477 réponses à ce sujet

[MacCready]

SOLID_EVEREST wrote...

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.

Who buys games 'just to waste time'? I was under the impression that people bought games that were fun and very much worth their time? 

And I would hardly call Demon's Souls a step in the right direction when you could just as easily play Oblivion, crank the difficulty up to maximum and rarely save. Also, I can't see games that encourage you to smash your face against a monitor through sheer frustration catching on really.

Although admittedly I thought Obsidian's New Vegas was an improvement over Fallout 3.

[Dominus]

RPGs, in the traditionalist sense, are dying. Gameinformer covered something similar to that topic in "The Incredible Shrinking RPG". It discussed that more of the classic-styled RPGs are becoming a better fit in the handheld and independently made gaming market, as it's far easier to budget that type of RPG.

Are RPGs evolving? Well, like with any other genre, certain elements both mechanical and narrative will succeed more than others, and thus continue to be thrust into future projects. Certain ideas are timelessly sucessful, some need to be refined, and some need to be removed. I know it sounds cold, most likely because it is - if you're trying to continually persuade BioWare to move back to the D&D-based game style they were known for, I think it's time to find a different tree to bark up. You can certainly try, though. I understand where the viewpoints are coming from, but I do not agree with most of them...

So many unhappy gamers.

[MacCready]

Well there you go, the traditional RPG isn't dying if it exists on the handheld/indie market, it just isn't in the spotlight anymore (if it ever was).

Besides it's just bad game design to stick to old conventions forever, it would be like if we refused to make games with 3D graphics and only ever created side scrollers.

F*ck gamers, they think they're such an entitled bunch.

[Teddie Sage]

I miss my old traditional turn by turn rpgs... No wonder I play Dragon Quests a lot, these days.

[MacCready]

Teddie Sage wrote...

I miss my old traditional turn by turn rpgs... No wonder I play Dragon Quests a lot, these days.

But what's to miss, they're still making turn based RPG's?

[HTTP 404]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Guys. The Fox News of video game journalism is Kotaku. Come on now.

aint that the truth.  never seen a gaming website with so much negative opinion.

rpg, shooter, rts, tps, etc. they are just labels.  whats the point of arguing labels?  I don't care if mass effect 3 is called a dating sim game, it looks awesome to me.

[Teddie Sage]

MacCready wrote...

Teddie Sage wrote...

I miss my old traditional turn by turn rpgs... No wonder I play Dragon Quests a lot, these days.

But what's to miss, they're still making turn based RPG's?

They're still popular in Japan, but America rarely translate them anymore. We'll still get Atelier Totori this fall, but yeah... This genre is getting harder and harder to get.

[MacCready]

Teddie Sage wrote...

MacCready wrote...

Teddie Sage wrote...

I miss my old traditional turn by turn rpgs... No wonder I play Dragon Quests a lot, these days.

But what's to miss, they're still making turn based RPG's?

They're still popular in Japan, but America rarely translate them anymore. We'll still get Atelier Totori this fall, but yeah... This genre is getting harder and harder to get.

Pish, you still have Final Fantasy 13.....

[Teddie Sage]

FF13 wasn't that fun and appealing to me. I liked the graphics and the sound track, plus some main characters, but I don't see any replay value after 120 hours or so. I prefer old school type jrpgs where I can take my time to think about my strategies. Radiant Historia isn't so bad on that... It reminds me I'll have to finish it after SMT Strange Journey.

[gamer_girl]

MacCready wrote...

F*ck gamers, they think they're such an entitled bunch.

I agree completely. I'd love to see them make games half as good as the ones they so callously complain about.

[SalsaDMA]

Nohvarr wrote...

Well, I'll say the following and leave it alone, because I'm getting tired of seeing the same argument getting started again and again. Let's take a look at what's coming out between now and 2013.

Deus Ex Human Revolution: A game where you can purchase upgrades to your conversation abilities and approch situations in multiple ways just for starters

Skyrim: a game where tha manner in which you play determines how your skills advance.

The Old Republic: we'd be here all day if I tried to list it's RPG creds.

X-men Destiny: moral choices, diablo loot drops, and significant character customization

Diablo 3: nuff said

Mass Effect 3: choice, character/armor/weapon customization etc.

Kingdoms of Amalur: choice, gear, character builds etc

Bioshock infinite: nuff said

X-Com: Choice and gear

Borderlands 2

Dishonored: Builds, Gear and choice

And that is discounting all the games that have significant RPG elements like customization, choice etc. Games like Rage, Batman AC, Prey 2 etc.

In short, are RPG's dying? No

Are RPG's evoloving? Yes

Are they moving in a direction everyone will like? Not always

The good news is that amongst the flood of RPG's coming out you're likely to find something you will enjoy. If not, wait, someone is bound to get around to it eventually.

You listed quite a few games I wouldn't even consider being rpgs. Linear actiongames with visible stats doesn't make a rpg.
It just makes the numbercrunching done more visible to the player. Any game has numbers to crunch, it's part of what is needed for the game to actually work. Displaying those numbers to the player doesn't suddenly turn the game into a rpg...

[SalsaDMA]

Chanegade wrote...

You know I really hate the word "Roll-Playing Game" What exactly is an RPG anyway?

"Roll-playing" and Role-playing" are 2 different things.

Roll-playing is when you are more concnerned about making dice rolls than anything else, and leads to stuff like diablo games.

Role-playing is when you are more concerned about being given the option of taking on the role of a character and given meaningfull choices to make for that character. This leads to games like The Witcher.

[SalsaDMA]

gamer_girl wrote...

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.

And that answer is obviously, that the suits are all trying to eat the same piece of pie, which inevitable leads to most of them starving.

[SalsaDMA]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

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.

And again. Change for the sake of change is borderline inane.

Change due to proper research and building on past experiences to contribute to a better experience is good.
Change just beacuse you can and have a vague idea that maybe it will earn more money like this is stupid. Especially when it's not even building on past experiences or anything, but purely are out of the blue random whims being followed.

[HTTP 404]

SalsaDMA wrote...

And again. Change for the sake of change is borderline inane.

Change due to proper research and building on past experiences to contribute to a better experience is good.
Change just beacuse you can and have a vague idea that maybe it will earn more money like this is stupid. Especially when it's not even building on past experiences or anything, but purely are out of the blue random whims being followed.

out of the blue?  vague idea? thats bs.  game developers don't just draw ideas out of a hat...your point of view is just too black and white and generalized hand sweeping.  game deveoping is much more complex and gray than that. 

[KenKenpachi]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

All change is good.

... Not sure if Serrious?

[gamer_girl]

SalsaDMA wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

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.

And that answer is obviously, that the suits are all trying to eat the same piece of pie, which inevitable leads to most of them starving.

Well unless you're gonna front the money to produce a game, you should just deal with it. That's the way the world works and it 'aint gonna change.

[Eternal Phoenix]

classic RPGs FTW.

I don't have a problem with modern RPGs though but I hope a few classic type RPGs resurface in the future. You know the type right? They have features where you need to eat, drink and sleep to survive. Arx Fatalis is the closest RPG of this era that feels like an old RPG. There were no quests that held you by the hand and everything had to be done by you, from the crafting to the spell casting (drawing the runes on screen via the mouse).

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 09 août 2011 - 05:26 .

[SOLID_EVEREST]

MacCready wrote...

SOLID_EVEREST wrote...

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.

Who buys games 'just to waste time'? I was under the impression that people bought games that were fun and very much worth their time? 

And I would hardly call Demon's Souls a step in the right direction when you could just as easily play Oblivion, crank the difficulty up to maximum and rarely save. Also, I can't see games that encourage you to smash your face against a monitor through sheer frustration catching on really.

Although admittedly I thought Obsidian's New Vegas was an improvement over Fallout 3.

When I buy games for like $5/$10, I usually buy them to just waste time. I don't expect to get a really well thought out story or anything. Something like Dragon Age: 2 I would buy just to see what happened after Origins.

Have you even played Demon's Souls? Oblivion's boring slash, slash, block isn't what I would call fun, exciting gameplay. If you disagree with me, at least give me more details than "frustration." Did you think Demon's Souls was impossible or something because it is pretty easy once you get to know the enemy A.I.

The different move sets pending on weapon choice was incredible, and the fatigue system was so well made that online was pretty fun. The reason why I gave up on the online play was because everyone would just turn off their system when they lost. I think they should've used an arena, MMO style online play since you used up so many resources from the main game with no gain if someone left. Why would I play Oblivion again? Do you not think I've already played it with the difficulty scaled up? The issue is the fact that it's not challenging when the gameplay doesn't require skill. Demon's Souls actually tests your reflexes and wit by having you dodge, parry, and look for weaknesses. The economy also kept the game difficult in more dimensions than just gameplay.

[Teddie Sage]

Not all changes are good, but some are kickass, like the No Random Encounters. I'd love to see more retro rpgs, DQ or FF like JRPGs with no random encounters. The Atelier series made them right. Chrono Cross too. Lots of good JRPGs had no random encounters. Good times... Now I'm playing Robotrek on SNES.

Modifié par Teddie Sage, 09 août 2011 - 06:52 .

[SalsaDMA]

gamer_girl wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

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.

And that answer is obviously, that the suits are all trying to eat the same piece of pie, which inevitable leads to most of them starving.

Well unless you're gonna front the money to produce a game, you should just deal with it. That's the way the world works and it 'aint gonna change.

It's also the reason why companies and markets crash every now and then in almost predictable patterns. At least it's not my money that's involved in it.

[MacCready]

Christ, some of you 'traditionalists' sound like spoilt toddlers. 'No! This is MINE, you can't have it!'

[Xeranx]

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. 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.

Terror_K stated that it was 77% of those who voted in the poll.  You can try and make it seem as though TK is trying insinuate that the percentage is representative of everyone, but it's a particularly hard sell considering he implicitly said that it was of the people who voted.  It's similar to citing metacritic scores as a means to say a majority like ME2 which nullifies any detractions by anyone else... which a number of people in this thread have done in the past.  It's obviously a case of bias in either case.  In this case it's the article that contains bias that one can agree with if they choose (which they are entitle to).  Citing metacritic scores as representative of a supposed silent majority that hasn't made any statements as to whether they agree or disagree with the metacritic rating is another form of bias which is expressed by the individual citing the source.  

A lot of people continuously make statements based on metacritic scores as though it's entirely factual when it's a slice of a much larger pie while, either directly or indirectly, saying no one can do the same against the sentiment that they hold dear.  It's entirely impractical, subjective and unfair.

Trying to stop being long-winded here: the question of where that 77% came from was answered before you typed it out when he said it was the result of the poll.  The actual question asked is better made to the person who created the poll and not Terror_K because he won't have those answers unless he collaborated on or wrote the piece himself.