Liveblogging Microsoft's "The Evolution of RPG Development" panel
4:40pm - Muzyka: The genre has evolved. What is an RPG? it's a blended definition now. The definition is increasingly broad. We're merging some elements into our games (from games like GTA, etc). Story and character is one of the activity pillars we focus on. Addictive customization, progression combat that makes you feel something, that makes you feel fear when your encountering certain enemies. You're so eager to uncover a new area to explore ... we're defining it based on those activity pillars, those chains. We're reaching new consumers as well as our existing RPG fans.
Molyneux: I agree with everything you said. For me, it comes back to this one simple phrase: role playing game. You are playing a role. What should it feel like to be a hero? To start off as nothing and become a hero, that's the differential for me. What I want to do is make you feel like a hero, make you feel significant. Emotional engagement that I want you all to buy in to.
Sakaguchi: What was the question? (laughs) System and visual fidelity are important. What I'd like to do is tell a great storyline, and the characters and worldview that players can relate to. There's a sense of exhileration and accomplishment. Thats something you get out of an RPG.
4:45 - Keighley: Is turn-based here to stay, or is real-time the way of the future?
Sakaguchi: It's crucial to create meticulously and with a great level of detail. With respect to Blue Dragon, it's turn-based but it has a lot of real time elements. Lost Odyssey has a lot of real-time elements that will make battle experiences interesting. There is an action RPG title called Cryon for 360 and two additional RPG projects.
There needs to be variable ways of planning.
Molyneux: I think there's space for both. That's the problem with action games, it's much more twitch, there's no time to pause. I hope there carries on being great turn-based games.
Muzyka: There's many ways to tell a great story. The key, as Peter mentioned, is emotion. We're striving to create both sides of the creation. Mass Effect's got the whole gamut. Everyone's definition of an RPG is different.

4:50 - Keighley: Linear versus open ended?
Sakaguchi: There will be a lot more games that have character customizations, because it's fun.
The focus is to tell a good story and reflect a world view. It's the same as making a movie, you get the characters in place, you want to manipulate all of them and feel fully immersed.
Molyneux: I've been thinking about this an awful lot. There's customization and evolution. I get a bit bored just customizing one character. When you've got no context of the world it seems kind of old school. I am just bored to death with those same old set up screen where you got change the hair color change the eyes, ya ya ya, same old thing. I'd like to continue evolving that character. It's all about your engagement. If I can convince you that these are things you've chosen, that means you're more emotionally engaged. We need to take a step further than we've gone at the moment.
Muszyka: For me, it comes down to the choices you make in the game. Non-linear narrative is one of the hardest forms to create. You have to think of all the angles. You have to have the consequences.
Molyneux: There's one slight snag. You don't want people to start believeing they're making the wrong choice. That's where we've got to be very very careful. That's where branching can work against 'em (RPGs).
Muzyka: I think it's exciting to have different stories. No two characters having the same story arc. Just like real life, you're not gonna have the same path as someone else. I love non-linearity and we're aspiring for that.
Keighley: It must be difficult to create all this non-linear content that some will never see. How do you balance that?
Muzyka: It's damn hard. You have to think fo the emotion return each player gets from the choice they make. "Jack Bauer in space." You have a grand goal, you're saving billions of lives. You have to expend things in the short term for the greater good.
Molyneux: It's not that I don't want to do multiple branching (laughs). The only problem is that, for me, I'm insecure enough to believe that I'm always going to take the wrong path.
5:00pm - Keighley: Let's talk about multiplayer. Very popular on Xbox Live. RPGs always battle with multiplayer experience. How do you see multiplayer fitting in to the future or RPGs?
Sakaguchi: I'm fond of multiplay and online connectivity. I'm hoping I can talk with Shane [Kim] and create an online game (laughs). Shane, please Shane. I wanna make one.
Molyneux: Can I do one as well, Shane (room laughs)? What you're finding is that people are leaving their consoles connected all the time. If there is any genre that is really sympathetic to online multiplayer, it's RPGs. I'd love to talk about that in great enormous detail, but I have been gagged by lots of people. [Is he talking about co-op in Fable 2?]
Keighley: What's taking so long?
Molyneux: there's a lot of stuff to work out, there's technology to work out, there's gameplay to work out ... there's a lot of reasons why you haven't seen the real evolution of what's going to happen. The revolution is coming.
Muzyka: I haven't been gagged. I'll hint at the rough shape of what we're building. The story that develops between players, that's something you can't achieve in a single player game. There's a place for both of them (MMO and single player). I think the social interactions between players allow you to tell stories of a different kind.
5:07pm - They begin taking questions from the audience.
Q: A while back on SNES there was an RPG, Secret of Mana. Why hasn't online co-op been explored in linear RPGs?
Ray Muzyka: I think it's a great idea (room laughs). You have a party joined by a common goal. Where's the fourth pillar? The story? I think that's the missing ingredient.
Q: Do you think there's a place for reality-based role playing? Really minute details like choosing your dinner set? More than a fantasy setting with epic heroes? Can there be more mundane RPGs? (room laughs).
Muzyka: I think one of the cool things about RPGs, it's aspirational fantasy. You don't want to be mundane. You want to be someone who's great. You want to be someone you can't be in real life.
Molyneux: Let's take Fable for example. Is chatting up girls mundane? (laughs in room). Is having relationships mundane? I was thinking about a game called Dimitri -- and I still can't talk about this -- it's very hard to talk about (still secret). Could you be a hero in today's world? 24, Heroes, Desperate Housewives, etc. They're all set in today's world. Is the starting point you and I? We're not in some tune like in Fable. We're in this room. That's a good starting point for a role playing game. We could concentrate on the mundane "Level 3 in Make-Up" or we could focus on the dramatic. If I could say to you: this room explodes, this bomb goes off in the corner. That's a good game. It's all about the detail. In fantasy, you can brush over those details. You can say, it's my world.
Sakaguchi: I'm very interested in it. I've been exploring the idea for 10 years. I've thought of a game around a story of a boy who's trying to make up a relationship with an ex girlfriend. It's something i'm interested in, but it's tough.
Q: What makes it so tough?
Sakaguchi: Long discussion in Japanese, we'll do it someday (laughs in room).
Q: Isn't that what Yu Suzuki tried with Shenmue and failed at?
Sakaguchi: Shenmue? Suzuki Yu? Yeah I know him (laughs).
5:15 PM
They retranslate last question and Sakaguchi responds: I don't think so (laughs in room).
That's it!

4:35pm PT - Keighley starts by asking these RPG icons what the difference is between older and newer RPGs, and how they've evolved.
Sakaguchi: The graphics allow for players to see the true emotion behind the character.
Molyneux: RPGs are the first game I ever played, Wizardry on the Apple. I lost my first girlfriend to it. The graphics have changed. It's not simple and is much more significant, though the structure has not changed. There have been some evolutions but they're still recognizable back then and now. There are opportunities for changes. "I don't know who's going to do it."










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Ironhide @ Mar 6th 2007 8:52PM
It's nice to see a couple of legends answering questions like this. Nice bit of insight in the minds of these guys.
REUYL @ Mar 6th 2007 9:05PM
I absolutely cannot wait for the next generation of RPGs, especially Mass Effect.
Eric Iberri @ Mar 6th 2007 9:07PM
Hironobu Sakaguchi is an RPG icon. It's hard to think of the other two as definitive RPG superstars, though they've had their forays into the genre.
Where's Lord British?
OhJustSomeRandomGuy @ Mar 6th 2007 9:15PM
Hey, I'm going to go out on a limb, and assume Sakaguchi never once mentions GAMEPLAY in this entire interview/conference. (Unless it's a question about gameplay directly asked to him.)
Mike @ Mar 6th 2007 9:20PM
Good job liveblogging this, joystiq. These guys are really cool to hear from.
Man I'm pumped for mass effect.
REUYL @ Mar 6th 2007 9:42PM
Am I the only one that can't understand a word Molyneux is saying?
Erwos @ Mar 6th 2007 9:49PM
"Hironobu Sakaguchi is an RPG icon. It's hard to think of the other two as definitive RPG superstars, though they've had their forays into the genre."
Are you joking? Muzyka had Baldur's Gate I and II, along with NWN and KoTOR. Molyneux had Populous, Syndicate, Dungeon Keeper, and Fable. Those two men are some of the best game designers to ever live, period. The fact that their games don't have "Final Fantasy" in their titles doesn't make them any less masterpieces.
slacker164 @ Mar 6th 2007 10:30PM
Well, Baldur's Gate, NWN, etc are western RPGs. Not that that’s bad, but there’s a sad divide among “RPG” gamers. To me, Sakaguchi is the only that means anything. I couldn’t possibly care less about western RPGs. I wish we could get a new genre label for JRPGs or something. This is like calling Quake, Halo, and Radiant Silvergun a collection of legendary shooters. True, but one of them is not like the others.
Hikaru @ Mar 6th 2007 10:38PM
@ REUYL, L O L !!
Molyneux is F***ing Crazy!
bootsielon @ Mar 6th 2007 10:45PM
Western RPGs are to RPGs what Japanese FPS are to FPS.
Seriously though, to me Western RPGs are like FPS or 3rd person shooters, except with a little fantasy and character development. That's my experience with them. Anyway, I wouldn't put Japanese and Western RPGs in the same category.
Ed81240 @ Mar 7th 2007 8:40AM
I have to agree with slacker. There is an incredible difference between western rpg's and JRPG's. I personally can't stand western RPGs. Not to mention that this article is mostly a Microsoft Propaganda piece. There is really no representation of RPG's for the other systems here. Microsoft knows it has to start obtaining other player who aren't buying an X-box because their unable to expand their base beyond FPSs.
Bluebreaker @ Mar 6th 2007 10:53PM
JRPGs and Western style are like night and day. I wish they'd come up with more western ones on consoles that would be as popular like Final Fantasy. I mean Dungeons and Dragons had a run there for awhile.
calthaer @ Mar 7th 2007 3:38PM
Western RPGs are light-years beyond their JRPG counterparts. The only thing JRPGs have over western is fancy graphics and long, annoying cutscenes. I like to play my games, not watch them, thanks.
Western RPGs are the only ones that are actually trying to make a game where you can choose which role you play, to explore a world and find your own way in it. JRPGs are like watching a movie with a remote control that you have to push every few minutes to make the train-track-linear story progress. There's nowhere near as much engagement, and it's nowhere near as much of a game.
I wish we could get a new label for J "RPG"s, too.
steve17 @ Mar 7th 2007 1:39AM
am i the only one who thinks final fantasy has never lived up to the legendary hype it always gets.
i started final fantasy X and put it down cause of 3 reasons.
1) story. how can they say the stories are AMAZING? it starts with the kid playing "blitzball" in a huge suspended under water thingy. then a big ball of water called "sin" rises from the ocean and starts killing people. WTF? u call that story? thats just random thoughts compiled into a "story"
2)turn based combat. i think its pretty stupid how you are running along then an enemy pops out of the sky and you duke it out. by staring at each other, then you walk up, take a swing, walk back to you spot, then wait for him to do the same. its boring.
3)gayness. has anyone seen these caracters. the main caracter wears a pair of shorts with one pant legg normal and the other cut up to his hip with half his boxers showing. am i the only one who thinks thats stupid? and every single male in the game has a strangly feminine look to them.
i really dont see why final fantasy is considered the greatest shit ever. when you could simply change a few things and make it SOOO much more interesting.
Slaziman @ Mar 7th 2007 2:08AM
final fantasy is crap :/
Purple Haze @ Mar 7th 2007 2:24AM
I'm a little annoyed about Hironobu leaving square just because now i gotta get a 360 if i want to play his games. Final Fantasy just isn't the say withut him. I'm slowly playin through ff xii (I live in NZ so it only came out a couple weeks ago) and I think of it more like Vagrant Story 2 than Final Fantasy xii. Anyways all three of these guys are great, i'm still laughing at my friends for pre-ordering fable, just because how short it is. Also I don't think Shenmue failed, and Steve final fantasy's are obviously not your type of game and slaziman is just dumb.
rfom @ Mar 7th 2007 4:07AM
I am a bit confused, how does MS get to host an event on RPGs of all things? Before you get out your fanboi accusations, I am not claiming they havent contributed to gaming, MS are the reason why multiplayer and high quality FPS came to consoles.
But RPGs? Does bringing out a couple of good action RPGs and throwing a load of money to the founder of the "overhyped" FF series to make him your bitch make MS an "expert" on RPGs?
bVork @ Mar 7th 2007 4:25AM
I'm not sure about why they picked Molyneux for this panel. Warren Spector, Richard Garriott, Brian Fargo, or Tim Cain would have all been better choices. Molyneux, while definitely a legendary game designer, has done relatively few RPGs. The Origin and Black Isle alumni I just mentioned all built their names on the RPGs they did. Still, Molyneux definitely gave some interesting answers.
I found it interesting how similar Molyneux and Muzyka answered the questions, and how different their answers were to Sakaguchi's. Part of it was plainly a translation issue, but a few of the questions (primarily the evolution and linear vs open-ended ones) revealed a lot of the underlying philosophical differences between Western and Japanese RPGs.
Sakaguchi's focus is clearly on the storyline presented to the player. Molyneux and Muzyka seemed to focus more upon the actual role-playing experience and the choices given to the player. The Western philosophy of RPGs is that they should be actual role-playing experiences, while the Japanese view is that they should be linear plot-driven games with a heavy emphasis on noninteractive character development.
There are exceptions on both sides of the pond, though. The Shin Megami Tensei series is very nonlinear in terms of how to approach the gameplay, and the stories always have multiple endings based upon the choices the player makes. Meanwhile, games like Anachronox and Sudeki are Western-developed but definitely follow the plot-heavy and choice-light design of Japanese RPGs. There's still a huge gap between the two styles, but we may see them grow closer to each other in the future. Online RPGs (both MMO and PSO/Diablo-style) all follow the same design philosophies no matter the region of origin, and those ideas have begun making their way into singleplayer RPGs. Look at Final Fantasy 12 for a good example. While it still has the traditional Japanese emphasis on the plot, the gameplay is a lot like a singleplayer version of an MMO. Coincidentally, it also plays a lot like KOTOR.
I know both sides have their adherents, and won't suggest the superiority of one over the other. Personally, I prefer the Western style of RPG. Perhaps it's because I used to play pen-and-paper RPGs, and enjoy videogames that mimic the roleplaying possibilities contained in those games. I prefer BEING the character, not simply controlling a character.
SuperMan @ Mar 7th 2007 10:28AM
I really don't think japanese rpgs should have their own genre,nobody else does.Whenever we get a different typer of platformer nobody puts it in its own genre based on where it came from cause then we would have Arpg,Erpgs.Suppose some japanese guy is making a western style rpg,is he forced in to the jrpg genre.Oh and allot jrpgs seem pretty much the same to me,heres why.
Anime style characters
Turn based gameplay
Random battles
those reasons aren't all of them just a few,and I'm not saying they're all like this,but allot of jrpgs look boring and painful to play.
SuperMan @ Mar 7th 2007 10:43AM
Uhg..Sorry about the spelling errors I ran spellcheck
to be sure things came out fine.It replaced type with
typer.
Vegan @ Mar 7th 2007 2:35PM
#12
A lot of the "issues" you state have more to do with Japanese culture than anything else.
Ed81240 @ Mar 7th 2007 7:49PM
The artwork in JRPG's is often amazing. Western RPG's often look like last minute crap thrown together in a shoebox.
The stories in JRPG's is often long, inthrawling, and amazing. Western RPG's have virtualy nothing of interest in that department.
Battle systems in JRPG's are desighned to create stratigy. Western RPG's you just run around with your head cut off clubbing whatever moves. Some stratagy huh.
Finally JRPG's sell and have sold in the millions, western RPG"S do not. THe only Western RPG to come close is WoW, but thats a MMORPG wich is a horse of another color.
SuperMan @ Mar 7th 2007 8:53PM
Is the keyword often?Cause a lot of japanese rpg art is generic and plain,their stories tend to be either boring,over dramatic,Clichéd or just stupid.Battles systems tend to give you that sense of déjà vu,some have those stupid random battles.I think allot of generic rpgs are brought by anime fans because of anime esque visuals,the generic plots seem to make them feel right at home as do cliché protagonist.but I do agree it wouldn't hurt western rpg creators to touch up there art,it
tends to look the same as in realistic,they should try making they're rpg characters look less realistic and more fantasy like to atleast avoid looking the same.
Oh the part about anime fans don't apply to them all.
SuperMan @ Mar 7th 2007 8:53PM
Snap I put in remember me by accident didn't select it this time so hopefully it won't.
bVork @ Mar 7th 2007 9:08PM
#22
Perhaps you should actually play some Western RPGs instead of just making generalizations. I'm going to refute your arguments one by one.
1) Art. Have you played Oblivion or Fallout? Both go in vastly different directions in terms of art style but are equally beautiful. Oblivion, while not particularly unique, absolutely nails the high fantasy setting. There's simply no better looking fantasy RPG. Fallout's post-apocalyptic artwork is gritty and made even more unique through the use of 1950s style technology and artwork. The overly happy 50s cartoon style used in menus and such is a great contrast with the dark and gory gameplay.
2) Plot. You have clearly not played Planescape: Torment. I've never seen another RPG prompt philosophical discussions. Planescape's plot is incredibly detailed, to the point where 80% of the game is actually spent in conversations. Unlike JRPGs, the conversations in Planescape are meaningful and force you to make choices. I was amazed when I began playing it and discovered that it differentiated between making a promise and pretending to make a promise. That sort of choice is found all throughout the game. Planescape's story is the type of thing all RPGs should strive for: deep, meaningful storylines that allow the player to express their beliefs.
3) Combat. There are actually relatively few real-time Western RPGs. With the exception of the Elder Scrolls and Gothic series, most are either purely turn-based or the odd hybrid of turn-based and real-time pioneered by Bioware. Despite appearing to play out in real time, combat in Bioware RPGs (apart from Jade Empire) is actually all turn based. The combat in most Western RPGs can get very detailed. Try taking on a Lich in Baldur's Gate for a good example of really difficult strategic combat. You have to plan carefully in order to succeed, as a Lich will instantly throw up several protective spells, summon some creatures, and possibly paralyze a few party members. How do you deal with that? Do you take on the summons first in order to clear a path to the Lich? Do you take down his protective spells to expose him and then go straight at him? Do you focus on keeping your party alive and try to just wear him down? Combat decisions like that are prevalent through most Western RPGs and definitely require a lot of strategic planning.
4) Sales. This has no bearing on the quality of an RPG. The aforementioned Planescape: Torment unfortunately sold very poorly. There have been two problems with Western RPGs that have impacted sales. First, during the great RPG renaissance of 1997-2001, there was an absolute glut of RPGs and most were ignored due to the huge amount of them available. Fallout and Baldur's Gate still sold millions, though. Currently, very few Western RPGs are being made. Oblivion and Gothic 3 are the only two major ones from the past year. Oblivion has sold millions. Gothic 3, due to both the relative obscurity of the series and the massive amount of bugs in the game, has not sold very much.
I suggest trying all the games I have mentioned (well, apart from Gothic 3) and seeing what you're missing by ignoring Western RPGS.
Purple Haze @ Mar 8th 2007 3:10AM
#25
I know im nt who you were talking to, but one this i have to say is that i really don't see why people think oblivions graphics are so great. Although they are definitely good technically they're just so plain. I guess it's sorta like some people reckon wind waker has amazing graphics but others just don't like cel-shading, although not so extreme.
Ed81240 @ Mar 8th 2007 5:07PM
bvork, I stand by my assesments of WRPG's, and you can argue that piont untill your blue in the face. However if you read the thread it was you WRPG'ers that attacked first. Sales do matter. If the genre is liked enough than sales are high. MORE JRPG's sell than western. its just a simple fact. Your in the minority and are trying to tear down anyone who disagrees with you. That seems to get you people off on this site. You find something that is successful and tear down the people who enjoy it, and proclaim your oppinion the only truth. You must be a practicing christian.
bVork @ Mar 8th 2007 5:10PM
#26
The problem is that Oblivion lacks a unique sense style. The actual art and the technical execution are fantastic, but the overall style is generic high fantasy and thus really doesn't impress. Still, look at all the subtle things like the sunsets, the gradual change in vegetation from one area to another, and the great textures that really do look like the real thing. It's a shame that Oblivion's art direction never gave the actual art itself a chance to shine. Hopefully Shivering Isles remedies that.
It's also interesting to compare Oblivion to Morrowind. Morrowind is, quite franky, really ugly. The animations are poor, the textures are drab, and the engine is very clunky. However, the art direction itself is amazing. The unique yet cohesive look found throughout the game makes Vvardenfell feel like a real place.
Hopefully Bethesda marries Oblivion's art and technical achievements with Morrowind's sense of style - the results would be phenomenal.
bVork @ Mar 9th 2007 12:19PM
#27
You obviously didn't read the final paragraph of my first post. I'm not arguing the superiority of WRPGs over JRPGs, I'm arguing that WRPGs should not simply be dismissed. I also didn't say anything about whether WRPGs are actually better, only that I prefer them. Unlike you, who is insisting that JRPGs are simply better games. And that Christian comment was completely unnecessary (and incorrect, if you must know).
Chris @ Mar 14th 2007 4:46PM
I'd add that within Western RPGs there now seems to be a divide between the open-ended ones like Oblivion and the story-oriented squad-based (Bioware-type) ones like KOTOR.
My personal order of preference is 1) Bioware type RPGs 2) JRPGs 3) Open western RPGs (like Oblivion).
I think Bioware's (and Blackisle's and Obsidian's) story and characterization exceed those of Japanese RPGs. While this may be less true of the main character who has an "empty" personality in the good Western RPGs, NPCs in the Bioware style easily equal the JRPGs.
How many Bioware/Black Isle/Obsidian RPGs (including the PC only ones) have you Western detractors actually played. I can see your criticism if it is based on the open-ended western variety or on crap like Dungeon Lords, but honestly, I can't imagine you having played through Baldur's Gate II or PS:T or KOTOR and still claiming that Western RPGs have inferior story telling.