Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


RPS


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
12 replies to this topic

#1 jtecin   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 20 December 1999 - 11:21 AM

Okay, first I thought I had this brilliant idea of a game that combined a great 3D story and unit commanding. Then, I was looking at a preview of Warcraft III, and it turns out Blizzard already has the genre named a Role Playing Strategy, or RPS. It figures, I try to come up with a totally original idea and someone already has thought of it. Anyway, this genre has to be awesome. Warcraft II is my favorite game, and I love RPG's. I sure hope Blizzard doesn't ruin this genre by making a crappy Warcraft 3, because it seems like a great idea to take and run with. Anyway, what does you guys think of a Role Playing Strategy game? I might work on something similar for my next game, except it will probably lean a little more towards role playing. . .


Sponsor:

#2 Remnant   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 18 December 1999 - 10:47 PM


WC3 looks interesting, but its certainly not the first cross-genre product. RPG elements are always a ripe thing to bring into a different genre to spice it up.

But yeah, that always happens to me as well. I go off thinking I have this great new idea, only to find out everyone else has had it as well, but just hasn't gotten around to writing anything with it yet. :P

------------------
- Remnant
- (Steve Schmitt)


#3 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 19 December 1999 - 07:51 AM

Oh please. RPS (Role Playing Strategy). You think Blizzard is trying to create
a new genre? Or just rehasing the same old sh*t by rephrasing RTS (Real Time Strategy).
They are obviously trying to make their product stand out from the rest of RTS
games by calling it something "different" when in fact it really is a RTS game.

quote:

Blizzard introduces a new concept in gaming: the RPS
(Role-Playing Strategy) game. A strategy game set heavily within
a role-playing environment, RPS takes the individual combat and
interactive environments found in role-playing games and
combines them within a competitive strategic environment.

This is pure marketing, not some new concept.

Trevor


#4 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 19 December 1999 - 09:23 AM

Here's a thought that's supports my argument that RPS is just marketing glitz.

Why didn't Blizzard create an entirely new product line to introduce this
supposedly new genre of RPS? Instead they used a highly successful product
line, the Warcraft series, all of which are RTS games. Why didn't they go
with Diablo III instead as the new genre of RPS? The Diablo series has more
role-playing in it than Warcraft, and this is what the name RPS emphasizes most.
But no, it's because Warcraft III will be a RTS game, true to its predecessors.

A new genre demands a new game with a new storyline, not a rehashed sequel.
Maybe they should have called this new genre GMS, Game Marketing Strategy.

Trevor


#5 Jonathan   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 19 December 1999 - 09:45 AM

Is that a wizard's hat or a cone?

Is this really the first RPS? From what little I read about it, it sounds more like one of the console Tactic's games, like Shining Force, Final Fantasy Tactics, or Tactics Ogre. What special edge is it that Blizzard is giving Warcraft III to make it any different from these?

Jonathan


#6 jtecin   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 19 December 1999 - 12:04 PM

Did you read the preview Trevor? The interview said that they were very hesitant in calling it Warcraft III. The only reason they called it that is because it takes place in the highly popular Warcraft universe. Also, the screen shots show a lot of 3D. It has nothing like the look of Warcraft II. Read the Gamespot preview and you'll get a different idea. . .

#7 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 20 December 1999 - 08:06 AM


I did read it, but you simply can't introduce a new genre as a "sequel"
to an entirely different genre. Role-playing games focus on a small
number of characters and invest large amounts of time into their development.
If any of the characters die, you usually can't get them back, so you've lost
everything. And this is normally not played on a level-by-level scenario.

By contrast, strategy games like the RTS Warcraft series focus on a large
number of units. The player really doesn't care about developing who they
are, you just create them by the dozen and send them out to get slaughtered.
You can't take units with you to the next level, so everything basically
starts over again.

And whether the game is 2D or 3D, the look itself doesn't have anything
to do with what genre the game represents.

I think Blizzard didn't have the balls to start up a new game series or
a new storyline, in fear that their RPS marketing concept would fail
or not do as good as the rest.

Trevor


#8 jtecin   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 20 December 1999 - 11:21 AM

I understand your argument, but I am still hoping for something original from Blizzard. They said that you WOULD have a lot of interest in developing characters. Also, in a role playing game if your character dies you do get them back. I am hoping this game doesn't go on a mission by mission basis, it is just one big war, like the people at Blizzard said it would be.

#9 meeper   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 03 January 2000 - 08:51 PM

"You simply can''t introduce a new genre as a ''sequel'' to an entirely different genre."

Perhaps you mean you can''t make a sequel to a game that''s in a different genre as the original? In response to this I ask: WHY NOT?

Using Warcraft III as Blizzard''s first entry into this new RPS genre is an excellent idea. The game is strategy-oriented enough to justify making it a sequel to Warcraft II. It''s a new kind of game; giving players something they''re familiar with, in this case the world of Warcraft, to help ease them into a new style of gameplay is essential.

Yes there are marketing strategies involved. So what? If they don''t market the game correctly no one will play it. I certainly disagree with the notion that the next Warcraft game HAS to be just another RTS.

#10 foofightr   Members   -  Reputation: 130

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 03 January 2000 - 09:17 PM

Warcraft III sounds a lot like a 3D version of Heroes of Might & Magic. Genre has been done before, and someone is putting a 3d "magic touch" on it. Yawn.

#11 ghowland   Members   -  Reputation: 134

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 03 January 2000 - 10:50 PM

No reason what theyre doing is bad. It looks very different when you have a bit of business perspective.

The Warcraft/X-Craft label will mean their product gets immediate market recognition. You dont just throw that away because you want to seem like you arent doing sequels.

Sequels and franchises are what keeps the only stable companies in this business stable. The unstable companies dont have franchises, and so have to hope that each game is a hit on their own. Often because of that, they cant afford to put the time/money into a game to make it really bug and play tested.

Blizzard is doing smart business as well as making really polished games, it doesnt matter if all the hard-core game critics bash them for this or that, cause they are staying in business and quite frankly, on top of the PC game world, regardless of the nay sayers.

-Geoff


#12 cliffski   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 18 January 2000 - 04:29 AM

I think the idea of role playing strategy is great. Nobody cares how many of your grunts get squished in age of empires, but if each had real personality, individual names and attributes, it matters so much more, gets the player more personally involved in the game.
I havent played Warcraft myself, but I agree that Blizzard have as much right to change genres as anybody else. Nobody complains that Dark Forces wasnt the same genre as X wing, even though they are both Star Wars games. if anything, this encourages game players to try out genres they havent dabbled in before, and thats good.

http://www.positech.co.uk

#13 MikeD   Members   -  Reputation: 158

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 18 January 2000 - 04:59 AM

It seems like the next logical step in RTS and Roleplay development. Tamagotchi (sp) proved that it pays to make your players care about your electronic artificial life and getting this to work on a more grand scale seems a good challenge.
My one and only game design (currently and forever in progress) is based around the same idea.
There''s always room for more involvment, more immersion, more interaction and more emotion in games.
After all it''s better than making a game ''next-gen'' by increasing the polygon counts by 10%.




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