Any hope for RPG's ?

[Irridium]

Threads like this don't usually do well because people don't see the satire/sarcasm.

That being said, RPG's these days aren't really RPG's. The term has been morphed so much and plastered on everything it could mean anything.

Pro-tip: Just because your game has stats, does not make it an RPG. At all.

 

[Zhukov]

Took the words right out of my mouth. There is an extremely noisy minority at work here.

For example, take a moment to observe all those people claiming that Bioware ruined Mass Effect forever with the changes in the sequel.

Now compare the sales figures and reviews of ME1 and ME2.

Yeah.

Yeah, because more popular means a better game, every time, right? For that matter, American Idol and similar shows in other countries are much much better than, say, Firefly, right? I mean just look at the viewing figures, they don't lie! And Twilight is so much better a film than Let the Right One In, after all the ticket takings tell the whole story, right? And, well, Justin Bieber...
Remember, the vast majority of people don't have taste. Expanding anything niche to a larger audience will inevitably mean at least a little dumbing down.

I say to you the same thing I said to the other guy:

"You are missing my point. I am not saying that ME1 is better then ME2 based on reviews and sales. That would be like saying the Twilight movies are better then Black Swan because they sold more tickets.

The OP was complaining about all the people complaining (ohh irony) about the new RPG releases.
I was pointing out that for every person whining on an internet forum, there are ten people having a good time playing the game.

That is all."

 

[hem dazon 90]

2) No railroading of any kind. I should have complete freedom to tackle only the challenges I want to face, and defeat those challenges in an almost infinite variety of ways. The computer should adjust to whatever strategy I choose to use. Oh, and adjust the rest of the world to show the consequence of whatever choice I made.

It's an RPG. Isn't solving problems your way the point?

 

[Kortney]

Every single facet of human society contains an subsect of whiners

Unfortunately yes. But the sub sect of whiners about Fallout are much louder than the sub sect of whiners who prefer cars without power steering.

why is this particular group any different?

They aren't. I never said they were. All whiners who harp on about how elements of the past were better annoys me.

Particularly when they are complaining in an environment that might actually help them. Their complaints might persuade developers to choose one decision over another (just as it works against them). These complaints actually do something, unlike your case study.

Sorry, but the gaming industry is just as likely to bring back top down turned based triple A titles as the movie industry is likely to bring back silent films. Both ain't gonna happen friendo. Why? $$$.

 

[Spectrum_Prez]

Thats your definition I guess, though an RPG was once about roleplaying but that doesn't seem to matter as a definition anymore.

That's exactly my point: the "role-playing" part of RPGs was always so poorly defined that it didn't ever have one coherent concept or gameplay goal attached to it.

Let me ask you, what is role-playing? Is it building your own character in a game? Is it trying to step into the shoes of a preset character? Is it trying to change the personality of a preset character over the course of a game? Is it trying to mold the character after you, the gamer? Is it trying to adopt a personality that is opposed to your natural inclinations?

That's one set of problems. Here's another: is your 'role' in gameplay function more important or your 'role' as a personality type? In other words, if you are a lawful evil rogue, is the rogue part more important, or the lawful evil?

If you have very strict answers for these questions, you start ending up with very obvious RPGs not fitting your new definition. Diablo has virtually no personality development, does that mean it isn't an RPG? JRPGs (and many WRPGs) don't let you create your own character, so are they now not RPGs?

What I'm getting at is that saying "RPGs are centrally about role-playing" is a completely useless cliche that doesn't define the genre and doesn't help us push gaming innovation in good directions. Definitions are never right or wrong, they are only ever more or less useful.

So coming back around, I'm saying that Bioware games have always been half-adventure games because they readily accepted the 'RPG' label but were more concerned with story than with any other aspect of the gameplay experience. Eventually, Bioware found that classicaly 'RPG'ish mechanics were holding them back and so they ditched a few. It's an obvious evolution, not a revolution, and certainly some type of betrayal.

 

[kingcom]

Every single facet of human society contains an subsect of whiners

Unfortunately yes. But the sub sect of whiners about Fallout are much louder than the sub sect of whiners who prefer cars without power steering.

why is this particular group any different?

They aren't. I never said they were. All whiners who harp on about how elements of the past were better annoys me.

Particularly when they are complaining in an environment that might actually help them. Their complaints might persuade developers to choose one decision over another (just as it works against them). These complaints actually do something, unlike your case study.

Sorry, but the gaming industry is just as likely to bring back top down turned based triple A titles as the movie industry is likely to bring back silent films. Both ain't gonna happen friendo. Why? $$$.

Someone JUST LINKED ME two examples of the game, probably from the result of people talking about the idea.

 

[Kortney]

Every single facet of human society contains an subsect of whiners

Unfortunately yes. But the sub sect of whiners about Fallout are much louder than the sub sect of whiners who prefer cars without power steering.

why is this particular group any different?

They aren't. I never said they were. All whiners who harp on about how elements of the past were better annoys me.

Particularly when they are complaining in an environment that might actually help them. Their complaints might persuade developers to choose one decision over another (just as it works against them). These complaints actually do something, unlike your case study.

Sorry, but the gaming industry is just as likely to bring back top down turned based triple A titles as the movie industry is likely to bring back silent films. Both ain't gonna happen friendo. Why? $$$.

Someone JUST LINKED ME two examples of the game, probably from the result of people talking about the idea.

And someone could JUST LINKED ME two examples of modern day silent films too. Doesn't change the fact both are being made to please a niche market and will never see serious financial success.

 

[mireko]

I am impressed that everybody is playing along with the joke by acting like the OP was serious.

[sub]I mean, you are doing that, right?[/sub]

 

[conflictofinterests]

I've been reading the forums at a variety of gaming sites every time a new, big budget RPG comes it. Every time, it gets slammed, usually before the trailer even comes out. Reading through the posts, it seems that the RPG community has a few simple requests in a game that the current producers illogically refuse to meet.

1) It has to have turn based combat. Anything even close to "twitch" is a travesty. Oh, but the combat should be so fun I can do it for hours at a time and not feel bored or like I'm grinding.

2) No railroading of any kind. I should have complete freedom to tackle only the challenges I want to face, and defeat those challenges in an almost infinite variety of ways. The computer should adjust to whatever strategy I choose to use. Oh, and adjust the rest of the world to show the consequence of whatever choice I made.

3)Despite that, the game should have an amazing story, as funny as Terry Pratchet, as exciting and original as Jim Butcher and as epic as JRR Tolkien. And that story should flow through the main quest and every side quest, each also being totally original, logical and fit the setting like a glove. Completely voice acted of course.

Yet do they listen to us? No! They keep making lousy game that do NONE of the above! Damn money grubbing video game industry! They'll never get it right!

SQUEE, Jim Butcher is my favorite writer!

Anyways, as long as the games don't make me angry, I'm generally perfectly content, if not happy with them. Games make me angry when I can't complete a task before the demerit (death scene, or whatever else it may be) of not completing the task this time around drives me up the wall. While I do succumb to the occasional "Gosh, it sure would be nifty if I could break down this lattice between me and my beloved shiny object with my phallic compensation sword," and "Gosh, it sure would be nifty if I could talk the demons to death as opposed to bashing their heads in," I'm perfectly content to leave those in the "Gosh, it sure would be nifty" format as opposed to "If they don't do this, I will be very angry" format.

Edit: Also, "Gosh, it sure would be nifty if my game didn't consistently crash every time I did this thing I ought to be able to do"

 

[infohippie]

I say to you the same thing I said to the other guy:

"You are missing my point. I am not saying that ME1 is better then ME2 based on reviews and sales. That would be like saying the Twilight movies are better then Black Swan because they sold more tickets.

The OP was complaining about all the people complaining (ohh irony) about the new RPG releases.
I was pointing out that for every person whining on an internet forum, there are ten people having a good time playing the game.

That is all."

I see what you're saying here, and you have a point. I just feel that since the ten already have a lot of games made for their preferences, and the one does not, it's perfectly fine for them to complain about the changes that brought in the ten in the first place.

 

[kingcom]

And someone could JUST LINKED ME two examples of modern day silent films too. Doesn't change the fact both are being made to please a niche market and will never see serious financial success.

I don't really care if it makes financial success or not, I just want to play a game I can enjoy. Just like everyone.

 

[Kortney]

And someone could JUST LINKED ME two examples of modern day silent films too. Doesn't change the fact both are being made to please a niche market and will never see serious financial success.

I don't really care if it makes financial success or not, I just want to play a game I can enjoy. Just like everyone.

I have no problem if games don't become a financial success and if people want to play top down turn based RPG; good on them! I really don't care.

What I do care about is when they jump on forums and start whining and insulting companies like Bethesda who dare to do something different and more modern. That is what I have a problem with.

 

[kingcom]

Let me ask you, what is role-playing? Is it building your own character in a game? Is it trying to step into the shoes of a preset character? Is it trying to change the personality of a preset character over the course of a game? Is it trying to mold the character after you, the gamer? Is it trying to adopt a personality that is opposed to your natural inclinations?

Im going to go with the Table Top roleplaying definition and say yes to all of the above. It is playing a role, and taking actions and decisions to support and play out that role.

That's one set of problems. Here's another: is your 'role' in gameplay function more important or your 'role' as a personality type? In other words, if you are a lawful evil rogue, is the rogue part more important, or the lawful evil?

Im assuming your talking about dungeons and dragons, in that case, rogue is simply a term for a set of skills and advancements (not a personality), lawful evil is a generised description of your morality, morality in and of itself is somethingprofoundly complex. You seem to want to break role into different parts, when in reality it is entirely dependent on the role your playing. A paladin is often a tank but his alignment requires that he step out of his combat role to have his personality type (save an innocent over protecting the party for example)

If you have very strict answers for these questions, you start ending up with very obvious RPGs not fitting your new definition. Diablo has virtually no personality development, does that mean it isn't an RPG? JRPGs (and many WRPGs) don't let you create your own character, so are they now not RPGs?

Diablo is a hack and slash, not an RPG. JRPGs are a massively large category, if they don't let you create a character, do they let you make a in character decision? If so, they are rpgs, if decisions are only out of character, they are not rpgs.

What I'm getting at is that saying "RPGs are centrally about role-playing" is a completely useless cliche that doesn't define the genre and doesn't help us push gaming innovation in good directions. Definitions are never right or wrong, they are only ever more or less useful.

Thats pointless, if I point at an apple and define it as an orange, the definition is wrong. How does having a definiton stop innovation? What stops you from making the game you want? Why are you making a game based upon a definition? I'm a little bit flabbergasped at this statement.

So coming back around, I'm saying that Bioware games have always been half-adventure games because they readily accepted the 'RPG' label but were more concerned with story than with any other aspect of the gameplay experience. Eventually, Bioware found that classicaly 'RPG'ish mechanics were holding them back and so they ditched a few. It's an obvious evolution, not a revolution, and certainly some type of betrayal.

Thats not adventure, running around in Baldurs Gate and overcoming the kobolds using the combat system only to then be approached by the captain of the guard you've been ordered to hunt down and kill who gives you a riddle. Solving it gives you the option to take him alive and allow him to redeem himself, disconnecting him from his cursed weapon. RPGs should be about that kind of story driven gameplay. I don't see how story drive gameplay makes it an Adventure game. Adventure games are very much about interactive stories but your role is rarely if ever entered into the equation, Bioware's games have almost always been character driven. Though Adventure in itself has always been the broadest of definitions anyway that practically anything can be put into it if you can justify the word 'explore' in relation to the game.

 

[linkvegeta]

I've been reading the forums at a variety of gaming sites every time a new, big budget RPG comes it. Every time, it gets slammed, usually before the trailer even comes out. Reading through the posts, it seems that the RPG community has a few simple requests in a game that the current producers illogically refuse to meet.

1) It has to have turn based combat. Anything even close to "twitch" is a travesty. Oh, but the combat should be so fun I can do it for hours at a time and not feel bored or like I'm grinding.

2) No railroading of any kind. I should have complete freedom to tackle only the challenges I want to face, and defeat those challenges in an almost infinite variety of ways. The computer should adjust to whatever strategy I choose to use. Oh, and adjust the rest of the world to show the consequence of whatever choice I made.

3)Despite that, the game should have an amazing story, as funny as Terry Pratchet, as exciting and original as Jim Butcher and as epic as JRR Tolkien. And that story should flow through the main quest and every side quest, each also being totally original, logical and fit the setting like a glove. Completely voice acted of course.

Yet do they listen to us? No! They keep making lousy game that do NONE of the above! Damn money grubbing video game industry! They'll never get it right!

I agree, today quality RPG's like that are very rare, the last one I played like that was Lost odyssey for xbox 360 and have not seen one like that since. I seems like a dying breed in a world over populated in mediocre FPS games, movie games and other crap. I miss the days.....

 

[kingcom]

And someone could JUST LINKED ME two examples of modern day silent films too. Doesn't change the fact both are being made to please a niche market and will never see serious financial success.

I don't really care if it makes financial success or not, I just want to play a game I can enjoy. Just like everyone.

I have no problem if games don't become a financial success and if people want to play top down turn based RPG; good on them! I really don't care.

What I do care about is when they jump on forums and start whining and insulting companies like Bethesda who dare to do something different and more modern. That is what I have a problem with.

Or when Bethesda fans start going on other peoples forums and tell them they're are wrong for liking their original games.

I've been reading the forums at a variety of gaming sites every time a new, big budget RPG comes it. Every time, it gets slammed, usually before the trailer even comes out. Reading through the posts, it seems that the RPG community has a few simple requests in a game that the current producers illogically refuse to meet.

1) It has to have turn based combat. Anything even close to "twitch" is a travesty. Oh, but the combat should be so fun I can do it for hours at a time and not feel bored or like I'm grinding.

2) No railroading of any kind. I should have complete freedom to tackle only the challenges I want to face, and defeat those challenges in an almost infinite variety of ways. The computer should adjust to whatever strategy I choose to use. Oh, and adjust the rest of the world to show the consequence of whatever choice I made.

3)Despite that, the game should have an amazing story, as funny as Terry Pratchet, as exciting and original as Jim Butcher and as epic as JRR Tolkien. And that story should flow through the main quest and every side quest, each also being totally original, logical and fit the setting like a glove. Completely voice acted of course.

Yet do they listen to us? No! They keep making lousy game that do NONE of the above! Damn money grubbing video game industry! They'll never get it right!

Yea, they shot themselves in the foot by actually pulling this stuff off in the past.

 

[Kortney]

And someone could JUST LINKED ME two examples of modern day silent films too. Doesn't change the fact both are being made to please a niche market and will never see serious financial success.

I don't really care if it makes financial success or not, I just want to play a game I can enjoy. Just like everyone.

I have no problem if games don't become a financial success and if people want to play top down turn based RPG; good on them! I really don't care.

What I do care about is when they jump on forums and start whining and insulting companies like Bethesda who dare to do something different and more modern. That is what I have a problem with.

Or when Bethesda fans start going on other peoples forums and tell them they're are wrong for liking their original games.

People aren't wrong for liking the original games, they are wrong for suggesting that Bethesda hasn't helped the series. Fallout 3 and New Vegas are amazing games and Bethesda deserve praise for managing to keep Fallout alive. Personally, I adore all the Fallout games.

Bethesda realised that if Fallout was to be kept alive and carry on the tradition of high selling Fallout games, something had to change. The FPS move was a move that brought in millions of more dollars and managed to keep the franchise open. If Fallout 3 was made in 2008 as a top down turn based game, they would of barely scraped together a profit.

 

[Spectrum_Prez]

Diablo is a hack and slash, not an RPG. JRPGs are a massively large category, if they don't let you create a character, do they let you make a in character decision? If so, they are rpgs, if decisions are only out of character, they are not rpgs.

This is basically the heart of my problem with your approach to RPGs. Diablo 2 is widely recognized as one of the definitive RPGs of the last decade, but according to your definition, it isn't an RPG. At the same time, you're telling me that some JRPGs aren't RPGs. What's going on here?

What I'm saying is that your 'definition' of an RPG isn't actually a definition of an RPG. It's a definition of a specific type of RPG that is only one amongst many. Your ideal of role-playing is only one among many ideals of role-playing. Your idea of what should be in an RPG is neither authoritative nor descriptive of the way the RPG genre has developed. And most importantly, I don't think this is a new thing, I think this divergence into different 'types' of RPGs has been going on for at least a decade.

It's at a point now where the RPG label cobbles together way too much stuff and either needs to be dropped or accepted purely as an umbrella phrase. The reason I say it stifles innovation is because it generates a lot of grief over the question of whether something is true to its genre or not. Since there is no definitive RPG genre, there is no cause for grief.

 

[kingcom]

And someone could JUST LINKED ME two examples of modern day silent films too. Doesn't change the fact both are being made to please a niche market and will never see serious financial success.

I don't really care if it makes financial success or not, I just want to play a game I can enjoy. Just like everyone.

I have no problem if games don't become a financial success and if people want to play top down turn based RPG; good on them! I really don't care.

What I do care about is when they jump on forums and start whining and insulting companies like Bethesda who dare to do something different and more modern. That is what I have a problem with.

Or when Bethesda fans start going on other peoples forums and tell them they're are wrong for liking their original games.

People aren't wrong for liking the original games, they are wrong for suggesting that Bethesda hasn't helped the series. Fallout 3 and New Vegas are amazing games and Bethesda deserve praise for managing to keep Fallout alive. Personally, I adore all the Fallout games.

Bethesda realised that if Fallout was to be kept alive and carry on the tradition of high selling Fallout games, something had to change. The FPS move was a move that brought in millions of more dollars and managed to keep the franchise open. If Fallout 3 was made in 2008 as a top down turn based game, they would of barely scraped together a profit.

Thats your opinion, others disagree with it, many would have preferred the memory of what it was to be left intact than for people to think of the games only as what bethesda made out of them.

 

[kingcom]

This is basically the heart of my problem with your approach to RPGs. Diablo 2 is widely recognized as one of the definitive RPGs of the last decade, but according to your definition, it isn't an RPG. At the same time, you're telling me that some JRPGs aren't RPGs. What's going on here?

Im saying JRPGS are a seperate category altogether and I don't think their current name is entirely approapriate. I don't think Diablo 2 is an RPG despite what it is 'widely recognized' as.

What I'm saying is that your 'definition' of an RPG isn't actually a definition of an RPG. It's a definition of a specific type of RPG that is only one amongst many. Your ideal of role-playing is only one among many ideals of role-playing. Your idea of what should be in an RPG is neither authoritative nor descriptive of the way the RPG genre has developed. And most importantly, I don't think this is a new thing, I think this divergence into different 'types' of RPGs has been going on for at least a decade.

I disagree but I don't want to argue how rpgs have developed since the 70s.

It's at a point now where the RPG label cobbles together way too much stuff and either needs to be dropped or accepted purely as an umbrella phrase. The reason I say it stifles innovation is because it generates a lot of grief over the question of whether something is true to its genre or not. Since there is no definitive RPG genre, there is no cause for grief.

Why does it matter if something is true to its genre or not?

 

[Kortney]

And someone could JUST LINKED ME two examples of modern day silent films too. Doesn't change the fact both are being made to please a niche market and will never see serious financial success.

I don't really care if it makes financial success or not, I just want to play a game I can enjoy. Just like everyone.

I have no problem if games don't become a financial success and if people want to play top down turn based RPG; good on them! I really don't care.

What I do care about is when they jump on forums and start whining and insulting companies like Bethesda who dare to do something different and more modern. That is what I have a problem with.

Or when Bethesda fans start going on other peoples forums and tell them they're are wrong for liking their original games.

People aren't wrong for liking the original games, they are wrong for suggesting that Bethesda hasn't helped the series. Fallout 3 and New Vegas are amazing games and Bethesda deserve praise for managing to keep Fallout alive. Personally, I adore all the Fallout games.

Bethesda realised that if Fallout was to be kept alive and carry on the tradition of high selling Fallout games, something had to change. The FPS move was a move that brought in millions of more dollars and managed to keep the franchise open. If Fallout 3 was made in 2008 as a top down turn based game, they would of barely scraped together a profit.

Thats your opinion, others disagree with it, many would have preferred the memory of what it was to be left intact than for people to think of the games only as what bethesda made out of them.

It's not my opinion though, that's the thing. It's a fact. I'm telling you right now if Fallout 3 was top down and turned based it wouldn't of financed a sequel, or done any good for Bethesda nor the Fallout series.

I was a huge fan of the first two games, but I realise that the industry must change. This isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing. In the future, if Fallout continues - the games will change from the way Bethesda has made them. Change is vital in entertainment because it is imperative companies match the demands of the majority. And sure, you can sit there and say "I don't care about financial success!" well without financial success, there is no video game. You can't take it out on Bethesda because you have archaic views.

If you want to blame someone, blame the people who sold the rights off to Bethesda. Bethesda is the only reason that series is alive.