Gatt9 wrote...
XxTaLoNxX wrote...
Age of Decadence and Dead State. Both are "classic" RPGs that were
put out this year by the Indy scene. The graphics are on par with PS/PS2
graphics, which is still by today's standards... decent. But the gameplay,
environment, and story are the most important qualities in games like those and
within a few minutes you will be immersed in the games, by the end you will
feel good about spending your time on those games.
This guy know what he's talking about. ^
sorry OP, those days are long dead gone
you have to take into account, that in order for developers to amass profits in
these days of they have to catter to the lowest common denominator, they don't
care about creating games, they care about marketing and profits,
period
Actually, what the problem is, is that publishers control the
industry and all they care about are blockbusters, things to wow the
shareholders with. They aren't interested in a game that sells
well, only a game that sells like Starcraft.
That's why we get so many repetitive games that are all too similiar,
because suits think that's all that'll sell and all that's worth making.
It is possible to make money making other things, *especially* with
digital distribution. Stardock made a very decent amount of money,
so did Mount & Blade, and Minecraft.
It's ok though, we're headed to a market crash. The publishers are
pushing the same few games over and over, each selling less units due to
gamer fatigue caused by the same few games, making publisher nervous and
so they release even more games in the same few genres that historically sold
the best on average (Meaning a even a crappy game sells enough units to make
some profit.)
I've been talking with a few insiders, developers, artists,
engineers, they're all of the same opinion, it's just the solution
that varies. Digital distribution is seen as the saving grace though.
Mrcrusty, you won't make any progress in convincing wowpwnslol that anything
Bethesda has put out are indeed RPGs. You know and I know that Elder
Scrolls/Fallout are RPGs, so just move on knowing that you are right.
Nothing can be gained from any further discussion on that topic
I can go buy a copy of Candy Land, put it in a Monopoly box, but no
matter what the box says and what I tell you, Candy Land is still not
monopoly.
Character Based Skill and Defined Characters are the fundamental basis of an
RPG, Bethseda's games fail at it. They are what their type of
gameplay makes them, Adventure game and Shooter, despite what the
box and the incredibly egotistical developers tell you. Bethseda does not
make RPGs, they make games for people who hate RPGs but for some odd
reason want to claim they play them.
Sorry, but you seem to contradict yourself when making a statement that,
"Character Based Skill and Defined Characters are the fundamental basis of
an RPG", to which I completely agree, but you cannot decide what entails
the RPG genre as a whole in today’s gaming realm. While I would not put Fallout
3 in the same context as an RPG as Origins (or the better RPGs by
Bioware), it nevertheless plays like an RPG, even going by what I quoted as
your claim. You have stats, you build your character along a certain path,
one can change their personality among other NPCs as well as change the end run
of the game by choices made. And NPCs can like or dislike you under your chosen
persona and with the choices one makes. Just because it has shooter
elements in it, doesn't disqualify it being an RPG, if only by your definition,
that is simply opinion, nothing more.
Also, saying the Bethesda makes games for those who hate RPGs is just
nothing more than a sweeping generalization, when there are those who are
getting what they feel are RPG elements from the game.. You, me, nor anyone else
can decide what is an RPG for someone who may experience some role-playing
effect from games like Fallout. IF you can develop your character, stats, etc
and play a story, in which the PC has an impact, then that is role-playing. Not
all RPGs have to be wizards and warriors, swords and magic staves with medieval lore, that is
what I get from the really strict hardcore RPGers bent on it having to be along
the D&D theme. I am flexible to a point and I am borderline hardcore, but
stories can be created and bend to different timelines, whether futuristic,
contemporary or lore of times gone by, and doesn’t have to stick with some standard
of game play style.
RPGs have changed because the technology to engage in RPG
gaming has ramped up, and most have moved towards that bend and away from the
old table top D&D type game play. If I wanted define an RPG along your
lines, then I would say those old D&D days are the true RPGs, simply
because having a PC and graphical experience is very limiting to what an RPG
can truly be, and I played those back in the mid 70s to early 80s. I even
played them on old DOS system with co-workers on the company internet messaging
system using simple text to play out the games. When I started getting into PC gaming
in the mid 80s, I changed, but a few of my friends didn’t as they felt it wasn’t
the same and that the genre was being dumbed down. It is no different than what
you are expressing here.
Bottom line, there are limits, like DA2 certainly isn’t an
RPG in my books, but I would consider Fallout to be an RPG in spite of its
limitations to the true form. But I don’t get to decide how others get role
playing elements from a game. We can debate the pros and cons of certain games,
but no one can clearly define an RPG, while they all agree that an RPG can be
graphical and computerized despite it being gimped in imagination and immersion
with technology.
Modifié par Tommy6860, 13 avril 2011 - 01:06 .
Retour en haut
