Imagination in CRPGs

Jasede · Dec 31, 2005

I was wondering just how important the ability to visualize and to imagine things is when playing a CRPG. Just yesterday I gave the good, old Daggerfall another go. Running through the damp dungeons I was almost aware about how it must have smelled there. Suddenly, a terrible screeching was to be heard! I sat bolt upright, knowing that a skeleton must be close. When I finally saw it, I could actually hear it chuckling --- I even saw it in my head, waving its rusty saber at me.
The day before that, I spent some time with Pool of Radiance, a rather ancient Goldbox game. Although the town of Phlan that my party was about to liberate was not very detailed, I still could imagine how my characters roamed through the city and bartered with the merchants.

Well, the point is: Today, I thought I would give Morrowind another shot, even against better judgement. Well, when I saw the world and explored my first dungeon I uninstalled that junk again. Why? Well, aside of the usual, well discussed cons of Morrowind, it also did not feel as real as Daggerfall or Pool of Radiance. In those games, I was really immersed into the world surrounding me. I knew what my character(s) were thinking. Now one might say: Is a modern game not much more immersive, due to its fancy music and amazing graphics? Well, my answer has to be: no! If everything is served on a platter, one is restricted in one's imagination. Morrowind... Everything was so clean; every face was free from dirt. Magic items glowed like some kind of plastic toy. How could that have been immersive?

To conclude, mayhaps games should go back to the roots. There once was a time were graphics were not too fancy and the player has had to be enticed by content. Developers should put more weight into designing a believable setting and writing good text and dialogue which assists one's imagination.

Well, this is hardly a new conclusion. Anyway, what do you think? Has nostalgia simply clouded my head? Or do you too think that it might be important to allow the imagination to play a bigger part? Is what I have stated simply the consequence of better graphics? Have you ever experienced a game, which got you hooked by its amazing feat to immerse you, rather than to fog your brain with flashy graphics?

Vault Dweller · Dec 31, 2005

I agree with you, old games were way more immersive. I liked DF's pixelated portraits much more them MW's and especially Oblivion's faces. Same goes for items. For some reasons, a small icon of a glowing sword paints me a better picture then detailed MW/OB models. Maybe it's the imagination that could work unrestricted when only basic "suggestive" visuals are provided, maybe something else.

I still play old games occasionally: DF, Darklands, and XCOM 2 (for some reasons I really liked the underwater setting) are permanent residents of my HD. These games are incredibly immersive, but I think that superior design plays an important role too.

Volourn · Dec 31, 2005

Old games were less immersive on a whole. Only pin heads or those who are daydreaming about games they played when they were 5 years old.

New games inspite of some exceptions are deeper, more immersive, and sophisticated.

Vault Dweller · Dec 31, 2005

Examples please.

Jason · Dec 31, 2005

Maybe I'm missing the point of the original post, but I play games to explore other people's imaginations, not my own. I get enough of my own imagination everywhere, all the time, whether I want it or not.

Proweler · Dec 31, 2005

Vault Dweller said:
I agree with you, old games were way more immersive.

It's also true that young people are more easily immersed.

Volourn · Dec 31, 2005

VD: The fact that you used DF has an example of a 'deep' or 'deeper game' is proof enogh. That game is a deep as a shallow puddle in my drive way. POR2 has more depth in its pinky finger that DF has. Heck, as much as I DESPISE POR2; it's deeper than its predeccsor.

Vault Dweller · Dec 31, 2005

Proweler said:
Vault Dweller said:

I agree with you, old games were way more immersive.

Click to expand...

It's also true that young people are more easily immersed.

I was 26 when Daggerfall was released.

baby arm said:
Maybe I'm missing the point of the original post, but I play games to explore other people's imaginations, not my own. I get enough of my own imagination everywhere, all the time, whether I want it or not.

A good game, like a good book, gives you plenty of reasons to play/read it, and your imagination only improves the experience. As for the original post, think of a good book. Do you need to have an illustration on every page? Would you complain about a good book with no pictures?

Imo, the original Prince of Persia was as immersive as the latest PoP games in all their 3D glory.

Vault Dweller · Dec 31, 2005

Volourn said:
VD: The fact that you used DF has an example of a 'deep' or 'deeper game' is proof enogh.

Proof of what? DF is a different game than Fallout or BG or Wiz. It doesn't mean that it's a bad game. I measure depth in options, alternative gameplay styles, and things to do. That's where DF shined (and MW sucked).

Proweler · Dec 31, 2005

Vault Dweller said:
Proweler said:

Vault Dweller said:

I agree with you, old games were way more immersive.

Click to expand...

It's also true that young people are more easily immersed.

Click to expand...

I was 26 when Daggerfall was released.

So? You are older now, used to alot of things and expecting the same suprice as your first time.

http://www.svatopluk.com/daggerfall/museum/faq.stm <- I thought of you when I read that. Then I realised it was a Daggerfall FAQ.

Vault Dweller · Dec 31, 2005

Well, the difference between 26 and 35 is less dramatic, then between 14-15 and 25.

Anyway, I disagree that games impress you less as your experience grows. Granted, first time is always special, and I remember playing Wolfenstein and being amazed at how "real" it looked. I doubt I would ever feel the same awe again. However, it's hard to deny that one shouldn't expect games of Daggerfall or Darklands complexity anytime soon. Games have become much simplier, and graphics have replaced a large portion of gameplay. Let's hope eventually developers would pay more or at least equal attention to gameplay elements.

Human Shield · Jan 1, 2006

I agree with the points (even thou I read comics).

The principle is showing less and creating atmosphere is better then showing more and having it turn out bad.

Movie directors figured this out and made classics, maybe early game designers weren't aware they were using it but now games (and movies) are in a fancy FX rut.

Look at Jaws for a great example. The producers wanted to show the shark at the start but the director was smart to hide it and show it in limited ways. If they showed the whole shark for a long time people would see it was so fake and it would lose its impact. And now movies with CGI sharks would look stupid.

Redoing the shower scene from Psycho with CGI stabbing effects would have less impact. Powering people's imaginations does more then shutting down that side of their brain, because then their mind starts increasingly questioning the suspension of disbelief.

The more they see the less mystery, the less mystery the less they are drawn in.

This is what is happening. Players are now seeing the puppet strings in 3D models and saying, "is that all?", instead of low key images that gets the mind to paint in better details. Game designers have forgotten how to paint atmosphere.

You have to keep it believable. The higher res textures you get the more chance flaws can bring people out. Movies that rely on selling fancy FX has to set up a consistent world around it.

Consistent graphic design is better then a straight increase in polygons when they aren't used right. Look at GTA series, its cartoony graphics paints a consistent world.

The cookie cutter looking world of Morrowind with its blocky animations and boring caves is a problem.

Volourn · Jan 1, 2006

"Proof of what? DF is a different game than Fallout or BG or Wiz."

Irrelevant.

"It doesn't mean that it's a bad game."

Aside from the fact that I hate DF, it's quality was not an issue but it's (lack of) depth.

"I measure depth in options, alternative gameplay styles, and things to do."

Really? If this were true, you'd be stating that NWN is one of the deepest if not the deepest game ever. Afterall, it's options are nearly endless. Even in SP, it's amount of options and 'alternative game play styles' and 'things to do' is pretty huge. But, of cours,e I doubt you'd admit that.

R00fles!
_________________

Vault Dweller · Jan 1, 2006

Volourn said:
Really? If this were true, you'd be stating that NWN is one of the deepest if not the deepest game ever. Afterall, it's options are nearly endless. Even in SP, it's amount of options and 'alternative game play styles' and 'things to do' is pretty huge. But, of cours,e I doubt you'd admit that.

Refresh my memory.

Micmu · Jan 1, 2006

Volourn said:
Really? If this were true, you'd be stating that NWN is one of the deepest if not the deepest game ever. Afterall, it's options are nearly endless. Even in SP, it's amount of options and 'alternative game play styles' and 'things to do' is pretty huge. But, of cours,e I doubt you'd admit that.

NWN OC?
You're a dumbfuck, this game is as linear as equator. Even MW kicks it in the nuts (in stuff you can do), yet alone DF. Name few alternative game styles! You can play with different classes?

Or do you still confuse what modders/GMs do and what company did in it's original SP campaign?

Human Shield · Jan 1, 2006

micmu said:
Or do you still confuse what modders/GMs do and what company did in it's original SP campaign?

Don't you know that the creators of C++ were the greatest RPG makers EVAR!! You can do ANYTHING!!!!!!

Volourn · Jan 1, 2006

"You're a dumbfuck, this game is as linear as equator. Even MW kicks it in the nuts (in stuff you can do), yet alone DF. Name few alternative game styles! You can play with different classes?"

You either lie, or didn't play the game.

The only thing MW has over NWN OC is its longer. Longer, and emptier. Hahaha.

"Refresh my memory."

No. No need to. You should know enough to know it's true. Afterall, you post about NWN enough. Unless you are admitting ignorance.

Micmu · Jan 1, 2006

Volourn said:
You either lie, or didn't play the game.
The only thing MW has over NWN OC is its longer. Longer, and emptier. Hahaha.

Hahaha you still didn't give any specific examples why is NWN OC teh deepest RPG experience. Aribeth is a hot babe, isn't she? :shock:

Volourn · Jan 1, 2006

Hahah. I've given many examples in the past 3+ years. I'm not gonna repeat myself just for you.

Micmu · Jan 1, 2006

Volourn said:
Hahah. I've given many examples in the past 3+ years. I'm not gonna repeat myself just for you.

You're a poor NWN defender.

Human Shield · Jan 1, 2006

Volourn said:
Hahah. I've given many examples in the past 3+ years. I'm not gonna repeat myself just for you.

Of how cool the toolset is and user-created content.

Section8 · Jan 1, 2006

... and XCOM 2 (for some reasons I really liked the underwater setting)

Terrror from the Deep is a superior game to the first, but it wasn't really different enough or improved upon enough to warrant being a full fledged sequel. Once you get over that though, it's certainly worth keeping on your hard drive.

Really? If this were true, you'd be stating that NWN is one of the deepest if not the deepest game ever. Afterall, it's options are nearly endless. Even in SP, it's amount of options and 'alternative game play styles' and 'things to do' is pretty huge. But, of cours,e I doubt you'd admit that.

It's hard to consider 'alternative game play styles' as such when the differences were so shallow as to be almost cosmetic. Even playing what should be vastly different character classes such as a mage versus a fighter, there was little difference. You're still wading through hordes of minnows that pose no significant challenge even to the meagre melee abilities of a mage.

That 'things to do' list is pretty fucking short if you categorise. I could probably condense it down to "kill things and retreive stuff for the good guys, regardless of alignment or motivation." Admittedly, there was the occasional cute diversion, like item crafting, but all in all it formed such a tiny portion of a game that was 95% combat against monsters with little to no challenge rating.

You could argue that Progress Quest is the most incredible game ever because it has no end to what you can do, but since it all amounts to the same thing, what's the fucking point?

--

Oh, and to get back to the discussion at hand, I always have been, and still manage to get incredibly "immersed" by Doom. As has been mentioned before, graphical consistency is far more important than technical wizardry.

I also find that the demands on art resources with current tech actually makes "realism" a harder goal to strive toward. The tendency to blatantly overdo bump and specular mapping in FPSs in particular results in everything looking like shiny plastic action figures.

Like with porn, "suggestive" has a more profound effect than "hardk0r."

bryce777 · Jan 1, 2006

Two things.

1. Gameplay. When there is good gameplay, your mind fills in the blanks. When there are continuity gaps, things that don't make sense, munchkinism that breaks any natural sense of coherence (such as the level up system in morrowing), a gameworld that is not very believable, and stupid reactions to the player in the game world...any of these things makes it extremely, extremely difficult to get into a game. When npcs react in a sensible manner, when you aren't railroaded from one spot to the next, when the gameplay is fun and makes sense...this helps immerse you. Most of the games being made now hideously fail in these areas...just look at how kotor 2 and bloodlines totally fell apart at the end, for example. Another issue is replayability. In most games, there is little, because they get by on cutscenes and whizbang, not gameplay. Well, no matter how good the cutscenes are, you are probably only going to want to see them once - a lot of the times I could care less if I see them the first time.

2. Talent. Technology doesn't make good art or immersion. It takes talent to do that. The artwork in xcom is pretty dated these days, but still superb, and its music and sound top practically any game I can think of, which helps dramatically. Same with daggerfall. Shit, to me daggerfall looks better than morrowind or neverwinter nights. They have some pretty shitty artwork for the most part. There is something called artistic style that is completely aside from how close to photorealism you are. Fallout is pretty much the best game out there for art style when it comes to rpgs; the squalid streets and junkies, the contrast of the awesome perk drawings which are so 50s funtastic futurama. The oblivions screens look amazing in a sense, but I can't see any real style to them. They are just an example, though. Actually, I did like the nwn 2 screens a lot, though - they seem to have a lot of character.

LlamaGod · Jan 1, 2006

I can imagine things perfectly, which is why I think graphics being such a major factor for RPGs is dumb.

THere could be a brown + on the screen and if it was acting as a door, it would be a door to me.

Kamaz · Jan 1, 2006

Hahah. I've given many examples in the past 3+ years. I'm not gonna repeat myself just for you.

Yes,of course Volourn.

But, how comes you don't get tired repeating that somekind mantra: "NWN is great" and when somebody asks how exactly it is great, you say "I have proved it dozens of times already!"

If you express an argument, please be ready to support it. No one asks you kilobytes of explanation, no one actually wants that. Just give at least one/two things that support your argument ("NWN is great and your are stupid if you don't understand."). Dude, this is discussion, you cannot just shout lozungs and want everyone to agree with you.

I consider NWN main campaign really sucky, I even tried to play it (because you and some other people told me NWN is great!) but eventually I did'nt like it all and didn't finish. Please, forgive me that I cannot stand it, at least first levels, so exaplain me exact great features of NWN so I maybe get inspired to keep playing it.

And again, in no way I denie NWN being great game. Just this far I havent encountered a single proof for that.

And yes, DM client and fan-made modules are great, but I talk about classic, core main campaign since as DM tool NWN is no more actually cRPG, but tool and modules are additions and they are stand-alone games themselves.

That's about NWN. So, Volourn, please, give us at least some arguments why NWN is great in this case or...I dunno, dont want to be rude. Keep silence then?

--------------
About the topic...which is actually quite derailed but still interesting.

I can agree that immagination plays major role in creating immersion and as Human Shield perfectly stated, less graphics can actually enhance this immersion.

But on the other hand I think there are people who can use all those new graphics and create great atmosphere.Saying that old games were much more immersive and 3D sucks is not quite right. I really liked what they did with Bloodlines, I canot immagine Bloodlines with less of graphic, without "wet eyes" and "perfect [undead]girl" 3D models. Graphics helped to the feeling a great deal, IMO. Fallout is not immaginable without talking heads and great, fantastic sprites of post-apocalyptic world. The renders, the movie. As writing (of script) is important for the game, that also design and drawing is important to transport that feeling also via visual experience. Here I agree with bryce pretty much - artwork is that really counts.

Imagination in CRPGs

Arcane

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Pretty Princess

Commissar, Red Star Studio

chasing a bee

Scholar

Pretty Princess

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Scholar

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Augur

Pretty Princess

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Magister

Augur

Pretty Princess

Magister

Pretty Princess

Magister

Augur

Cipher

Erudite

Cipher

Pahris Entertainment