By Kieron Gillen on January 21st, 2009 at 4:43 pm.
It’s a name which is already on the lips of many who pine after a classical school of RPGs. But not nearly enough, for our reckoning. The last time we talked to designer Vince D. Weller, he proved himself the indie-RPG equivalent of the early Manic Street Preachers in a I-hate-dumbed-down-RPGs-more-than-Hitler sort of way. Is he similarly angry today? Not really. But he’s still more outspoken than any forty other given developers and takes time to shares his and his team’s vision of what the RPG should be.
RPS: It’s been a while since we’ve last talked. Care to bring RPS’ readers up to date with what you’ve been up to? What’s Age of Decadence’s progress?
Vince D. Weller: We are slowly getting there. A combat demo should be released in a few months. The demo will be set in an arena district of one of the towns and will show what the game looks like. You’ll fight different opponents, ranging from local scum and captured criminals to gladiators and professional fighters looking for easy coins. You’ll fight against single fighters and groups; fast, lightly armored opponents and heavy, ironclad juggernauts. This should give you a good feel of the combat and give us plenty of feedback to work with.
In unrelated news, the game was voted as the second most anticipated RPG by RPG Watch readers. We were offered a good publishing deal by a large North American publisher, although I’m not sure if that’s the direction we’d take. And a French gaming magazine did a several page AoD article/interview. Needless to say, we appreciate this support.
RPS: The team have all loved RPGs for years. Has actually constructing one made you appreciate different parts of the genre or other games more or less?
Vince D. Weller: Not really.
Being puzzled by the question, I asked Oscar, our artist extraordinaire, to contribute. Here is his answer:
“Well, it certainly changed my views on RPGs. Seeing how RPGs work and how easy it is to do simple checks (see Vince’s lore and reputation examples) and add some depth to gameplay, made it harder for me to accept and enjoy shallow gameplay. I subconsciously look for missed opportunities where you can insert choices and options without increasing the overall workload.
Vince used this example in some interview:
“Let’s take “The Witcher” as an example. For storytelling reasons your character is arrested when he tries to enter the city and thrown in jail. In the jail your character is asked to kill a creature in the sewers where he meets an important NPC. That’s the drama- and twist-filled story. It works great in a book format where the reader is following adventures of the main character, but it’s too restrictive in a game where the player IS the main character.
A better design would have been to offer an alternative. Allow the witcher to enter the city via the sewers (after fighting the guards and escaping or after being warned about the ambush as a reward for developing relationship with the villagers) and then run into the above mentioned NPC who will offer you to join him to kill the creature. As you can see, it’s still the same overall story and direction, and the alternative doesn’t require new art assets and tons of development time. It reuses the same situations – the arrest, the creature in the sewers, the knight NPC, the same villagers, and the same sewers, but suddenly you get an important choice instead of a forced situation that you are unable to avoid.
That’s our design “philosophy”, for the lack of a better word.”
That’s what I’m talking about. There was a time when I thought that Final Fantasy 7 was the greatest RPG ever, but that time is long gone.”
RPS: What’s the key important parts of RPGs for you? Why? And how does Age of Decadence deliver on them?
Vince D. Weller: I’d say that role-playing is probably the most important aspect of role-playing games. I know it sounds crazy, because these days RPGs offer anything but role-playing… What? No. Playing a role is not role-playing, son. Role-playing means freedom to do whatever you want within the boundaries of a storyline. I’m not talking about abandoning the storyline Bethesda style and exploring the world. I’m talking about a game giving you a general goal and letting you complete it in different ways, using different skills and abilities. See this article creatively called What’s a role-playing game? for more info.
Why is it important? Take Baldur’s Gate 2, for example. It has a lot of great qualities, but it’s not really a role-playing game. It’s more of an action adventure game with adjustable stats. Yes, I know. I’ve really done it now. Sir, can you please put the pitchfork down? Thank you. Anyway, if one were to replay BG2 one would have exactly the same experience, give or take few meaningless choices. Games like Fallout and Arcanum, on the other hand, can create very different experiences and let you do things differently when you replay them. That’s one of the AoD’s main features.
There are many different, logically fitting ways to complete quests, there are little things like Streetwise and Lore checks that can completely change your perception of situations and add new options, and then there are reputation checks that can change NPCs reaction. Here are some examples:
As you can see, here we have two very different outcomes of the same situation. Mind you, even this situation is optional and a direct result of you intimidating a powerful NPC and trying to get something for nothing. Should you be more reasonable or find a way to handle your objective without this NPC involvement, this conversation wouldn’t happen.
Here we have 3 different lore-based variants of the same conversation.
Like I said, role-playing.
If you want to see more, here is a direct link to 27 dialogue screenshots illustrating different options within a quest.
RPS: What do you think people’s response to Age will be?
Vince D. Weller: Some people will like it. Some people will hate it. The usual. If I have to guess, I’d say that most people would ignore it because hardcore RPGs with lots of text and a decade-old graphics don’t tend to sell a lot. However, there are people who like such games and I really hope that they’ll enjoy AoD. Our aspirations don’t go further.
RPS: What are you looking forward to in 2009? And predictions or trends you see coming? What about the RPG? Better or worse than 2008?
Vince D. Weller: Well, it’s shaping up to be a great year. Dragon Age, Divinity 2, Diablo 3, Risen, Alpha Protocol, and maybe even the Alien RPG. Plus another NWN2 expansion (hopefully with George Ziets on board) and Fallout 3 extra content. Plus indies – Eschalon: Book 2 and Geneforge 5. Best year since 2002.
Predictions? I’ll be playing a lot of RPGs in 2009. I can’t tell you how I know these things, so don’t ask.
Anyway, thanks for the opportunity, Kieron. Thanks for reading, folks.
RPS: Our pleasure. Thanks for your time, Vince.
Age of Decadence will be out in the future.
21/01/2009 at 17:10 Brother None says:
And he didn’t even insult anyone! :P
Well ok maybe BGII fans…
Great stuff, a succinct summary of why one could look forward to AoD if your tastes so incline (mine do!)
21/01/2009 at 17:16 qrter says:
Looking forward to this one.
21/01/2009 at 17:17 Rickman says:
Although i agree with his tastes and will definitely get this game, saying that a game is only an RPG if it has choices and consequences is a bit silly. Very few games before Fallout did it, and classic titles like the Might and Magic and Wizardry or Eye of the Beholder series had none. They were mostly dungeon hacks.
21/01/2009 at 17:19 James G says:
Hmmm, sounds interesting, and in my mind stat heavy, turn based, and multiple paths and solutions are all good things, but cannot exist in isolation. (And I realise that the first two of those will be major turn-offs to some. But don’t assume I’m asking for all games to be like that.) Multiple paths through a bland story can ultimate end up feeling meaningless as you care not for their context. And stats are only good if you can understand them, and they have a real impact on how you play the game.
Oh, and you may want to add a spoiler tag at the begining of the bit on the Witcher. Although its possible that I’m the only person on these boards who hasn’t got inside the city. (I know the best stuff is supposed to be later, but at the moment I’m not feeling enough love for the game to get stuck in.)
21/01/2009 at 17:19 Pags says:
Milk of horse, like wine! Game of Weller, like Planescape!
I wasn’t around when Vault Dweller managed to insult everyone on RPS so I’m allowed to look forward to this. And I am.
21/01/2009 at 17:19 Therlun says:
2009? Ahh… the blind optimism of the youth.
21/01/2009 at 17:20 Gauntt says:
Sounds awesome.
Although I just wasted way too much time reading through all the dialogue in the link he suggested
Interesting stuff, the conversations and options seem to be pretty well written.
21/01/2009 at 17:22 Acosta says:
Vince sounds… less angry, and I celebrate it because from angry man full of interesting things to say about RPG, now I see “only” a man with a powerful vision about the genre that I really like. Definitely looking for AoD this year.
21/01/2009 at 17:28 Jonas says:
Put down my pitch-fork!? Not bloody likely!
Heh, it sounds interesting, though obviously a lot of what he can do is only feasible because most of his character interaction is based on text descriptions. That’s one take on the medium, and it sure worked well for Torment, but I’m glad most RPG’s depend more on visual and audio assets – even if it means the scope of character interaction must be more limited.
Still, diversity, eh? Love it! Bring it on :D
21/01/2009 at 17:28 Subject 706 says:
Very much looking forward to this one. Quite interesting that a major NA publisher was even interested in a game like this though. It kind of goes against everything publishers seem to think will sell nowadays.
21/01/2009 at 17:34 Fumarole says:
I am very much looking forward to this game. He’s right about roleplaying games versus action games with stats. There is indeed a difference.
21/01/2009 at 17:35 Ging says:
Subject 706: Major publishers need stuff to fill out budget lines with.
21/01/2009 at 17:36 Ian says:
Is this an FPS?
Anyway, looks interesting and the writing appears solid based on the screenies there.
21/01/2009 at 17:54 thefanciestofpants says:
It’s got my money, can’t wait.
Also less rage was appreciated.
21/01/2009 at 18:18 Kyle says:
I think stats are fundamental to RPGs, much more so than being able to select between a ton of dialogue choices; and stat-based action games have every bit the same amount of choice and consequence in them as Wasteland (known as Fallout to the younger crowd) ever did – they just have more immediate choice and consequence ie. go left and live or go right and die, with some stats influencing either outcome.
21/01/2009 at 18:22 Rosti says:
Hurrah for Arcanum appreciation.
Shall also be watching this ‘un.
21/01/2009 at 18:26 suibhne says:
Good stuff, and definitely on my watch list for this year. We’ve had a few halfway-decent RPGs in recent years, but only a few – and we’ve had almost no decent turn-based combat, so I’m eager to see how that turns out.
21/01/2009 at 18:27 Larington says:
I do tend to be far more intruiged by the options that say, the skills system in Deus Ex open up or close down what kind of character I’m playing than by stories which try to be massively choice oriented (Partly because the range of choices are all too often disapointing). Fortunately, Deus Ex had both. So yeah, stats can inform your decisions and role in the game world, which makes it easier to define and nail down the aspects of your character during play.
21/01/2009 at 18:39 Markoff Chaney says:
Good Show! Personally, I’ve always been a big proponent of actually, ya know, playing a role when playing a role playing game. I fear it’s a relic from my pen and paper days, but it’s still there in my head. Not that I can’t enjoy RPGs as of late, but a lot just quite aren’t as engaging. I still feel that Planescape: Torment has set the benchmark in allowing the game to play out differently (I’ll play you one day Arcanum) and the nearest since then was most of the first bits of V:tMB and, to some extent, Deus Ex. I look forward to seeing how y’all balance the need for progressing the narrative with freedom of choice.
I’m glad some people out there still have the love for traditional RPGs and the desire to prove that they can create product superior than what is offered currently, even if it is a throwback to a bygone era.
Keep up the great work and I look forward to playing through y’alls game a time or three.
21/01/2009 at 19:00 Xercies says:
Yay for old school RPG love. Though I do have to say he is kind of right about the RPG fact, but it sometimes doesn’t make it a bad game. For example sometimes I don’t mind linearity if its got a great story attached to it.
21/01/2009 at 19:16 MetalCircus says:
I am really really looking forward to this now.
21/01/2009 at 19:26 Vince says:
Thanks, guys!
Re: “I think stats are fundamental to RPGs, much more so than being able to select between a ton of dialogue choices; and stat-based action games have every bit the same amount of choice and consequence in them…”
Let’s add stats to Doom. Does it magically become an RPG? No, of course not. Warcraft 3? The heroes had stats and a 10lvl hero was much better than a 3lvl hero. Yet it’s not an RPG, obviously.
What I’m trying to say is that a feature that can be added to any game in pretty much the last minute does not an RPG make.
21/01/2009 at 19:45 AndrewC says:
I also have no love for stats-in-themselves. ANd this argument over what constitutes an RPG is interesting. I would say Thief is a far better role playing game than a game with a lot of pre-scripted dialogue in terms of the game making you play a role. This argument about what is the true and only definition of RPG is smells a bit of posturing to cover insecurities.
I’m also aware this is probably not the first time this argument has been thrown about, so I will stop by saying Vince’s effort to make a game the way he truly thinks a game should be is really kind of awesome.
21/01/2009 at 19:51 Pantsman says:
Good to learn a bit more about this game. Those examples of skills affecting conversations are great, and if they’re indicative of the game as a whole then we may be in for a real treat.
Of course, that’s assuming it sees release in my lifetime.
21/01/2009 at 20:05 Vince says:
“…if they’re indicative of the game as a whole…”
Recommended reading:
http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/article?articleid=79&ref=0&id=2
http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/article?articleid=82&ref=0&id=2
http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/article?articleid=90&ref=0&id=2
This is a “let’s play AoD” thread. I wanted to show the assassins questline to our forum members, but they started making decisions and took it in a completely different direction. So, that’s the actual game, not what I wanted to show. Take a look.
“Of course, that’s assuming it sees release in my lifetime.”
We are very, very close.
Every decision you see there was made by our forum members
21/01/2009 at 20:07 Azazel says:
Yes! YES! Coverage of this is what I’ve been long wanting! Along with the game obv.
21/01/2009 at 20:45 Will says:
I’m going to buy it.
And I’m actually bankrupt.
So, you see, it is high on my list of priorities.
21/01/2009 at 20:54 Paul B says:
I look forward to any new RPG, but I’m slightly concerned that it looks like you only control the one player (yourself) in this game.
Can anyone confirm whether this will be party based or just based around one person, as I personally enjoy the interactions between party members and levelling up four-six people rather just the one?
21/01/2009 at 21:03 Diogo Ribeiro says:
Funny thing, the first time Vince told me the game’s title, I smiled and humoured about how it was a game about glam rockers and the decadence inevitably associated with them :)
As his friend, I wish him the best of luck with the game.
:never forget:
:salute:
21/01/2009 at 21:12 Kestrel says:
well, since you are in the comments, Vince – If you did go the major publisher route – you could do worse than Stardock and this seems like their cup of tea..
21/01/2009 at 21:14 Bremze says:
This bit from the LP sold me on this game:
Successfully passing the streetwise check takes you backstage and introduces a very interesting – in my opinion, of course – design element. It successfully alters your character’s perception of what’s going on. In one playthrough you are led to believe that you have a great artifact (which is a standard fare in RPGs these days, so most players will buy that story if the streetwise line isn’t shown). Later on you take it to Lord Antidas where master Feng will explain the awesomeness of the artefact and will suggest that perhaps you’ve been chosen by fate.
If you didn’t have the chat above, you’ll believe that and play the game without realizing that you are being manipulated. If you did, you will understand what’s going on and why.
We use that a lot in AoD.
21/01/2009 at 21:36 James G says:
@Bremze
That does sound cool, but I imagine it makes later steps somewhat more difficult in terms of design. In many games, I’ve done something which I know is essential to the plot progression, but will ultimately be detrimental. In most cases by character has no real way of knowing that; I have the benifit of knowing the rules of narrative and game design, or having read the blurb on the box. When the player knows, it becomes far more difficult to control their movement through the plot. Either the plot line branches, or you need to find other ways of railroading the player. The former is a lot of work, the latter feels un-natural if done too often.
21/01/2009 at 21:51 Naurgul says:
I’m also looking forward to this game and I’m also of the opinion that stats, although being part of many (if not all) RPGs, are not their core. Actually, I’m going as far to say that you can have a RPG without having stats at all.
21/01/2009 at 22:06 Funky Badger says:
Stats aren’t inherent to an RPG (Amber for a table-top example), choices are. So Deus Ex is an RPG and Mass Effect is less so…
Also, this sounds fantastic, one question if Vince is still around, will you be able to play a fireman with a bucket full of urine? (Damn my latin, forgotten the proper name of them…)
21/01/2009 at 22:22 Swimsuit Places says:
Do want.
21/01/2009 at 22:27 Hmm-hmm. says:
Oh, I’ll definitely be looking at this. Those conversation shots convinced me of that. Whether I’ll actually purchase it remains the question, however.
I’ll have this to say in favour of BG2, though. It may have had a rather fixed main storyline, but for the rest it felt very much like a roleplaying world. I don’t hear Vince saying he think it’s a bad game, but even were he to think so, there’s more to a successful roleplaying game than offering relevant and meaningful choices.
21/01/2009 at 22:46 Funky Badger says:
Vigiles! They’re called Vigiles!
21/01/2009 at 23:40 SofS says:
Stats by any other name are still stats. You could have an RPG where the protagonist was as unchanging as Mario, but he’d still have definitions of how high he could jump, how fast he could run, and the damage caused by jumping onto someone’s head. Light RPG systems like FUDGE rate character abilities on a scale of words, but it’s still a seven-point scale and it acts like one. Totally freeform roleplaying is the farthest thing I can think of from having stats (even then, though, there are effective limitations on ability).
21/01/2009 at 23:55 Meat Circus says:
Unknown pleasures?
Yeah, right. Cos Vince is such a quiet, publicity-shy introvert.
But srsly, Vince. I am 167% stoked for this bitch. If it isn’t as amazing as I unilaterally expect it to be, I WILL KILL YOU.
22/01/2009 at 00:01 Dorian Cornelius Jasper says:
Funky Badger: Far be it for the likes of me to say this, but…
Maybe there’s such a thing as being too historically accurate.
22/01/2009 at 00:03 Meat Circus says:
@Pags:
I was looking forward to this before Vince insulted everyone in the world. Then I wanted it even more.
22/01/2009 at 00:19 James G says:
@ Meat Circus
You need to learn from the best.
22/01/2009 at 00:41 Gaph says:
It’s so refreshing to hear someone with an actual opinion, instead of trying to straddle the fence and make everyone happy.
I feel the same way about games these days. Give me games developed by people who love the games they make, even if other people don’t get it.
22/01/2009 at 00:42 Ian says:
I would happily play an RPG with awesome writing, good (and plentiful) choices but with a limited stats system.
I’m not saying that’s what this is, just thought I’d toss in my ten penn’orth on the whole choices/stats mini-discussion.
22/01/2009 at 00:47 Vince says:
“Can anyone confirm whether this will be party based or just based around one person”
Single character.
“That does sound cool, but I imagine it makes later steps somewhat more difficult in terms of design. … Either the plot line branches…”
The plot line branches.
“I’ll have this to say in favour of BG2, though. It may have had a rather fixed main storyline, but for the rest it felt very much like a roleplaying world.”
What’s a role-playing world?
“I don’t hear Vince saying he think it’s a bad game, but even were he to think so, there’s more to a successful roleplaying game than offering relevant and meaningful choices.”
It’s a very good (great?) game, just not a role-playing one. As for “there’s more to a good RPG than choices”, what does make a good RPG? Inquiring mind wants to know.
“But srsly, Vince. I am 167% stoked for this bitch. If it isn’t as amazing as I unilaterally expect it to be, I WILL KILL YOU.”
Sounds reasonable.
22/01/2009 at 01:41 Quirk says:
For those talking about stats: Masq.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/03/24/masq-interview/
I defy any of you to claim that Masq is not an RPG. You have more real influence on what your character does than in a thousand other games. Provide a false alibi for a friend, or be dishonest; be faithful to your wife, or sleep with the new girl in the office; get involved with a shady deal with your wife’s boss, or kick him to the kerb; confront someone making you serious trouble, or tail after them by way of reconnaissance – those choices and hundreds more were thrown your way. As far as freedom within the constraints of the storyline goes, it’s stellar.
There’s not a stat in sight, though. Not one. To be fair, it doesn’t really need them; it defines the general type of person you are and leaves you to fill in the details, the moral code and mindset. A game with a broader focus might find stats more useful. Masq, however, is definitely a game about exploring a time period and place, weaving a story out of player choices; in that sense, it’s a lot closer to the original concept of the RPG than are the “tactical” dungeon hacks with nearly or wholly linear progressions.
The problem is that we lump games that are trying to give a player a means of exploring a story or setting from multiple angles in with games in which the story is largely an excuse to string a large number of combat encounters together and call them both RPGs. This is somewhat understandable. RPGs have been a bit confused about the role of mass murder in storytelling since the advent of D&D. Nonetheless, even the most pointlessly gory of pen and paper RPGs was centred round a Game Master who had to make his world react to the players’ decisions. Without something analogous to this, you’ve just got another breed of combat strategy game. It may be a good combat strategy game, but it’s doing something fundamentally different than the term “RPG” describes.
I think Vince is right on the money here. I await Age of Decadence with interest, and some hope.
22/01/2009 at 01:54 SofS says:
Well done, Quirk. Perhaps the crux of the issue is this: does an RPG need random chance to come into success or failure? Is that part of what seperates it from adventure games? If every character in an RPG had a flat 50% rate to succeed at any available action, would it be less of an RPG?
22/01/2009 at 02:20 Filipe says:
Aside from the BG2 dig, I enjoyed this piece. I’m definitely going to pick this one up.
22/01/2009 at 02:38 Meowington T Cat says:
One of the biggest things I loved about the old CRPG games like Fallout, Planescape, and Baldur’s Gate were the fantastic writing and dialogue. I’ve played a few similar styled RPGs since, and they always bored me with extremely generic fantasy-based descriptions and interactions. Games like the above mentioned had encounters that allowed you to choose clever ways to solve a problem, or included witty dialogues that would give you a good laugh or just make you tingle with amusement. I think those parts moved me more than any other RPG aspect of those games. Rambling aside, this looks like a definate buy. I’ll still be crossing my fingers that the writing will be up to par.
22/01/2009 at 04:10 Tom Davidson says:
Hey, Vince, I couldn’t help noticing that the dialogues in the screenshots have more than a few obvious typos in ‘em. Do you already have someone willing to edit the mountains of text for you, or would you be interested in volunteers?
22/01/2009 at 06:09 malkav11 says:
@Rickman – I don’t know that my definition of an RPG matches Vince’s, but the fact that a lot of games traditionally considered to be RPGs don’t fit his definition doesn’t make it silly or wrong. It just means they aren’t RPGs to him.
Personally, I keep having to correct people who claim the Zelda games are RPGs….
22/01/2009 at 07:58 AdrianWerner says:
I do think stats make a game RPG or not. Would adding stats to Doom make it RPG? Sure, if the stats would be the main way player interacted with the world. Similiarly Warcraft3 might not be an RPG, but notice all those stats and leveling-up was called “RPG elements”.
If you take a look at any early pen and paper RPG modules you will find plenty of extremely linear adventures. Dungeon adventures are perfect example of that, altough not the only one, I mean heck..some of THE finest written adventures ever published (namely Orient Express for Call of Cthulhu and Last Supper for Vampire) were extremely linear.
So if I played a linear dungeon-centric adventure of DnD does it somehow mean I didn’t play RPG at all? I can’t agree with that.
What is often heard and rightfuly so is that a GOOD Gamemaster allows players to have plenty of freedom and ability to shape the plot (heck, most recent modern indie games actualy mechanicaly set it up so that players have influence over the plot) and by extention a GM that just puts a players on a strict railroad and takes the freedom away from them is considered a bad GM, but he still is a GM.
Therefore my opinion is that stats are what makes a game RPG, while freedom and ability to shape the plot is what makes an RPG good or not.
Stats determine the genre, freedom determines the quality
22/01/2009 at 08:08 Heliocentric says:
Rpg is wierd. In many ways only the truely open world games are rpg’s. If someone says “you can’t go there!” and its because the game isn’t able to deal with it rather than your character isn’t capable “you can try and cross the river but you can’t swim” then its very much not an rpg. But even if you are funneled down a story and set of environments do you make choices? In most japanese rpg’s you most certainly don’t make meaningful choices, final fantasy 7 serving as a prime example. That game was at its most interesting when you had more than 1 thing to do like infratrating the brothel. But that is the standard in oblivion with the narrow exception of the find 20 piles of dirt quests.
Zelda, a lovely adventure game, but its open world in a way many japanese rpg’s are not, so i understand the confusion japanophiles suffer. At least console gamers have the freedom heavy rpg’s now. The freedom of expression heavy ones seem to remain pc exclusive and mostly, from the 90′s.
22/01/2009 at 08:17 Qabal says:
I’m definitely looking forward to this, even though I’m terrible at role-playing. I always play myself in any given situation, which is why I struggle any time I attempt to take a more evil path. It’s gotten to the point where I actually feel bad for whatever npc I slighted and proceed to be good the rest of the game, even if it means having a very similar experience as I had in a previous playthrough.
22/01/2009 at 08:30 Heliocentric says:
Mass effect had *punch in face* dialogue options. But i want an rpg to go a step further. I want a dialogue system where *punch in face* is ALWAYS an option, even in romance paths. And if dragon age doesn’t have a guy who asks for 20 wild boar heads who you can punch in the face to complete the quest 3/10.
22/01/2009 at 08:38 Qabal says:
Due to popular usage, stats are heavily associated with RPGs. That’s why stats are considered ‘rpg elements’, and Diablo is an ‘action-rpg’. I always hated popular usage though.
The crux of an rpg as stated by many, including the Vault Dweller, is choice.
Take the old Quest for Glory games (for those old enough to have played them). They had stats, story, and different solutions to problems depending on class (fighter, mage, thief, paladin), but there was little to no meaningful choice with regards to the main story. This is why they were billed as adventure games as opposed to rpgs because that’s exactly what they were.
That being said, there are very few true role-playing games, and plenty of adventure games disguised as role-playing games. So, contrary to popular belief, adventure games aren’t dead, although great adventure games like The Longest Journey, imho, ARE dying.(Dreamfall isn’t really a game, just a story.)
That’s my 2 cents, rambling, tangents, and all.
22/01/2009 at 09:57 Hmm.Hmm says:
I’ll have you know that I very much with my gut here. Let’s see if I can dissect this. I think it has to do with the way I see roleplaying. I grew into roleplaying on the stereotypical AD&D fantasy.
Second, it offers character creation which offer differentiation (and I’m used to it a lot). This is not to say that you can’t have a perfectly good rpg without such.
Thirdly, atmosphere. This is, I’ll admit, very subjective. But everything from the UI to many of the character portraits and the calls you hear in the market to sell Uridium helped to improve the feeling of it being a roleplaying world. A backdrop, so to speak.
Of course when I take a step back I realise a rpg just needs a world which is relevant, relaively fleshed out and meshes with the roleplaying aspects of the game.
Well, with playing a role (and I know the caveats, when applied without regards for choice). Of course there should be choices, but it also depends on what those choices can be.
There are people who play free-form tabletop rpgs as well as people who like a more rail-road type of campaign such as Baldur’s Gate 2 offers with the players’ choices therein being less defined yet not necessarily absent. You could argue that choosing for a solid storyline over choice makes a game less of an rpg, but I think this is the case with crpgs more than with rpgs entire, simply because most crpgs offer the player only few additional choices aside from what storyline to follow and how to do so.
I’ll agree that the act of roleplaying itself has to do with freedom and choice and, in tabletop, having fun together, in many things. The degree of how much freedom and how many choices you have depends on what the game/game master/setting/system allows. Even your party members will direct your choices somewhat.
The question remains, of course, where we, individually, draw the line.
22/01/2009 at 10:05 Hmm.Hmm says:
Addendum:
The player can have as much freedom as he wants, but without a setting to define, limit and interact with them it becomes more of a game of free association. Then again, pure freedom makes it more difficult to direct the player’s choices.
You often have a setting/background etc, to clarify this. But with clarification comes limitation. As I said in my revious post.
What can you do? How can you do it? Where do you come from? Where are you trying to go? Who wants to stop you? Etc. Usually, not all of the answers to these are provided by the player. Or, not directly, anyway.
I guess I’m just saying that having some boundaries can inspire and enhance rather than choke the gameplay to death.
22/01/2009 at 10:23 Rickman says:
Qabal: For me what makes a game an RPG or not is stats and Player Skill Vs Character Skill. STALKER has some RPG elements, but its all due to the player skill if he hits the target or not. Deus Ex, on the other hand, can be classified an RPG as such.
And honestly, C&C are way overrated. Sure, it’s nice to have, but for me having good tactical combat (like Temple of Elemental Evil),a nice world to explore (like Might and Magic), and a good character progression system (like Wizardry) is much more important.
22/01/2009 at 10:32 Nick says:
He didn’t insult BG2 fans.. just said it wasn’t an RPG. I find quibbling details on definitions rather pointless as one way or another they have no bearing on my enjoyment of a game claiming to be an RPG.
That said this and Dragon Age are probably my most anticipated games in 2009 and the mass of actual choice and consequence that appears to be at the centre of AoD is something I’ve been wanting in a new game for a long time.
22/01/2009 at 10:34 Okami says:
I guess I’d like Vince a lot more, if he’d spend less time and energy talking about “true” roleplaying games and presenting his personal opinion about what makes a roleplaying game as some sort of universal truth when it’s in fact just an opinion.
Then again, I’m really looking forward to AoD and I guess Vince wouldn’t be making this game if he didn’t feel so strongly about these issues, so I’m kinda glad that he is the person he is.
22/01/2009 at 10:35 Nick says:
ooh and he never insulted everyone on RPS, just the vocal idiots who were saying turn based was dead/stupid etc.
22/01/2009 at 10:55 Kieron Gillen says:
Okami: Fanatics, on average, make good art. Dillentantes, on average, make good critics.
(Or so I’ve tended to think, anyway)
KG
22/01/2009 at 11:03 danielcardigan says:
I’ve got my eye on this BUT am I the only person who plays RPGs mostly for the combat and the stats and fast forwards through the dialogue because since about Planescape+ era it’s all been utter tosh. No matter what the background is to the game it’s all the same story dressed up a little different and the same characters being 100% good or 100% evil. So monotonous. AoD at least looks to have taken a more intelligent approach.
Props to The Witcher which I eat and drank for about a month. Combat sucked but it didn’t matter because THAT was a great game, bugs and all.
KG – love that analysis.
22/01/2009 at 11:08 Subject 706 says:
Vince if you’re still around, I have a SPECIAL REQUEST™ for AoD. Since it seems to be partly based on the roman world, I’d like the two-handed Falx*, to make an appearance as a weapon. It will most probably enhance AoD’s awesome factor by several hundred percent.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falx
22/01/2009 at 11:16 AndrewC says:
I think fanatics make good art that is based on personal performance and expression. Art based on construction, team-work and creating a frame-work for others to express themselves maybe needs a cooler head.
Plus, of course, fanatic is a terribly polemic word. Commitment is a better way to describe why certain people are able to achieve such amazing things. But then ‘commitment’ wouldn’t make for as fun a quote.
22/01/2009 at 11:32 Albides says:
Er, how else do you define a word except through how it’s used? CRPGs are CRPGs because of traditional usage. We can recognise a dungeon crawler as a crpg in the same way we can recognise a sheep as a sheep. Because they have recognisable qualities we’ve come to associate with certain words. CRPGs have a long and illustrious pedigree that goes back to Alkalabeth, and it’s to that which we refer when we talk about crpgs.
There’s no need to be literalist about the word. Or any word whatsoever. Post-modernism does not mean “set in the future”. Not every game is an adventure game despite every game being about adventures. These things have a history and usage outside their literal meanings. Quest for Glory wasn’t an RPG because it’s obvious to anyone that it’s an adventure game with rpg elements. It was great fun, however we pigeonhole it.
I do hope Age of Decadence is good, but choice alone isn’t going to make it good or make it a “true” rpg. What’s going to make it good is whatever it does that engages us. Options alone can’t do that. It’s the thing that makes those options enjoyable, what makes most games enjoyable, I suppose, that’s essential here: the writing.
22/01/2009 at 12:07 MK1981 says:
Finally someone who gets it! I really hope this sells well and it shows mainstream developers you don’t need to invest several million dollars into graphic and marketing to sell well.
BTW BG2 looks much better with it’s 10 year old graphics than Dragon Age, although I don’t care much for the graphics. And BG2 is RPG.
22/01/2009 at 12:18 Teutonic says:
Hmm, as someone who loves and has replayed BG2, Fallout and Arcanum numerous time, I have to disagree about the “experience” point. Sure, the story doesn’t branch as much in BG2 as the others, but the game play experience in BG2 is far more varied depending on class/companion choices than in the other games. Also, Bioware has always been vastly superior to Troika or BI when it comes to cultivating a modding scene, which also adds a great deal to the replayability.
AoD does look pretty nice though. :)
22/01/2009 at 12:29 Morph says:
“Playing a role is not role-playing”
Isn’t it? I’d have thought the fact that the words are the same would indicate it is.
Ok, so I disagree with him on his definitions, and it seems like some of the things he claims to be innovative I’ve seen done before. Still, I’ll be looking out for this.
22/01/2009 at 13:08 Heliocentric says:
Okay… words.
Huffing a cat is cat huffing.
But watching a cat huffed infront of you is not cat huffing.
But watching a role played infront of you is not role-playing.
Thats the issue, in many role playing games you are not playing a role, you a pressing a button to progress a script.
22/01/2009 at 13:33 Neut says:
“Thats the issue, in many role playing games you are not playing a role, you a pressing a button to progress a script.”
Which surely is exactly what playing a role entails right? I mean if you really are playing a specific character in the story, then there is only one way he/she would act, so what choice you’d make was already made for you the minute you decided to play that role.
And how is this in any way worse than pressing a button to progress the same script with slight variations? Or pressing a button to advance one of 4 scripts, or 100 scripts. You’re still just pressing a button in the end. The script were already written, you never really had any choice in the first place.
22/01/2009 at 13:34 BooleanBob says:
Dillentantes, Kieron?
I’ve dabbled in Highway 61 Revisited and Desire myself.
/gets coat
22/01/2009 at 13:38 Meat Circus says:
@Heliocentric:
Invariably, you’re playing some kind of role in all games. Which means by Morph’s definition, all games are role playing games.
Which gets us absolutely nowhere.
22/01/2009 at 13:43 Hazelnut says:
Ahhh, it’s close now is it Vince. You wouldn’t tease your old buddy now would ya?
So looking forward to this game!
22/01/2009 at 13:50 Heliocentric says:
I suppose, the problem is this is a subjective issue which people are alligning to as if its an objective truth.
In the future no-one will stop me spamming 6 to select the 6th diologue option
*punch in face*
22/01/2009 at 13:55 Neut says:
What’s stopping you now? ;)
22/01/2009 at 14:09 Heliocentric says:
*has an thought*
@Neut You are a genius!
*punches neut*
22/01/2009 at 14:10 Thirith says:
Heliocentric: it’s not just an objective/subjective thing. Words, apart from their literal meaning, take on a life of their own – that’s something people just have to accept. I agree with you that jRPGs by and large don’t allow you to play a role, but they fit the template of what the term “RPG” has come to refer to. Arguing against that to a large extent is as futile as any discussion that is purely about semantics. Yes, Thief: The Dark Project has had me playing a certain (pre-defined) role to a much larger extent than Final Fantasy X. No, the former is not more of an RPG than the latter.
22/01/2009 at 14:14 Heliocentric says:
HAH! Words are subjective, the characters i type out might mean anything to me or anyone else who reads them.
But punching people in the face only means one thing!
That you wanted to put your hand where that persons face was more than you didn’t. Trurth.
22/01/2009 at 14:28 Heliocentric says:
I’ve been thinking about it…
I was wrong, who am I to tell people what they mean when they punch people in the face. I am so ashamed I will now live in self exile, by punching anyone I meet….
…In the face.
22/01/2009 at 14:29 Butler` says:
I’ve been waiting for a text heavy, old skool RPG to get lost in for years.
Certainly looking foward to this.
22/01/2009 at 14:57 dhex says:
“I want a dialogue system where *punch in face* is ALWAYS an option, even in romance paths.”
that would certainly put a new spin on the bioware template of the good, the bad and the neutral.
perhaps the modder who made the nwn2 oc bishop romance thingy can work on it!
22/01/2009 at 14:59 kadayi says:
Due to it being manically busy at work & home I haven’t been able to give this article quite as much attention as I’d like, but I’d also weigh in that it’s a mistake to assume the mechanics make the experience. P&P have rule sets as a means of decision/action resolution, increasingly with computer games there are ways to reach decision/action resolutions that no longer need to subscribe to these P&P mechanics in an overt fashion (open stats PG games generally put metagaming over role playing let’s be brutally honest here). Yes there are limitations to what can be achieved at present, but the more a game keeps you in the game space and less in the interface, the more emotionally immersive they can become, and that is the strength of the medium. Sure such games might not offer up the myriad range of options some people might like, but even games like Fallout 1 & 2 pail in comparison to the infinite choices available to a someone participating in an actual P&P campaign (the limits being their imagination rather than some writers). So if quantity of choice is a non issue then quality is where computer games can excel. From my perspective the embryonic computer RPG is to be found in games like Deus Ex, GTA IV, Farcry 2 & The Witcher rather than games that wholly ape other mediums.
22/01/2009 at 15:06 minipixel says:
@James G: Spoiler for me too :(
22/01/2009 at 18:14 Funky Badger says:
Dorian Cornelius Jasper: if you can’t see the joy inherent in a character armed with a damp quilt and a bucket of urine then, frankly, there’s no hope for you… ;-)
22/01/2009 at 22:40 Jochen Scheisse says:
“I want a dialogue system where *punch in face* is ALWAYS an option, even in romance paths.”
22/01/2009 at 23:11 Idiot says:
Dear Morph,
Would it trouble you, to point out to me, where it is that Vince makes any claim towards “innovation”?
sincerely,
The Idiot
23/01/2009 at 02:16 Conquests says:
*”there’s more to a successful roleplaying game than offering relevant and meaningful choices.”*
How do you play a role without choices that are related to it?
23/01/2009 at 02:31 pkt-zer0 says:
Don’t worry about that, Vince has specifically stated, on multiple occasions, that Age of Decadence is not innovative or revolutionary, but evolutionary. Take the road that Black Isle/Troika has taken and continue in that direction to make a better RPG (…of that sort, whether you want to call it a “true RPG” or not).
23/01/2009 at 12:20 kadayi says:
@Pkt
If that were truly the case then he’d be building on the legacy of VTM:B, and this is clearly not doing that.
23/01/2009 at 12:39 Claw says:
And honestly, C&C are way overrated.
Videogames are way overrated.
23/01/2009 at 15:38 pkt-zer0 says:
@kadayi: “Clearly not” because it’s similarly focused on roleplaying and choice & consequence, or what? Sure, VTM:B might lean a bit more towards the action side, but hey, there’s still Fallout/Torment/Arcanum/Unnamed post-apoc project.
23/01/2009 at 15:48 Meat Circus says:
@Pkt:
VTM:B followed a slightly different evolutionary path from AoD. You might want to check out Scars of War’s development for an RPG that seems to be going further down the VtM:B path.
AoD is consciously in the Fallout/Fallout 2 mould, and that’s exactly where I want it to be.
27/01/2009 at 10:27 megaman says:
I’m already hooked. Actually, my first impression on this article was that I liked the style of the pictures. Very old school, very lovely. After reading the article I know this is a must-buy. If this game is as good as I want it to be, I hope you guys earn millions with it.
16/02/2009 at 07:05 SVerner says:
*the vocal idiots who were saying turn based was dead/stupid etc.*
Don’t worry, as long as Generic brownngreypostapoc 3 isn’t mentioned by name they won’t come back.
26/12/2009 at 01:54 Vince says:
The combat demo has been released. Better late than never and all that…
http://www.irontowerstudio.com/files/AoD_demo.exe (180MB)
Our bandwidth is 5GB but it won’t last long, so grab it now.
Merry Christmas, guys.
Edit: We’re down to 24% of the bandwidth, so here is another link:
http://www.filefront.com/15216873/AoD_demo.exe
26/12/2009 at 04:13 Serenegoose says:
I’m not really interested in combat in RPGs, to be honest, but I’ll give the demo a chance to win me over tomorrow. It’s great that it’s there though, I love demos on principle. Really hoping that this turns out great – I’m wanting a new developer to give me some choice in the RPG market, especially developers that understands the importance of the player to impact the plot in ways more significant than just a few lines of differing dialoge.
27/12/2009 at 02:16 Kadayi says:
DLing now. ;)