RPG devs adapt or die, here comes the MMORPG
The key is to define what single-player RPGs offer over the online experience and bring that into sharp focus. Dungeon hacking is a thing of the past, now players want as much control over their character and surroundings as possible. But what does solo role playing offer that the online experience doesn't? Is there still a demand for epic single-player RPGs in the world, or are we moving to a strict MMORPG diet?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
J.Goodwin @ May 30th 2007 12:51PM
Has this guy ever played an MMO? Aside from crafting and minor construction, how are any of the characters having an impact on the world around them when major bosses respawn every week?
alexander @ May 30th 2007 12:52PM
no way ...i love rpg games....nothing can change that...not everyone likes MMORPG...takes too much time .....
bigd7387 @ May 30th 2007 12:56PM
Enough with this BS telling me what I want. When I go into a dungeon, I want to do it alone, I want all the treasure, all the points and I don't want to be stuck with 3 other assholes trying to get in the way. The Computer doesn't get PMS and I don't want to play in a party, which happens alot, with other people who want to push their crappy day onto other players. Sorry but I'll stay a loner on RPG's.
Dathos @ May 30th 2007 12:56PM
I disagree with this guy, I play MMORPGs and single player RPGs, I prefer single player RPGs a lot more. I'll agree that some franchises, Pokemon, would do a lot better as a mix of single player and MMO than as purely a single player experience. But I don't feel like throwing down money every month to play a game. I prefer to pay the 40 pounds once, and once only.
sheppy @ May 30th 2007 12:57PM
RPGs can deliver what MMOs can't. A story. Of course, considering Oblivion is nothing but wandering, talking and taking you quests from NPCs, heaviliy loaded with crafting skillsets like MMOs... I can see how he's a tad jaded towards the "lack of difference."
But considering Odins Sphere and Persona 3, even if it gets shuffled off to a niche product, it still offers things you don't get on the MMO circuit.
Chris Putnam @ May 30th 2007 12:58PM
That's pretty stupid. Players look for entirely different things from RPGs and MMORPGs. You might as well make the same argument substituting "FPSs" for "RPGs."
Joshua @ May 30th 2007 1:00PM
MMORPGs are extremely different from RPGs.
Erik @ May 30th 2007 1:01PM
What makes an MMO fun is also what can make them irritating. It’s freakishly close to being 8 again and playing in the local playground. You get to enjoy the aspects of an RPG while playing with all of your friends and some potentially cool people, but it's also like when your mom would make you play with that dorky mean kid down the street. You even get a lot of the old playground culture coming back again with people just trying to ruin your game or trying to join in your game when you don't want them. Oh, and let’s not forget, of course, calling each other gay in broken English. I can say that while I love a good MMO, after 3 months of it or so, I often find myself booting up an elder scrolls game or even the ol' copy of Wasteland and putting those monthly fees to rest for a while.
Alex @ May 30th 2007 1:03PM
Does he even bother to mention that alot of the little companies that make nice little single player rpgs couldn't ever support an mmo the way it would need to be?Also it seems he was only complaining so he could talk about his stupid new mmo and he seems to be grouping diablo like rpgs with the FFs and DQs of the world.
mike @ May 30th 2007 1:04PM
Yeah, back in the day RPG's had a point. And a story. You know, characters?
Then developers ran out of ideas and came up with this. A playpen for geeks.
Geoff Gibson @ May 30th 2007 1:08PM
This guy is an idiot.
You have avsuloutely 0 effect on a MMO world like World of Warcraft or Everquest. Nothing ever changes. You kill this monster and it respawns in 15 minutes. Wow...thats innovative.
Single player RPGs are designed for this. Take Final Fantasy VII for example, the world is constantly changing around your character and its events until you beat the game.
MMOs are not the future of RPGs.
Hirsbrunner @ May 30th 2007 1:08PM
@3. Exactly. Same here.
benjamin @ May 30th 2007 1:09PM
Joystiq comments poster benjamin has some strong words for single-player RPG developers. With the rise of MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft and Everquest, old-style role playing games need to keep offering engaging single-player campaigns or face not being bought by socially adjusted, non-poopsocking individuals that don't want to click 500 and then say "GOT STUFF 4 500G BUY PLZ!"
Seriously, I pray that the single player RPG continues to be a profitable enterprise; once every RPG is a WoW clone I'll give up on the genre entirely.
Also, what the fuck kind of name is Feargus Urquhart?
Daniel @ May 30th 2007 1:09PM
I've had more fun playing non-mmo rpgs than I ever have playing MMOs.
This guy has it all wrong; MMORPGs need to become more like non-mmo rpgs.
benjamin @ May 30th 2007 1:10PM
500 times, rather.
Spidey @ May 30th 2007 1:10PM
I don't have to pay $15 a month to play Oblivion.
dirge @ May 30th 2007 1:14PM
I think he's right. At this point, when I'm playing a single player game, I long to see the effects of my actions on the World. Most rpgs' plots aren't worth jack. My motivation when playing tends to be much more about how I can modify/improve my character and what kind of changes can I implement in the world around me.
But then when the man who lead the creation of Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Planescape: Torment, Fallout and Fallout 2 speaks, I listen.
Dave @ May 30th 2007 1:14PM
This guy's a moron. End of story.
Silver R. Wolfe @ May 30th 2007 1:17PM
OMGWTFBBQ!
There is sooo a demand for epic single-player RPGs. Last I checked FFXIII is still a highly-wanted title (enough to make people fabricate stories and beg and plead over its exclusivity) and it's going to be another traditional Squenix RPG.
Jonathan Tran @ May 30th 2007 1:19PM
Ummm, in my opinion it's the exact opposite.
**spoilers**
Hmmm, in Grandia II, I got to save the world, kill the pope, fly a giant demonic sword, and date a demon and an angel at the same time.
In WoW we get to... farm? And do repeatable raids?
MMOS, other than a select few (EVE, and Guild Wars to a minor extent) do not let you accomplish anything world changing. Without heavy use of instancing, or completely player-run economy/government, you cannot effect change.
EVE has it because it is almost an entirely free world, and almost everything that happens is caused by players.
Guild Wars uses a lot of instances and storyline tricks so you see things nobody else sees.
But guess what... a traditional RPG is one giant instance, where you can have unlimited influence depending on how the game is written.
If anyone thinks RPGs will die out to MMOs, let's see how the next Kingdom Hearts or Final Fantasy sells.
They are two separate genres, and not in direct competition.
JRB @ May 30th 2007 1:24PM
I can see many people share my feelings on it. Every minute I spent playing World of Warcraft was spent thinking "Wow wouldn't this be fun if I could control my whole party?" The character development, item grind and boss encounters are second to none in a good MMORPG. I've never played a single player game like it. Rather than accepting that though, I want to find the single player game that does it.
Let me control the tank, the dps classes and the healers all at once and all in real time. Sure it will be difficult but learning to do that will be half of the fun. Let me go up against a giant boss that breathes fire and requires me to develop a strategy through 10 tries to bring him down. Let me get an epic piece of loot off the boss that make a big difference in my damage or armor. Let me use cheat codes so that I don't have to level a character of every class separately. If someone would adapt these same MMO-standard concepts into a single player RPG it would sell as many copies as WoW.
Few people play WoW exclusively because they want to pay a monthly fee, deal with l33tspeaking 13 year olds and follow a draconian set of gameplay terms of use. They play it because it's a well executed RPG with fun gameplay and addictive strategic elements that are hard to find within single player games.
ProtoJimmy @ May 30th 2007 1:30PM
I mean honestly, this has got to be a joke, what are those executives smoking?
I thrive on RPGS, they're completely different from MMOs.
I can't get 'into' an MMO the same way I do with a Single-player RPG. RPGs have so much more depth with characters and the world can be delved into freely.
In an MMO you're driven largely by your Player-to-player interactions which can get very frustrating if everyone is like "I'm the best at this, gtfo" or "spare some goldz for a noob plz".
Single player RPGs will never die.
The 'Final Fantasy' Series is a testament to that.
The 'Tales of' series is a testament to that.
The 'Star Ocean' Series is a testament to that.
and the list would continue, and I hope it will continue on.
I just hate how the opinions and beliefs of executives reflects on what THEY believe gamers want, but they couldn't be more wrong.
Alright, they're right on occasion, but don't make assumptions.
And that's my rant.
Kazi @ May 30th 2007 1:35PM
LOL, the day MMOs take over single player/hack and slash/strategy/turn based RPGs is the day I quit gaming. MMOs have been stale since the first EQ clone. If anything this guy should be discussing why the hell devs haven't made a fun MMO since Ultima Online/EVE.
Game Artist @ May 30th 2007 1:37PM
Single player RPGs are much more engaging than MMORPGs. It all comes from the fact that you are the focus of the story and the world revolves around you. You aren't just another cog in the machine. You also get to skip most of the annoying stuff in a single player game (Mainly long travel times as you can instantly teleport to zones)
Triforceowner @ May 30th 2007 1:38PM
This addresses a current videogame: Two Worlds. It's quite similar to Oblivion, except you can play with up to 8 players in the wild and many more in city hubs. Why play Oblivion when you and your friends can play together in Two Worlds and gain online skill to show off.
Ted @ May 30th 2007 1:39PM
I think that both are headed in the same direction. They each offer something different, and over time the RPG genre will evolve to combine the two.
MMO's play on our capitalistic instincts wonderfully. You earn money, get stuff, and make yourself feel awesome. Offline RPG's have the same mechanic, but it isn't quite so satisfying.
MMO's meanwhile, restrict gameplay in order to balance the experience of millions of players. You can't experiment in MMO's, and variety of game mechanics (not necessarily content) is somewhat sacrificed in order to make the world more manageable for the developpers.
These, and other factors, are bound to be unified over the course of the next ten years or so, when developpers take it for granted that everyone has internet and it becomes easier to integrate a social experience into games.
Vidikron @ May 30th 2007 1:40PM
I won't go as far as to say single player RPGs are going to die, but he is right to an extent (despite all the flaming to contrary here). After playing some MMORPGs single player RPGs seem to bore me a little more quickly. The problem is that single player RPG worlds now feel empty in comparison. You get used to the social interaction that MMORPGs provide.
In a single player RPG you are stuck in a world where all you have are NPCs and yourself... and the NPCs just say the same things over and over, walk the same routes over and over, etc... MMORPGs have NPCs too, but you also have hundreds of human controlled players too. They add a lot of variety and social interaction. While playing FFXII, whose world is set-up and looks like an MMORPG, I foundmyself wishing there were other people to interact with... to go on quests with, to talk to, etc... Single player worlds are very empty and sterile in comparison.
On the flip side you have the actual story. MMORPGs can't seem to put together a cohesive story. I played WoW for a bit and didn't get anything out of it story-wise except it was Horde vs Alliance. It's all just a bunch of mini-quests (mini-stories). There isn't a strong sense of an overall epic story line. This is what single player RPGs do well.
Boss Tempo @ May 30th 2007 1:41PM
I tend to agree. Why would I want to run around and do errands for bots, fight easy, predictable bots, wander around towns full of bots and have bullshit pretend conversations with bots (I'm in a happy mood, I press A - Oh I'm in a mean mood, I press B).
That's not to say that MMORPGs aren't just as weak, but at least when you add real people to fight/quest with it feels more interactive.
No RPGs are overly groundbreaking or innovative at this point anyway. Maybe Mass Effect will breathe new life into it. Time will tell.
it-hobbit @ May 30th 2007 1:45PM
Sorry, but no, although there is a certain "charm" to playing MMORPGs, I have to say that I quite prefer to have my own times, and adventures whenever I damn well please. Why would I need to adhere to some server schedule just to have a good time? Not to mention the fact of the "renting" monthly games.
Adapt, yes, that is important, but to turn all RPG experiences to "1337 über warzon3z" and having to coordinate with 20 other people for a simple adventure, not really interested, no.
KilgoreTrout XL @ May 30th 2007 1:47PM
I couldn't disagree with Mr. Urquhart more.
Apathy @ May 30th 2007 1:49PM
I think most of the people who are commenting are misunderstanding the message. He's not saying that MMORPG's are "better"; he's saying that normal single-player RPG's need to offer the one thing that MMO's cant: the ability to change or shape the game world.
Think about most single-player RPG's -- you might kill the big evil wizard at the end, but regardless of what the storyline says, there's no real evidence that you've impacted the game world (and so what if there is? The game is over now!) What if your decisions could cause or prevent the destruction of an entire city midway through the game? With the result that the city -- in-game -- is either a smoking ruin or a thriving metropolis. The storyline could branch depending on what happens, with powerful enemies or incredible treasures being gained based on the player's actions.
You just can't do that in an MMORPG. No matter how many orc armies you slay, there are always more orcs. If you kill an "endboss" like Nefarian or Illidan, he just respawns and nothing has changed. Nothing you do really matters, and it certainly isn't reflected in the game world. The appeal of the single-player experience is that the game doesn't have to be exactly the same for every player, every time through.
The problem is that most current-generation single-player RPG's don't allow for this, and that's the point of the statement in the newspost. To compete with MMORPG's, single-player RPG's need to start incorporating elements like this.
The people who are yelling "this guy is a moron" really should look up Feargus Urquhart (and his portfolio) on Wikipedia. He's the guy behind several of the most influential CRPG's in the history of gaming.
Jake @ May 30th 2007 1:51PM
While this guy is mostly wrong, I can see where he's coming from. I think he just has his terminology a little screwy...
JRPGs are perfectly fine being single player. I can't think of a single Final Fantasy game where I had wished someone else could be in that world at the same time as me. Other similar (and mostly linear) RPGs should remain single player only.
However, with games like Oblivion, where you can roam about and do whatever you please in whatever order you'd like, I think you could benefit from having an extra player or two. I'm not saying MMO-style, but rather Diablo style. I'm 60 hours into Oblivion, and I've thought almost the entire time that having one other friend doing the quests with me would be a lot of fun.
Pimliconite @ May 30th 2007 2:00PM
"Also, what the fuck kind of name is Feargus Urquhart?"
He's Scottish.
Several characters in Fallout 2 are named Feargus (pronounced FUR-gus) after Mr. Urquhart (pronunciation unknown). There was only supposed to be one, but the designers weren't coordinating their name-a-character-after-the-boss gibe, thus there are 4 Fearguses in FO2.
Jonathan Tran @ May 30th 2007 2:01PM
Also, whoever said they wanted an MMO where you control the whole party, try Granado Espada: Sword of the New World.
The whole game is based around controlling 3 characters at once of any classes you want.
It is in open beta now, just google it (make sure you get the "english version" for asia, and not the "american version", which isn't out yet.
Tom @ May 30th 2007 2:07PM
The main reason I don't like the MMO genre is because it feels more like I'm giving commands to a character rather than actually being that character. I think it has a lot to do with the UI. Also, I hate the language that's used in MMOs: tank, spec, buff, grind. It really takes me out of the experience. I'm not a hard core role player by any means, but I would much rather hear NPCs having conversations than people shouting "lfg".
That said, I would love to see more single player RPGs have optional co-op modes for maybe 4-8 players. No monthly fees and the joy of playing with other people.
samfish @ May 30th 2007 2:09PM
I've tried to play World of Warcraft and EQ, but I didn't last more than 5 and 15 minutes, respectively. It was possibly the worst gaming experience of my life, personally.
"In a single player RPG you are stuck in a world where all you have are NPCs and yourself... and the NPCs just say the same things over and over, walk the same routes over and over, etc... MMORPGs have NPCs too, but you also have hundreds of human controlled players too. They add a lot of variety and social interaction."
Yeah, but what do those human controlled characters add? You can maybe buy something off of them or fight with them. They don't, in my admittedly limited experience with MMORPGs, add anything to the game that amounts to a story or reasonable sidequest type thing.
For me, when I play a game, I like the single player experience. I don't mind multiplayer or co-op, like Mario Kart DS or Halo or something...but comparing those games with a game like WoW is like apples and oranges, really.
umm...hello?? @ May 30th 2007 2:16PM
...didn't FABLE deliver a changing world based on your actions?? if you kill someone in a town, the guards the next town over are coming after you? your reputation as good vs. evil?
also, in single player RPGs, you tend to assume the character the way you would read a book--you're whatever nationality/religion the character in the book is...sure, some action you take does/doesn't trigger certain events (ChronoTrigger), but that's the enjoyment of the game/story, and adds to the replay value of games. Saga Frontier (from Squeenix) for the original PS had different playable characters that you unlocked, and you could see how each other character interacted/storyline entwined with their own storyline.
Tanster @ May 30th 2007 2:18PM
lol @ giant playpen for geeks
bounchfx @ May 30th 2007 2:25PM
I love both SinglePlayer RPGs and MMORPGs, but I have to say, I have more awesome game memories from Everquest than any other game I've ever played. A ton of bad ones too, but they are hilarious to reflect on.
I do think that SinglePlayer RPG's need more innovation though... Need more Secret of Mana type action RPGs I think, and more strategy in Turn based ones..
ah hell.. anyway..
sheppy @ May 30th 2007 2:36PM
You know what, as an avid gamer of both varieties, it has to be said and I need to reiterate once again. Single Player RPGs are better.
Yes, there is the social aspect of MMOs and no one doubts that. That's not the issue, nor has it ever been. The further you get into those games, the more dependant you become on others. At first, it's cool because, with little skills in your arsenal, people know their roles and play them well. As levels go up, people become bigger and bigger dicks, out instancing for their own goals rather than everyone elses. Then, it's a matter of getting a party together. This too is a huge headache. And in the end, you end up spending more time organizing and bickering together a strategy rather than playing the damn game. And let's not forget, the grinding. OH the grinding. Apparently your average developer decided focused content should only exist for the first half of the game and the rest should be instances and XP grinding. And for what? What grand goal? To have a maxed-out character? That's it? There is no conclusion to the story arches or anything. Towards the second half of ANY MMO, what you have is basically all the worst aspects of RPGing in one convenient package.
The moment I decided to quit WOW and pay MMOs in general was one night, while trying to get a party together for an instance, we were trying to get a cleric (I was pally, pre nerfing, so I questioned this logic). Kept trying. As we were focused on this issue, more and more characters kept swapping in and out of the party because they were entering battlegrounds (the ONLY thing I miss on WOW). Two hours passed, we finally got a cleric. Begin the instance that takes 2 1/2 hours to clear. 25 minutes in, Cleric leaves party. Everyone leaves the instance, repeat cycle of trying to get a cleric. I logged out about an hour later. The ONLY reason why this was the straw to break the proverbial back is the fact that this was nowhere close to the first time this had happened. In fact, it was going on week 2 to try and bust out that particular instance. I would log in and "play" for 5-6 hours a night but only having about an hour, at most, of actualy fun.
Meanwhile, in most RPGs, the only boring part is the beginning. If I can grind for 7 hours straight in WOW, I can definately get past the dull openings of any RPG. And more importantly, it's quick and easy to get something going all by my lonesome.
Almack64 @ May 30th 2007 2:38PM
@31 Apathy,
As I was reading your post all I could think of was Chrono Trigger and remembered why that was such an awesome game.
On a side note: Maybe they should make NSMMORRG's (Not-So-Massive Multiplayer...) What I mean is I think the reason you can't have everybody really effecting the world is because there are so many people. What if you played a game where everybody could really cause change in the game world but there was only a small number of real players in each world. Each person having different objectives but the stories may cross and each will effect the others dynamicly. I don't know but seems like that would be really cool.
coarse.sand @ May 30th 2007 3:03PM
I was going to make a very long comment on this, but I can sum it up really fast. Obsidian made KOTOR2 and NWN2. Both games were broken. Obsidian can't tell a single player RPG from their ***. They are the dumping ground for sequels that publishers want made (i.e. cash cows). No one should care what Mr. Urquhart has to say about SRPGs, because they have about as much influence on that market as Infinium Labs (Phantom Entertainment, Inc. now) has on consoles.
Ray Balhorn @ May 30th 2007 3:08PM
neverwinter nights.
it lets you have all the fun of single player or multiplayer adventures with tons of content all without the bleeding dry of your bank account.
Abscissa @ May 30th 2007 4:09PM
Single-player RPGs: No monthly fee. 'Nuff said.
helmite @ May 30th 2007 4:11PM
@42
You are a damn fool. Have you ever heard of Black Isle Studios? Guess who's the founder.
Besides in my opinion NWN2 is a huge improvement over the first NWN. I cannot stand the original NWN! Your party members were SO boring. The stories they had to tell were only good for unlocking side-quests (which were the typical "find-this-item-and-return" kind of quests) and rewards that helped only somewhat depending on your character. Also... a two-men party? WTF!
Anam @ May 30th 2007 4:37PM
"But what does solo role playing offer that the online experience doesn't?"
1. Story
2. Unique characters
3. Non-repetitive quests
4. The ability to go through a dungeon at my own pace
5. Usually a cheaper price
6. World-changing events (and I mean REAL world-changing events, like entire continents being destroyed.)
Don't get me wrong, I play MMORPG's, but they will never have the depth of a single-player RPG. Not because they made it wrong, but because real depth is simply not possible in that format. Same reason that single-player FPS's have more interesting mission objectives than multi-player ones.
Leonson @ May 30th 2007 4:41PM
I think a lot of people are reading this wrong.
He's not stating that RPG's need to be more like MMORPG's, just that if an RPG is only going to offer hack and slash with little story and impact, players might as well be playing an MMO (And they will).
RPG dev's do need to work harder on making worlds I give a damn about. In Baldur's Gate 2 I cared about my party members and the plot. The same is true for most of Black Isle's work.
This seems to be a lost art in the modern world. When I'm looking back at games like BG, BG2, Torment, and heck, even Ultima 7 rather than at the new breed, something is wrong with game development.
sleeptastic @ May 30th 2007 4:47PM
People are reading it just right. What you have to remember that, while he was a founder of Black Isle, he has rejected linear plots and character driven games. In otherwords, he's saying what he's saying because he has already taken for granted that those things are crap and so why would any future RPG want to embrace them? And of course, if you exclude linear plots and NPC character development in an attempt to be more 'immersive' then there's not much else out there to differentiate from MMOs.
sheppy @ May 30th 2007 5:06PM
"Besides in my opinion NWN2 is a huge improvement over the first NWN. I cannot stand the original NWN! Your party members were SO boring. The stories they had to tell were only good for unlocking side-quests (which were the typical "find-this-item-and-return" kind of quests) and rewards that helped only somewhat depending on your character. Also... a two-men party? WTF!"
Write you own module. For me, though, NWN2 was a huge disappointment. I wrote this elaborate plot, began basic coding, focusing on a HUGE story (would have been 20-30 hours long) telling about the epic rise and fall of a house in Drow society. Looking at screenshots, seeing Underdark races everywhere, only to buy NWN2 day one and realize that, although Underdark races are commonplace on the surface, the game creation modules had dick all worth of Underdark content. So I was stuck wanting to tool around and create an Underdark saga merely to have this sizable section of the D&D universe ignored.
Andy O. @ May 30th 2007 5:27PM
Put my name in the single player RPGs please... Mass Effect, or to that end, any RPG that bioware does makes me buy consoles, first with KoToR and XBox, and now with the 360 (eventually)
I still play oblivion from time to time. Hell I have System Shock 2, Fallout 2, PLANESCAPE TORMENT, are some of the more notable single player RPGs on my system.
I've put a few years into EQ and EQ2, but damn if i'm not tired of throwing down $15 a MONTH to play em.
MMOs from a BUSINESS point of view are defiantly the wave of the future, but from a gaming point of view, nothing beats a RPG where you're the star and that badass rogue that just attacked your target is probably part of some "event" focused around you, or me, or whatever!
Hell I'd rather play Dungeon Runner for a couple hours (Free or $5/month) or Guild Wars, or Diablo 2 online if I have to play online. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy MMOs, but only if I have friends around to hang out with.
@46: "6. World-changing events (and I mean REAL world-changing events, like entire continents being destroyed.)"
Guild Wars has wonderful world changing events. I would almost not call Guild Wars an MMO.