• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Landfish

No more RPGs!

69 posts in this topic

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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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|-| ~
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 (C)RPG''s suck is because they insult/slander the term role playing! (C)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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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|-| ~
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :/
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To the first anon poster:

Just because a few good games come along doesn''t justify the crap that comes with it. Yes, Fallout was, and still is a great RPG. In fact, on the box (did you buy it?), it states that it is "the most true to table-top RPGs yet" CRPG. This is one of the reasons why it is so great: it''s actually labeled an "RPG", and lives up to it. It''s not an action title with character stats and exp, which is what most "CRPGs" really are.

What Landfish was trying to say (I think, don''t hate me if I missed something) is that most CRPGs are just like the last one, with a different story, different characters you play as, and possibly a few "unique features". Hell, Final Fantasy went from you creating a character to set story-driven characters. I love both 1(NES) and 2(SNES), but 2 is less an RPG than it is a "story adventure".

BTW, stating your opinion (or whining, whatever you want to call it) is the point of message boards, and if you can''t handle others'' opinions, I suggest you leave.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Traditional RPG''s are a reason to party. A group of fairly like minded people (usually friends)get together and enjoy each other''s company. Sort of like a friday night poker game. It''s exactly the same, including getting drunk/stoned and ordering pizza.

MMORPG''s aren''t parties, in that typically like minded people are there for different reasons. Some want to role play and some want to level-up, and some just want to socialize. Some want the shiny gee-gaw and some want to annoy other people in attention grabbing moments of pure mahem. And a lot want cybersex, I imagine (since that''s always been a prevalent theme of the MOOs.

In a tradional setting, players want to role play their characters (even if they want to power-level) because a third party referee rewards them for doing so. In MMORPG''s players are automatically rewarded by the system and everyone''s advancement rates are exactly the same. Everyone can attain the same levels, everyone can get the shiny gee-gaw and everyone can be annoying. I do honestly think that the GM/DM/Ref is the critical missing element of MMORPG''s. A skilled GM, who is creative, adaptive, clever, smart and thoughtful (which, I have had the honor of knowing several) can do more to entertain a group of people in one evening than EverQuest can provide in a month.

And, because it''s RPG and there really aren''t "reality" limits set on the players because of limitations defined by the system, they can perform tasks of daring do. Not so, in MMORPG''s. You can''t swing from the chandeliers, dress up like a (ugly) woman to fool the guards, diffuse the bomb, confuse the orcs and rescue a lady(or fella) in distress. All MMORPGs are basically exactly the same, just with different feature sets defined. Whack the monster. If you''re better than the monster, you win. If you''re worse than the monster, you die. If you win, you progress. If you lose, you get set back a bit. Also, all content has to be molded for the lowest (and youngest) common denominator, which, IMHO really really WRECKS MMORPGs. It''s like fighting the monsters at disney land. If you use naughty language, a sentinel or whatever will quickly remind you of the usage policy!

Vampire:The Redemption recently came out and I''ve been curious as to what people''s reactions are to it''s "StoryTeller" capability. Re-introducing the GM as arbiter and crafter of the player experience is a unique idea and I wonder if it will help breath new life in the CRPGs or if it''s just another gimmicky thing that still delivers a flat and uninteresting experience for the players. Neverwinter nights also looks potentially like it could provide a lot of spice. I do think that people will Role Play, as long as there''s a reason to do it. As long as Role playing is actually the goal and not trying to survive within an arbitrarily defined system of advancement.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Landfish, yeah I know what you mean I think. You begin the topic very strongly to induce oposition. You make a statement that gets people''s attention, and gets them riled up. That''s good, but some people fail to realize that there''s a point behind the blatant statement. I''m not saying you should tone down your post at all. That''s what a debate is all about. People should just realize the actual point. Admittedly, when I saw that you said RPG''s suck...I thought, "What the hell is Landfish talking about now?". Then as I read on I realized that you were tallking about developers holding on to systems without ever second-guessing them.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i agree. rpgs suck. mmorpgs are a lot better, but they need to be improved a lot. i''m going to quit ultima online because you''re character never lives more than two weeks without being PKed or killed by a monster. its too bad that mmorpgs arent free...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naz: Scary, You just deconstructed my whole method of getting responses. Use it wisely. I know I haven''t, and that''s what makes threads like this little piece of crap.

I wonder if it''s possible to make a free MMORPG? I can think of a way, but it would operate off of advertising, which is shallow and not worth it. Anyone else?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''ll just quick rehash my thought''s on stats again. They were bad for pen/paper but effective for Crpg''s. The main reason is the IQ/INT stat. In pen and paper this one stat discouraged role playing but on the computer meduim it has a use (until we''re all using microphones over the net).

I also play a tonne of crpg''s and I love them and hate them.

I don''t think that rpg''s have to be story based either. The RPG is a 100% character and role driven theme. The story is purely cosmetic.

I like the idea of having an online DM/GM, but this person would have to have considerable control of the game with very inovation designed tools. Sort of like a cross between Dungeon Master and SimCity. Just an idea ;-)

Damn! I''m too placid this morning.I''ll think of something i hate then come back, [evil sniger]

- WE are their... "Sons of the Free" -
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will people please stop pretending that there are set definitions of what an RPG is or isn''t? Frankly, the genre is too varied in the artistic sense, while too constrictive in implementation to be defined by any means! And even then, what does definition get you? Nothing.

I''m getting impatient with these "RPGs". If you guys seem to love them so much, why not go and make some good ones? After all, this is GameDez.net, right? How hard could it be?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL.. this is a good one Landfish. You said you wanted some opposition ;p

First of all, what is an RPG? what role do you play? You play the role of the character in a CRPG. It works two ways with that acronym. Computer RPG, and Character RPG You''re playing the role of something you cannot. We know computers are not boundless like the human mind. And we''ve accepted this, well.. most of us, anyways. The computer is stuck in a set number of things. Size of HDD, memory, speed of system.. etc. They all control how well the story can be portraied! So then, a CRPG is one of limited possiblities currently. This is an accepted standard. What we attempt to do is take it to a very good level, as best we can.

Example: cars. The first car was crap. It had NO suspension, and wooden tires. The engine produced a measly 2.5 horsepower (i think.. not sure here) and it had only one gear if i''m correct This seems like crap! Yet back then.. it was the best they had. And cars grew. The brakes got better, the suspension got much better, computerized optimal handling, sensors, circuits, relays. Sit the two next to eachother and they''re impossible to tell how the hell one relates to the other. They both have four wheels and some kinda door.. maybe even a trunk! That''s ALL. Yet they''re still CARS, we don''t call them anything else. They''re evolving still today. Many people don''t care about their cars. How many saturns do you see on the road? their POS!! Yet.. they''re still cars. I mean, i''d lump Saturn, Kia, Deawoo and probably even Ford and Chevy for the most part into one lump of "Crap cars" and then i''d put things like Honda, Toyota, BMW, etc.. into "good cars".
Cars do have breakdowns. Sports cars, luxury cars, compact, mid-size, full-size, SUV, trucks! All of them based on SEVERAL elements!!!
So perhaps the RPG world is lacking a breakdown. Maybe we should start putting them in different categories. Stat-RPGs, Skill-RPGs, Level-RPGs, Linear, non-linear, 3d, Isometric. We do the last bit.. but not the first? Come on Landfish.. make us some catch phrases or Buzz-words to associate with Statistics-based-RPG. SRPG? StRPG? and for Skill based, SkRPG? or since stats and skills go hand in hand, perhaps SRPG for the both of em? and LRPG for level-based?

The only REAL RPG is LARP. Live Action Role Playing. nothing beats a good LARP But in that YOU actually PLAY a role. You don''t sit in a chair and relay messages about what you think your character is doing, you actually DO THEM! therefore, table-top RPG is just as false as CRPG and MMORPG. The only real RPG is LARP, and simulated RPG is VLARP, Virtual Live Action Role Play! That''s right.. computerized worlds in which you virutally LARP! that''s a "real" RPG.
So now that we''ve attack the RPG name.. let''s see how this matters to us. IT DOESN''T! the industry believes in certain things with RPGs, and that''s it. The term is dead. It''s like the word GAY. It USED to mean happy, now it means "homosexual"!!! i mean, WTF? And think about it.. it''s happened to a LOT of things. buzz-words are everywhere, and they all suck! So forget it, Landfish. Try something else instead. Create your own catch-phrase for what you believe it to be, and get the industry to stop humpin the back of the term they already killed! (homocidal necroverbiac, perhaps? ) My friend actually has his own term for MMORPGs that he''s trademarked already And i get to use it cause he''s part of my company.. hehe. And no, i won''t tell you what it is ;p
So.. go forth and give us the term which describes what you want landfish. Don''t complain that they''ve screwed up the old term. Simply give them a new term, and tell them what it really means. I mean, hell.. how many people think the new millenium has already begun!?!?!

J
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I don''t personally care if anybody makes RPGs, but the whole concept of just stopping all development because some guy said something is quite hilarious...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites