• 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.

jtecin

RPS

12 posts in this topic


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)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. . .
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. . .
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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%.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites