Scorpia is back [Archive] - Quarter To Three Forums

Raife

08-03-2006, 06:33 PM

I think she got eased out at CGW. Desslock sort of took over RPGs at CGW back then, but he's at PC Gamer now. I think she gave a major RPG a bad review, a game that everyone else loved (Baldur's Gate maybe?), and CGW posted a dissenting editorial or sidebar to sort of say, "Hey, it's only her -- not us."

Or maybe I'm just imagining all this. I think the games changed and she didn't, is what it comes down to, and CGW wanted to go in a different direction.

Yeah, that's how I remember it as well.

Ok, I dug this (http://www.justadventure.com/Interviews/Scorpia/Scorpia.shtm) up which gives her take. There's also this (http://www.justadventure.com/articles/JohnnyWilson/JohnnyWilsom.shtm) from Johnny Wilson (it looks like that game was Darklands, Mark, but that wasn't the reason). Maybe Jeff for Windows can give the CGW side of her departure if he thinks that's inaccurate. I believe she was let go right after Johnny Wilson left, but couldn't say for sure.

Jeff Green

08-03-2006, 06:46 PM

Asher's summary is pretty much correct. The Baldur's Gate review (she hated the game) was kind of the last straw. The feeling was that she had just kind of lost touch with the audience and with PC gaming in general. (For example, we had to twist her arm to upgrade from DOS, among other ongoing problems.)

And, really, her relationship with the magazine was a relationship with Johnny. Those two went way back. He was the only one who even knew her real name or what she looked like. She was incredibly unfriendly to the point of hostility to all the rest of us (I was her editor for years and she never had one nice thing to say to me), so she essentially had no one on her side once Johnny left. That's what happens when you operate that way.

Raife

08-03-2006, 06:48 PM

Asher's summary is pretty much correct. The Baldur's Gate review (she hated the game) was kind of the last straw.

I stand corrected. Thanks, Jeff.

Kitsune

08-03-2006, 06:51 PM

Wow, Jeff Green's description makes me think she's a mutant scorpion who loves computer games and doesn't want her secret out.

-Kitsune

Simpilot

08-03-2006, 06:52 PM

Jeff Green

08-03-2006, 06:57 PM

Actually, I don't really mean to stir up this shit after all this time. I think I just got annoyed clicking over to the link above in this thread that has her old interview with Randy Sluganski, and her minor diss of me. But I can probably get over it 5 years down the line. :)

As a CGW reader before I was a CGW editor, I loved Scorpia. Even when she pissed me off later, I still had to acknowledge that no one really had quite the talent she did for writing great hints to adventure games. She really was the master of that.

Kitsune

08-03-2006, 07:06 PM

Wait, was Randy Sluganski involved with a major magazine at one time or was Scorpia just interviewing him because he's at Just Adventure+ and she did some stuff there?

-Kitsune

Jazar

08-03-2006, 07:28 PM

I'm sorry but her page's background with black text makes my eyes bleed

Alex Dolce

08-03-2006, 09:44 PM

Are you kidding? RPG's are more popular than ever--just unusual to see people playing them in private any more, since the rise of the MMORPG. Old school adventure gaming has mutated to the point of being unrecognizable With the recent exception of Oblivion, I'd tend to debate this RPGs are more popular than ever notion. In fact, I would apply your adventure gaming has mutated to the point of being unrecognizable idea to RPGs instead.

Really, MMOs aren't anything like the old traditional RPGs of yore. They're not much like anything except other MMOs, actually. Console RPGs have always been somewhat unique in the genre, really becoming a genre in and of themselves.

I'm not advocating the olden days of RPGs or anything. I just wanted to point out that in general they are very much not more popular than ever. Oblivion was the first traditional RPG we've seen in ages, which is one of the reasons I'd say it is so popular. Many people get not only a sense of nostalgia from it, but the indication that this it is where traditional RPGs were headed had they not taken the Baldur's Gate/Console/MMO detours.

Michael Wolf

08-03-2006, 09:52 PM

With the recent exception of Oblivion, I'd tend to debate this RPGs are more popular than ever notion. In fact, I would apply your adventure gaming has mutated to the point of being unrecognizable idea to RPGs instead.

Really, MMOs aren't anything like the old traditional RPGs of yore. They're not much like anything except other MMOs, actually. Console RPGs have always been somewhat unique in the genre, really becoming a genre in and of themselves.

I'm not advocating the olden days of RPGs or anything. I just wanted to point out that in general they are very much not more popular than ever. Oblivion was the first traditional RPG we've seen in ages, which is one of the reasons I'd say it is so popular. Many people get not only a sense of nostalgia from it, but the indication that this it is where traditional RPGs were headed had they not taken the Baldur's Gate/Console/MMO detours.

I'd argue that with you somewhat. Baldur's Gate definitely opened up RPGs to a mainstream audience more so than many of the games before it, and I'd say that Morrowind did the same thing a few years ago. That's one of the reasons why I think Oblivion is so popular -- they actually fixed a lot of the things that were broken in Morrowind. Plus having the game on console and PC makes a bit of a difference.

For the most part, most RPGs don't really appeal to the broader masses, and thus aren't percieved to be as "popular". Even MMOs were really just seen by the broad consumer base as a hobby for nerds and geeks in the days of EverQuest, when the only stories about it on TV were about addiction and lives being ruined. Now, there are people who never played anything but Solitaire hooked on firing up their PCs and playing WoW.

I think we're about to enter another "Golden Age" of RPGs, with Oblivion, the continuing impact of WoW, and some of the games coming up (Blue Dragon, Age of Conan, and several others I'm sure other folks will point out).

Alex Dolce

08-03-2006, 10:04 PM

Concerning Scorpia and her departure from CGW and all that, I'm reminded of a little idea that's been kicking around my noggin for a little while now. Jeff's comment that she "...just kind of lost touch with the audience and with PC gaming in general" is probably as accurate as can be and I have no point in particular with which to debate. I also can't comment on her departure or her disposition or anything of the sort, since I only read her stuff and never knew her outside of her work I'd read in the magazine each month.

I'm sure Scorpia did lose touch with the audience, from one point of view. The other point of view, and it may be an entirely invalid PoV because it's just something I've been toying with personally, is that the gaming media is far more influential than one might suspect.

What do I mean by this? Let's pick on G4 for a second, or maybe X-Play in general. One of their big demands seems to be that every game simply must have multiplayer. If a game comes along that doesn't include a multiplayer component and isn't a critical hit type of game (which they always rate well, regardless of the fact that similar games are usually trashed, but that's a whole other can of worms), they will knock it severely for its lack of the feature. It doesn't matter if the game lends itself to a multiplayer mode or not - they've come down firmly on the stance that multiplayer is the future and the now and they make the claim, repeatedly, that it's what gamers want.

That's really what I have issue with - the "it's what gamers want" idea. We all know how easily the general population is told by the media at large what they are supposed to approve of, disapprove of, want, and not want. The same goes for the gaming population and the gaming media, I think. It's far from Fox News levels of dragging the dog's leash, but I think it's there and I often wonder just how much the gaming media saying "gamers want feature X" is accurate and how much is the bias of the one doing the speaking.

Let me try and condense my stream-of-thought ramblings by posing a simple question: Did Scorpia lose touch with the gaming audience or did she lose touch with the gaming media? I'm sure it's a little bit of both and a whole heap of other things, but I myself remember not caring for Baldur's Gate, either. I was a big fan of story and world driven RPGs (think Ultima) at the time, and the whole while I was being innundated with how Baldur's Gate was reviving a dead genre, was the wave of the future, and one of the best RPGs yet made, I couldn't help but feel like I was more or less being "forced" to like the game by both the fact that there weren't many other RPGs out at the time and by the strong-arming of the gaming media telling me that I was so very wrong with my feelings about the game. I even remember trying to play through BG1 several times, many of such times having been motivated by reading yet another article or review praising the merits of the title. I felt like I just didn't "get it" and if only I could, I would understand and enjoy what had to be a wonderful game. After all, it re-launched the genre and spawned a slew of copycats, all of which were designed in this new RPG style that I just did not like. I was lost.

I did enjoy BG2 a great deal, though. I'm not sure why I liked it when I hated BG1 so much, but its story hooked me and its world and the exploration of it was more interesting, I guess. I'm not sure what it was, actually. Go figure.

Dave Markell

08-03-2006, 10:07 PM

...this it is where traditional RPGs were headed had they not taken the Baldur's Gate/Console/MMO detours.

I'd hardly call Baldur's Gate a detour. To me, it seems like a natural evolution of the Bard's Tale/Wizardry/Might and Magic paradigm: turn based combat, a party of adventurers, an over-arching plotline with side quests, etc. etc. I still play BG2 and ToB from time to time. I think that they, Fallout 1/2, and Planescape mark the high points of the entire genre.

Alex Dolce

08-03-2006, 10:25 PM

Baldur's Gate definitely opened up RPGs to a mainstream audience more so than many of the games before it... I agree with you here, but it should be noted that Baldur's Gate changed a lot of what an RPG was and how it was presented and played. This may be exactly why it opened up the genre to the mainstream audience so well, I don't know.

Then again, it might have been that it didn't really open up the genre to such a large new audience, but being that it was the first new high-production-level RPG after a lengthy drought and many proclomations of the genre having died that led to its success, which was really the just the inevitable result of the focused purchasing power of fans of the genre. It's not as if there were other RPGs on its level competing for their buying dollar at the time, so rather than RPG Fan #1 buying RPG X and Fan #2 buying Y, everyone instead bought BG.

Heck, that may have contributed to its critical success as well. It sold in huge numbers for an RPG (especially at the time of its release), it was different from the RPGs before it and so in its own way it changed the paradigm; the conclusions drawn were that 1) It has to be a great game and 2) It is the wave of the future of RPGs. It's what gamers want.

It might also be worth nothing that BG1 simply needed to be praised in the gaming media because it needed to not only sell copies, but it also needed publishers and developers to take notice of it. If Game Journalist X was an RPG fan (and given the time of BG's release and the limited genre selection of PC games also at that time, he/she probably was), then well before it was released, Baldur's Gate represented not only hope for the rebirth of the genre, but in a way its success or failure was going to be seen by the industry as the linchpin of any possible RPG revival. If it didn't succeed, it was felt likely that the RPG genre really was dead.

If I was an RPG fan writing in the gaming press at the time, it would be awfully hard to keep that bias from slipping through not only into my coverage and ultimate review of the game, but from myself and my personal enjoyment of the experience of playing the game itself. In other words, if I really wanted to like the game and I felt that I and others really needed to like the game, I'd probably give the title a very large margin for error. I'd probably end up not even realizing that I wasn't having as much fun as I was making myself think.

I'm not sure that BG1 was so much what gamers wanted then as much as it was they just didn't have much of a choice at the time.

Lloyd Heilbrunn

08-03-2006, 10:53 PM

I think her site was one of the first I discovered upon my introduction to the Internet.I was even a paying member before I realized that was not the normal way things were done.

Enjoyed her reviews and usually agreed with them, and I never liked the BG combat system, never finished the game because of it.....

scharmers

08-03-2006, 11:04 PM

Lots of gristle here for us oldtime "old CGW > new CGW" for us to chew on

M Wolf

08-04-2006, 12:02 AM

If I was an RPG fan writing in the gaming press at the time, it would be awfully hard to keep that bias from slipping through not only into my coverage and ultimate review of the game, but from myself and my personal enjoyment of the experience of playing the game itself. In other words, if I really wanted to like the game and I felt that I and others really needed to like the game, I'd probably give the title a very large margin for error. I'd probably end up not even realizing that I wasn't having as much fun as I was making myself think.

I'm not sure that BG1 was so much what gamers wanted then as much as it was they just didn't have much of a choice at the time.

As one of the game journalists writing about RPGs at the time, your comment definitely is cause for thought. Yeah, I could completely see how the game would lend itself to scoring well, and providing more enjoyment than it might otherwise have, more because it was such a change from what had come before. However, at the same time I can say that I spent many many many enjoyable hours playing that game to the detriment of my friends and family, and if the game wasn't really that good, I would have been more likely to spend more time writing good things about it rather than playing it.

I actually remember Mr. PCG EIC Whitta insisting that I play through the entire game to the end before I could compellingly fight for it to win the award for RPG of the Year in that year's PCG Awards issue (as I recall, the game launched in mid-December). I played it non-stop and finished it, and then kept playing it until I got all the side quests. I fought tooth and nail to make sure it was RPG of the Year, even though several of the other editors weren't convinced. I finally won that battle, and never regretted it. Sure, there might have been a slight lean of bias toward making a bit of a bigger deal about the game than might have strictly been necessary because of the newness of it, but any of that bias paled in comparison to the gameplay, storyline, and depth. I firmly believe that it captured the hearts of the gamers because it was a brilliantly built game more than the fact that it was a breath of cool air among a desolation of quality RPGs at the time.

-Michael Wolf, AKA Phoenix (Figured I'd use my real name. I gots nuthin' to hide!)

Bill Dungsroman

08-04-2006, 12:14 AM

She dissed my nigga Green, BG1, and Fallout2. Eff her.

Alex Dolce

08-04-2006, 12:55 AM

I'm glad you enjoyed BG1, Michael. Thinking about it now, I hope my posts don't come across as some sort of rationalizing on my part concerning how something must have been going on with BG1 and the media since I didn't like it and I can't possibly be wrong. I know you didn't take that meaning from what I said, but I wanted to make sure and get that clear while I was thinking about the possibility.

I know BG1 was a good game, made even better for the simple fact that it stood relatively alone at the time of its release. If it was a bad game, it wouldn't matter if it was all there was or not. It would still have been a bad game, and a bad game would not have had the impact that BG1 ended up having, and I understand that.

I was really just using this setup as a springboard for launching my little theories into the Qt3osphere for discussion. Does the gaming media have more influence than might be suspected? I think it does, though I'd like to believe that it doesn't.

As an example other than Baldur's Gate and out of the RPG genre in general, I love classic adventure games and wish they were still around in greater numbers at the level of quality they once were. Part of me can't help but think that the media constantly proclaiming the genre to be "dead" became a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Heck, most people believe that to be an accurate statement in spite of the fact that there are several very traditional adventure games released each year. Granted, the majority of them aren't very good, but every now and then one pops up that deserves some recognition and doesn't seem to get it.

I have to think that when such a thing happens, the media is reluctant to report on it because their declarations that the genre is dead (as well as their perceptions, be they based on personal preference and experience and/or on their perceived awareness of the preferences of the gaming audience), won't allow them to.

Take Runaway (http://www.pendulostudios.com/runaway/eng_index.htm), for example. By all accounts, it was a quality adventure game released a couple of years ago that made little to no splash in the major gaming media. It can't be because it was a bad game, because it was quite good. There is even a sequel (http://www.runaway-thegame.com/) on the way. The only reasons I can imagine that it didn't get much in the way of coverage in the mainstream gaming press are those that I've just described, and the press doesn't feel that the genre has a large enough audience to warrant devoting space to it in their various publications.

Because of this, it will be extremely difficult for the genre to ever make a comeback. While I'm sure we all agree that the days of the adventure game being a staple of the industry are forever over, I'm not convinced that the market for such titles is so very niche and tiny that the genre should not get coverage in the mainstream gaming press.

What the adventure genre needs is exactly what the RPG genre got with Baldur's Gate - a high profile title of sufficient production quality and mass appeal that it warrants a feature here and there, a preview, maybe an interview with one of its developers, and a fair shake with a complete review. It's my hope that we'll get that game with TellTale's new Sam and Max. I've already read a few minor features on it in some of the larger outlets and as long as TT do not drop the ball when they deliver the first episode, things may start looking up for the struggling genre.

My point with all of this was just to start a discussion concerning, I suppose, the power of the media to influence development. If the media as a whole repeatedly tells its audience what it thinks gamers want, then at the end of the day how much of what they want is actually coming from the gamers themselves, and how much of it is coming from what they've been told over and over again - and, perhaps most importantly, how much of that perceived desire goes into the decision making process when a new project is being pitched to a publisher?

Chris Nahr

08-04-2006, 02:08 AM

I never really liked Baldur's Gate. Much like Temple of Elemental Evil, I think it was a great new engine surrounded by an appalling lack of an interesting game. Also, I've seen a lot of BG fans add a "for the time" qualifier to their opinions when the subject comes up nowadays...

Still, I suppose it's a good thing that the game was so wildly overrated (as I think it was) since Bioware and its licensees went on to create BG2, Planescape: Torment, the KotOR games, and the Dark Alliance offspring -- all which I enjoyed a lot.

steve

08-04-2006, 06:52 AM

Baldur's Gate didn't "save" RPGs, or turn them on to a new audience. It's a great game and all (we gave it "Game of the Year" over Half-Life), and it was a hardcore game that sold extremely well. But it probably wouldn't have been produced had it not been for a game released a couple of years earlier.

Diablo.

If you want to point to one game being the most important RPG, there you go. It expanded the market. It also took it in a multiplayer direction and, more with Diablo II, showed how the MMO could/would take off.

GregB

08-04-2006, 07:38 AM

X-Play in general. One of their big demands seems to be that every game simply must have multiplayer. If a game comes along that doesn't include a multiplayer component and isn't a critical hit type of game (which they always rate well, regardless of the fact that similar games are usually trashed, but that's a whole other can of worms), they will knock it severely for its lack of the feature. It doesn't matter if the game lends itself to a multiplayer mode or not - they've come down firmly on the stance that multiplayer is the future and the now and they make the claim, repeatedly, that it's what gamers want.

Slight derail here. I don't recall ever bagging on a game because it lacked multiplayer. Nor do I know of any mandate from G4 editorial stating that "critical hit" games need to be reviewed well. Believe it or not, X-Play generally lets the reviewers state their opinion and submit the star rating without any fuss. I think I've only been contested a few times.

As for Scorpia, I didn't have a problem with her Baldur's Gate review because I largely agreed with it. I remember when the game came out and I was so excited to play. After spending a number of hours with it, the whole thing just let me cold. BG2 is a different story. Great game.

I remember her Darklands review. I liked Darklands a lot, but I can respect a difference of opinion. However that review was filled with such vitriol, especially concerning the character sacrifice at the end. I couldn't help but feel she was completely missing the point. I think to a certain degree, her focus on the raw mechanics of the game (stats, drawing little maps, etc) blinds her to some of the other things that games can offer. It's like watching a movie and only commenting on the special effects and art direction. Shit analogy I know, but hopefully you get my meaning. I dunno. I wasn't sad to see her go.

Mark Asher

08-04-2006, 07:40 AM

But wait, I remember the raging debate on Usenet about Diablo – it’s not really an RPG! Yes it is. No it isn’t. You’re stupid. No, you’re stupid!

Does comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg even exist anymore?

olaf

08-04-2006, 08:04 AM

It does still exist! The volume of traffic is tiny now of course but its still there.

And action RPGs are action RPGs. And thats Diablo. I will concede that it took the rogue/nethack/whatever game mechanic and polished it up so well that it practically created a new niche/genre. But. The people, myself anyway, longing for games like IWD, BG2, Fallout1/2, PST havent been getting their fill from shit like Dungeon Siege, Sacred and Titan's Quest. They just are not the same kind of games.

olaf

Jazar

08-04-2006, 08:25 AM

Where have all the Ultimas gone?

Warren

08-04-2006, 08:27 AM

I too did not like BG, but enjoyed BG II. Kind of a trend.

I enjoyed Scorpia's work quite a lot. But re-reading the Might and Magic piece on her site, I can see that the style was fine for the smaller more focused cadre of gamers at the time. It's my belief that the game community changed, and she failed to move with it. Nothing wrong with that, just not commercially viable.

That said, I have very fond memories of reading her work at the time, and looked forward to seeing it each month. And I find myself thinking that kind of detailed in-depth review mix of hint and examination of minutae would really add some value if it could work it's way into the current environment without becoming the whole point of the review.

edit: 100 posts! woot! Nothing next to the thousands most of y'all have but quite a lot for me given how long I lurked before working up the courage to post!

Slainte Mhath

08-04-2006, 08:31 AM

Diablo.

If you want to point to one game being the most important RPG, there you go. It expanded the market. It also took it in a multiplayer direction and, more with Diablo II, showed how the MMO could/would take off.

Could not agree more with this statement. As an avid CRPG player going back 20+ years to the days of the Atari computer and Ultima I / Wizardry I, I've seen the cycle of RPGs rise and fall numerous times. But since Blizzard introduced us all to Diablo, the CRPG has been prominent and shows no sign of fading into the background again any time soon.

Yes, single-player RPGs may not see as many releases as they did in the heydey of BG, Might and Magic and the countless Diablo clones, but Diablo introduced legions of fans to the idea that multiplayer gaming could be fun, and most MMORPGs of yesterday and today directly benefited from Diablo's influence on gamers.

For all it's simplistic clicky goodness, Diablo had as big or bigger of an impact on the RPG genre as DOOM did on the FPS genre. It's a defining game of the genre.

Arinn_Dembo

08-04-2006, 08:47 AM

I never met Scorpia personally, obviously--even when Wilson brought in a large grouping of CGW writers for a conference, she did not attend--but I always respected her work. I was never as impressed with her replacement.

As for who dissed what/who? She was a reviewer. They're opinionated people by nature, and dissing is half of what they do. And no one person can ever be right 24/7, 52 weeks a year. Even Shakespeare got some bad reviews.

So long as a reviewer disses intelligently and with some kind of rational explanation for their opinions, I have no problem with it. As for whether she was "wrong" about this game or that--meh. For my point of view, it takes real stones to stand up to the masses (or to massive marketing campaigns) when writing a review. Scorpia was old school--she didn't let anyone dictate her opinions to her, or give "star ratings" which could be wiggled based on how many advertising dollars any given corporation had to spend.

She played each game through and assessed its strengths and weaknesses on its own merits, standing alone. She wrote detailed reviews about the experience of playing, and gave excellent hints and tips for games she was enthusiastic about.

If the gaming world "moved on" from her style of reviewing? The industry has been poorer for it.

--Arinn

Mark Asher

08-04-2006, 09:23 AM

Flowers

08-04-2006, 10:13 AM

I think Mr. Green may have come frightfully close to living a videogame nerds ultimate fantasy.

"What? You didn't like Baldur's Gate? Here's something else you might not like; You're fucking fired. Clean out your desk, you dumbshit plebe."

Jack

08-04-2006, 10:36 AM

I don’t think the gaming world moved away from her style of review as much as the style of games changed and I think that she developed a bit of a negative bias against the newer crop of games.

You have to review a game based on its own merits, not whether it’s good because it’s like the old-school RPGs or not so good because it belongs to the newer style.

And really, I sympathize. I am disinclined to like some of the newer games simply because they’re not more like the older games I loved. Clearly, I don’t represent the target audience anymore for many of the newer games being made.

In literary criticism (as well as other forms, I suppose), there is always some debate on what form is the proper criticism. Should the reviewer judge the work on what it does, what it attempts to do, or what it ought to do? It's a dubious action to fire a critic solely because she's "lost touch" or has a "negative bias against newer" whatever. Now, as Jeff Green stated, Scorpia had become a bit belligerent, and (not his implication) possibly she got a little full of herself; well, then, there's a reason to fire a critic.

But with all the reviewers and editors here, I'm surprised the "out of touch" argument is carrying this much weight. Look at Deus Ex and the polarity that has among some critics (noteably Tom Chick v. the world). The reason is because Deus Ex didn't focus itself and therefore may have flummoxed critics with expectations of what it should be, but it also may have gained much undeserved praise from those who judge a game by what it attempted to accomplish, regardless of how well it accomplished all those goals.

Mark makes an interesting point here about whether a critic should reflect what is currently popular or uphold some personal standard. I believe the latter, and that's what I think was Scorpia's strength. Of course, if a critic becomes intentionally contrary to popular opinion, then their review is as worthless as a gushy press release.

Arinn_Dembo

08-04-2006, 10:52 AM

Now, as Jeff Green stated, Scorpia had become a bit beligerant, and (not his implication) possibly she got a little full of herself; well, then, there's a reason to fire a critic.

I can't speak for Mr. Green per se, but I don't believe that's exactly what he said. I believe he was trying to say that Scorpia really had only one contact at the magazine, which was Johnny Wilson; she worked for/with him personally, had a long-standing relationship of trust with him, and found it very difficult to find common ground with other staffers when he was gone.

This happens to professional writers all the time when editors switch jobs, especially if they have a strong personal style. Most editors develope a "stable" of writers who they trust and respect; it is often difficult for a new editor to run a previous editor's stable, so often they "clean house" when their predecessors leave. For that matter, writers also have been known to jump ship with their old editor to new publications; it's actually not all that common for any writer to be more loyal to a masthead than they are to the individual editor.

In Scorpia's case, I believe that there were additional problems. But speaking as someone who was there toward the end of her heyday, I am not so sure that she was "full of herself"--I've never met a writer yet who would refuse a free expenses-paid trip to San Francisco out of arrogance. There was something else going on there; I have no idea what it was, but it was all very mysterious. I would suspect that she was pathologically shy, or there was some issue with her privacy or identity. Heck, for all I know she was a pseudonymous female alter-ego for Johnny Wilson. Lol...which would explain why she never wanted to show any pictures of herself! I don't think Johnny would have made a good drag queen.

--Arinn

Jason Becker

08-04-2006, 11:06 AM

Ahh the amazing "myth" of Scorpia...

Bee

08-04-2006, 11:11 AM

Little known fact, but Scorpia is actually Heather Locklear and would play computer games in the nude...

ok, maybe that was just in my head...but I'm sticking with it.

Jack

08-04-2006, 11:25 AM

Jeff Green

08-04-2006, 11:31 AM

I can't speak for Mr. Green per se, but I don't believe that's exactly what he said. I believe he was trying to say that Scorpia really had only one contact at the magazine, which was Johnny Wilson; she worked for/with him personally, had a long-standing relationship of trust with him, and found it very difficult to find common ground with other staffers when he was gone.

This happens to professional writers all the time when editors switch jobs, especially if they have a strong personal style. Most editors develope a "stable" of writers who they trust and respect; it is often difficult for a new editor to run a previous editor's stable, so often they "clean house" when their predecessors leave. For that matter, writers also have been known to jump ship with their old editor to new publications; it's actually not all that common for any writer to be more loyal to a masthead than they are to the individual editor.

In Scorpia's case, I believe that there were additional problems. But speaking as someone who was there toward the end of her heyday, I am not so sure that she was "full of herself"--I've never met a writer yet who would refuse a free expenses-paid trip to San Francisco out of arrogance. There was something else going on there; I have no idea what it was, but it was all very mysterious. I would suspect that she was pathologically shy, or there was some issue with her privacy or identity. Heck, for all I know she was a pseudonymous female alter-ego for Johnny Wilson. Lol...which would explain why she never wanted to show any pictures of herself! I don't think Johnny would have made a good drag queen.

--Arinn

Arinn's assessment is pretty much the truth here. This is what it boiled down to. The "you hated Baldur's Gate so you're out!!!" thing is really misleading and not what it was about. Every single writer/editor who's ever written for CGW (including me) has liked/hated a game that went against conventional wisdom. That in itself is of course not a bad thing.

It's really what Arinn said, and what I said in a previous post: Scorpia's relationship to CGW was a relationship with Johnny Wilson. Even though I was her assigned editor for many years, for example, she'd email her stories to Johnny. Just one small example.

When George Jones took over as EIC, there was simply no real relationship to anyone on the staff except for an extremely vague and sometimes hostile/annoyed one (though, as Arinn says, some of the personality stuff could *possibly* have been attributed to shyness rather than diva-ness, which, unfortunately, is often how that comes across), and so it just made sense to cut that tie.

And , hey, she's back, she has her own website, so yay.

Linoleum

08-04-2006, 11:37 AM

I'm pretty sure she attended some of the GEnie sysop conventions, but I never went to any of those.

I still miss GEnie sometimes.

Arinn_Dembo

08-04-2006, 11:55 AM

Thanks for the insight, Arinn. Oh, and thanks for the image of Johnny in drag.

It's good to share.

--Arinn

Mark Asher

08-04-2006, 12:15 PM

Mark makes an interesting point here about whether a critic should reflect what is currently popular or uphold some personal standard. I believe the latter, and that's what I think was Scorpia's strength. Of course, if a critic becomes intentionally contrary to popular opinion, then their review is as worthless as a gushy press release.

I agree for the most part, but I think this applies more towards criticism of the arts than of consumer products. If I review cars and I think driving a stick gives me better performance and is more interesting, I had better be able to set aside those feelings because the market and the manufacturers have embraced automatic transmissions.

What I miss about someone like Scorpia is the sense of the reviewer as an idiosyncratic personality I can get to know and whose sensibilities I see reflected in the reviews. Those critics are still around -- Tom's one. I wish there were more, though. I think too many reviewers go out of their way to avoid any controversy.

malmac

08-04-2006, 12:19 PM

...
And , hey, she's back, she has her own website, so yay.

Yep, that's all I care about.

Maybe she was difficult to work with, but her work was excellent. I liked the fact that I could count on Scorpia having played the game she was reviewing to completion. Also, her taste in games was similar to my own, e.g. she disked the fedex quests that make up a large part of most rpg's.

I would go so far as to say the Scorpia was one of the few "true" reviewers of computer games. I find that most reviewers are pretty much shills for the game companies. Excluding, of course, Tom and a few others.

Malcolm

Kevin Grey

08-04-2006, 12:32 PM

What the adventure genre needs is exactly what the RPG genre got with Baldur's Gate - a high profile title of sufficient production quality and mass appeal that it warrants a feature here and there, a preview, maybe an interview with one of its developers, and a fair shake with a complete review

Wouldn't Indigo Prophecy/Farenheit count here? Decent previews, generally good reviews, etc.

Dean

08-04-2006, 02:03 PM

Yep, that's all I care about.

Maybe she was difficult to work with, but her work was excellent. I liked the fact that I could count on Scorpia having played the game she was reviewing to completion. Also, her taste in games was similar to my own, e.g. she disked the fedex quests that make up a large part of most rpg's.

I would go so far as to say the Scorpia was one of the few "true" reviewers of computer games. I find that most reviewers are pretty much shills for the game companies. Excluding, of course, Tom and a few others.

Somebody tell Klosterman that we've already had the Lester Bangs of Gaming and his name is Scorpia.

Alex Dolce

08-05-2006, 03:33 AM

Yes, Indigo Prophecy should have counted but while playing it was, in my opinion, a great experience, there just wasn't the same sort of hype surrounding it that Baldur's Gate enjoyed well before its release. That's why I think Sam and Max has probably the best shot out of any adventure game, and it's probably the last one that will enjoy its position. I hope TellTale makes the most of it.

Sam and Max enjoys having an already established fan base, both in the comics world and in the gaming community. The LucasArts S&M game is widely accepted as one of the best adventures of all time (personally, I think the game is great but it wouldn't make my top five list for adventures), and even people who've never played adventure games before stand a good chance of probably at least knowing about the old game.

The only other recent adventure of memory that enjoyed a somewhat similar position was Dreamfall, but since The Longest Journey, while a great adventure game, wasn't released in the "golden era" of the early-to-mid 90s it was itself considered an anomalous success, and a moderate one at that. It was a great success in the adventure niche to be sure, but in the era of blockbusters-or-nothing it was barely a blip on an often overlooked area of the radar screen.

Also, Indigo Prophecy was such a different sort of game that it was hard for it to find its audience. It was different from the blockbusters that surrounded it, and it was different from the adventure games that its target audience was familiar with. There wasn't a lot of puzzle solving, there were Shenmue like "QTR" events, etc...Indigo was the realization of the much ballyhooed (and abused) Interactive Movie term from the early CD-ROM days. It wasn't so much a game as it was the interactive experiencing of a story. It's really hard to market something like that, and even harder to get people to understand it even if you manage to get their attention.

The media repeatedly telling its audience that it does not want games like that anymore doesn't help, either.

Getting back to the What Is A Game Critic? question for a second, I have to wonder what happened to the days where fans of a genre were the ones who covered and reviewed the games in that genre. It seems today (and I could very well be wrong, so feel free to correct me) that many outlets tend to have a stable of reviewers that are assigned various titles with little regard to where their true interests lie.

For example, I have to wonder if there are even any adventure genre fans writing reviews for the main outlets these days, so that on the rare occasion when one of the several new adventure releases is actually reviewed (at least beyond a quick one or two paragraph blurb of a review), it's done by someone who doesn't even like the genre to begin with. That's not what I'd call a fair shake.

I remember when magazines had the RPG critic, the Adventure critic, the Strategy, the Simulation, the Action critic, etc...Does this still happen at all anymore? I tend to think it does to some degree, but not with any hard-line definitions provided by the reviewers themselves which is carried on and identified to the reader, and that makes it difficult for me to trust any review source. While I've never based my purchases on reviews, I know that there are a lot of people out there who do. That, coupled with my earlier mention of how much more influential the major media is than might be expected, add up to painting a picture that tends to foster the limited blockbuster approach of publishers.

The irony here is that so much of the media tends to lament the blockbuster mentality while I really think that it not only helps support it, but encourages it as well by not having certain standards and regulations in place such as having dedicated genre reviews and other approaches that would lend not only integrity to their copy and instill trust to its readers, but would also open the door back up for equal coverage of all genres on an equal playing field, regardless of the "mass-appeal" (or marketing budget) of any given title.

Quitch

08-05-2006, 04:21 AM

I'd hardly call Baldur's Gate a detour. To me, it seems like a natural evolution of the Bard's Tale/Wizardry/Might and Magic paradigm: turn based combat, a party of adventurers, an over-arching plotline with side quests, etc. etc. I still play BG2 and ToB from time to time. I think that they, Fallout 1/2, and Planescape mark the high points of the entire genre.

I'd just like to weigh in with a "me too!" remark. Back in the days of Bard's Tale I would play the game over and over, feeling that I should really be enjoying it, that this was my kind of game, yet... something wasn't right and I didn't have fun.

Over the years the odd game came along, Lands of Lore (the demo which constantly crashed my machine), Albion... but there was something missing.

For me, the Infinity Engine games represent the golden age of RPG gaming. A focus on party, dialogue and story, the things I love above all else. Perhaps some of my love for Baldur's Gate is because I had never been a part of the Ultima crowd, or Wizardy, or any of those big names from "back in the day". Maybe it comes from being unemployed at the time I finally got around to trying to finish it (with BG2 on the horizon). I have fond memories of taking a party of people I cared about out into the wilderness to solve mysterious and defeat creatures. I lost myself in the game, and I love it for giving me that feeling of escapism that I value above all else.

For me, that was what an RPG should be like, and obviously others feel the same way. (http://www.planewalkergames.com)

Since then we've drifted away from party RPGs, at least on the PC, and we now have MMORPGS (games about as detached from RPGs as is possible) and sandboxes like Oblivion where you are alone and story, dialogue and so on mean nothing, because freedom is everything, an experience that does little for me.

I mourn for the passing of "my time".

LionelThompson

08-05-2006, 08:05 AM

I'd just like to weigh in with a "me too!" remark. Back in the days of Bard's Tale I would play the game over and over, feeling that I should really be enjoying it, that this was my kind of game, yet... something wasn't right and I didn't have fun.

Over the years the odd game came along, Lands of Lore (the demo which constantly crashed my machine), Albion... but there was something missing.

For me, the Infinity Engine games represent the golden age of RPG gaming. A focus on party, dialogue and story, the things I love above all else. Perhaps some of my love for Baldur's Gate is because I had never been a part of the Ultima crowd, or Wizardy, or any of those big names from "back in the day". Maybe it comes from being unemployed at the time I finally got around to trying to finish it (with BG2 on the horizon). I have fond memories of taking a party of people I cared about out into the wilderness to solve mysterious and defeat creatures. I lost myself in the game, and I love it for giving me that feeling of escapism that I value above all else.

For me, that was what an RPG should be like, and obviously others feel the same way. (http://www.planewalkergames.com)

Since then we've drifted away from party RPGs, at least on the PC, and we now have MMORPGS (games about as detached from RPGs as is possible) and sandboxes like Oblivion where you are alone and story, dialogue and so on mean nothing, because freedom is everything, an experience that does little for me.

I mourn for the passing of "my time".

Maybe I'm a curmudgeon, or a heathen, but I really did not care for the Baldur's Gate series and saw it as a step backwards from the Gold Box series in the days of old.

When I play D&D on paper, I want to be able to see the grid during combat. I want initiative and proper turn order and turn based planning and strategy, and this was all thrown out the window for a real-time/turn-based bastardization that just did not work for me. I would have been more than happy, THRILLED, to have seen the Baldur's Gate games as they were, but when combat is initiated change to a grid based combat system with the area and objects approximated for the location.

For me, the golden age of RPGs was the mid to late 80s when Origin could do no wrong and even Electronic Arts turned out some fantastic titles as well. That said, is Scorpia single?

Alex Dolce

08-05-2006, 08:07 AM

It's a mystery to me how you can value a focus on party, dialogue, and story above all else and somehow not be part of the Ultima crowd. Those things are really all Ultima is from Ultima 4-7.5. Maybe they just didn't gel with you for some reason, but I'd be curious to find out what it was about them that put you off. If you never bothered with Ultima 7 and 7.5, you should really give them a chance.

Baldur's Gate was, in a lot of ways to me, an Ultima clone without the interesting characters, places, quests, and story and with an over-emphasis on micro-managed combat filled with lots of silly D&D rules I neither understood nor made any sense to me. The casting and forgetting of spells will always confound me. Always. I cast magic missle! POW! Um, how'd I just do that? Dang! I'm stupid again until I can get a good night's sleep. Curses!

Baldur's Gate 2 kept the combat heavyness but cleaned it up a bit, plus it threw in the added bonus of having a good party with intersting characters and places to see, etc...As much fun as BG2 is though, it's still no Black Gate or Serpent Isle - but I don't think anything could ever come close to having the appeal that Ultima does for me, having grown up playing it from the beginning. BG2 came as close as any game can though, while BG1 couldn't even keep up at the tail-end of line.

Quitch

08-05-2006, 08:08 AM

I didn't dislike Ultima, I simply never played it. I got into PC gaming around the time of the 486, a little before Doom, and somehow the whole thing just passed me by. I do recall being mighty tempted by Ultima 7 screenshots though. I bought the Ultima collection off e-bay, so I do intended to play from at least 4 onwards.

When I play D&D on paper, I want to be able to see the grid during combat. I want initiative and proper turn order and turn based planning and strategy

And herein lies the problem. If I want a TBS then I will buy a TBS, not an RPG. This is why BG was an enjoyable game, it didn't mess around trying to compete with another market.

LionelThompson

08-05-2006, 08:21 AM

And herein lies the problem. If I want a TBS then I will buy a TBS, not an RPG. This is why BG was an enjoyable game, it didn't mess around trying to compete with another market.

But when you buy D&D, I would think it natural to assume turn based combat as that is how the game is played on pen and paper, particularly since if you tried doing it realtime, it would end up in utter chaos, which to me was how the combat played out in BG.

Speaking of turn based, pretty much every RPG up until that point had turn based combat, going way back to Ultima 1 all the way through the Fallout series and just about everything in between. It clearly wasn't broken, so why try to fix it?

Quitch

08-05-2006, 08:23 AM

Well, no, not really. Perhaps that is how PnP D&D players think of it, but to me D&D means "fantasy world with traditional fantasy creatures" and nothing more.

As for "not broken", I wonder how many people buying BG were like me, people who didn't play Ultima, hadn't liked RPGs up to that point. To say that RPGs should have stayed turn based because, basically, you had liked it that way, is ridiculous. All that had been shown is that there was a market for RPGs using a turned-base mechanism for combat. Myself, I'm not interested. X-COM is one of the few games I've played where I felt that real-time would be a negative thing.

Alex Dolce

08-05-2006, 08:37 AM

Ultima stopped having turn-based combat after Ultima V, I believe. The combat really becomes secondary, almost tertiary by Ultima 7. It becomes all about the story and characters and the world they live in. The combat is there because it needs to be, but it's by no means anywhere near the spotlight of the game. A lot of longtime Ultima fans grumbled about this when it happened.

Personally, I don't give a hoot about stat management and +2 this and -4 that in my RPGs. In fact, seeing all of those numbers tends to shatter the illusion for me and I quickly only see the math. At that point, the game breaks down into a transparent arithmatic activity and it's usually then that I begin to lose interest in the characters, story, world, etc...which are usually pretty weak to begin with. Ultima does (did) a great job of stripping all of the standard trappings of the RPG away and distilling them down into only what was needed while piling on gobs and heaps and oodles of ways to immerse the player in their alternate lives.

Quitch, if you get around to trying Ultima 7 and 7.5 one of these days, be sure to grab Exult (http://exult.sourceforge.net/). It will make your life much easier.

Quitch

08-05-2006, 09:50 AM

I've seen Exult mentioned a lot. Should I use 1.2 or the snapshot?

Alex Dolce

08-05-2006, 09:57 AM

I've always just used the official releases. I guess it depends on if they've done anything particularly spectacular in the latest snapshot that you might want to try out. The official release does everything I want it to do, so I don't worry with the snapshots. I enjoy setting all of the whiz-bang features to off so that I can run the game more or less exactly as it ran for me back in the day. That, and I can't stand how the anti-aliasing filters make the graphics look. I guess a lot of people really can't tolerate jaggy drawings, but they add to the nostalgic flavor for me...that, and I don't get ugly and blurry approximations of what I should be seeing on my screen.

Dhruin

08-05-2006, 05:21 PM

And herein lies the problem. If I want a TBS then I will buy a TBS, not an RPG. This is why BG was an enjoyable game, it didn't mess around trying to compete with another market.

For others, Infinity Engine combat plays like an RTS, which, given that the development started out as an RTS probably isn't surprising.

olaf

08-05-2006, 08:38 PM

Yeah the Infinity stuff, at the time, to me, did play like an RTS. I mean not really but I definitetly thought less of the combat and the games because they werent 'pure' turn based. Now with the almost complete lack of traditional party based PC RPGs I would kill for something 'not quite' turn based like the Infinity Engine games.

olaf

brainfromarous

08-06-2006, 12:29 AM

In addition to IM chatting with Scorpia for years, I personally met her at the home of a mutual friend after her tenure at CGW. During a Call of Cthulhu rpg session, we took to talking computer games (surprise!) and I asked her point-blank what had happened.

Her response was that she was "asked to cease submitting reviews" when George Jones took over as EIC following Johnny Wilson's graceless departure. No real explanation; just go away. No particular review was mentioned. But to be clear: She did not leave voluntarily; she was shown the door.

That was George Jones' call to make as EIC; we can argue the pro and con of such things all day long. The truly disgraceful thing was how Jones did it. Scorpia didn't get any kind of proper thanks or even acknowledgement. Also, there wasn't a single mention of her reviews, editorials or the Tale in CGW's Special 200th Issue.

Compare this with the send-off Thierry "Scooter" Nguyen got - including a Greenspeak, if I recall correctly - when he left the mag. One of the many reasons Jeff Green's EICdom was a breath of fresh air after Jones.

Speaking of that, I tipped Randy Sluganski off to Scorpia's weekly IRC chat (which goes on to this day) and so may be at least partially responsible for that Just Adventure interview. Oh, well.

rei

08-06-2006, 02:21 PM

I can say with complete confidence that SushiX and Scorpia are one and the same.

rei

08-06-2006, 02:36 PM

and damn, this has me missing the pre-internet rumor bag guy.

brainfromarous

08-08-2006, 12:58 AM

I can say with complete confidence that SushiX and Scorpia are one and the same.

No, SushiX was Trip Hawkins.

Bee

08-08-2006, 05:02 AM

I'm enjoying reading her site quite a bit. It's like talking with an old friend who keeps bringing up things we did 20 years ago.

malmac

08-10-2006, 12:47 PM

...
For example, I have to wonder if there are even any adventure genre fans writing reviews for the main outlets these days, so that on the rare occasion when one of the several new adventure releases is actually reviewed (at least beyond a quick one or two paragraph blurb of a review), it's done by someone who doesn't even like the genre to begin with. That's not what I'd call a fair shake.
...

Good point. I've found that to be the case with many adventure game reviews. Of the major sites, Gamespot seems to be particularily guilty of this. Only adventure games like Dreamfall, which is hardly a game at all, get good scores, the lesser know adventure games seem to score very poorly.

I enjoy some of the Kheops adventures - Voyage, Echo etc. I wouldn't call these great games, but I would rate them much higher than Gamespot and others do. Also, they only cost $20 in Canada.

For those looking for adventure game reviews written by people who really like adventure games, check out:

www.adventuregamers.com (http://www.adventuregamers.com)
www.justadventure.com (http://www.justadventure.com)
www.adventurelantern.com (http://www.adventurelantern.com)

Adventure Lantern has a very good pdf magazine. A word of warning about these reviews, if anything the reviewers are guilty of awarding scores that are too high.

Malcolm

Slainte Mhath

08-10-2006, 01:01 PM

Compare this with the send-off Thierry "Scooter" Nguyen got - including a Greenspeak, if I recall correctly - when he left the mag. One of the many reasons Jeff Green's EICdom was a breath of fresh air after Jones.

Scooter rocked! I miss him every time I open the mag.

Jeff Green's breath, let's not go there! ;-)

Johan Freeberg

08-10-2006, 01:34 PM

Scorpia had many classic writings and am glad she comes back from beyond the dead! Now where Andrew Bub go?

Greetz

Troy S Goodfellow

08-10-2006, 01:35 PM

Now where Andrew Bub go?

www.gamerdad.com still writing his usual quality stuff. Only now with a mission.

Troy

Raife

08-10-2006, 01:36 PM

...

Wumpus would cry tears of joy.

Johan Freeberg

08-10-2006, 01:37 PM

Maybe one time he come back from beyond the dad! That is joke.

Greetz

Raife

08-10-2006, 01:38 PM

Maybe one time he come back from beyond the dad! That is joke.

Awesome.

Slainte Mhath

08-10-2006, 02:36 PM

Maybe one time he come back from beyond the dad! That is joke.

Greetz

I love this guy!

Alex Dolce

08-10-2006, 02:56 PM

Would you like to making f...ah, nevermind.

Lake

08-11-2006, 08:15 AM

Scorpia is seven feet tall. She kills men by the hundreds, shoot fireballs from her eyes and lightning bolts from her arse.

Bill Dungsroman

08-11-2006, 12:54 PM

Would you like to making f...ah, nevermind.
BER-ZER-KER!

Aszurom

08-11-2006, 06:03 PM

Alright, fuck. I'm sick of it. I'm Scorpia. Happy now?

Hanzii

08-12-2006, 01:03 AM

I'm Spartacus!

Destarius

08-12-2006, 03:28 AM

I'm Spartacus!

No. *I* am Spartacus.

JessicaM

08-12-2006, 04:29 AM

I'm pretty sure she attended some of the GEnie sysop conventions, but I never went to any of those.

I still miss GEnie sometimes.

She attended at least once when I was in charge of games for GEnie. In general, Scorp is a bit of a recluse, but I've known people in the industry with a lot stranger eccentricities.

And there I days when I miss GEnie terribly. What a great time that was.

GregB

08-12-2006, 05:46 AM

No. *I* am Spartacus.

I'm Brian and so's my wife!

scharmers

08-12-2006, 12:12 PM

I'm Charleton Heston!

eliandi

08-14-2006, 10:44 AM

I agree for the most part, but I think this applies more towards criticism of the arts than of consumer products. If I review cars and I think driving a stick gives me better performance and is more interesting, I had better be able to set aside those feelings because the market and the manufacturers have embraced automatic transmissions.

No, you should not give up writing about stick shifts, but you should find a media outlet that supports/allows your viewpoint. For stick shifts, that would be Car&Driver among others.

This leads to me seconding the call for more of the gaming reviewers have fields of specialization. This would, I hope, reward good gameplay over graphics splash as the reviewer would understand the genre.

Troy S Goodfellow

08-14-2006, 11:47 AM

This leads to me seconding the call for more of the gaming reviewers have fields of specialization. This would, I hope, reward good gameplay over graphics splash as the reviewer would understand the genre.

I think that you'll find that this is mostly the case. There are a few polymaths out there, but you won't find many Desslock reviews of shooters, Brett Todd reviews of adventure games or Steve Butts reviews of RPGs.

Troy

brainfromarous

08-14-2006, 12:22 PM

Alright, fuck. I'm sick of it. I'm Scorpia. Happy now?

I'm Foozle.

brainfromarous

08-14-2006, 12:25 PM

She attended at least once when I was in charge of games for GEnie. In general, Scorp is a bit of a recluse, but I've known people in the industry with a lot stranger eccentricities.

And there I days when I miss GEnie terribly. What a great time that was.

I miss the community, if not the hourly charges. Sheesh, what a wallet-breaker that was.

For those who might be wondering, "Scorpia" is her actual, legal name and not just an online handle or nom de plume.

Steel_Wind

08-14-2006, 08:01 PM

CRPGs not popular anymore? Huh?

You guys pay attention to the market at all? CRPGs were never all that popular, and certainly have never made more money then they do now.

Yet, every time this issue comes up, someone defines their way out of what is meant by "CRPGs"

Wizardry, Bard's Tale, Might and Magic, SSI Gold Box Games, Ultima = CRPGs.

BG1, Tales of the Sword Coast, BG2, Throne of Baal, Planescape Torment... = CRPGs.

NWN1 and about 5000 modules a few XPs, plus premium modules over the past four years = CRPGs (probably the best current example really).

KotOR1 (Goty!) and KotOR2 = CRPGs

Diablo1, Diablo2, Sacred, Titan Quest = CRPGs

Elder Scrolls, Morrowind +XPs and Oblivion = CRPGs

WoW, DaoC, EQ, Eve Online, D&DOnline, Guild Wars, City of Heores/Villains, Lineage 1 and 2 = CRPGs

Final Fantasy 1 through XIIwhatever = CRPGs

Fallout 3, NWN2, Dragon Age = CRPGs

So at what stage does it stop being a CRPG? When it has any multiplayer compatibility at all? Is that the test? When it adds some element of twitch play - be it ever so large or small - does it stop being a CRPG then?

Or maybe this is just about when it stopped being a 2d sprite based game that you played on your own and used a code wheel to save a game? Is that it?

If technoogical progression is the yardstick through which you define your genre of games, the only thing we have in common now with 1980s to mid 90s games is Civilization and Doom. Really, that's about it.

If the essence of the comment was "the adventure game market" a la Sierra and King's Quest is the essence of the Adventure Games that Scorpia made her bread and butter with - then yes, that genre is done like dinner. Otherwise, I think the definitions being bandied about here to define a genre into the grave are strained to the point of self-deception.

Fallout 3 in development. Dragon Age in development. NWN2 due out this fall (and NWN1 still going along). Oblivion selling very well with WoW selling so strongly that all but a handful of the strongest titles and *movies* in history appear to be little more than chump change in comparison, but CRPGs are dead??

I don't think so.

Angrycoder

08-14-2006, 08:09 PM

Maybe one time he come back from beyond the dad! That is joke.

Greetz

I love this guy, but i think he is a viral marketer for the Borat movie.

Alex Dolce

08-14-2006, 10:36 PM

CRPGs not popular anymore? Huh?

You guys pay attention to the market at all?

If the essence of the comment was "the adventure game market" a la Sierra and King's Quest is the essence of the Adventure Games that Scorpia made her bread and butter with - then yes, that genre is done like dinner. I don't think you're paying much attention to the adventure market. There are still many adventure games released each year, from classic 2D point-n-click (Runaway) and first person perspective logic puzzlers (Scratches), through to realtime 3D point-n-click (Bone, Sam and Max) and direct character control (Broken Sword 3 and 4). There are many, many more examples of adventure games to fit each type I've just listed that are released each and every year. The adventure market is far from dead; it's just not at the forefront like it used to be when there was only so much a computer game could do, and a limited number of game types reflected that. The media refusing to cover them apart from telling gamers how dead the genre is and how nobody wants to play those types of games anymore doesn't help, either.

Fallout 3 in development. Dragon Age in development. NWN2 due out this fall (and NWN1 still going along). Oblivion selling very well with WoW selling so strongly that all but a handful of the strongest titles and *movies* in history appear to be little more than chump change in comparison, but CRPGs are dead??

I don't think so.
Are you arguing the point of number of CRPG releases or the sales numbers for WoW here? I'm taking it as both, and I can't really compete with WoW - what can? Based strictly on the number of commercial titles released to retail each year though, by this measure the adventure genre is very much more alive than the CRPG.

If technoogical progression is the yardstick through which you define your genre of games, the only thing we have in common now with 1980s to mid 90s games is Civilization and Doom. Really, that's about it. I'm curious where this is coming from, when all of your example groups are divided by types of gameplay rather than technology. Were you bringing up a new point with this and, if so, could you elaborate?