12 réponses à ce sujet

[Mallgore]

I'll keep this short.

Do Fantasy RPGS have to be the same?

Can't they be about more than saving the world from the big bad?

Are players really only interested in playing a game that deals with saving the world and nothing else?

couldn't it be possible to intergrate a study of people into fantasy rpgs?

I think and interesting idea would be to have an antagonist who has the mainstream moral highground but have the player argue the controversial counter argument to it? A battle of both sides of an argument vs personalities between the two characters?

while on that point why don't we have a conflict where both the player and the antagonist have had the time to know each other for a long time developing and growing while dealing with a faceless threat that turns out to be the antagonist?

Or give a narritive like Dragon age 2 more time to flesh itself out. Make a player character who isn't that special but over time becomes significant through surviving all the events presented to them. (the game could be challenging, not dark souls challenging, but challenging enough to where the player could agree when a portion of the game is dedicated to a flashback highlighting all the challenges they were put through. This flashback could happen after getting their ass kicked by a boss during the story. Give the player the feeling of all hope is lost until they garner the guts to give it one last try. Near the end of the game where they are at the final battle have a debate with the antagonist and have the opportunity to beat him completely. And if i am going to use the dragon age 2 example once more; for example when you choose a side in the end have a moment like i just described and verbally destroy the opposition then have a boss fight after they know they've lost the argument. (they player doesn't have to win of course but they could if they played their cards right.)

Give the player character an arc. Would it be really hard to give the player character the ability to grow and change like the companions do? Give the player a conflict to go on besides the main plot. Maybe there could be a point where the choices are so grey that the player could question the choice (btw i think the choices should have heavy consequences. Example let your favorite companion die to save the one who hate/like the least because they are vital to the plot. (I honestly think that companions dieing as a result of player mistakes could work to make the resolve of the player (in a rp sense) continue onward of the path they chose or do a complete 180.

ps. Does every player have to be the "HERO" who saves the world and becomes Jesus of the universe? Please provide feedback i'd like to know

[Fauxnormal]

Last time I checked, heros and PC does grow and change. And without some ultimate evil to overcome, there is no point to the game, be it small like Meredith or large like the Darkspawn. Characters can already die because of your choices in several games.
In fact, there are already various games that have everything you're ranting about, all together or bits and pieces.

Next.

[Mallgore]

Fauxnormal wrote...

Last time I checked, heros and PC does grow and change. And without some ultimate evil to overcome, there is no point to the game, be it small like Meredith or large like the Darkspawn. Characters can already die because of your choices in several games.
In fact, there are already various games that have everything you're ranting about, all together or bits and pieces.

Next.

 

I want Ideas to be expanded on not just presented in a simple format. So what unless the world is burning no one cares? How about my idea about having the player and the antagonist be reasonable people with reasonable goals that just conflict with each other. DA2 was a nice breath of fresh air because i threw away some of the tropes i hated so much. Why can't there be a fantasy rpg that doesn't simply go with saving the world. How about the player is thrust into a fantasy world where its just a political conflict between 2 kingdoms and the player chooses which side to join based on personal outlook/beleifs. Both kingdoms have dictators but give the player to choose bettween what fits their preference. Give the leaders of both kingdoms 3 dimensional personalities that end up.

as a bonus what i really want i guess is realism within the fantasy genre.

[bzombo]

Mallgore wrote...

Fauxnormal wrote...

Last time I checked, heros and PC does grow and change. And without some ultimate evil to overcome, there is no point to the game, be it small like Meredith or large like the Darkspawn. Characters can already die because of your choices in several games.
In fact, there are already various games that have everything you're ranting about, all together or bits and pieces.

Next.

 

I want Ideas to be expanded on not just presented in a simple format. So what unless the world is burning no one cares? How about my idea about having the player and the antagonist be reasonable people with reasonable goals that just conflict with each other. DA2 was a nice breath of fresh air because i threw away some of the tropes i hated so much. Why can't there be a fantasy rpg that doesn't simply go with saving the world. How about the player is thrust into a fantasy world where its just a political conflict between 2 kingdoms and the player chooses which side to join based on personal outlook/beleifs. Both kingdoms have dictators but give the player to choose bettween what fits their preference. Give the leaders of both kingdoms 3 dimensional personalities that end up.

as a bonus what i really want i guess is realism within the fantasy genre.

Interesting idea here, but it is also a lot harder to execute, which is why you see it rarely. Bioware tried with DA2, but they rushed a bit and it's not as good as it could have been.

[Maclimes]

I agree with bzombo. I feel like they attempted to give a more "personal" story to Hawke and his companions. It wasn't about saving the world, it was about one man's journey and growth. The problem, as you say, is that it was rushed and mishandled in many different ways, and ended up falling flat.

[gandanlin]

Character studies may be interesting, no question about that, but if the characters are uninteresting the entire game will fall flat. And I have a suspicion that creating characters that will hold the interest of a wide range of players may be a very difficult task.

Personally, I prefer a game that has a grand overaching battle that unifies the story and the characters in that story. If the character I am roleplaying does not particularly appeal to me, my interest can at least become occupied with strategy and the battle itself.

I'd say DAO has an excellent blend of interesting, well-thought-out characters and interesting, engaging storyline. I get a weird feeling like I am channeling Wade the armorer here, but to me DAO was a work of art -- it took time to make.

Modifié par gandanlin, 11 juillet 2012 - 09:47 .

[Mallgore]

I don't hate origins. I thought the setting was great. My only complaint was why did they have to have the darkspawn at at all? Why couldn't it have been about a civil war in Fereldon and you had to gather support to fight to take the country back from Logain. As a paranoid warhero he would have been an excellent antagonist if he was allowed to be one. I have a minor complaint to add, nothing major (i already don't like the plot so i won't discuss it) the companions don't seem to hit a personal low or take any challenges of their own. On a journey like this you'd expect your merry little band to have individual problems to overcome and grow from. I didn't get that from anyone in the party. Example Alistar was the same person he was at the beginning of the game as he was at the end. Its like nice you have a backstory but is it going to play into something or effect you in any other way than just mentioning it? To be fair i seemed to see some growth from Morigan (not ground breaking but definately more than the others from what i could see) (going from being distrustful of everyone to having trust in at least 1 person (you)) Sure Fenris was brooding in 2 and some of his lines could have been changed but he certainly grows and changes.

[Mallgore]

I just wish i had more options then Just playing Dragon age 2 and Kotor 2. I prefer the stytle of those games. Its because of games like Kotor 2 that i like characters like Atton Rand more than Han Solo. And because of Dragon age 2 i prefer that Anders to that of Awakening. ( i didn't need an Alistar clone)

[Get Magna Carter]

The reason most adventure RPGs (focussed on groups rather than solo adventurers) tend to be so similar in plot is you that the developers need to extend this concept into making a GOOD game.
Saving the country\\world\\galaxy\\entirety of creation from some big bad works and has been the basis of many good games (okay, some bad games as well).
Some games have strayed away from this but kept the key parts and still made a good game.
Some games avoid that concept all together -they all end up as BAD -no exceptions (within the RPG adventure genre, solo heroes may work but not teams)

[von Graudenz]

Actually Alistair"s character at the end will finish up in very different places depending on how you handle his backstory. So he can grow(mature) or completely fall apart, it all depends on how you play the game.

You couldn't just have the story be about retaking the country from Lohgain, since the Darkspawn invasion was the catalyst for getting the Orlesians involved. Without the darkspawn there would have been no need for Cailin to seek the alliance between Ferelden and Orlesia with the Empress. It was the Orlesian forces that were on the verge of coming to help that spured Lohgain into his paranoid treachery.

As to your original question. You might as well ask why does somebody die in every murder mystery?  If you want a character study within a fantasy game  you need to have big events.  Small events only lead to small changes in character, large events lead to big changes in character. Think about the people you know. I would be willing to bet those that either stayed in town or only moved a few miles away most likely haven't changed very much, but those that went away to college on the other side of the country or joined the military are very different people today than when you first met them.  To have strictly a character study set in a fantasy realm most likely would not be a great commercial success.  Just go to your local book store.  Compare the selection of Mark Twain or Charles Dickens (both great authors for character studies) to Patricia Cornwall or David Baldicci (good mystery writers).  You'll notice the character studies aren't exactly flying off the shelves.

Modifié par von Graudenz, 14 juillet 2012 - 09:23 .

[RVallant]

Mallgore wrote...

I'll keep this short.

Do Fantasy RPGS have to be the same?

Can't they be about more than saving the world from the big bad?

Are players really only interested in playing a game that deals with saving the world and nothing else?

couldn't it be possible to intergrate a study of people into fantasy rpgs?

I think and interesting idea would be to have an antagonist who has the mainstream moral highground but have the player argue the controversial counter argument to it? A battle of both sides of an argument vs personalities between the two characters?

while on that point why don't we have a conflict where both the player and the antagonist have had the time to know each other for a long time developing and growing while dealing with a faceless threat that turns out to be the antagonist?

1) No

2) Yes... Though I admit it's usually how the story ends up eventually... It's more or less "save the..." on a different scale...

For example; Suikoden, which, usually focuses on country vs country or internal civil war conflicts. The original was more focused on a shift of democracy vs tyranny, but there's eventual undertones that the cause of the tyranny wasn't really the Emperor but the Court Magician who did have a more world-threatening end goal I suppose.

The 2nd was similiar, but more an examination of how events can be set in motion to get a man whom wants the 'world to burn' as a threat to not just the nation but the continent... 5 was also very much internal with some 'worldly' potential consequences.

Vandal Hearts comes to mind (the 2nd) as another continent based political-gambit story that ultimately did descent into 'saving the world' but it was in my eyes, justified because the story was extremely well written (though stay away if you're easily offended about religion because VH2 really tears it a new backside... but it tackles every moral and political subject quite well imho.)

I suppose really, saving the world is an easy way to write a story but it can be a quite minor aspect of a storyline, particularly if the story is heavily focused on politics as such. You won't really find many of those types of games anymore as they usually require very tight writing (i.e. no plot holes and none of the ret-con certain *ahem* writers like), and a very wide scope. I think Bioware tackled it lightly with Origins, they could have gone much further I suppose.

3) Are players really only interested in playing a game that deals with saving the world and nothing else?

No, I'm happy with smaller conflicts - as above, and/or Valkyria Chronicles type storylines as well. Final Fantasy 12 looked like it would be one of these different RPGs, I mean you're not even the main character tbh, but the execution fell flat for me.

4) couldn't it be possible to intergrate a study of people into fantasy rpgs?

Done already, Vandal Hearts 2 especially goes to town with this. Nearly all the main villians have an impressive backstory littered with key events that shaped how they ended up personality wise and ability wise at the time the game takes place. Events further influence how they react and how they change and evolve over the years as you play.

Likewise all the heroes and enough of the minor side characters also evolve and have their views and archtypes challenged. Somewhat unusual for the main hero (you) and your three friends + sister, because you play through and see their childhood + events that lead to their 'adult' story.

I admit though, I would like to see this on a more consistent basis in other RPGs but it does require a lot of writing and thought. It's a question of investment + passion imo, I don't think writers have the time to put in the passion to write such studies anymore and even if they do they usually take the cliched safe route.


5) I think and interesting idea would be to have an antagonist who has the
mainstream moral highground but have the player argue the controversial
counter argument to it? A battle of both sides of an argument vs
personalities between the two characters?

I like that idea, I know Final Fantasy X (sorry!) does the opposite with the antagonist who has the controversial view. Seymour's idea in that game (to wipe out all life to not have to live in fear of sin, as sin only kills life and all can continue living in theory as unsent) is actually pretty *ahem* sensible if controversial of method to break the 'cycle' in that story.

6) while on that point why don't we have a conflict where both the player
and the antagonist have had the time to know each other for a long time
developing and growing while dealing with a faceless threat that turns
out to be the antagonist?

Kind of done, but in cliched ways. I'd like to see this tbh.

Anyway in summary I think for the modern story in fantasy RPG, because it requires a huge scope and investment you're not going to see much in-depth, well written creativity. DA2 could have been "the one" but we know how that turned out. Maybe if devs were happy to go back to a simpler 2d/3d based method it might change? I personally think Turn based Tactic games have the most potential for huge stories that tackle major issues because in theory, the investment into creating those types of games should be a lot less than a massive 3d RPG for the modern gamer. And sadly, that genre is pratically dieing out (bar handhelds) so, we'll just have to wait for a dev team to be given 5+ years to nail a story and perfect it into a huge game.

[aries1001]

Of course, they can. But look at how much trouble Bioware got it for changing the plot for DA2 to something else than saving the world from the big bad. However, I did enjoy Legacy and Mark of the Assasin DLC. They didn't have a plot where we needed to save the world - again. I quite liked DA2 because it broke away from the formulaic big bad must be slain, secret order thingie....

[Mallgore]

RVallant wrote...

Mallgore wrote...

I'll keep this short.

Do Fantasy RPGS have to be the same?

Can't they be about more than saving the world from the big bad?

Are players really only interested in playing a game that deals with saving the world and nothing else?

couldn't it be possible to intergrate a study of people into fantasy rpgs?

I think and interesting idea would be to have an antagonist who has the mainstream moral highground but have the player argue the controversial counter argument to it? A battle of both sides of an argument vs personalities between the two characters?

while on that point why don't we have a conflict where both the player and the antagonist have had the time to know each other for a long time developing and growing while dealing with a faceless threat that turns out to be the antagonist?

1) No

2) Yes... Though I admit it's usually how the story ends up eventually... It's more or less "save the..." on a different scale...

For example; Suikoden, which, usually focuses on country vs country or internal civil war conflicts. The original was more focused on a shift of democracy vs tyranny, but there's eventual undertones that the cause of the tyranny wasn't really the Emperor but the Court Magician who did have a more world-threatening end goal I suppose.

The 2nd was similiar, but more an examination of how events can be set in motion to get a man whom wants the 'world to burn' as a threat to not just the nation but the continent... 5 was also very much internal with some 'worldly' potential consequences.

Vandal Hearts comes to mind (the 2nd) as another continent based political-gambit story that ultimately did descent into 'saving the world' but it was in my eyes, justified because the story was extremely well written (though stay away if you're easily offended about religion because VH2 really tears it a new backside... but it tackles every moral and political subject quite well imho.)

I suppose really, saving the world is an easy way to write a story but it can be a quite minor aspect of a storyline, particularly if the story is heavily focused on politics as such. You won't really find many of those types of games anymore as they usually require very tight writing (i.e. no plot holes and none of the ret-con certain *ahem* writers like), and a very wide scope. I think Bioware tackled it lightly with Origins, they could have gone much further I suppose.

3) Are players really only interested in playing a game that deals with saving the world and nothing else?

No, I'm happy with smaller conflicts - as above, and/or Valkyria Chronicles type storylines as well. Final Fantasy 12 looked like it would be one of these different RPGs, I mean you're not even the main character tbh, but the execution fell flat for me.

4) couldn't it be possible to intergrate a study of people into fantasy rpgs?

Done already, Vandal Hearts 2 especially goes to town with this. Nearly all the main villians have an impressive backstory littered with key events that shaped how they ended up personality wise and ability wise at the time the game takes place. Events further influence how they react and how they change and evolve over the years as you play.

Likewise all the heroes and enough of the minor side characters also evolve and have their views and archtypes challenged. Somewhat unusual for the main hero (you) and your three friends + sister, because you play through and see their childhood + events that lead to their 'adult' story.

I admit though, I would like to see this on a more consistent basis in other RPGs but it does require a lot of writing and thought. It's a question of investment + passion imo, I don't think writers have the time to put in the passion to write such studies anymore and even if they do they usually take the cliched safe route.


5) I think and interesting idea would be to have an antagonist who has the
mainstream moral highground but have the player argue the controversial
counter argument to it? A battle of both sides of an argument vs
personalities between the two characters?

I like that idea, I know Final Fantasy X (sorry!) does the opposite with the antagonist who has the controversial view. Seymour's idea in that game (to wipe out all life to not have to live in fear of sin, as sin only kills life and all can continue living in theory as unsent) is actually pretty *ahem* sensible if controversial of method to break the 'cycle' in that story.

6) while on that point why don't we have a conflict where both the player
and the antagonist have had the time to know each other for a long time
developing and growing while dealing with a faceless threat that turns
out to be the antagonist?

Kind of done, but in cliched ways. I'd like to see this tbh.

Anyway in summary I think for the modern story in fantasy RPG, because it requires a huge scope and investment you're not going to see much in-depth, well written creativity. DA2 could have been "the one" but we know how that turned out. Maybe if devs were happy to go back to a simpler 2d/3d based method it might change? I personally think Turn based Tactic games have the most potential for huge stories that tackle major issues because in theory, the investment into creating those types of games should be a lot less than a massive 3d RPG for the modern gamer. And sadly, that genre is pratically dieing out (bar handhelds) so, we'll just have to wait for a dev team to be given 5+ years to nail a story and perfect it into a huge game.

thanks for the reply. Its rare to see someone on the forums give this much detail.

what i was thinking in terms of controversial conflicts was like EX)
the antagonist fighting for world peace, democracy, and easy living. While the player argues something along the lines of People don't deserve it and the only people who matter are the ones who rise out of the ashes of life's struggles. The player could vouch for how much of a stronger person he and his companions have become because of the journey. And without it none of them would've grown as people. Both player and antagonist would have a soilid point (unless the player is a freedom harping, jesus wannabe, morally goody good boyscout.) Idk i guess a bonus would be to verbally (for the lack of a better term) pwn the antagonist verbally. See his facial reactions as his arguement is shattered before him/her/it.

I have alot of Ideas but lol its not like i would get hired anytime soon XD. Plus i doubt the majority of players would wanna argue against a person who'd solve all the world's problems resonably. (no mass genocide, no mind control. The only negative thing was that he felt like it would be his responsibility to be the world's caretaker so the world wouldn't fall apart)