Author: CRK (---.grid.net)
Date: 08-07-2001 19:59
The whole problem with a discussion of CRPG's is that the terminology is not sufficient. For example, what happens in a LARP (whether you love it or hate it) is not the same experience as a table-top, die-rolling, pencil and paper RPG. So, some smart person decided to come up with a new term that fit the activity.
CRPG or Computer Role-Playing Game doesn't really fit well. Technically it does, since you are playing a role in a plot or story that takes place in a imaginary reality. Effectively though, it's simply not the same experience. Everyone knows this, and so everyone flames about CRPGs being not "real", being "inferior" etc... ad infinitum ad nauseam. What they really are is *different*. Perhaps if they had a different name, like Computer Interactive Story Arcs (sorry, couldn't resist) people might view them differently.
As to why are they different, and/or why do people view them as inferior? You could write a decent sized essay about it, but cut away the fat and the whole thing boils down to one singular aspect: a GM.
At this time, the technology to allow a computer to "judge" a gaming session does not exist. Because of that fact, computer games can not reach the same level of imaginary immersiveness that a pencil and paper game can reach with a good GM at the helm.
Does that mean that CRPG's are worthless? No, of course not.
Does it mean that really good CRPG's can't suspend our disbelief? No, of course not. Some of the CRPG's out there are damn good for what they are.
What it *does* mean is that CRPG's can't suspend our disbelief as deeply or as consistently as the traditional RPG or LARP experience can.
Should they stop trying? Hell no.
CRK
|
|
