477 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Gatt9 wrote...

That's narrative technique.  Mechanics define genres,  not stories,  not narrative techniques.  No genre is defined by narrative technique.  Not in movies,  not in TV,  not in books.  None of them are Comedy just because someone told a joke,  they're comedy because the entire focus of the presentation is meant to garner laughs.  A game is not an RPG just because it had a story with branches,  it's an RPG because it has RPG mechanics.

What is so hard about RPG's requiring RPG mechanics?  As I said before,  we can't demand a Third-person FPS,  we can't demand a Real-time-turn-based Strategy,  why do people keep insisting a Shooter is an RPG?

It's blindingly obvious that the problem is that people want a Shooter or an Adventure game with a narrative and interaction,  so why don't people go demand the makers of those games put them in,  instead of demanding that RPG makers start making Shooters and Adventure games?

Funnily enough, this is where games like Bioshock and Assassin's Creed fall under. 2K and Ubisoft don't market their games as RPGs.

I've already said my piece on the RPG aspect so I'm not interested in rehashing that.

I will say this though, RPGs are evolving - in the truest sense of the word. Make of that what you will.

gamer_girl wrote...

It all comes down to one factor - money. If they were to ignore what the mass wants to focus on a small
group of fans (meaning not every fan wants the same things), they'd likely lose money or simply make back the money they spent to make the game in the first place. In a perfect world where money wasn't the first
priority of businesses, then of course they'd focus on the existing fans. To say this in simple terms: if people don't like the RPGs big game companies are making now, don't play 'em. That simple. You're more likely to find what you want with an indie company. Unless you're payin' for the production and don't want to make your money back, it's not exactly fair to expect something to be catered to one small group of people. People aim to have their products appeal to the masses. That simple.

Edit:
So in essence what I'm trying to say is no, RPGs aren't dying. What is I guess "dying" is appreciation for games that may not be perfect, but still have many amazing qualities as well. A common trend now is overanalytical people going straight to the negatives. While profit is the number one objective, the second thing on devs' minds is their fans.

I've seen J E Sawyer (New Vegas lead designer) claim something similar on his formspring. He goes on to say that a lot of the issues are publisher related. There is nothing limiting a developer from making that turn based isometric game RPG fans are hankering for. Except for money. No publisher would fund it. Likely not because it would lose money, but because it wouldn't make enough. Not many publishers want to spend $5-10 million over a 3 year period on a game that brings back $15 million. They want to spend $20-30 million over a 2 year period to make $50-100 million.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 09 août 2011 - 03:48 .

[In Exile]

mrcrusty wrote...
I've seen J E Sawyer (New Vegas lead designer) claim something similar on his formspring. He goes on to say that a lot of the issues are publisher related. There is nothing limiting a developer from making that turn based isometric game RPG fans are hankering for. Except for money. No publisher would fund it. Likely not because it would lose money, but because it wouldn't make enough. Not many publishers want to spend $5-10 million over a 3 year period on a game that brings back $15 million. They want to spend $20-30 million over a 2 year period to make $50-100 million.

Which is a shame, because I really love turn-based combat. 

But it always come back to opportunity cost. It's (IMO) the issue with DA:O versus DA2. If RPG fans were dedicated enough to organize and raise the capital for an RPG game as a 'group' publisher maybe you'd start to see AAA development of turn-based RPGs, but otherwise we're SOL. 

[gamer_girl]

mrcrusty wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

It all comes down to one factor - money. If they were to ignore what the mass wants to focus on a small
group of fans (meaning not every fan wants the same things), they'd likely lose money or simply make back the money they spent to make the game in the first place. In a perfect world where money wasn't the first
priority of businesses, then of course they'd focus on the existing fans. To say this in simple terms: if people don't like the RPGs big game companies are making now, don't play 'em. That simple. You're more likely to find what you want with an indie company. Unless you're payin' for the production and don't want to make your money back, it's not exactly fair to expect something to be catered to one small group of people. People aim to have their products appeal to the masses. That simple.

Edit:
So in essence what I'm trying to say is no, RPGs aren't dying. What is I guess "dying" is appreciation for games that may not be perfect, but still have many amazing qualities as well. A common trend now is overanalytical people going straight to the negatives. While profit is the number one objective, the second thing on devs' minds is their fans.

I've seen J E Sawyer (New Vegas lead designer) claim something similar on his formspring. He goes on to say that a lot of the issues are publisher related. There is nothing limiting a developer from making that turn based isometric game RPG fans are hankering for. Except for money. No publisher would fund it. Likely not because it would lose money, but because it wouldn't make enough. Not many publishers want to spend $5-10 million over a 3 year period on a game that brings back $15 million. They want to spend $20-30 million over a 2 year period to make $50-100 million.

That's exactly it. People sure love to ask "why do they keep targetting the masses instead of poor old me?", but they seem to be oblivious to the very obvious answer.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

In Exile wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...
I've seen J E Sawyer (New Vegas lead designer) claim something similar on his formspring. He goes on to say that a lot of the issues are publisher related. There is nothing limiting a developer from making that turn based isometric game RPG fans are hankering for. Except for money. No publisher would fund it. Likely not because it would lose money, but because it wouldn't make enough. Not many publishers want to spend $5-10 million over a 3 year period on a game that brings back $15 million. They want to spend $20-30 million over a 2 year period to make $50-100 million.

Which is a shame, because I really love turn-based combat. 

But it always come back to opportunity cost. It's (IMO) the issue with DA:O versus DA2. If RPG fans were dedicated enough to organize and raise the capital for an RPG game as a 'group' publisher maybe you'd start to see AAA development of turn-based RPGs, but otherwise we're SOL. 

Double Bear and Iron Tower.

One may just be one dude and his wife and the other may be the face of RPGCodex, but they actually do have interesting turn based projects that have a chance of not being vapourware.

I can't but laugh a little though. In that other thread in the DA2 section, you stated that you hated abstraction as it works as a barrier to RP. Whereas a turn based combat system by it's definition is a massive form of abstraction.

gamer_girl wrote...

That's exactly it. People sure love to ask "why do they keep targetting the masses instead of poor old me?", but they seem to be oblivious to the very obvious answer.

I don't think people are really confused as to why it's happening, they just happen to really dislike it as it means the games they are no longer being made. Also, in the case of say, DA 2 it can backfire quite bad. The profits made from the game were almost exclusively because of cost reduction and not an increase in sales or consumer base (which was effectively halved from Origins).

Modifié par mrcrusty, 09 août 2011 - 04:31 .

[erynnar]

Gatt9 wrote...

DxWill10 wrote...

This part from the article made me laugh: "We’re not saying one is better than the other, but..."

You didn't just spend the entire article explaining why you thought the cumbersome inventroy system in ME1 was superior to the smooth compelling flawless gameplay of ME2?

I loved ME1. I loved ME2 better.

ME2 was absolutely better received as a whole than ME1 was. ME2 was rated higher than ME1 by every major video game rating corporation. Regardless of what anyone think, the facts speak for themselves.
ME2 was without a doubt amazingly well received, more so than ME1. Personally, I hope ME3 is the exact same as ME2, with some customization elements from ME1. Regardless, ME3 will be the best of the series.

Also, RPGs are evolving obviously, by definition. Just because you don't like the evolution doesn't mean it isn't evolution

DA2 got several perfect scores,  and a number of good reviews,  that didn't make it a great game.  It made it obvious that the gaming press is reviewing advertiser's dollars,  not games.  Which pretty much describes what happened with ME2 considering it's AI was surpassed over 10 years ago.

Genre shifting isn't evolution.  Making a TPS and putting "RPG" on the box doesn't change RPG's,  it's just mislabelling the TPS.  Evolution would be progressing the genre more fully to the thing it attempts to emulate,  a PnP RPG. 

Ah, so the ability to alter the games story based on what you do is what makes an RPG for you? Then Bioshock Infininte fits your bill. The last 15 minute game play teaser showed two branching spots. In one you could choose to scavenge for more resources, or continue straight to your objective, the other involved saving a man from a lynch mob or letting him die. Not only that, but the way you treat your female companion (Elizabeth I think) and her Guardian/Jealous Ex-boyfriend, Songbird, dictates how the story goes.

The same is true of Dishonored where the story changes depending on how much chaos you leave in your wake, and Prey 2 in which your moral choices dictate how the world reacts to you. X-men destiny also has a branching story dependant on you decisions, same with Kingdoms of Amular, Skyrim, Deus Ex, and X-com.

That's narrative technique.  Mechanics define genres,  not stories,  not narrative techniques.  No genre is defined by narrative technique.  Not in movies,  not in TV,  not in books.  None of them are Comedy just because someone told a joke,  they're comedy because the entire focus of the presentation is meant to garner laughs.  A game is not an RPG just because it had a story with branches,  it's an RPG because it has RPG mechanics.

What is so hard about RPG's requiring RPG mechanics?  As I said before,  we can't demand a Third-person FPS,  we can't demand a Real-time-turn-based Strategy,  why do people keep insisting a Shooter is an RPG?

It's blindingly obvious that the problem is that people want a Shooter or an Adventure game with a narrative and interaction,  so why don't people go demand the makers of those games put them in,  instead of demanding that RPG makers start making Shooters and Adventure games?

This last part especially. If people want their shooters and Adventures, or hack n' slash games with more narrative and interaction, go demand it from the people who make them. Then maybe BioWare can stop trying for a shiny new audience that doesnt' play RPGs, and focus on the groups that do.

[Savber100]

mrcrusty wrote...

In Exile wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...
I've seen J E Sawyer (New Vegas lead designer) claim something similar on his formspring. He goes on to say that a lot of the issues are publisher related. There is nothing limiting a developer from making that turn based isometric game RPG fans are hankering for. Except for money. No publisher would fund it. Likely not because it would lose money, but because it wouldn't make enough. Not many publishers want to spend $5-10 million over a 3 year period on a game that brings back $15 million. They want to spend $20-30 million over a 2 year period to make $50-100 million.

Which is a shame, because I really love turn-based combat. 

But it always come back to opportunity cost. It's (IMO) the issue with DA:O versus DA2. If RPG fans were dedicated enough to organize and raise the capital for an RPG game as a 'group' publisher maybe you'd start to see AAA development of turn-based RPGs, but otherwise we're SOL. 

Double Bear and Iron Tower.

One may just be one dude and his wife and the other may be the face of RPGCodex, but they actually do have interesting turn based projects that have a chance of not being vapourware.

I can't but laugh a little though. In that other thread in the DA2 section, you stated that you hated abstraction as it works as a barrier to RP. Whereas a turn based combat system by it's definition is a massive form of abstraction.

Hell yeah... I've been waiting for Dead State and Age of Decadance ever since they announced it. 

[In Exile]

mrcrusty wrote...
Double Bear and Iron Tower.

One may just be one dude and his wife and the other may be the face of RPGCodex, but they actually do have interesting turn based projects that have a chance of not being vapourware.

I'll look into it.

I can't but laugh a little though. In that other thread in the DA2 section, you stated that you hated abstraction as it works as a barrier to RP. Whereas a turn based combat system by it's definition is a massive form of abstraction.

Why would you say that turn-based combat is an abstraction? It's not any more of an abstraction that having statistics at all, which isn't what I have an issue with (it just bisects the world in a different way, and describes the rules in which things can interact, e.g. it's our law of physics).

What I object to is content you have to imagine - the kind of abstraction where you click [Persuade] and then have to imagine your character doing persuasive things. 

Asking me to imagine that I'm doing mechanical things is a bad abstraction, because it's imagine and not show. Telling me that my character can't act because his turn is up is just... gameplay. Nothing is being hidden from me. It's not like I roll dice to resolve the battle and then get asked to imagine it (e.g. board game based combat). 

Modifié par In Exile, 09 août 2011 - 04:41 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Why would I say that?

Because I was making a humorous comment intended to lighten the mood. I'm not always in "debate mode". Thought the smilie conveyed that well enough.

Guess it didn't. I'll try harder next time.

[SlottsMachine]

Someone With Mass wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Just because a bunch of CoD saturated casual gaming review sites gave it high scores doesn't make it a better game. The Mass Effect franchise, thanks to ME2, is struggling to find out what genre it is. Is it an RPG, or is it a Shooter? Bioware's leaning towards the shooting side, although they leave a few role playing elements. However, some of these roleplaying elements are starting to disappear, and it looks like ME3 will be full GoW clone. That's what they're aiming for unfortunately. As the article pointed out, instead of showing how an RPG can have good RPG elements, story, and combat, they opted out for the cheap way and made it a third person shooter. I enjoy the game, don't get me wrong, but I don't enjoy ME2 as an RPG because it simply isn't. If you consider ME2 an RPG, then you'll have to include AC:2, because it's pretty much the same minus the dialogue system, although AC:2 has better exploration.


-Polite

How about checking ME3 out first before you spew out that RPG elitist crap? Because the bolded part is a flat out lie.

If anything, I belive strongly that ME3 will surpass ME1 with ease in terms of RPG-ness or whatever you want to call it and gameplay.

Haha, no kidding. This thread should have just been named "RPG elitist unite." And Polite Mass Effect 1 &2 are shooter/rpg hybrids and frankly that's why I love them. If ME was just a shooter or just an rpg I would have never played them, both of those genres are boring on there own, but put the best of both together and then we get something worthy of attention.

And with all the talk on this forum about Bioware selling out to the stupid shooter fans, we forget that they are in fact pioneering the action rpg blend. And in doing so they are creating many more fans like myself, of course they'll lose a few snobs along the way, but sooner or later those snobs will have to accept that times are changing or get left behind. Has Bioware perfected this blending yet, no, but I'm not one to bet against them. 

Modifié par GeneralSlotts193, 09 août 2011 - 05:18 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Terror_K wrote...

[snip]

That's a whopping 77% of voters who aren't happy with the direction RPGs are taking lately. Pay attention, BioWare.

Like others have said before I don't understand were the 77% comes from, TK. The question "I want details, depth and customization in my RPGs." constitutes 50% and "The genre is becoming so 'dumbed down' it's going to be ruined!" 27%. However, the poll theme is simply "How do you feel about the recent trend in RPG games?", so the two results cannot be added up, because noting indicates that those who voted for the first question I quoted were unhappy or going to be unhappy.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 09 août 2011 - 05:49 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Oops. Double post.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 09 août 2011 - 05:48 .

[In Exile]

mrcrusty wrote...

Why would I say that?

Because I was making a humorous comment intended to lighten the mood. I'm not always in "debate mode". Thought the smilie conveyed that well enough.

My bad. I jumped right onto debate mode. This is why we need tone indicators. 

Humorously: Or to speak like the Elcor. 

Guess it didn't. I'll try harder next time.

Go for it. 

[In Exile]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Like others have said before I don't understand were the 77% comes from, TK. The question "I want details, depth and customization in my RPGs." constitutes 50% and "The genre is becoming so 'dumbed down' it's going to be ruined!" 27%. However, the poll theme is simply "How do you feel about the recent trend in RPG games?", so the two results cannot be added up, because noting indicates that those who voted for the first question I quoted were unhappy or going to be unhappy.

What makes the statement even worse (the poll Q, not just the analysis) is that it doesn't even say more details, depth and customization. It just asks if you want these features at all. 

[Boiny Bunny]

My 2c:

Development costs for games have dramatically grown over the last 2 decades. They are continuing to do so - as almost every genre must compete on graphics, gameplay, concept, plot, length, etc.

Gamers demand more and more as time goes on. Near enough is not good enough.

Let's be honest. If Bioware decided to make Baldur's Gate 3 - using the Baldur's Gate 2 engine, right now, they could probably make the game in 1 year, and it would be 6 times as large and long as Baldur's Gate 2, could have 40 party members, 12 romance options for every sexual orientation (these are much easier when you don't have to record most of the dialogue), etc.

Would you buy such a title? If you're a long time Bioware fan - probably. But those are far and few between nowadays. Bioware are competing with other RPG companies who have the graphics, the voice acting, the choices, the plot, the 'cinematic' feel. They have to keep up - which means spending MUCH more money and time on each title, which means they need a MUCH broader market (i.e. in the case of Mass Effect, the FPS market, the largest sub-market in the gaming industry).

[DragonRageGT]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
That's as of my vote. That's a minor 27% of voters who aren't happy with the direction RPGs are taking lately. Pay attention, BioWare.

Fixed.
Stop making up "facts", you're about as accurate as Fox News.

I wouldn't know. I refuse to watch Fox News to save my life! I'll stay with the 77% who aren't happy... and I'd say that at least 90% of those haven't played TW2. =P

[didymos1120]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

[snip]

That's a whopping 77% of voters who aren't happy with the direction RPGs are taking lately. Pay attention, BioWare.

Like others have said before I don't understand were the 77% comes from, TK.

It comes from thinking that dishonestly presenting personal bias as fact is acceptable.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

In Exile wrote...

My bad. I jumped right onto debate mode. This is why we need tone indicators. 

Humorously: Or to speak like the Elcor.

Statement: Or like HK-47.

Oh, btw regarding Dead State (Double Bear) and Age of Decadence (Iron Tower), you might want to check out the ITS forums here: http://www.irontower...forum/index.php.

There's info on both games, as well as an AoD combat demo and the RPG discussions can be pretty good reads.

RageGT wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
That's as of my vote. That's a minor 27% of voters who aren't happy with the direction RPGs are taking lately. Pay attention, BioWare.

Fixed.
Stop making up "facts", you're about as accurate as Fox News.

I wouldn't know. I refuse to watch Fox News to save my life! I'll stay with the 77% who aren't happy... and I'd say that at least 90% of those haven't played TW2. =P

The thing is Rage even assuming the validity of a random internet poll coming from a single site, only 27% actually voiced dissatisfaction or the "dumbing down" option. 50% wanted depth but there's no comment on whether they feel as if BioWare (or Bethesda or whatever) games actually have that depth or not.

The 77% figure is misleading to the point of BS... not too dissimilar to Fox News.

edit: I cannot into spelling.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 09 août 2011 - 07:04 .

[In Exile]

mrcrusty wrote...
Statement: Or like HK-47.

Clarification: Would that not still leave us the problem of figuring out intent?

Oh, btw regarding Dead State (Double Bear) and Age of Decadence (Iron Tower), you might want to check out the ITS forums here: http://www.irontower...forum/index.php.

There's info on both games, as well as an AoD combat demo and the RPG discussions can be pretty good reads.

Thanks. I'm going to try the combat demo, to see how the game works. The last turn-based game I played was Eschalon I. Meh RPG, if you ask me, but I didn't mind the combat. 

[naughty99]

I'll gladly take an open-world real time "Action RPG" with a deep game world, lots of layers of gameplay activities, organizations and factions you can join, complex interaction with NPCs, deep economy features, etc., branching quests, etc., over a turn-based RPG on rails.

turn based combat is only a small part of pen-and-paper RPGs.

the essence of those games is that you are playing a role, playing the part of a character and choosing to do whatever the hell you want, playing out the PC's choices and actions however you feel your character would make them.

the narrative of a pen-and-paper RPG develops out of the PC choices and interaction with the NPCs of the world played by the GM.

just because a particular old school game "X" has turn based combat does not make it any closer to what pen-and-paper RPGs are all about.

Considering the limitations of technology, it may not ever be possible to recreate the truly infinite choices open to the pen-and-paper RPG player, where you are only limited by your imagination, but open sandbox games with deep character customization and huge, complex game worlds, whether they are turn-based or real time, come the closest to recapturing that experience.

/also looking forward to Dead State

Modifié par naughty99, 09 août 2011 - 06:37 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

didymos1120 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

[snip]

That's a whopping 77% of voters who aren't happy with the direction RPGs are taking lately. Pay attention, BioWare.

Like others have said before I don't understand were the 77% comes from, TK.

It comes from thinking that dishonestly presenting personal bias as fact is acceptable.

Please, don't go that route.

[didymos1120]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Please, don't go that route.

Why not? Terror openly admitted that it was biased, and didn't see a problem with that:

http://social.biowar...61770/4#8062427
http://social.biowar...61770/5#8062463

And it was intellectually dishonest. 

Modifié par didymos1120, 09 août 2011 - 08:26 .

[Seagloom]

Dying. And since I have no interest in actually discussing this topic today, I will leave it at that.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

SalsaDMA wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

To expect the games to always stay the same is just silly.

End of thread. End of discussion.

But any change is not necesarily a good change.

Something some people seem to forget.

Whatever. That's not the point. And that's YOUR OPINION.

Don't like it, don't buy it, don't playt it, sell it.

Edit: Oh, and just one thing I forgot: DEAL WITH IT.

Way to miss a point.

Or are you really of the opinion that "any change is a good change" ?

If so, you need your school money back

No. You missed my point. Things will change in the course of time. Deal with it. Asking for them to stay the same is pointless. If people think they will stay the same for so much time, they're just being delusional. What stands for a good rpg has changed now from what it was years ago, the games themselves have changed. For better or worse that's up to people's interpretations. That doesn't change the fact that it will keep changing. Adapt or die.

Modifié par RyuGuitarFreak, 09 août 2011 - 12:29 .

[SOLID_EVEREST]

Some developers like Obsidian are really at the forefront of truely evolving the RPG genre. Alpha Protocol was one step in the right direction by Obsidian's use of weaving choices into the main storyline really well, and Demon's Souls' gameplay was a huge step in the right direction for any developer trying to make a 3rd person RPG. Although I had issues with the crappy multiplayer, the gameplay was challenging and very fun. Other game companies are giving us the same forumla they were using a long time ago (BioWare and Bethesda come to mind), but with better graphics, less storyline depth, and even worse dialogue. Anyways, I don't really look to BioWare or Bethesda for my RPG fix, but mainly for sidelines games that I will buy just to waste time.

[coldsteelblue]

For a while I wasn't sure what direction the RPG was going to take, you look at the past & you've got, most notably Neverwinter Nights, great game, but slightly stale with the fact you're the 'hero.'
This brings me on to where I'm going, in my opinion the RPG has 3 path's to follow;
1: The Dragon Age: Origins route, sandbox world, well balanced & free on your character's er character, for so long had I wanted to burn a city or village down just for fun & now, I can.
2: The Mass Effect route, you have your base charcter, in this case Shepard but you have choice over said charcter, but they have mostly their own personality.
3: The classic route you are a random person, race/gender, all choice (Like DA:O) but you are the main hero, you can't do particually villainous things but you get a good story anyway.
That's my opinion.