of the more popular ones (along with adventure games and a few others). Although Codexers tend to disdain both console games and Japanese games, the RPG genre gained popularity in Japan after the release of the Famicom, established itself as one the major genres of console games outside of Japan in the succeeding era of consoles (lead by the Phantasy Star series on the Sega Genesis and the Final Fantasy series on the SNES), and became even more popular in the Playstation era. At any given time, there were several genres that were more popular on consoles, but the RPG genre was one of the major console genres even outside of Japan for almost the entirety of the '90s.

RPGs fell out of the mainstream in the 2000s as the audience for video games continued to expand, but it was in part a relative decline in popularity due to the larger audience having a different distribution in qualities than the previous smaller, more audience (a transformation begun in the '90s on computers but temporarily reversed on '90s consoles due to their aging demographics). MMORPGs had burst onto the gaming scene in the late-90s and soared in popularity in the mid-to-late-'00s, channeling the energies of many former RPGers into their lifeless Skinner boxes. Those companies that continued making single-player RPGs overcompensated by fleeing from RPG mechanics, until we reached the point where the point where the RPG market was dominated by hybrid action-RPGs or FPS-RPGs. Ironically, designers of other genres recognized the appeal of RPGs and began grafting RPG elements into their own games, a trend that continues today. This left a sizeable market for 'true' RPGs untapped, with the last few years seeing a burst of activity by indies and smaller developers, and some of these new RPGs (e.g. Legend of Grimrock) struck gold. Although the broader audience is overall less interested in RPGs than the smaller audience of the past, the absolute size of the RPG audience should be larger. It's simply a matter of getting developers to realize they don't need to make AAA games that appeal to the lowest common denominator, but rather develop games for the same type of people who formed the audience of the '90s and '80s.

 

[GrimEx]

Make them all real time/Action, it is more interesting, has more player urgency and requires skill/reflex and careful calculation of how you approach enemies, instead of selecting moves from a menu which is boring, anti-gameplay and lacks action and reaction. With amazing AI, that already makes them ten times better.
Make the Actions have meaning, no button smashing, something ala Souls/Blood games, etc.
Carefully crafted open world, none of this dungeon generated garbage.
Better writers, world building and lore.
Focus on one class, none of this "I can make every single class in one play-through" etc. So if you pick Warrior, you are stuck with Warrior till end game with it's own set of special abilities.
Punishment for playing like a retard.
Interconnected quests which can lead to you making decisions on the outcome.
Decisions that have meanings, so you stumbled upon farm family getting raided by bandits. Help them, and you get special deals when buying food, don't help them, food prices go up since farm people died and nobody tends to the crops. Just an example, it's not fleshed out but you get the point. Or align and help the bandits, etc.
Destroy/take out farming, MMO quests like collect X for Y, Kill this amount of Wolves, etc.

So far, that's the only things I can think of. I usually have much much more to say about RPGs, but this will suffice for now.

In the 1980s, Wizardry and Ultima were mainstream. As were Might & Magic, The Bard's Tale, Faery Tale Adventure, Dungeon Master, Pool of Radiance, et cetera. RPGs weren't the single dominant genre of computer games, but there wasn't any such thing as a single dominant genre, and RPGs were one of the more popular ones (along with adventure games and a few others). Although Codexers tend to disdain both console games and Japanese games, the RPG genre gained popularity in Japan after the release of the Famicom, established itself as one the major genres of console games outside of Japan in the succeeding era of consoles (lead by the Phantasy Star series on the Sega Genesis and the Final Fantasy series on the SNES), and became even more popular in the Playstation era. At any given time, there were several genres that were more popular on consoles, but the RPG genre was one of the major console genres even outside of Japan for almost the entirety of the '90s.

RPGs fell out of the mainstream in the 2000s as the audience for video games continued to expand, but it was in part a relative decline in popularity due to the larger audience having a different distribution in qualities than the previous smaller, more audience (a transformation begun in the '90s on computers but temporarily reversed on '90s consoles due to their aging demographics). MMORPGs had burst onto the gaming scene in the late-90s and soared in popularity in the mid-to-late-'00s, channeling the energies of many former RPGers into their lifeless Skinner boxes. Those companies that continued making single-player RPGs overcompensated by fleeing from RPG mechanics, until we reached the point where the point where the RPG market was dominated by hybrid action-RPGs or FPS-RPGs. Ironically, designers of other genres recognized the appeal of RPGs and began grafting RPG elements into their own games, a trend that continues today. This left a sizeable market for 'true' RPGs untapped, with the last few years seeing a burst of activity by indies and smaller developers, and some of these new RPGs (e.g. Legend of Grimrock) struck gold. Although the broader audience is overall less interested in RPGs than the smaller audience of the past, the absolute size of the RPG audience should be larger. It's simply a matter of getting developers to realize they don't need to make AAA games that appeal to the lowest common denominator, but rather develop games for the same type of people who formed the audience of the '90s and '80s.

No such thing as "JRPGs" they are linear narrative stories/plot. The correct term that people used back then were Lite RPGs, since it borrowed mechanics from Western RPGs and Dungeon Crawlers at the time, many Japanese, in fact I would go as far and say that 90% of Japanese developer were influenced by something from the West, which were then made for the casual Japanese audience at the time.

I think one of the only RPG that Japan made was Tactics Ogre.

>It's simply a matter of getting developers to realize they don't need to make AAA games that appeal to the lowest common denominator, but rather develop games for the same type of people who formed the audience of the '90s and '80s.
Except most developers do want that audience because they want the profits that big developers can make.