I incline to character. A good friend of mine pointed out to me once that a CRPG will never be as immersive as a table-top game. To that end what really makes or breaks one is the quality of the characters that the developers have created. I think System Shock offers a good example--the main character has almost no personality because that's up to the player to imagine, but the world around the character is filled with (the remains of) well developed, nuanced characters with their own stories. I've always found BG somewhat lacking in this respect. The gameplay makes up for it mostly, but there's not much that can be said when one of the most interesting and noticable characters is a gimmicky as Minsc. Don't get me wrong; I get a kick out of Minsc every time, and I've used him in my party more than once, but as dramatis personae go he's no patch on Gilgamesh (as in the one from the epic...) or Aeris Gainsborough.
I guess also--considering some of the examples I just gave--real, palpable changes in the world of the game at some point are very important. In FFVII you loose one of the most interesting characters irrevocably at one point. In SS you discover that you have been working for your enemy at one point. I'm thinking also of TV plots such as Babylon 5 where the climax of the first season is the assassination of the president and the rise to power of inimical forces in all quarters. I would point out again that BG is somewhat lacking in this respect. The locations you visit are interesting, but none of the actions you take have an arresting sense that you are changing the history of Faerun permanently. I've played through the game, and I'm aware that the plot involves changes in the cosmology of the world, but for me those changes did not connect with the actions of the character in such a way that I felt the world was shaped by my character's actions. Some people in this thread have pointed out that choice is important for an RPG, but I would incline to describe what I'm talking about as Plot. Branching points in the plot need to have significant effects on the outcome of the story--and, interestingly enough, I would argue that those effects have to be more significant than "good ending" vs. "evil ending." I think CRPGs have not yet progressed to the point where there is much of a difference between the two.
- Story - Alot of well made, interesting quests - Explorable and interesting world - Easy to use and clear UI - graphics (no, not super 3D AAx 20). BY graphics I mean look of the game, that suits the atmosphere. - Music - same as graphics. Should suit the atmosphere
There are alot more factors... These are just from tom of my head.
Allowing weak classes to play solo too, like thiefs and bards being able to fast talk mobs and escape or pass. Instigate fights thus make others pick fights for them and pave the way, not lifting a finger themselves but earn lots of XP by having others doing the dirty work.
Where is my henchmen, followers and pets? Where is the moral/ethical and intellectual quests?
I guess also--considering some of the examples I just gave--real, palpable changes in the world of the game at some point are very important. In FFVII you loose one of the most interesting characters irrevocably at one point. In SS you discover that you have been working for your enemy at one point. I'm thinking also of TV plots such as Babylon 5 where the climax of the first season is the assassination of the president and the rise to power of inimical forces in all quarters. I would point out again that BG is somewhat lacking in this respect. The locations you visit are interesting, but none of the actions you take have an arresting sense that you are changing the history of Faerun permanently. I've played through the game, and I'm aware that the plot involves changes in the cosmology of the world, but for me those changes did not connect with the actions of the character in such a way that I felt the world was shaped by my character's actions. Some people in this thread have pointed out that choice is important for an RPG, but I would incline to describe what I'm talking about as Plot. Branching points in the plot need to have significant effects on the outcome of the story--and, interestingly enough, I would argue that those effects have to be more significant than "good ending" vs. "evil ending." I think CRPGs have not yet progressed to the point where there is much of a difference between the two.
- Atmosphere (the feeling of immersing oneself into another world, music, visuals) - Freedom (exploration, choice, alternate plotlines, customization) - Writing (storyline, characters, antagonists) - Progress (leveling and item systems, starting out weak and becoming more powerful over time)
Well for me its the difference between Diablo and Baldurs Gate..... NPC's are pretty close to top of my list, also a strong story. When you have a team of 6 you can also play the game with sooo many different strategies which is awesome.
- one can apply different strats - has element of suprise - I played EXORBIANT amount of Diablo I + II, only a few times BG I + II, but mere few weeks of Diablo III. - BG doesn't have much element of suprise, once played one knows the ins and outs, no suprise there ..all dead. Need randomness. - story becomes trivial fast, need randomness. - maps will variate in Diablo series, BG has fixed maps, need randomness! - in Diablo series I can cast spells 24/7, in BG I have to rest 8h after I spit and attack mobs with harsh language. - fighters are boring, they slap mobs in the face, and only kits has special attacks, when playing pen and paper I could at least charge mobs.
To keep it short. Story - Choices - Vast explorable world - Authentic Characters - Diversity - Customization - All this combined with the game making you feel lots of emotions while playing.
Hmm, gonna play devils advocate here and say that Choice Challenge Customization are NOT required in order to make a good rpg.
I more or less agree, though challenge is more important than the other two. In the context of a computer RPG, without a human game master to make on-the-fly judgments and alterations, there is bound to be tension between the sandbox environment where you can do anything you like and a compelling story. For example, Skyrim was an amazing place to explore with some beautiful vistas, but Fallout: New Vegas was a more compelling game because it had a more substantial story arc and an actual ending that depended on the choices you made.
Having played CRPGs for many years, I have come to the conclusion that there are two elements that I generally find most lacking and would very much like to see improved. The first is pacing, the second is consequence. Most CRPGs do a relatively poor job of both (which is not surprising: it is a difficult medium in which to accomplish either) and those are the areas where games generally wear away at my suspension of disbelief.
Good pacing involves keeping the story moving along and compelling. Any side quests should be kept relevant to the main storyline; when games let you more or less put off the main quest indefinitely in order to just explore and accumulate power and loot, it throws off pacing; especially if you are supposed to be on an urgent mission to do something before its too late. BG2 chapters 2/3 and 6 have bad pacing. Chapters 1 4 and 7, and BG1 prior to entering Baldur's Gate itself have pretty good pacing. Whether I spend a day or a month in chapter 6 of BG2, I will get to Irenicus just in the nick of time; I can never be too late and lose the game, and I can never get to him early and thwart his plans, but I can take however long I want before I go after him, and there is a disconnect between what the story tells me (time is running out) and what the game shows me (take as long as you want).
Choices having consequences is generally done even worse, especially when it comes to deciding whether or not to fight a powerful but optional enemy, such as Firkraag. Choosing to fight Firkraag is consequence-free because if you lose, he will kill you and you reload and try again. If you lose repeatedly, you reload, walk away, and pretend the whole thing never happened. Ultima VII did a pretty good job, especially given the technology of the time: you could never actually die, so there was no game over: reload scenario. You could always finish the game, but the way the story played out depended on the choices you made. The ending was basically always the same, but there was a sense that the way you behaved mattered. I want to feel the tension in weighing the choice to fight or negotiate, or whether to spend valuable time on a side quest for a powerful item or to forge on without it. Evidently, this is a common desire, given the popularity of self-imposed challenges like no-reloads, but no-reloads can get frustrating because it makes it difficult to actually finish the game at all.
A lot has been covered here, but one of the things that I liked about Baldur's Gate, and why I like it better than its sequel, is that it was more down to earth. Fighting orcs, gnolls, and kobolds, using low-level magic equipment, and having lower levels is much more satisfying to me. It seems much more atmospheric than delving into the pits of Hell slaying demons by the thousands.
It is very simple to make a good RPG. Masterclass: BG series. Do it like that.
How to not build a good RPG: Oblivion. Not Morrowind as a whole mind you, just Oblivion. I got literally weaker after leveling up to 7 or so. Enemies who used to be easy kills got much more challenging and enemies who seemed just one step ahead of me became overpowered gods. That is NOT how bad leveling is supposed to work out. Oblivion was the biggest dissapointment of my gaming life.
Hmm, gonna play devils advocate here and say that Choice Challenge Customization are NOT required in order to make a good rpg.
I don't think you can boil it down to any one set of characteristics. For me, 2 of the main properties I look for are good, engaging storytelling, and geeky, comlicated statistics to numbercrunch. I imagine it varies from person to person.
Well all those things are exactly what made Baldurs gate so good in the first place. I couldn't care lese about the story in a video game, since just about every game tends to hate a terribly cheesy / boring story in the first place. I'm trying to play a game and enjoy the actual gameplay experience, not reading a novel.
Good story and engaging characters that I actually care about. That is all I need. Everything else is great and all and makes great RPG's even better, but it's all just icing on the cake.
Comments
But seriously, I do like the fact that despite the pretty dark plot of BG, there is still some humour in the game
- Alot of well made, interesting quests
- Explorable and interesting world
- Easy to use and clear UI
- graphics (no, not super 3D AAx 20). BY graphics I mean look of the game, that suits the atmosphere.
- Music - same as graphics. Should suit the atmosphere
There are alot more factors... These are just from tom of my head.
- quests
- map
- items
- monsters
..etc.
Allowing weak classes to play solo too, like thiefs and bards being able to fast talk mobs and escape or pass. Instigate fights thus make others pick fights for them and pave the way, not lifting a finger themselves but earn lots of XP by having others doing the dirty work.
Where is my henchmen, followers and pets?
Where is the moral/ethical and intellectual quests?
- Freedom (exploration, choice, alternate plotlines, customization)
- Writing (storyline, characters, antagonists)
- Progress (leveling and item systems, starting out weak and becoming more powerful over time)
- has element of suprise
- I played EXORBIANT amount of Diablo I + II, only a few times BG I + II, but mere few weeks of Diablo III.
- BG doesn't have much element of suprise, once played one knows the ins and outs, no suprise there ..all dead. Need randomness.
- story becomes trivial fast, need randomness.
- maps will variate in Diablo series, BG has fixed maps, need randomness!
- in Diablo series I can cast spells 24/7, in BG I have to rest 8h after I spit and attack mobs with harsh language.
- fighters are boring, they slap mobs in the face, and only kits has special attacks, when playing pen and paper I could at least charge mobs.
Story - Choices - Vast explorable world - Authentic Characters - Diversity - Customization - All this combined with the game making you feel lots of emotions while playing.
Having played CRPGs for many years, I have come to the conclusion that there are two elements that I generally find most lacking and would very much like to see improved. The first is pacing, the second is consequence. Most CRPGs do a relatively poor job of both (which is not surprising: it is a difficult medium in which to accomplish either) and those are the areas where games generally wear away at my suspension of disbelief.
Good pacing involves keeping the story moving along and compelling. Any side quests should be kept relevant to the main storyline; when games let you more or less put off the main quest indefinitely in order to just explore and accumulate power and loot, it throws off pacing; especially if you are supposed to be on an urgent mission to do something before its too late. BG2 chapters 2/3 and 6 have bad pacing. Chapters 1 4 and 7, and BG1 prior to entering Baldur's Gate itself have pretty good pacing. Whether I spend a day or a month in chapter 6 of BG2, I will get to Irenicus just in the nick of time; I can never be too late and lose the game, and I can never get to him early and thwart his plans, but I can take however long I want before I go after him, and there is a disconnect between what the story tells me (time is running out) and what the game shows me (take as long as you want).
Choices having consequences is generally done even worse, especially when it comes to deciding whether or not to fight a powerful but optional enemy, such as Firkraag. Choosing to fight Firkraag is consequence-free because if you lose, he will kill you and you reload and try again. If you lose repeatedly, you reload, walk away, and pretend the whole thing never happened. Ultima VII did a pretty good job, especially given the technology of the time: you could never actually die, so there was no game over: reload scenario. You could always finish the game, but the way the story played out depended on the choices you made. The ending was basically always the same, but there was a sense that the way you behaved mattered. I want to feel the tension in weighing the choice to fight or negotiate, or whether to spend valuable time on a side quest for a powerful item or to forge on without it. Evidently, this is a common desire, given the popularity of self-imposed challenges like no-reloads, but no-reloads can get frustrating because it makes it difficult to actually finish the game at all.
Masterclass: BG series. Do it like that.
How to not build a good RPG: Oblivion.
Not Morrowind as a whole mind you, just Oblivion. I got literally weaker after leveling up to 7 or so. Enemies who used to be easy kills got much more challenging and enemies who seemed just one step ahead of me became overpowered gods. That is NOT how bad leveling is supposed to work out. Oblivion was the biggest dissapointment of my gaming life.
Baldurs Gate 1 + 2 were my favorite RPGs ever, and there were several reasons:
1) Lots of different character classes, customisability and development, giving the game tonnes of replay value.
2) Top down isometric gameplay with pause and play strategic combat with great difficulty and challenges until you have mastered the game.
3) NPC / party member banter members storylines. This is what set BG2 apart from other dogs.
I had a few more points, but this post got cut off and now I can't remember what I had written.
'When you push a button, something awesome hasta happen. Button must = awesome'.