Unknown Pleasures 2009: Age of Decadence

[Brother None]

In their Unknown Pleasures 2009 series, Rock Paper Shotgun interviews Vince D. Weller about Age of Decadence.<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

 

[Dionysus]

I know it sounds crazy, because these days RPGs offer anything but role-playing…

This sort of language always confuses me. Computer RPGs traditionally are just action/adventure or TBS/adventure games with stats. It seems like there are a bunch of new gamers that like to mourn the loss of a past that never really hapened. These days, RPGs offer as much role-playing as they ever have. I actually see more CYOA-type role-playing in the mainstream RPGs than I did in the past. And there are some smaller budget games that have an emphasis on that sort of thing, like Spiderweb's stuff.

 

[Tagaziel]

VDweller is far from "new".

You have a very selective memory it seems.

 

[Dionysus]

VDweller is far from "new".

I didn't know. I'm just saying that the language he uses suggests otherwise. I'll take the role-playing in FO3, Mass Effect, or The Witcher over the role-playing in Ultima, Wizardry, or Pokemon. I think the genre has come a long way.

 

[VDweller]

It seems like there are a bunch of new gamers that like to mourn the loss of a past that never really hapened.

I'm 38 years old. I've played RPGs for more than 20 years.

These days, RPGs offer as much role-playing as they ever have.

A flat-out lie.

I'll take the role-playing in FO3, Mass Effect, or The Witcher over the role-playing in Ultima, Wizardry, or Pokemon. I think the genre has come a long way.

It did. All the way down the toilet. Epic plunge!

And how dare you suggesting that Pokemon, an old school, hardcore RPG cult classic that practically reinvented the genre is not the greatest RPG evar?

PS. Mass Effect had role-playing? Do tell.

 

[Pope Viper]

I'm 38 as well, played RPG's for about 25 years.

You are fairly ignorant of what you're speaking of.

Mass Effect? RPG? Uh. No.

Fallout 3? RPG? Only if you believe the hype.

 

[Tagaziel]

Mass Effect isn't an RPG, it's a solid action/adventure game.

I really like it, but to call it an RPG? I can call our Seat Altea XL a Lamborghini Diablo, but that doesn't change the fact it's a Seat, not a Lamborghini.

 

[Eyenixon]

Wouldn't that philosophy indicate there's only about, oh, five roleplaying games in existence, maybe two or three of them actually good?

Where's my smug smiley face brosef.
Ah, I have found it

 

[UniversalWolf]

Wouldn't that philosophy indicate there's only about, oh, five roleplaying games in existence, maybe two or three of them actually good?

No.

I'd point you to:

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php?topic=25.0

and especially

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php?topic=24.0

These are topics on the Iron Tower forums in which Vince lists a large number of RPGs. The current, toilet-clogging breed are not included.

 

[Eyenixon]

Geneforge and Avernum?
Really? Listen, Geneforge, maybe a little, but Avernum is a straightforward dungeon crawler with the only difference between playthroughs being your party composition and a few quest outcomes.

Really, and Geneforge has the same exact class based replay value, you play with one class, then play with another to experience the game with a different approach. This is familiar, to something most people wouldn't call a "real RPG" such as Icewind Dale.
I've played every single Geneforge and Avernum, I know those games very well, and let me tell you, the dungeon crawler Avernum and the exploration based Geneforge really aren't the best examples, Geneforge has some morality issues and a few choices, but honestly, it's nothing spectacular or out there, it's a lot like Fallout 3 except the game doesn't suck unapologetically.

Also,

Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer - the next best thing since Planescape Torment and the only game that can be mentioned next to PST, which is quite an achievement. See my review at RPG Codex if you want to know more.

Lel, where's that smiley again?
Ah, it has been found

I can put together a list too you know, and I don't think a list with Diablo 2 on it is exactly proving his point, and that's not his fault, it's probably yours for using it as an example.

 

[Dionysus]

And how dare you suggesting that Pokemon, an old school, hardcore RPG cult classic that practically reinvented the genre is not the greatest RPG evar?

Yeah, that's my point. Rogue, Wizardry, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Ultima, Rogue, etc don't have any profound emphasis on giving you a goal and allowing you to complete it in multiple ways. I've played pure strategy games that scratch that itch better than most RPGs. Hell, I've played Japanese pro-wrestling games that feature more role playing than most RPGs. Forget "these days," computer RPGs in general don't offer much of the sort of thing that you are taking about.

Mass Effect had role-playing? Do tell.

OK, I actually didn't play it much, but didn't it have a choice between snarky dialog and goody-two-shoes dialog? Sure, that's not a lot, but it beats the piss out of Earthbound. Seriously, most role-playing videogames throughout history haven't had this sort of emphasis. Even BG2 fares OK when compared to the field. It beat the pants off the first one!

These are topics on the Iron Tower forums in which Vince lists a large number of RPGs. The current, toilet-clogging breed are not included.

Many of those are relatively current. That's the thing. The hardcore niche stuff is still around (like AoD) and the mainstream stuff really is much better than it has been traditionally.

 

[Eyenixon]

And how dare you suggesting that Pokemon, an old school, hardcore RPG cult classic that practically reinvented the genre is not the greatest RPG evar?

Yeah, that's my point. Rogue, Wizardry, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Ultima, Rogue, etc don't have any profound emphasis on giving you a goal and allowing you to complete it in multiple ways. I've played pure strategy games that scratch that itch better than most RPGs. Hell, I've played Japanese pro-wrestling games that feature more role playing than most RPGs. Forget "these days," computer RPGs in general don't offer much of the sort of thing that you are taking about.

This was the point I was trying to make and I'm surprised someone who has played RPGs for more than 20 years doesn't realize that.

I said it before in another thread, choice & consequence, multiple indepth solutions that are truly different and applicable only by specific character builds are a very modern thing.
But I don't care about that, to me the statistics are the most important thing, I want to see a character truly suffer detrimental effects with a low stat of some sort, but excel with another with high quantity, and I want those benefits and penalties to be extreme.

And this is where I disagree, modern RPGs don't offer as much "roleplaying" as older titles, the stats mean less, their effects have been nullified and the amount of stats have been reduced. Call me a math nut, but this just means there are less possibilities, and RPGs are all about the possibilities, RPGs are about math and how that math affects the role of a character, his personality as defined by mathematics.
Now RPGs seem to be defined by surface materials such as physical customization, stats littered about like candy with little to no detrimental effects for low stats and either negligible positive effects or excessive positive effects for improved stats.

Possibilities go far beyond being able to overcome a situation with a different approach, it goes beyond being able to react differently to an NPC or cause some sort of effect in the environment, it goes beyond the flesh into the heart of the matter, and that is the math. All these definitions possessed with semantics and romantic notions of what makes a "real" RPG are too focused on the previously mentioned surface elements.

Go back to the basics, don't ignore that Ultima IV heavily penalized a low intelligence player trying to cast spells, placing him in the role of a warrior or a thief. The role is defined by the personality and the personality is defined by the math.
It really is that simple, although older games were certainly more primitive, their ancient technology forced them into creating replayability with numbers that all possessed differing extreme results.
This is especially true when story and dialog was limited by the byte and many developers were unable to implement something as elaborate as most people take for granted today.

 

[VDweller]

Wouldn't that philosophy indicate there's only about, oh, five roleplaying games in existence, maybe two or three of them actually good?

Uh, no?

Darklands, Fallout 1 and 2, Arcanum, the entire Geneforge series, Prelude to Darkness, Planescape, Mask of the Betrayer, a number of Ultima games (starting with #4, I think; kids, try Ultima V Lazarus), Bloodlines, Gothic, Escape Velocity: Nova, Temple of Elemental Evil, Realms of Arkania, etc.

So what do we have so far? At least 20-25 games. Most of them are pretty damn good and are "hall of fame" material.

I said it before in another thread, choice & consequence, multiple indepth solutions that are truly different and applicable only by specific character builds are a very modern thing.

http://www.gamebanshee.com/news/static/EEulVyFuFFdJmOZINp.php

"Ultima 5-Lazarus stands on its own ... This game is so complex and absorbing that little else on the market can come close. If all you want to do is run around killing things, then this is probably not the game for you. However, if you enjoy a detailed and thoughtful story chock full of real choices and consequences..."

Yep. All old RPGs were hack-n-slash. No choices & consequences whatsoever.

http://www.atarimagazines.com/compute/issue152/102_Darklands.php

"You get many such CHOICES throughout the game, and the decisions made from these CHOICES determine not only where the character goes and his or her success or failure, but also the plot's texture, flavor, and nuances.

The real beauty of the Darklands epic is the multitude of CHOICES you get, which surpass the complexity and historical accuracy seen in any other contemporary computer game. The true role-playing enthusiast will be dazzled by the game's sheer volume of CHOICES and historically accurate situations. "

http://anarchy.c0ck.org/game/darklands

"But the freedom and amount of choices is astounding."

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9145

"You can really play a character however you want, being as good or evil as you like and your choices have a clear and visible impact on the game world. "

Darklands. 1992. You were saying?

 

[VDweller]

Yeah, that's my point. Rogue, Wizardry, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Ultima, Rogue, etc don't have any profound emphasis on giving you a goal and allowing you to complete it in multiple ways.

Your point is non-existent. Putting Japanese crap like FF, DQ, and Pokemon in one category with Ultima and Wizardry is retarded.

Forget "these days," computer RPGs in general don't offer much of the sort of thing that you are taking about.

Well, you seem to know a lot about RPGs...

OK, I actually didn't play it much, but didn't it have a choice between snarky dialog and goody-two-shoes dialog?

... but it beats the piss out of Earthbound.

Earthbound? Ok, I finally get it. You are a "console kid". No further questions.

Seriously, most role-playing videogames throughout history haven't had this sort of emphasis. Even BG2 fares OK when compared to the field. It beat the pants off the first one!

Even BG2? What is it, some kinda super awesome RPG? It's not. It's an action adventure game with meaningless choices leading to the same outcome. Bioware's specialty. Whether or not it "beats the piss out of" console games is irrelevant.

 

[Eyenixon]

Darklands, Fallout 1 and 2, Arcanum, the entire Geneforge series, Prelude to Darkness, Planescape, Mask of the Betrayer, a number of Ultima games (starting with #4, I think; kids, try Ultima V Lazarus), Bloodlines, Gothic, Escape Velocity: Nova, Temple of Elemental Evil, Realms of Arkania, etc.

So what do we have so far? At least 20-25 games. Most of them are pretty damn good and are "hall of fame" material.

You're losing me, Temple of Elemental Evil? The Ultima games? You know, I'm a massive Ultima fan, but the closest thing to choice and consequence was Ultima IV's virtue system, and there was only one real consequence, losing points in a certain virtue and that only prevented you from meditating at a shrine, no matter how much of a d-bag you were you could always just turn around and repeatedly perform some action to work your virtues back up, the only consequence was wasted time, there were no real negative effects.
To go on with the different possibilities of accomplishing your goal, there only really was one method, go into a dungeon, kill whatever was in your way, breach the Underworld, kill everything in your way, then retrieve the Codex, not much deviation from a tried and true formula in Ultima IV's case.
And the Ultimas following IV were even worse examples, Ultima V dropped the virtue system for a karma system, the same goes for VI, and VII completely removed the karma system, and even then while the game was open and accessible in very many ways, the only true choice on the player's part was exploring what in whichever order he decided, nothing too major.

Once again, the Ultima games are traditionally non-linear, but the player's input towards the storyline is entirely linear, it's no Fallout.
The quality of Darklands is arguable and I already addressed Geneforge in another post, it isn't exactly the most elaborate of experiences and doesn't provide the same breadth of options and character choices that something like Fallout does, however, it does exceptionally well as a game by Jeff Vogel since he loves straightforward dungeon crawlers.

And Temple of Elemental Evil? That's essentially the epitome of a combat based RPGer's paradise, I love that game like other people love PS:T, but really, what choice and consequence there was pretty insignificant and took a backseat to bashing things.

And while I truly adore Gothic, the game eventually leads to the same result and most of the game's problems are solved through combat, if not the vast majority of them.

"Ultima 5-Lazarus stands on its own ... This game is so complex and absorbing that little else on the market can come close. If all you want to do is run around killing things, then this is probably not the game for you. However, if you enjoy a detailed and thoughtful story chock full of real choices and consequences..."

Yep. All old RPGs were hack-n-slash. No choices & consequences whatsoever.

You are aware of the fact that Ultima V is actually entitled Ultima V: Warriors of Destiny and not Lazarus? Lazarus is a Dungeon Siege mod that remakes Ultima V, it's not exactly the best example.
Although I've never really tried Lazarus, I can speak with complete confidence that Ultima V: Warriors of Destiny is NOT a good example at all.

http://www.atarimagazines.com/compute/issue152/102_Darklands.php

"You get many such CHOICES throughout the game, and the decisions made from these CHOICES determine not only where the character goes and his or her success or failure, but also the plot's texture, flavor, and nuances.

The real beauty of the Darklands epic is the multitude of CHOICES you get, which surpass the complexity and historical accuracy seen in any other contemporary computer game. The true role-playing enthusiast will be dazzled by the game's sheer volume of CHOICES and historically accurate situations. "

http://anarchy.c0ck.org/game/darklands

"But the freedom and amount of choices is astounding."

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9145

"You can really play a character however you want, being as good or evil as you like and your choices have a clear and visible impact on the game world. "

Darklands. 1992. You were saying?

I was saying that ten out of a thousand RPGs apply to your rules. And the point you were trying to prove? That some shoddily designed RPG from the early 90's that incorporates a gimmicky "choice and consequence" system is somehow the ultimate example of just how many RPGs there exist that truly prescribe to your conditions?

No, for every Darklands there are twenty SSI Goldbox games or Wizardry's or Might & Magics.
I'm certain there are more games that truly represent what you're looking for, but so far you haven't really convinced me with your examples, they either don't fit the bill or they aren't exactly the most inspiring titles.
Look at it this way, did Darklands make a big splash? Was there much clamoring for its "choice and consequence"? Amongst those that played it and enjoyed it obviously there would be such a reaction, but it wasn't some big deal, it wasn't a defining aspect of RPGs back then as it is now, when we have games like Mass Effect, Fallout, Arcanum, Bloodlines and whatever else that attempt to truly provide depth in options, not all of them do it well, some of them do it fantastically, but it's only prevalent in modern gaming.

I'm certain if most developers had the capabilities to implement such systems without technological constraints or if it was actually a highly demanded feature, they would have jumped for choice and consequence, they would have tried to offer as many different avenues of completion for quests as possible, but as history shows, that simply wasn't the case. Most people were interested in games with large worlds, interesting settings, complex and tightly programmed RPG systems, and party based combat.

EDIT: My "three or five" comment was an exaggeration and I was purposefully being smug, I thought the smiley would've showed that.

 

[Brother None]

I really hate debates like these. Is it really that important how we define RPGs, and whether or not the pen and paper heritage or the early attempts take precedence in how we define it?

It's become way too loose a term in common parlance to be useful in this sense. There's no defining element to RPGs, and I don't really see the point of retro-fitting it on. BioWare wants to call their interactive films RPGs? Bethesda wants to call their free-roaming action games RPGs? Let them. Trying to redefine the term for most people to exclude those games just confuses the issue.

 

[Eyenixon]

I'd say it's less about definition and more the fact that I don't understand where he got the idea that choice and consequence has somehow been prevalent ever since the earliest days of cRPGs, especially since my long-lived and extensive experience with the genre has proved otherwise.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

And Temple of Elemental Evil? That's essentially the epitome of a combat based RPGer's paradise, I love that game like other people love PS:T, but really, what choice and consequence there was pretty insignificant and took a backseat to bashing things.

Well, it IS the bashing that ultimately makes the game fun, but you can't just say that the rest of RP experience is nonexistent because of that. Your choices clearly lead to consequences, there is a number of different endings based on some key decisions, plus a separate slide in the ending for pretty much any significant location or character. I mean, the story is a bit generic, the game is not nearly as vast as, say PS:T or FO2, but it easily stands alongside FO1 and beats the crap out of BG games.

 

[Eyenixon]

I don't think it stands along FO1 for one reason, and that's the fact that most of your options are restricted to killing things, one of the major components of VDweller's arguments is that there are varying approaches to specific situations. And the ending? Cut me some slack, choice and consequence means more than just a few ending slides, as I said, the choice and consequence elements in Temple of Elemental Evil are insignificant as a major gameplay component and take a back seat to the main focus of the game, combat.

This is in stark contrast to game like Fallout that tries to offer different options at nearly every turn, and that provides noticeable results for actions within the game itself, beyond just the ending slides.
Choice and consequence in Temple of Elemental Evil was essentially a tossed on afterthought, it hardly makes any difference and it won't be your prime concern when replaying the game, because that's not how the game defines your characters in a sense of what its focus prioritizes.

Oh, and honestly, I don't see much choice and consequence in a game that allows you to slaughter the entire town of Homlet and all that really happens instantaneously is a lack of a few quests and shops, in Fallout you'd be slapped with Child Killer and Berserker.

 

[Dionysus]

And this is where I disagree, modern RPGs don't offer as much "roleplaying" as older titles, the stats mean less, their effects have been nullified and the amount of stats have been reduced. Call me a math nut, but this just means there are less possibilities, and RPGs are all about the possibilities, RPGs are about math and how that math affects the role of a character, his personality as defined by mathematics.

I agree that this is a legitimate trend, particularly because of a clear shift toward more action-oriented combat systems.

Your point is non-existent. Putting Japanese crap like FF, DQ, and Pokemon in one category with Ultima and Wizardry is retarded.

I get it. You think the tent is too big and it includes games that lack some critical features or whatnot. I don't care about your semantic arguments, I'm only interested in correcting the revisionist history. Since it's inception, the genre (as it is broadly recognized in the industry) has predominantly consisted of games that you wouldn't classify as good RPGs. This is not a new trend or a drought of some sort. If anything, the genre as a whole is trending to include more of an emphasis on allowing and reacting to player choice.