Any hope for RPG's ?

[infohippie]

I say to you the same thing I said to the other guy:

"You are missing my point. I am not saying that ME1 is better then ME2 based on reviews and sales. That would be like saying the Twilight movies are better then Black Swan because they sold more tickets.

The OP was complaining about all the people complaining (ohh irony) about the new RPG releases.
I was pointing out that for every person whining on an internet forum, there are ten people having a good time playing the game.

That is all."

I see what you're saying here, and you have a point. I just feel that since the ten already have a lot of games made for their preferences, and the one does not, it's perfectly fine for them to complain about the changes that brought in the ten in the first place.

 

[kingcom]

And someone could JUST LINKED ME two examples of modern day silent films too. Doesn't change the fact both are being made to please a niche market and will never see serious financial success.

I don't really care if it makes financial success or not, I just want to play a game I can enjoy. Just like everyone.

 

[Kortney]

And someone could JUST LINKED ME two examples of modern day silent films too. Doesn't change the fact both are being made to please a niche market and will never see serious financial success.

I don't really care if it makes financial success or not, I just want to play a game I can enjoy. Just like everyone.

I have no problem if games don't become a financial success and if people want to play top down turn based RPG; good on them! I really don't care.

What I do care about is when they jump on forums and start whining and insulting companies like Bethesda who dare to do something different and more modern. That is what I have a problem with.

 

[kingcom]

Let me ask you, what is role-playing? Is it building your own character in a game? Is it trying to step into the shoes of a preset character? Is it trying to change the personality of a preset character over the course of a game? Is it trying to mold the character after you, the gamer? Is it trying to adopt a personality that is opposed to your natural inclinations?

Im going to go with the Table Top roleplaying definition and say yes to all of the above. It is playing a role, and taking actions and decisions to support and play out that role.

That's one set of problems. Here's another: is your 'role' in gameplay function more important or your 'role' as a personality type? In other words, if you are a lawful evil rogue, is the rogue part more important, or the lawful evil?

Im assuming your talking about dungeons and dragons, in that case, rogue is simply a term for a set of skills and advancements (not a personality), lawful evil is a generised description of your morality, morality in and of itself is somethingprofoundly complex. You seem to want to break role into different parts, when in reality it is entirely dependent on the role your playing. A paladin is often a tank but his alignment requires that he step out of his combat role to have his personality type (save an innocent over protecting the party for example)

If you have very strict answers for these questions, you start ending up with very obvious RPGs not fitting your new definition. Diablo has virtually no personality development, does that mean it isn't an RPG? JRPGs (and many WRPGs) don't let you create your own character, so are they now not RPGs?

Diablo is a hack and slash, not an RPG. JRPGs are a massively large category, if they don't let you create a character, do they let you make a in character decision? If so, they are rpgs, if decisions are only out of character, they are not rpgs.

What I'm getting at is that saying "RPGs are centrally about role-playing" is a completely useless cliche that doesn't define the genre and doesn't help us push gaming innovation in good directions. Definitions are never right or wrong, they are only ever more or less useful.

Thats pointless, if I point at an apple and define it as an orange, the definition is wrong. How does having a definiton stop innovation? What stops you from making the game you want? Why are you making a game based upon a definition? I'm a little bit flabbergasped at this statement.

So coming back around, I'm saying that Bioware games have always been half-adventure games because they readily accepted the 'RPG' label but were more concerned with story than with any other aspect of the gameplay experience. Eventually, Bioware found that classicaly 'RPG'ish mechanics were holding them back and so they ditched a few. It's an obvious evolution, not a revolution, and certainly some type of betrayal.

Thats not adventure, running around in Baldurs Gate and overcoming the kobolds using the combat system only to then be approached by the captain of the guard you've been ordered to hunt down and kill who gives you a riddle. Solving it gives you the option to take him alive and allow him to redeem himself, disconnecting him from his cursed weapon. RPGs should be about that kind of story driven gameplay. I don't see how story drive gameplay makes it an Adventure game. Adventure games are very much about interactive stories but your role is rarely if ever entered into the equation, Bioware's games have almost always been character driven. Though Adventure in itself has always been the broadest of definitions anyway that practically anything can be put into it if you can justify the word 'explore' in relation to the game.

 

[linkvegeta]

I've been reading the forums at a variety of gaming sites every time a new, big budget RPG comes it. Every time, it gets slammed, usually before the trailer even comes out. Reading through the posts, it seems that the RPG community has a few simple requests in a game that the current producers illogically refuse to meet.

1) It has to have turn based combat. Anything even close to "twitch" is a travesty. Oh, but the combat should be so fun I can do it for hours at a time and not feel bored or like I'm grinding.

2) No railroading of any kind. I should have complete freedom to tackle only the challenges I want to face, and defeat those challenges in an almost infinite variety of ways. The computer should adjust to whatever strategy I choose to use. Oh, and adjust the rest of the world to show the consequence of whatever choice I made.

3)Despite that, the game should have an amazing story, as funny as Terry Pratchet, as exciting and original as Jim Butcher and as epic as JRR Tolkien. And that story should flow through the main quest and every side quest, each also being totally original, logical and fit the setting like a glove. Completely voice acted of course.

Yet do they listen to us? No! They keep making lousy game that do NONE of the above! Damn money grubbing video game industry! They'll never get it right!

I agree, today quality RPG's like that are very rare, the last one I played like that was Lost odyssey for xbox 360 and have not seen one like that since. I seems like a dying breed in a world over populated in mediocre FPS games, movie games and other crap. I miss the days.....

 

[kingcom]

And someone could JUST LINKED ME two examples of modern day silent films too. Doesn't change the fact both are being made to please a niche market and will never see serious financial success.

I don't really care if it makes financial success or not, I just want to play a game I can enjoy. Just like everyone.

I have no problem if games don't become a financial success and if people want to play top down turn based RPG; good on them! I really don't care.

What I do care about is when they jump on forums and start whining and insulting companies like Bethesda who dare to do something different and more modern. That is what I have a problem with.

Or when Bethesda fans start going on other peoples forums and tell them they're are wrong for liking their original games.

I've been reading the forums at a variety of gaming sites every time a new, big budget RPG comes it. Every time, it gets slammed, usually before the trailer even comes out. Reading through the posts, it seems that the RPG community has a few simple requests in a game that the current producers illogically refuse to meet.

1) It has to have turn based combat. Anything even close to "twitch" is a travesty. Oh, but the combat should be so fun I can do it for hours at a time and not feel bored or like I'm grinding.

2) No railroading of any kind. I should have complete freedom to tackle only the challenges I want to face, and defeat those challenges in an almost infinite variety of ways. The computer should adjust to whatever strategy I choose to use. Oh, and adjust the rest of the world to show the consequence of whatever choice I made.

3)Despite that, the game should have an amazing story, as funny as Terry Pratchet, as exciting and original as Jim Butcher and as epic as JRR Tolkien. And that story should flow through the main quest and every side quest, each also being totally original, logical and fit the setting like a glove. Completely voice acted of course.

Yet do they listen to us? No! They keep making lousy game that do NONE of the above! Damn money grubbing video game industry! They'll never get it right!

Yea, they shot themselves in the foot by actually pulling this stuff off in the past.

 

[Kortney]

And someone could JUST LINKED ME two examples of modern day silent films too. Doesn't change the fact both are being made to please a niche market and will never see serious financial success.

I don't really care if it makes financial success or not, I just want to play a game I can enjoy. Just like everyone.

I have no problem if games don't become a financial success and if people want to play top down turn based RPG; good on them! I really don't care.

What I do care about is when they jump on forums and start whining and insulting companies like Bethesda who dare to do something different and more modern. That is what I have a problem with.

Or when Bethesda fans start going on other peoples forums and tell them they're are wrong for liking their original games.

People aren't wrong for liking the original games, they are wrong for suggesting that Bethesda hasn't helped the series. Fallout 3 and New Vegas are amazing games and Bethesda deserve praise for managing to keep Fallout alive. Personally, I adore all the Fallout games.

Bethesda realised that if Fallout was to be kept alive and carry on the tradition of high selling Fallout games, something had to change. The FPS move was a move that brought in millions of more dollars and managed to keep the franchise open. If Fallout 3 was made in 2008 as a top down turn based game, they would of barely scraped together a profit.

 

[Spectrum_Prez]

Diablo is a hack and slash, not an RPG. JRPGs are a massively large category, if they don't let you create a character, do they let you make a in character decision? If so, they are rpgs, if decisions are only out of character, they are not rpgs.

This is basically the heart of my problem with your approach to RPGs. Diablo 2 is widely recognized as one of the definitive RPGs of the last decade, but according to your definition, it isn't an RPG. At the same time, you're telling me that some JRPGs aren't RPGs. What's going on here?

What I'm saying is that your 'definition' of an RPG isn't actually a definition of an RPG. It's a definition of a specific type of RPG that is only one amongst many. Your ideal of role-playing is only one among many ideals of role-playing. Your idea of what should be in an RPG is neither authoritative nor descriptive of the way the RPG genre has developed. And most importantly, I don't think this is a new thing, I think this divergence into different 'types' of RPGs has been going on for at least a decade.

It's at a point now where the RPG label cobbles together way too much stuff and either needs to be dropped or accepted purely as an umbrella phrase. The reason I say it stifles innovation is because it generates a lot of grief over the question of whether something is true to its genre or not. Since there is no definitive RPG genre, there is no cause for grief.

 

[kingcom]

And someone could JUST LINKED ME two examples of modern day silent films too. Doesn't change the fact both are being made to please a niche market and will never see serious financial success.

I don't really care if it makes financial success or not, I just want to play a game I can enjoy. Just like everyone.

I have no problem if games don't become a financial success and if people want to play top down turn based RPG; good on them! I really don't care.

What I do care about is when they jump on forums and start whining and insulting companies like Bethesda who dare to do something different and more modern. That is what I have a problem with.

Or when Bethesda fans start going on other peoples forums and tell them they're are wrong for liking their original games.

People aren't wrong for liking the original games, they are wrong for suggesting that Bethesda hasn't helped the series. Fallout 3 and New Vegas are amazing games and Bethesda deserve praise for managing to keep Fallout alive. Personally, I adore all the Fallout games.

Bethesda realised that if Fallout was to be kept alive and carry on the tradition of high selling Fallout games, something had to change. The FPS move was a move that brought in millions of more dollars and managed to keep the franchise open. If Fallout 3 was made in 2008 as a top down turn based game, they would of barely scraped together a profit.

Thats your opinion, others disagree with it, many would have preferred the memory of what it was to be left intact than for people to think of the games only as what bethesda made out of them.

 

[kingcom]

This is basically the heart of my problem with your approach to RPGs. Diablo 2 is widely recognized as one of the definitive RPGs of the last decade, but according to your definition, it isn't an RPG. At the same time, you're telling me that some JRPGs aren't RPGs. What's going on here?

Im saying JRPGS are a seperate category altogether and I don't think their current name is entirely approapriate. I don't think Diablo 2 is an RPG despite what it is 'widely recognized' as.

What I'm saying is that your 'definition' of an RPG isn't actually a definition of an RPG. It's a definition of a specific type of RPG that is only one amongst many. Your ideal of role-playing is only one among many ideals of role-playing. Your idea of what should be in an RPG is neither authoritative nor descriptive of the way the RPG genre has developed. And most importantly, I don't think this is a new thing, I think this divergence into different 'types' of RPGs has been going on for at least a decade.

I disagree but I don't want to argue how rpgs have developed since the 70s.

It's at a point now where the RPG label cobbles together way too much stuff and either needs to be dropped or accepted purely as an umbrella phrase. The reason I say it stifles innovation is because it generates a lot of grief over the question of whether something is true to its genre or not. Since there is no definitive RPG genre, there is no cause for grief.

Why does it matter if something is true to its genre or not?

 

[Kortney]

And someone could JUST LINKED ME two examples of modern day silent films too. Doesn't change the fact both are being made to please a niche market and will never see serious financial success.

I don't really care if it makes financial success or not, I just want to play a game I can enjoy. Just like everyone.

I have no problem if games don't become a financial success and if people want to play top down turn based RPG; good on them! I really don't care.

What I do care about is when they jump on forums and start whining and insulting companies like Bethesda who dare to do something different and more modern. That is what I have a problem with.

Or when Bethesda fans start going on other peoples forums and tell them they're are wrong for liking their original games.

People aren't wrong for liking the original games, they are wrong for suggesting that Bethesda hasn't helped the series. Fallout 3 and New Vegas are amazing games and Bethesda deserve praise for managing to keep Fallout alive. Personally, I adore all the Fallout games.

Bethesda realised that if Fallout was to be kept alive and carry on the tradition of high selling Fallout games, something had to change. The FPS move was a move that brought in millions of more dollars and managed to keep the franchise open. If Fallout 3 was made in 2008 as a top down turn based game, they would of barely scraped together a profit.

Thats your opinion, others disagree with it, many would have preferred the memory of what it was to be left intact than for people to think of the games only as what bethesda made out of them.

It's not my opinion though, that's the thing. It's a fact. I'm telling you right now if Fallout 3 was top down and turned based it wouldn't of financed a sequel, or done any good for Bethesda nor the Fallout series.

I was a huge fan of the first two games, but I realise that the industry must change. This isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing. In the future, if Fallout continues - the games will change from the way Bethesda has made them. Change is vital in entertainment because it is imperative companies match the demands of the majority. And sure, you can sit there and say "I don't care about financial success!" well without financial success, there is no video game. You can't take it out on Bethesda because you have archaic views.

If you want to blame someone, blame the people who sold the rights off to Bethesda. Bethesda is the only reason that series is alive.

 

[Light 086]

Just because some people post and complain about something they want in the game doesn't mean everyone in the gaming community wants the same thing. I for one am not a fan of turn based combat, but I never posted saying that I didn't want it. The fact that game developers always appeal to the majority seems to support my claim, and they do this so they can make the most amount of cash.

 

[Tiswas]

Pokemon is a Turn Based RPG with a kinda eh plot (You are a kid, collect these animals, fight them to death, beat gyms, pwn evil company, become champ) and is faily linear.

But look how popular and awesome that is.

The problem with RPGs is that people don't even know what they want anymore. Most things turn based or Japan are compared with Final Fantasy (which even in it's hey-day wasn't as great as Dragon Quest or Suikoden) or now Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, Dragon Age or Fallout. (Look at Nier. It's got an awesome plot, great chars and kinda fun combat. But that died to death quickly.)

 

[StormShaun]

Skyrim, thats enough to kill every other RPG this year....

 

[King Ramen Noodle]

i think the whole industry is just producing bad quality over all, not really one feature that kills a RPG. Example FF13 "wait your turn" gauge, "yellow brick road" world, Clothes designed by a Japanese rock band, and just bad overall. but then i look at FF10. one of my personal favorites despite the fact its turn based and Started the "yellow brick road" for Final fantasy and the clothes are also out there. so really i think its just that The overall Quality of RPGs have declined not so much one defining feature that ruins RPG's. but if there was one it would have to be Story. I know that its inevitable that the game will go into "must save the world" story mode at some point but a lot of game writers believe that's good enough for a story and don't bother fleshing it out. or if they do its kinda Bland or like "I've been here before" feeling. There is a lot that goes into a game, you can't just point to a few bad things can define the whole game. maybe as a whole we should stop asking for repeats of good games and start asking for new stuff. "oh hey Squemix nice job on FF10 but i would like something completely different now okay? thanks k bye"

 

[Serioli]

Remember also that it is very difficult to invent the 'perfect RPG' if there is no such thing as a 'perfect RPGer'.

TT players, DMs moreso, will know there are very different players who all want different things. It can be hard enough meeting the needs of your group of:

Storyteller (Not too concerned about mechanics just wants to experience a good story)

Specialist (I want to be a fighter/stealth/magic based character and have parts of the story that revolve around my specialty)

Butt-kicker (I want to kill and destroy, often in cool/interesting/gory ways)

Method Actor (I want to create/be a character with an interesting backstory and focus on the world and NPC actions and reactions to my character)

Tactician (Interested in thinking their way around a problem and coming up with the most interesting/economical solution, the plan and execution is often more intersting than the end result)

Power Gamer (Combine rules, stats, items etc into the most efficient method of executing my play style/desires)

made worse when you multiply your audience by millions.

 

[Jessta]

While I can't say I have played a really good rpg in a while I really enjoy rpgs, to me an rpg is like a book, you have to be able to sit back relax and let yourself get absorbed into the game. This is why quick action button mashing doesn't work so well in rpgs, because when you start having to jump around for what your doing to constantly it becomes hard to truly let yourself get absorbed by the game.
I play RPGs when I'm alone and shooters when I'm with friends because its harder to bring a group into a good story than it is to go it alone.
(honestly recently I've had trouble identifying what you would call an RPG, does Kingdom Hearts Birth By Sleep count as an RPG? I would think so because the story pulled me in and put me in the game world...)

 

[manythings]

So in essence your idea of a great game is one you spend most of your time just not playing the game and just searching for your next ability? I played DnD for a while and really enjoyed it, that's what pen and paper is good for and it works really well. Transferring all that stuff bogs everything down in irrelevancies.

A whole party of people can manage twelve inventories and a nineteens skills and eight and three-quarter crafts as part of a team effort to build and contribute. That is satisfying and works, everyone has their function. All that in a game is just making more and more time you don't actually spend playing the game.

When a game is stopping me from playing it I have to wonder what is christ's name they think they are doing at the developers.

Did you play these games? sure you can micromanage every character in the party or you can just have them level up automatically, following preset preferences. Hell, you could even do that for your own character if you were more about the narrative and less about the RPG. As for the inventories.. I like doing that, that is an important part of the game.

You say irrelevancies, I say Depth, choice, and re-playability :- Which is pretty much the definition of RPG... no?

Story adds replayability, character arcs and changing circumstances add replayability, how many types of hat I can wear just adds hours of searching my inventory again and again and again so I can take either "the stupid looking hat that I can't stand looking at but has a great bonus" vs. "jaunty cap that looks pretty slick and gives my character a bit of flair but is actively wasting an inventory slot". It's false choice.

I played NWN 1+2, I played Baldur's gate 1+2 but every time people say a thing adds depth it's a thing that just hurled me straight out of the game and into a number crunch. Every time a game breaks immersion to make me put on a new pair of shoes n+1 to replace my old pair of shoes n I'm not a character in a world, I'm a guy moving a fake guy.

 

[iseko]

Play the elder scroll series. Love it!! That and almost any RPG bioware has made. There has never been an rpg of bioware that I hated. Which doesn't mean they were all solid bars of gold offcourse.

 

[somonels]

When did the last good RPG come out? In 2007, that's when.