Where are all the first person rpg's?

[raankh]

Outside Bethesda's attempts, it seems like a rather unexplored genre still. I'm not talking about shooters with rpg-elements, but full on roleplaying games in the tradition of crpgs, but interpreted from the first person perspective.

Most games I can think of are really old; I guess there's the new Deus Ex, but that's pretty thin in terms of depth if viewed in the context of even the original-- and certainly compared to something like 3rd person classics such as the Ultima-series or even something closer to first person like the old Eye of the Beholder games.

Why is that? Are they just that hard to make? Evil Bethesda monopoly conspiracy?

Or is a torrent of Unity 5 first person rpg's waiting just around the corner?

What's your take?

 

[Zontar]

RPGs have always lent themselves better to a third person view due to their inherent nature. It's about playing a role after all, and actually being able to see said role is much more in line with what people tend to want out of an RPG then a first person view would allow for.

 

[Xeorm]

Yea, they're kind of difficult to make. Most of them tended to not sell well. The Elder Scrolls games were the exception, rather than the rule.

Mostly, control issues I believe. Especially on a controller, they didn't work as well. It works fine for mouse&keyboard, but big budget games almost have to be focused on consoles in order to sell. Not enough of an install base on purely PC.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

I would ask this: what does first person essentially add to an RPG? As Zontar says, it's ultimately about playing a role, or a character. A role or character that's not always you. Third person gives that wall of separation between you and what's happening on screen. When you can see your character's face, their movements and appearance, you're not thinking "that's me", but "that's the character I'm playing as". I usually completely forget what race I'm playing in Elder Scrolls, because aside from some minor differences in abilities, all the races play essentially the same, and are going to eventually be covered in 70 layers of increasingly complex and ornate armor anyway.

 

[DoPo]

The first person RPGs I can think of are :

- Arx Fatalis
- Deus Ex series
- Elder Scrolls series
- newer Fallout series
- Might and Magic series
- Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines

Not a lot but certainly some considering these are rather well known games. Maybe M&M and Arx Fatalis are the least known of these but still - first person RPG is not unheard of and indeed a lot of people would know of them at the very least.

As for why there aren't more: I think it's "traditional" for RPGs to be in third person in some fashion. Be that more of a top down view like Infinity Engine RPGs or actual third person view like, for example, Gothic. I suspect it a mix of historical reasons that drive that - cRPGs started off very close to TT RPGs but with the computer doing most of the calculations while you just played. So, naturally, it'd play similar to how a TT RPG would play - using a sort of a battle map and figures to represent the characters. That's mostly the easiest way to represent these types of games. And lack of good video options did also contribute here - drawing a first person view would have been way more work than an enhanced chess.

So, this is how they started off. Technology developed but the foundations had been laid out. It also meant that the traditional combat was tactical and turn-based, so, again - not that easy to represent in first person (though M&M does have that option, actually).

Later on, with better tech, we could do away with turn-based combat, as there was sufficient power to run battle simulations in real time. However, again, turn-based was traditional, so some games kept it. Arcanum Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura allows switching between both real time and turn based combat to suit either playstyle. At any rate, the turn-based combat came from a different tradition and that was to have the player also recruit a party, so usually you'd play with more than one character. You can't control the party in real time, not really easily, hence why turn based RPGs tended to persist.

When real-time started to become a standard, one way of "fixing" the party members issue is to remove them. Or at least limit them to one or two guys. Still, with more action-y gameplay the top down view was not as good, however, to keep with the spirit of it third person over the shoulder camera was chosen as a good perspective. It also helped with seeing your character and their equipment, which was also one of the traditional draws of RPGs - equipping your toon. Getting a new pair of green pants and then the character on screen changing their pants was part of the expectation. Well, depending on the game, they might only change some equipment but the point stands - you'd start off with nothing but rags (sometimes literally) and eventually you'd have demon/dragon/whatever slaying badass draped in shiny armour.

Sure, some games did break out of this and went first person - and they were actually recognised for it. They did show that the genre can exist that way. Still, many developers heed the call of "tradition" and strive to make game similar to many an RPG.

Would that cycle break? Probably not. Or not soon-ish. Still, at least some developers would be bringing something new to the table. Maybe not soon but it's bound to happen.

 

[raankh]

[snip]
Would that cycle break? Probably not. Or not soon-ish. Still, at least some developers would be bringing something new to the table. Maybe not soon but it's bound to happen.

Yeah, that's along the lines I was thinking. With the tech having reduced the cost of 3D games so extremely (eg Unity, Unreal) it seems like a rather unexplored, but natural progression-- one that ought to attract smaller studios' interest. Sure, they won't compete directly with the AAA's, but there certainly seems to plenty of space in that market segment. For small studios, trickles here and there are vital-- perhaps they really are bound by tradition and fear of breaking the mold. Kind of expected it to have happened already, open goal-- sort of-- for indies.

Yea, they're kind of difficult to make. Most of them tended to not sell well. The Elder Scrolls games were the exception, rather than the rule.

Mostly, control issues I believe. Especially on a controller, they didn't work as well. It works fine for mouse&keyboard, but big budget games almost have to be focused on consoles in order to sell. Not enough of an install base on purely PC.

Control issues is a big one. I have yet to see a melee system in 1PV that I actually liked. Some are better than others, but I can't say I'm satisfied with any of them. Perhaps that's another reason, fantasy RPGs outnumber contemporary or sci-fi RPGs and melee combat is rather integral to the swords and sorcery genre. Magic makes a rather bland replacement for guns and ammo, imo, although that works fine for shooters I guess.

Still, bland gameplay hasn't stopped shady devs from publishing their games before; guess RPG's just aren't hip enough? Or it's too tall a lie, as it where, perhaps....

 

[Joccaren]

1. First person is shit for melee combat, plain and simple:
I'm supposed to be trying to kill someone, not swatting flies.

2. Real time is shit for bringing a team with you:
It's got nothing to do with tradition and everything to do common sense. Strength in numbers, plain and simple. You could be a fucking idiot and bring only two at most companions who will be nothing but meat shields to the dark overlord Von Fondlebottom's castle, or you bring your entire team. Commander Shepard doesn't have a party of companions, he has two useless meat shields that will inevitably fall within seconds.

3. Real time is shit for tactics:
Remember what I said about Commander Shepard's useless meat shields? Well it's even worse in Bethesda games, you can have one "companion" (and they're so utterly braindead as to not even be useful as meat shields) because "three's a crowd". Of course you can't actually give them commands to cease fire unless attacked so you can use stealth, nor can you call them from far away. And you can't have a sniper set up on a nearby tower with a silenced sniper rifle and aid you infiltrating a massive raider encampment because they'll just shoot anything they see. This leads to another problem, the "solution".

4. As a result of problem #3, you end up being the do-anything soldier:
There is only one playable character in Bethesda games, Mary Sue/Gary Stu. This character will rarely encounter any obsticle because there is only two quests, "go here, kill that" and "go here, get this thing". There are statistics but they don't actually do anything, they're just there so Bethesda can pretend they make RPGs. There is no replayability, you can gleefully accept quests with a happy smile on your face, or can do with an angry frown while rolling your eyes but you can't actually not accept the quest or have an alternate solution.

5. There's no fucking point in customizing your character if you can't see them:
Seriously, I don't care how many hairstyle you have, I'm not going to be looking the character anyway.

Pretty much this. The entirety of gameplay central to RPGs doesn't really work in first person. Its why you always see TES criticised for its lack of depth and terrible mechanics - its first person medieval fantasy. There's only so much you can do, and it ain't gonna be good.

Third person allows action RPG mechanics without giving all the players motion sickness, or tactical RPG mechanics that are intuitive to use in third person, and weird in first. Separating you from your character - pretty much the whole point of an RPG - is also aided by this, and it allows you to interact with your character more, at the very least being able to see it.

When you get to more cyberpunk shooty RPGs, first person becomes more feasible, but those games often end up as just FPS games instead mechanically.

Whilst not required, third person is a part of the RPG formula that works quite well, hence why games are generally hesitant to move away from it, at least until we get great motion controls and 3 years dedicated to just programming party controls and AI, and a third person mode to control that.

 

[RandV80]

Traditionally first-person CRPG's used to be in the Legend of Grimrock mold, dungeon crawlers where you traverse through difficult mazes with unforgiving turn based combat. I'm all for traditional styles of RPG's, but LoG aside there hasn't been much of a market for that genre in a looooong time. It used to be that you could make more impressive games in this manner, but once the tech got a bit better Bioware basically replaced these games in the late 90's with their infinity engine games, for FP only Bethesda survived with TES, but those games are extremely difficult for others to replicate.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well sadly the expectation in modern games is more action and less complexity, so even if they were RPG-ish like Deus Ex/System Shock the demand quickly becomes "more shooting less whatever else", and you get Human Revolution/Bioshock Infinite.
I'm surprised Bethesda still sticks to their guns as much as they do, we all lament how things are going down hill with them, but they are still the tallest hill among a sea of mud.

The market simply demands other things which inevitably developers need to go for to stay in business.

 

[NPC009]

Traditionally first-person CRPG's used to be in the Legend of Grimrock mold, dungeon crawlers where you traverse through difficult mazes with unforgiving turn based combat. I'm all for traditional styles of RPG's, but LoG aside there hasn't been much of a market for that genre in a looooong time. It used to be that you could make more impressive games in this manner, but once the tech got a bit better Bioware basically replaced these games in the late 90's with their infinity engine games, for FP only Bethesda survived with TES, but those games are extremely difficult for others to replicate.

Japan actually has a bit of thing for those classic dungeon crawlers. In fact, they still make Wizardry games over there. And yes, some American companies do localise games like this.

Atlus has the excellent Etrian Odyssey games for DS and 3DS, which are all about drawing maps and fighting through enemies. Cult hit Demon Gaze [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/reviews/11337-Demon-Gaze-Review-Grinding-My-Business]'s mechanics are more like those of (recent) Wizardry games, but the visuals are very Japanese. There's a new one coming out in the West every few months or so. As long as you have a handheld system, there's plenty of dungeon crawler goodness to enjoy.

 

[happyninja42]

Outside Bethesda's attempts, it seems like a rather unexplored genre still. I'm not talking about shooters with rpg-elements, but full on roleplaying games in the tradition of crpgs, but interpreted from the first person perspective.

Most games I can think of are really old; I guess there's the new Deus Ex, but that's pretty thin in terms of depth if viewed in the context of even the original-- and certainly compared to something like 3rd person classics such as the Ultima-series or even something closer to first person like the old Eye of the Beholder games.

Why is that? Are they just that hard to make? Evil Bethesda monopoly conspiracy?

Or is a torrent of Unity 5 first person rpg's waiting just around the corner?

What's your take?

First, define what exactly you mean when you say "RPG". Because let me tell you, everyone's got a different idea of what that means. Do you mean games that have an XP/Leveling system as you progress? Because if that's all it takes to be an "RPG", then I suggest you try Dying Light. I can't think of any others offhand? But they are probably out there. Define your term better and the forums might be able to get you a list.

 

[SquallTheBlade]

They went to handhelds. Vita and 3DS has tons of DRPGs to offer. Why not check those out?

 

[CaitSeith]

OP snip

Well, it's a genre that has been largely abandoned (much like survival horror was replaced by action horror). The most recent first-person RPG I remember is Legend of Grimrock 1 and 2.

They went to handhelds. Vita and 3DS has tons of DRPGs to offer. Why not check those out?

Oh, yeah. Give a try to Etrian Odyssey IV: Legends of the Titan. There is a free demo available in the 3DS.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Wow, there's a lot of hate in this thread. Especially for ES.

OK so, the problem with more recent ES games such as Skyrim and Oblivion are that they're trying to use a much more numbers-based stats and combat system typical of cRPG's in what's supposed to be as real-time an RPG as possible. And when you do that, you gotta take out some interactivity and options in the combat so the numbers can decide if you just pulled that option off or not.

Which is pretty lame.

That's not to say that stats should go entirely. Not at all. But they need to be rethought. For example, in Skyrim, there's a perk for one-handed that gives you a chance to get a headshot when you do a certain power attack... Why is it a chance though? Why not just have it be an actually unlockable move that can be used all the time but would be blocked (perhaps only sometimes) by higher level enemies? But it's not made that way. So instead of a cool complex deep rich real-time combat system like in Jedi Outcast, we have a dull first-person RPG combat system where you keep bashing on something with a sword until your numbers are too much for them and they die.

Having said all that though, I think people are looking at ES with an entirely wrong mentality here. They're expecting Final Fantasy combat in what's supposed to be a fantasy version of Far Cry. ES is NOT a tactics-driven game!!! Or, it's not supposed to be. It's supposed to be a fully real-time first person fantasy experience. ES should not be a game where you magically pause the entire scene and furrow your brow in thinking what the next move of all your party members are gonna be. Elder Scrolls is not Divinity. Elder Scrolls is not XCOM. And it's certainly not Baldur's Gate! ES is a game where you give some orders beforehand and charge in, using your preparedness and some serious power and skill and concentration behind your belt to win. Just as in Far Cry.

Way back in the day when ES:A first came out, it made a splash because it did something other RPG's were NOT doing at the time. They were taking the very slow-paced, numbers-driven RPG, and beginning to make it real-time. There were no periodic pauses in combat besides perhaps equipping another weapon or spell, and there were no companions. Just you. In first person. In as real-time as it could be back then. Taking on the world.

Now. Disclaimer time. I LOVE Divinity: Original Sin, and I love Neverwinter Nights, and etc. But those are different games. Different kinds of RPG. As to OP's question, I have no idea why they're not doing it since ES has laid the very basic foundation for how to do these. But oh well. We can only hope things will get better with time.

 

[Joccaren]

Pretty much this. The entirety of gameplay central to RPGs doesn't really work in first person. Its why you always see TES criticised for its lack of depth and terrible mechanics - its first person medieval fantasy. There's only so much you can do, and it ain't gonna be good.

Third person allows action RPG mechanics without giving all the players motion sickness, or tactical RPG mechanics that are intuitive to use in third person, and weird in first. Separating you from your character - pretty much the whole point of an RPG - is also aided by this, and it allows you to interact with your character more, at the very least being able to see it.

When you get to more cyberpunk shooty RPGs, first person becomes more feasible, but those games often end up as just FPS games instead mechanically.

Whilst not required, third person is a part of the RPG formula that works quite well, hence why games are generally hesitant to move away from it, at least until we get great motion controls and 3 years dedicated to just programming party controls and AI, and a third person mode to control that.

It's more that real time doesn't work for RPGs period, which is why I mentioned the Bioware examples as well as Bethesda. There are problems with old RPGs like Balder's Gate and it's sequel, but most of those are because the technology was absolute shit. An over the shoulder camera has the EXACT same problems (well, except being unable see your character making the character creator redundant).

Worst of all, none of the modern pseudo-RPGs really solve any of the old RPG problems. The AI is still shit, the UI is still bad, stealth is still useless and fetch quests are MORE PREVALENT THEN EVER.

Not that I disagree with you, but the topic of the thread was first person so I tried to keep it to that. Real time messes with classic style RPGs [Which is why I like the pause button style Bioware usually does TBH, removes the awkwardness and flow breaking problems that more traditional turn based systems lead to in 3D environments, whilst still allowing you to get all the tactical awareness of the pause system, and time to make decisions], though not as necessary for action RPGs and such, which I am kind of hesitant to call a thing, but I admit it does depend on what definition of RPG you're using.

Third person also doesn't have to mean over-the-shoulder. Top Down Isometric is important enough to have its own distinction, however third person encompasses pretty much any view where you're not seeing it through the player character's eye's [First person], nor the party interacting with the player character's eye's [Second person]. Over the shoulder works for Action RPGs much like real time does, with the stipulation of is it even a thing provided above, but for traditional RPGs a camera akin to Top-Down-Isometric is ideal, although personally ideally the camera should have the freedom to move away from the Top Down Isometric view, and freely alter its viewing angles to allow things like seeing around obstacles the devs may use to create nice looking environments but that always seem to get in the way during a fight, or to extend the 'range' that you can see in cases where the battle is large enough that there'd be enemies off screen using TDI view. Or just to get closer when not in combat ect. for immersion purposes - basically a free third person camera, rather than locked TDI or over-the-shoulder.

But yeah, there are far bigger problems with the genre ATM than simply the camera angle. Biggest one for me is the prevalence of only one route - the combat route - to any objective most of the time, against the freedom of P&P RPGs where a creative solution may be allowed by the DM instead of fighting your way through the castle. Of course, having games fully provide that is a bit of a pipe dream, but I would have thought we'd be a bit better at that than we are now, where the only option to not kill everything in most cases is to talk them out of fighting you with a one liner thrown their way.

 

[ObserverStatus]

1. First person is shit for melee combat, plain and simple:
I'm supposed to be trying to kill someone, not swatting flies.

Someone's never played Chivalry: Medieval Warfare :^)

 

[The Madman]

Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines

There's a rumour going around that since Paradox bought the rights to the White Wolf setting, Vampire: The Masquerade included, and they've got a working relationship with Obsidian that Paradox have got them working on a potential Vampire Bloodlines sequel. Now that would be neat!

Otherwise I can't think of any first person rpg in the works right now aside from Bethesda's stuff. Arkane are working on Dishonored 2, but that series is more of an action/stealth title than rpg. Shame because I really liked Arx Fatalis and would love to see more games in that spirit.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Legends of Might and Magic and Legend of Grimrock 1 + 2.

Play them.