I have had a hankering lately to play a game that does not exist. Specifically, a Western RPG as they used to be, before Bioware and Bethesda took up the reins of Western RPGdom. Of course, many of you will say there is nothing wrong with those two being in charge, but I’m afraid that Dragon Age and Fallout 3 just don’t scratch that itch for me.
So, why? Why am I dissatisfied with the current crop of Western RPGs? What are they missing, what are they doing wrong?
Where the Party at?
A lone adventurer taking on all evil is certainly a powerful image. The original Fallout thrusts you out into the wasteland, completely isolated, and weaves an intricate, interesting tale from there. That said, things can get a lot more interesting when you bring some friends along. I’m not talking multiplayer here; I’m talking about the days when a single player could manage an entire party of characters. In Wasteland, the first PC RPG I played and fell in love with, I was in charge of a full squad of four Desert Rangers, supplemented by up to three NPCs I could hire on for the ride. In the Wizardry games, a full complement of six adventurers was under my control. Ultima VI let me roam across Britannia with no less than eight people in my party (including a mouse!). More recently, Baldur’s Gate kept the party going with a six-person team, though sadly lacking the mouse as an individually playable character.
Compare that to the present, when the magical number for party size appears to be four or less, if there is any party at all. BioWare certainly seems to see things this way, with Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect using the trio as the party size of choice, and Dragon Age going for the quartet. Of course, these games aren’t limited to three playable characters; they just let you collect party members and keep them sitting around back at camp/on a spaceship doing nothing while you select the two you wish to gallivant around with. In an assimilation of the JRPG method of party management, the rest just sit around, waiting for their chance to shine/be seduced.
A good party dynamic gives the player a whole new set of options, allowing them to think of ways to build characters that complement each other, or to experiment with building up skills in certain areas in exchange for exposing weaknesses in others. Was it worth it in Wizardry VII to try to run an all-Ninja party? Maybe, maybe not; but it sure was fun trying. When all of a player’s new party members are carefully defined by the designers and doled out to me as they see fit, I lose much of that element of choice. While I have options to affect their growth slightly, they are fundamentally locked into certain paths. The player no longer has the ability to really try exactly what they desire, they can only shuffle around the pieces the game chooses to give them. This leads me to my next point…
More Character Creation Options
As I would set about assembling my initial team in Wasteland, each character I created took a good bit of planning. First, of course, was sorting out base stats, but then I had to pick skills for each party member to focus on. There were no classes in Wasteland, so characters could be whatever hodgepodge of skills you felt you wanted – want a rifle specialist who’s also a whiz at cracking safes? No problem! Building a party was a careful balance between making each character individually useful, but also making sure they fit well together.
In the Wizardry series, once again I am responsible for building their entire team of six, but the options are a little different from Wasteland. A cornucopia of different races, each with their own strength and weaknesses, start off the process, followed by semi-random stats (based on the character race, plus random bonuses) that then determine what classes are available to the character. After selecting a class, I can then tinker with the skills available to that class to further specialize (or generalize) the character to my liking. Again, individual focus vs. party dynamic comes into play, but with plenty of room open to experimentation.
Now, lest you think I’m being narrow-minded in focusing only on party-based adventures, look at Fallout or Arcanum to see single-player character creation in glorious effect. Fallout is especially notable for the wonderful Perk system, which gave the player wonderful opportunities to develop their character in certain directions, or just to try something out of the blue to see how it went. Combined with the Advantage/Disadvantage system, the options for different styles of play were humongous.
Contrast that with the more limited character creation options of Fallout 3, or the simple skill trees of Dragon Age. Of course, what they lack in character creation depth, they more than make up in facial design options. So, if depth of nose and variety of mustache options are more important to you than actual character skills, maybe this doesn’t bother you so much.
I have lamented the fading of turn-based gameplay before, but I have to reiterate how galling I find its absence in Western RPGs. I play RPGs when I want a break from fast-action and twitch-reflex dependent gameplay, not to experience more of it. If I have lovingly crafted a party of characters, not being able to take advantage of their individual abilities to the fullest because I’m too busy trying to give orders to them all in the middle of being fireballed, or because my FPS reflexes aren’t up to snuff, is a major disappointment.
Bethesda, at least, made some attempts to remedy this with the VATS system in Fallout 3, which was an improvement over Morrowind’s pure-FPS combat. BioWare, on the other hand, incurs much of my ire for their copy-paste combat system they use in every one of their games. Yes, you can pause and issue orders, but the speed with which unexpected things happen means you can often lose a combat in one or two seconds without having a chance to try and salvage the situation. Controlling one character means you are either sitting in front of the enemies, clicking attack over and over again; waiting for the cooldown on your special moves to keep spamming them out; or sitting in the back waiting for the cooldown on your ranged attacks so you can do the same. Meanwhile, your AI-controlled party members might be doing what you told them to do through their limited scripting system, or they may be running into a wall while being peppered with arrows/lasers/fireballs. Dragon Age gives you the ability to program your compatriots to a degree, but even that is limited by the player’s choices in investing points into unlocking the ability to lead them; this is absurd. Much like it was ridiculous for FFXII to force players to buy Gambits in a system that required them for party members to be useful, it is ridiculous that a player isn’t automatically given the option to program their party to their own liking.
When a player has both the time to think strategically as well as the tools to do so, combat can become a far more interesting affair. In Wizardry, the player can evaluate each round of combat, deciding which attacks will be most useful, which spells most beneficial, and exactly when to bust out specific items. To those designers that say turn-based combats are boring and repetitive, well, try this: have fewer battles, but make the ones that remain more unique. Of course fighting the same battle twenty times is boring in a turn-based system. It’s also boring in real-time, too.
While that is a somewhat loaded question in that it assumes you agree with me that it’s broken, I do think there are ways we can bring back some of the uniquness of old-school Western RPGs without turning back the clock entirely. The truth is, much of what has been lost in these new-school Western RPGs has been replaced with elements borrowed from JRPGs, which focus far more on cinematic experiences than the nitty-gritty of roleplaying.
I grew up playing both styles of RPG, and I liked them each on their own merits. But with the Western shift towards JRPG cliche, I feel we’ve lost much of what made Western RPGs unique, and finding that type of gaming experience these days is almost impossible. The issue, as I see it, is not that anyone had a problem with Western RPGs as they were, but that the current crop of commerical designers grew up far more influenced by Final Fantasy than by Wizardry, and thus that is what they emulate, while still operating in what they call the “western tradition.” Top that off with the fact that, classically, old-style Western RPGs just don’t play well on consoles, and you’ve got the recipe for letting them fade.
Obviously, I think this is a bad thing. Much could be done to keep the elements that made Western RPGs special intact, while still using evolving technology and design to not have to step back in time to create the same feel.
Take turn-based battles, for instance. Yes, I would be happy with a simple player-enemy system, or even an FFVI-esque Active-Time Battle system, but we could do even better with today’s technology. Games could take a cue from Dungeons and Dragons 4.0 to create battles with rich options for a player’s party to work together, shift enemies about the battlefield, and use skills in conjunction with each other. It would make combat a far more strategic and interesting affair.
Party gameplay is another issue; designers like being able to control exactly who the player gets in their party because it means they can know exactly what resources the player will always have available, as well as write endless sidequests based around specific party members. Maybe I am being naive, but I think players are more than capable of infusing personality into their own creations without having the same six voice-actors speaking everything they say. Or even take a look at Wizardry 8, which let players assign personalities to their party members for a little extra flavor.
At the very least, if you must hand us pre-defined characters, and you must use a real-time combat system, give the player full, unconditional control over how their party AI acts. Do not make us unlock it, do not make us level up to earn it; just do it. We paid you the money already, you don’t need to keep stringing us along in frustration.
And Yet I Wait…
Now, while I think those are all critical factors to making an RPG I’d want to play, I know that I am fighting against market forces here. When a formula works, as BioWare has discovered, there’s no reason to do anything different. Perhaps the halcyon days of Western RPGs as I remember them – rich stories with equally rich game mechanics – are gone for good.
I hope I am wrong about that.
Tags: arcanum, baldur's gate, Bethesda, bioware, dragon age, dungeons and dragons, fallout, final fantasy, get off my lawn, jrpgs, knights of the old republic, mass effect, ultima, wasteland, western rpgs, wizardy


July 9th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
I’m sympathetic to your complaints, no doubt.
I’m optimistic, still, that independent game designers (and I mean people sitting at home making games in their evenings) will satisfy a lot of your needs. There’s no particular reason why role-playing games can’t match or even eclipse traditional storytelling formats–i.e. novels–in terms of richness, detail, or depth except that they’re not often thought of as the medium for particular deep storytelling. How to make a video game play like a Joyce novel reads is not a problem I can immediately solve, but sooner or later it will happen, and likely in radical ways. I am certainly not advocating that “Dubliners: The Final Days” be moved into production for Christmas, but that designers with the time and freedom to experiment will ultimately start producing the kind of meaty game experience you’ve requested. And then the Industry will have to scramble to catch up.
As with written words, as with music, as with film, games will inevitably mature as a medium as the tools to make them become simpler and more available. Don’t count on business to do it for you. They have other motives.
[Reply]
July 10th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
God Arcanum, so underrated :(
I think an indie or independent developer could fill the gap easily, focusing on storytelling rather than graphical prowess
[Reply]
July 27th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Personally, I’m a huge fan of the BioWare and Bethesda style of play–but KOTOR and Morrowind were the RPGs I cut my teeth on.
My main problem with the BioWare method isn’t the basic concept–I loved combat in KOTOR, especially being able to pause and rotate in 360 degrees, but what they’ve done more recently. I really enjoyed Dragon Age–but it was very frustrating to be able to issue one order at a time, especially when you really need 4-5 in some situations.
As for the tactics system, I didn’t even bother. The default AI was satisfactory for all but the hardest battles–which annoyingly forced me to pause every 10 seconds (so maybe turn-based WOULD be good :P). My main problem with the game (in terms of combat) is that a lot of the skill trees were useless, and the difficulty was all over the map. I breezed through 95% of the game, but it took me 10 or so tries to beat the Archdemon. And then the Awakening expansion was SO unbelievably easy, I had to jack the difficulty to max to even enjoy it!
[Reply]
August 4th, 2010 at 10:03 am
Very good article.
Actually this pretty much lays down the grounds on which I’ve created my first RPG game, Sorcery Quest, greatly inspired by Wizardry. It doesn’t as much bells and whistles as modern game (flash based), but I have a feeling that’s not what you’re after. :)
Try it out and tell me what you think, http://www.edgebee.com/games?id=1
You don’t even need to register.
Mat
[Reply]
Joel Haddock Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Mat,
If you’ve seen the games I’ve designed while in my Twofold Secret guise (also Flash), you’ll know that bells and whistles aren’t so important to me ;) I’ll have to give your game a try!
[Reply]
August 4th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Thanks for this great analysis of the issues, Joel. I’m 37 myself, and was fortunate enough to have enjoyed the many fantastic games available for the Apple II before they were classified as unplayable by modern sensibilities. Sadly, I missed out on “Wasteland” which I have since daydreamed about playing back in the day – wishing I had purchased it when it was still a viable option.
These days, I sink myself into MUDs, which I find far more satisfying than the modern offerings for consoles or PCs. Text-based is about as old-school as it gets … and the player remains fully in control of their roleplay options at all times. Great stuff. :-)
Cheers,
Cooper Sherry
[Reply]
Joel Haddock Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Cooper,
Wasteland was probably my first RPG love, and one that I will still break out every so often when the mood strikes me. I missed out on most Apple II gaming, despite having one in the family when I was younger. The one game I was fortunate enough not to miss, though, was Maniac Mansion, of which I could certainly talk far more about…
[Reply]
August 4th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Amen. You took the thoughts out of my mind and put them to paper. Thanks for doing that. I couldn’t agree more with everything you said. Give me a 6 party, character-creation, turn-based RPG and I’d buy it in a second. Might and Magic and Might and Magic II were my games of choice back in the day. Update the graphics, update the journal/quest management, but give me a space at a time moving (either first person or third person) and give me a chance to perform each of my characters attacks and decisions. Here’s to hoping someone out there is listening.
[Reply]
Joel Haddock Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
AD,
I have to admit I’ve actually never played the early Might & Magics. I guess, for the sake of a full history of gaming, that I should seek them out and finally give them a try!
[Reply]
August 4th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
I read your article on Kotaku. You might like The Dark Spire and Etrian Odyssey on the DS, though they are Japanese.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioRpxc4yXvU
[Reply]
Joel Haddock Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Matt,
I’ve actually been working my through Etrian Odyssey II on and off again for the past few months. I’m at the top of the dungeon now, but need to do a little more grinding to get over those final hurdles. The Dark Spire is sitting on my “to play” pile, having picked it up after seeing it described as an “homage to Wizardry.” It’s very interesting (to me, anyway) how much influence Wizardry still seems to have in Japan, while having faded here in the US.
[Reply]
Matt Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Yes, there are new Wizardrys out on DS, plus a fairly recent version on PS2. Here is a magazine scan of a new one coming out to DS:
http://gonintendo.com/wp-content/photos/rpgscans_august_2nd38.jpg
[Reply]
August 4th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
To those designers that say turn-based combats are boring and repetitive, well, try this: have fewer battles, but make the ones that remain more unique. Of course fighting the same battle twenty times is boring in a turn-based system. It’s also boring in real-time, too.
Exactly my thoughts! Thank you for a brilliant critique!
[Reply]
August 5th, 2010 at 4:54 am
[...] read this blog post this morning and it’s had me thinking – always a good sign. The points made by the [...]
August 5th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
The main problem I have with turn-based fights is, well, maybe there’s several problems, but here they are:
1) They are too slow
2) It’s faster to just use regular attacks than select spells
3) They are too frequent, yet if you decrease their number they will seem too much like boss battles
4) Random ones are frustrating when retreading / over-experienced
5) Spells and techniques usually take up some form of energy that needs replenishing, therefore making them something you save up for bosses
6) Each character attacks one at a time instead of all at once like real life.
7) There is no strategy, yet if there was (like #2) they would take too long!
OK maybe I listed too many. But my point is not that I hate turn-based battles (I actually don’t want them to go away), I just have trouble understanding how they can be improved. I come mostly from j-rpg background, though, so maybe I’ve missed out on innovations in w-rpgs.
Some ideas I had for improving them often end up messing up other basic aspects of rpgs, for instance:
1) Choose where and when to attack an enemy (head, torso, legs) would either slow down the fight or not make much sense since you would probably prefer to go for the head unless he’s obviously wearing armor
2) Decrease battle frequency in areas where monster stats are worse than yours would A) take away the sense that you’ve gotten stronger by seeing how easily you destroy old monsters and B) confuse the player as to where he is on the overworld if he’s exploring an old area in an older-type RPG that had simple graphics. (Often I realize I’m in an old area because the monsters are easy).
3) Set up macros a la Phantasy Star IV so that you don’t have to spend time in menus. You end up using your magic points too quickly this way though.
I just beat Dragon Quest IX and it was a welcome revisit to old-fashioned j-rpg style. You even get a fair amount of character customization in it (skill points, mainly).
It’s interesting in some respects how so many of these basic formulas cannot change, or at least seem set in stone. It’s harder than it first seems to innovate and find improvements. For instance, a reason why so many rpgs seem to prefer 4 and less numbered parties is probably to keep the speed of the fights up, not to mention that with 4 or 3 characters the basic range of styles of combat tends to be covered.
[Reply]
August 5th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Thanks to everyone for the great comments! I’m afraid I was out of town when the Kotaku reprint happened, so I’m just catching up on everybody’s thoughts now!
[Reply]
August 6th, 2010 at 9:01 am
Check out the Temple of Elemental Evil PC game from around 2003-ish. Seriously. It meets your requirements nicely (turn-based combat, you can create your entire party, 5 party members at a time, etc.). And while I recall a few complaints about the beefy hardware requirements when it came out, it runs quite nicely now. I’ve been switching out between it and Dragon Age lately, depending on the itch I’m scratching.
[Reply]
August 6th, 2010 at 10:06 am
A big motivator for locking in your party members with narrow skill trees and defined roles is that the game is no longer possible to lose before you’ve finished the first cut scene. No matter what you put your skill points into in Mass Effect 2, your team will get recognizably better, and they always start at some minimal level of combat competency so that you won’t face a huge difficulty spike when the plot demands a pitched battle.
Turn-based combat is acceptable only when (a) the AI runs most of it for me, (b) I can set up macros to speed it up, or (c) fights are few and far between. This is not new technology – Phantasy Star IV had a fine implementation, as did Dragon Age, as did Tales of Vesperia.
[Reply]
Joel Haddock Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Robyrt,
You hit the nail on the head of part of how I feel when playing sometimes: that the designers are keeping me on a tight leash so that I can only see the story from the exact viewpoints they planned for. As you say, with a narrow skill tree and limited character options, they always know exactly where the player should be at any point, and thus can plan story encounters appropriately. Yes, it is definitely more cinematic (and probably a hell of a lot easier to balance), but to me, anyway, it feels very restrictive.
[Reply]