Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


No more RPGs!


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
69 replies to this topic

#21 Landfish   Members   -  Reputation: 288

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 20 June 2000 - 09:11 PM

How is that relevant? I suppose, if you want to standardize the design process, what spaz and I have said is very silly. But standarize the design process and you don''t have one anymore. You end up with a copying process.

If a game is to be viewed as a piece of art, it must be a holistic entity. The gameplay, art, music writing, engine and everything else must be created to support the theme of the game. Sure, it would be much more efficient to standardize, but it would be like painting-by-number. Slight variation on a sea of conformity.

Sponsor:

#22 Mr Cup   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 20 June 2000 - 11:36 PM

''RPG'' are of course decendants from ''live'' Role playing games with a bunch of friends. One of who has a world of sorts planed out and explains how you find your self at the begining of the game and then (in the good ones anyway) you decide how your character will navigate throught this world, with the aim of doing something or stoping or what ever. Unfortunatly we alwase end up too drunk and never get that far but thats another story.

Computer ''RPG''s were initally like this, but now. ? I suggest that the RPG rpg term realy only applys to games which incorporate a group, some objective or goal, with the computer performing the role of GM, providing the universe in which to play while alowing the play absolute freedom to play how they wish.

Sure other games alow you to ''Play a role''. If you want to be picky, all games do. But that doesn''t make them RPG''s.

And your mother to!

As Mr Cup always says,
''I pretend to work. They pretend to pay me.''


#23 Roderik   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 20 June 2000 - 11:41 PM

Hey, Landfish, you are totally right; I actually always thought that the classification of games in genres is stupid, not only the term RPG; a game is just a game, maybe some games contain elements of other games, but cramming games into genres only leads to stupid dogmas; you have to make resource-management in RTS, you must have the classes wizard, warrior and thief in your RPG, in a FPS you can not let the player have an inventory and let him solve object-puzzles, in a ScFi-world there must always be teleporters, and they are always called "teleporters" (where does the word come from anyways?) and make flashes and a buzzing sound...it's stupid, but you see it every day.

I say, put everything in a game (or take everything out of a game) you want, as long as it's fun! Yeah, what I say sounds redundant and totaly obvious, but when you look at the computer games of today and really think about it, it doesn't seem so obviuos anymore. I even think that sometimes it's not bad if you willingly ignore other games; people who have never played a computergame sometimes have the most original and strange ideas when you ask them about how something should be done in a computer game...

Edited by - Roderik on June 21, 2000 6:50:37 AM

#24 rockslave   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 21 June 2000 - 12:37 AM

Now I''m furious! All right if you say that the classification is wrong (I agree Ingenu), but, NO WAY TO FINISH THEM. Some minutes after I''m back with my rage

Thanks, Arthur(rockslave)

#25 PsYcHoPrOg   Members   -  Reputation: 115

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 21 June 2000 - 12:41 AM

Did you fall on your head as an infant? I mean, Personally, I LOVE RPG's, and just about everybody I know does too. I'm sure that there are people that hate them. Look at this thread, it's proof. And everybody is entitled to their opinion.

But I simply love RPG's too much to just stay out of this. I will admit, they do have flaws. And there are more bad RPG's than good ones. RPG's are based on story, and many story writers simply suck.

As for the definition of RPG? I'm going to leave that alone. The definition has changed since the days of pen-and-paper RPG's to todays more technological approach. Although EverQuest comes fairly close to the old days of Pen-and-paper RPG's. I guess some people don't feel that it comes close enough.

I truly hope that you people change your mind. I feel that it's really too bad that so many people don't like RPG's. It's a great genre.



Edited by - psychoprog on June 21, 2000 7:55:35 AM

#26 Neuro   Members   -  Reputation: 123

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 21 June 2000 - 12:57 AM

Personally I love a good RPG, to get involved in the goings on of a fantasy. But I must say that too many people seem to be developing RPGs and a lot are turning out bad.

This , I feel, is what is giving the impression of RPGs being bad, people just are sick of it.

Myself, I will always like RPGs and will always play RPGs (even some crap ones) but would not, at present, create one - not until the trend of games in development moves onto something else.

#27 MadKeithV   Moderators   -  Reputation: 971

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 21 June 2000 - 01:03 AM

I''d appreciate it if people read the messages in the thread properly before answering, but oh well.

In case you missed it: We are not saying role playing games are bad, per se. Only that the genre currently known as CRPG''s has generated a stereotype that everyone follows that SUCKS.

A good "Role Playing" experience on the PC should not come near that dreaded four-letter acronym, CRPG, because it will generate the wrong impression entirely.


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment..
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~

#28 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 21 June 2000 - 01:19 AM

Hey, I don''t think RPGs (by that I mean that traditional games such as Ultima, Fallout etc.) suck; actually, these are my favourite games of all time, and I love RPGs, heck I even like Bard''s Tale, teh biggest HAck&Slash of all time! It''s just that you shouldn''t pack a lot of different games in one slot, calling them all RPGs, because this will make people stick to dogmas when they create a so-called RPG, IMHO. And anyway, what have the games "Bard''s Tales", "Ultima 7", "Fallout", "Eye of the beholder" and "Champions of Krynn" in common? Actually, not very much, except for the leveling system and all that stuff, nonetheless they''re all called RPGs. I bet these games would have been even more diverse, if their makers wouldn''t have intended to make an "RPG" and thus wouldn''t have sticked to certain dogmas, such as the leveling system or the murder-based EXP-System (although these can be fun, of course!)

#29 Paul Cunningham   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 21 June 2000 - 02:42 AM

There is a big difference between playing a role and playing a character. There really has never been a computer game that makes you play a role. Therefore, there are no RPG''s so stop kidding yourselves. It''s all an illusion and a bad one at that. Besides, no ones answered my serious question yet..."Who PLAY''s a ROLE anyhow? Do you?"

When was the last time anyone here played a game where you had to "Role Play"? anyone, anyone?

There are no RPG''s. CRPG''s etc are a mask, they are either an adventure game and/or action game underneath. The mask comes from the use of clever graphic orientations(top down/isometric) or GUI (stat system). But that''s got nothing to do with role playing does it?

The genre of this sort in computer games never existed!

Ok, RPG''s never existed on computers, CRPG''s are a falsehood of all falsehoods.

Think about freestyle roleplaying for a second ok. There is no peices of paper, no keyboard or screen. It''s not acting, it''s trying to portray a role. This doesn''t mean acting! Acting is replicating a character not a role. A role is more open to interpretation. Think!

The reasons why ©RPG''s suck is because they insult/slander the term role playing! ©RPG''s suck it.

Stand up for the term people don''t let the marketer''s walk all over you!

The measure of intelligence is in the question not the answer.

#30 Facehat   Members   -  Reputation: 696

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 21 June 2000 - 03:07 AM

I think some of you are missing the point a bit.

The point isn''t so much that RPG''s suck, the point is that you shouldn''t design your game to be based off a misconception of an idea.

In other words, don''t say "I''m going to make an RPG!", instead say "I''m going to create a story driven game and incorporate whatever systems are appropriate for the theme and the type of experience I want to give the player!" (although you might not be so long winded ).

In other words, don''t include certain systems in a game without really thinking of why they''re their first. Don''t just blindly add something to your game just because you see it in other games.

Think different.


#31 Ferinorius   Members   -  Reputation: 125

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 21 June 2000 - 03:09 AM

I understand now, Paul Cunningham, afer slightly getting mad,I understand, and I agree. Why call them RPG''s if they aren''t what they say? No one except bored people with no friends Role Play, and they do that in the online RPGs likve ultima and they never get anywhere but making armor. We also need to go through it with a fine toothed comb. Why let such mediocre crap go into the mainstream. It''s just like big business to try to earn a buck. The RPG market was founded on good games, but now its just a pile of shit. We can''t let this happen. And I do understand why you guys are so against RPGs. The fact that they aren''t rpgs is something bad enough. Is there another name to call them?

#32 MadKeithV   Moderators   -  Reputation: 971

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 21 June 2000 - 03:25 AM

quote:
Original post by Paul Cunningham
There is a big difference between playing a role and playing a character. There really has never been a computer game that makes you play a role.


I think I know what you mean.
Many games have this little entity running around in it that''s supposed to be "you" - be that a spaceship, a wizard, or a little paddle that you move left and right to bounce the ball off.

You are controlling a character, that''s all you are doing. Perhaps you can influence it''s decisions, and certainly it''s actions - but it stays "that character".

Now, if you turn that around.
The character you play is you. No bullcrap about a predefined story, a path, stats, whatever. You play YOURSELF.
That way, at least you have a role!




Give me one more medicated peaceful moment..
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~

#33 pacman   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 21 June 2000 - 08:04 AM

I think the one thing that makes CRPGs not real RPGs (besides the unlimited freedom of choice) is that someone, a long time ago, took what they thought were the best elements of RPGs, and stuck it on what everybody else was doing.

Real role playing is a story, a role that you play in that story, and the possibility of growth by assuming that role. It was an escape, a way to live as a knight/space ranger/whatever. The CRPG takes some of the good things and throws what was already popular in video games: killing. In AD&D, I always spent more time talking and thinking than I did killing things. But what they did was take Mario, take the jump button away, and throw some stats in your face. That is not role playing. There is not always a huge monster (read:level boss) guarding the Sacred Scepter of Saving Souls

A good story is nice, NPC interaction is always fun, and I personally think developing a character is great, but just those things don''t make an RPG. You know you''re role playing when you are afraid to die not because you have to load your game, but because it would be like a part of yourself is dying.

#34 Buster   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 21 June 2000 - 08:10 AM

Nobody likes them, but a few people like them *in theory*.

Yeah, *nobody* likes EverQuest. That''s why there''s always 50,000 people logged on! Man you should smoke less crack.

#35 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 21 June 2000 - 08:46 AM

I''m entering this hairsplitting competition too, first by saying: STOP THE BULLSHIT!

First: Do you just HAVE to ask a question like, what''s a RPG? It''s just so stupid. "you don''t _really_, I mean, _REALLY_ play a role anyway" are some people stating. Can''t the current RPGs still be called RPGs? What''s wrong with that term? It is a such a roottaken word that why should you replace it because of some silly pen & paper-REAL-RPG-players? Enough of that.

Landfish originally stated that people are not making just good games, but they are making RPGs and thus they don''t make them as original as they should be. Landfish, do you really think that these stupid "lets-make-a-cool-RPG-since-RPGs-sell-a-lot-and-that''s-a-cool-genre!" people could do better games than they do now? And how about looking some RPGs:

quote from anonymous poster:
--
And anyway, what have the games "Bard''s Tales", "Ultima 7", "Fallout", "Eye of the beholder" and "Champions of Krynn" in common?
--

That''s right, they don''t have that much in common! That just makes Landfish & friend''s statements quite odd. If the RPGs evolve and develop all the time and they get better and even original, what''s bad calling them all RPG. I know that good action games like Deus Ex and System Shock are harder to categorize, since they got some RPG elements as well (you all know what I mean by those, don''t start the hairsplitting about what is an RPG element!). But again, these games are created to be good games, not action games nor RPGs nor adventures nor sports games nor ANYTHING. And they prove that people are creating good games despite the fact that there are genres like RPG, action and so on.

People like categorizing, because some people obviously like RPGs and some people don''t. It''s good that games are categorized. RPG isn''t any worse genre than FPS, RTS or sports.

Every genre has it''s stereotypes & "leader-games" that people have found practical, fun and good. Then the gamemakers want to copy these stereotypes because they are good, fun and practical! They do what people like. If million copies of Baldur''s Gate is sold, does it show the makers are completely on wrong tracks? Does it mean the makers of BG are making games that people think are using stereotypes and thus are boring? (now answer the question). Exactly! There are many original games being developed all the time but all of them are flops, because people want something they are used to. People that play the games are stupid! If you now make a totally original never-even-seen-before-idea, everybody will think it''s weird and it sucks. But if you start with an quite ordinary cRPG basis, and start adding some creative new elements to it, now you''re making money! And that''s what it''s all about. We make stupid clones and use stupid stereotypes because people buy them, not the original & creative games. Stupid games for stupid people. Landfish, why did you say RPG is bad, why not FPS, RTS and ALL THE STEREOTYPES IN THE WHOLE WORLD? If stereotypes suck so much, then why do we create them? Why did anyone start copying someone else in the first place? Well we are only humans, right?

I bet people in game-designing companies have pretty wild ideas, but they know those ideas wouldn''t sell. Do you, Landfish (among others), think that your cry for originality and non-stereotypity helps at all in these mass-market times? Or in the human civilization as a whole? And don''t start whining about that you were only talking about an ideal world or something shit like that. There is no such thing. This is a mass-market society and thus this all "cRPG-isn''t-really-like-my-pen-and-paper-games-mommy-help-me!" and "god-stereotypes-are-stupid" whining is just CRAP and you know it if you think a little.

Buster you''re exactly right. Copied-and-poorly-programmed shit like Everquest sells. But, well okay, there''s not that much alternatives to Everquest yet so I don''t blaim it too much of being what it is.

ps. Honestly, Landfish, people here must think you''re a god or something. There''s no other explanation to that so many agreed with you :/

#36 Nazrix   Members   -  Reputation: 307

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 21 June 2000 - 09:18 AM

You do have a point there. Perhaps, people rely on tradition because they know that it would have a better chance of selling. This same thing happens in every art medium (movies, music, etc.) There are times in music and movies where someone tries something revolutionary, and it does well, but it''s pretty rare. Even when it does well, it probably doesn''t do as well as the commercial crap that mass public likes. It comes down to creativity vs. monetary gain. It''s not really that black & white, but there is some truth to that. Personally, I''d rather create something unique that pushes the limits a bit, but then again, I don''t really plan on making games professionally...just as a hobby.

#37 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 21 June 2000 - 09:37 AM

Like someone posted somewhere :Quake 3 and UT will be forgotten in 5 years.

That''s probably true. However, Thief-series are maybe remembered even after 15 years, but they sold hell a lot less than Q3 and UT. That''s why Looking Glass got closed. They did original games that didn''t sell. Cruel but true. And it really IS quite black & white, the business I mean.

I admit there are some true original diamonds that sell and become famous. But just now I can''t remember any! (you see my point ?)

#38 Neuro   Members   -  Reputation: 123

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 21 June 2000 - 09:38 AM

Just for MadKeithV''s sake, yes I did read the thread and my opinion was my reply to the most percentage of posts at that time.

Please don''t presume that a person MUST answer the last message appearing in a thread, they can reply to the first if they want.

And my opinion still stands that I like them even if a great percentage of the thread is to put them down. O and yes, I know the difference between paper and pen version and computer versions just for the record.

#39 AtypicalAlex   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 21 June 2000 - 09:44 AM

Although I agree with the most recent anonymous poster that many good (or even great) games ARE forgotten, I cannot allow the readers of this board to be led on by such a blatant falacy...

Looking Glass did not close because Thief did not sell well. Thief (and Thief II) sold EXTREMELY well, but other internal problems and things having to do with the publisher caused them to have to close.

And here I will do as Landfish loves, contradict myself. I actually have no idea WHY they closed, so this entire post is moot. It makes no sense, please disregard it.

I am nothing, I feel nothing, I am Zen. Good night and good luck.

------------------------------
Changing the face of adventure gaming...
Atypical Interactive

#40 Landfish   Members   -  Reputation: 288

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 21 June 2000 - 10:04 AM

I HATE THIS THREAD!

With that said, I would like to also point out the I pretty much play RPGs exclusively, and they are the only kind of game I find to be worth my time. Yes, you read that right. The name on this post is "Landfish" and I am saying right now: "I can't get freakin enough of these RPGs!"

I've noticed a distressing pattern on this board. A few people have decided that I must be right, and hence another group has decided I suck. I refuse to be a point of contention here. PLEASE CAN WE SHUT THE HELL UP AND JUST TALK ABOUT GAMES?!?! I'm not here for politics!

As for the reason I started this festering blood-blister of a thread, I was trying to point out that many developers set out to make "an RPG" and hence start with a genre and attempt to "fill" it with content. The result is a bad game. Many of you may never have played a game like this!

If you are going to post to a thread, please READ IT FIRST, and be civil in your response. I try very hard to respect the opinions of others, and I hope that others will do the same. Most of the replies to this post don't have a F*CKING clue what we were talking about, they just assumed that for some wierd ass reason someone would want all RPG production to stop. Why did they think someone would actually have such a stupid idea? Why did they think they needed to respond?

Grrrr..

I love this board, but if people don't freakin listen to me before they jump on what I've said, I'm gone. Hope that'll make someone happy.

Edited by - Landfish on June 21, 2000 5:06:17 PM




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS