"Illusions" That You Would Like Dispelled For the Good of Gaming

[laggyteabag]

BioShock 2 sucks! I have to disagree. I found it to be a better game than both BioShock and Infinite, and on that alone, it is in no way a bad game. Is the writing as good as BioShock or Infinite? No. Does that mean that it is a bad game? No. 2 is a very good game, and still a very good BioShock game, but it is just a shame that it has such a bad reputation for being not quite as good as the other two.

DLC sucks! No. Just no. DLC is a tool, and a tool is only as good as the person who wields it. Are there lots of examples of horrible, exploitative DLC? Of course there are. But are there also examples of great, content-rich DLC? There sure are. Just because some companies use DLC to milk their consumers out of every penny that they own, it doesn't mean that every DLC sucks.

All PC gamers are dirty pirates and console gamers are saints! Again, another rumour that is untrue. Piracy is a problem, and it is very prevalent on the PC platform, but does that condemn every single PC gamer? Of course not. Besides, it isn't like consoles are devoid of these problems. Piracy is around on these platforms too, albeit it is a lot harder to get done, and the reselling of games can be just as dangerous. Whenever I hear a developer or a publisher stating that they will not release X game on the PC because of piracy, I let out a little chuckle. Besides, there is no way to prove that every person who pirated a copy of your game would have been a guaranteed sale otherwise.

You need to have a $3000 computer to play anything on PC. This is true. At least if you are an idiot. You ask someone who knows what they are doing, and they can build you a console-grade PC for little over the asking price of one of Sony's or Microsoft's black boxes. Hell, I can build a very capable PC for little over £500. Unless you are buying an Alienware PC (which you shouldn't. Why are they still in business?), then there is no real reason to ever spend over £1000 unless you are really going for 4K. Besides, in my experience, most people just end up spending most of their time playing DOTA or Hearthstone anyway, so it's not even like most people need the hardware that have in their machines.

Open world games are better than linear ones.Nope. An open world is a tool to tell a story, and having an open world does not instantly make your game better than one that does not. Of all of the open world games that I have played, only a couple actually feel like they have done it well. By making your world open, your risk making your world feel empty and shallow, and Skyrim is a perfect example of this. I would much rather that your world be linear and packed full of content and character than open and with nothing to see.

 

[Vivi22]

Sure, it may be technically true, but you REALLY need to know your shit when it comes to components.

If people want to go buy pre-made computers that's all fine and dandy. I'm not going to say they have to go to the trouble of building their own because that's silly. But you don't actually have to be THAT knowledgeable to do it. Thee are no shortage of guides online to help guide people as far as what can be had for different budget levels, and all of the good ones will tell you what to look for in alternative options. And if that weren't enough, there are even sites like pcpartpicker.com that will filter the options available to you based on compatibility, and link you to some of the cheapest prices on a number of websites. As for the actual assembly, I'm sure you can readily find guides to help with that, but it's also fairly fool proof. You're not going to buy a stick of RAM and not be able to figure out which slot it goes into on the motherboard, or which way it needs to be lined up with the slot. And you're not going to find yourself struggling to figure out which plug from the power supply goes to what because if it fits, it's good.

Now sure, it does require some more effort than simply buying pre-built, but the idea that you need to really know a lot about computers to do it is a myth these days.

 

[ecoho]

A few that are mixed between both industry misconception and gamer misconception:

Making money is bad.
Games are still a relatively young medium in an industry focused very heavily on the initial sale. Games are also very very expensive to make these days. Developers and publishers are still stumbling around trying to figure out ways to supplement their income. That doesn't mean that game companies don't sometimes do scummy things to make money but it's a mistake to instantly assume things like DLC, episodic content, etc. are bad. They may be used poorly in some cases, maybe even in most cases, but the bad comes in the way they are used not necessarily the actual method itself.

Playing competitively is wrong.
Some games are just plain designed for competitive play. Playing those games with an eye on getting better and winning is the way they are meant to be played. Sure you can have some fun playing them in the unintended manner, but that doesn't mean people who are playing them correctly are wasting their time or are somehow ruining the experience for others.

Videogames need to be "fun" and have traditional mechanics.
"Videogame" is basically an outdated term that has hung on because it's familiar and has been around for awhile. Videogames in reality, however, are a still growing and evolving artistic entertainment medium that includes a huge variety of experiences linked only through their interactive nature, and sometimes that interactivity can even come via emotional connection as opposed to traditional mechanics. Videogames don't need to be traditionally gamey or "fun" to be good. There aren't really any real rules for what needs to be in a videogame.

Games need to be for everyone.
Just because something isn't to your taste doesn't make it bad, and even things that are largely considered not particularly good may still be enjoyed by some people. Games should be made based on what the developer wants to make. Sometimes that is a commercially tuned widely accessible experience, sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's for an audience of traditional videogame fans, sometimes it's not. That's all fine. Just play what interests you and don't play what doesn't. Once again, there are no real rules for what needs to be in a videogame.

im sorry but if a game isn't fun then its bad period. Now if its fun for some then it is fun, just not for everyone.

OT: that a game can be ruined by 15 mins at the end: Im sick and fucking tired of hearing this, as by any scale you wish to use if you liked 40+ HOURS of a game and disliked 15 mins then by god you liked the game.

that having DLC at launch is developers being greedy: no this is the developers continuing to work on a game after they finish in order to give us you know their customers MORE content.

That if you don't play on a PC your not as good as PC gamers: I get it my xbox and playstation are not as powerful as your PC but you know what? that doesn't make us any less capable at anything you can do. Maybe it just means we don't have the money to buy a good PC or the time to build one.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Videogames need to be "fun" and have traditional mechanics.
"Videogame" is basically an outdated term that has hung on because it's familiar and has been around for awhile. Videogames in reality, however, are a still growing and evolving artistic entertainment medium that includes a huge variety of experiences linked only through their interactive nature, and sometimes that interactivity can even come via emotional connection as opposed to traditional mechanics. Videogames don't need to be traditionally gamey or "fun" to be good. There aren't really any real rules for what needs to be in a videogame.

im sorry but if a game isn't fun then its bad period. Now if its fun for some then it is fun, just not for everyone.

Eh, perhaps it could be considered semantics but a good game has to be engrossing or entertaining or engaging but it doesn't have to be "fun." Even disregarding recent developments in games that lead some to question whether or not something is actually a game, there are still classics like the Silent Hill series that are arguably not really "fun" experiences.

 

[ecoho]

Videogames need to be "fun" and have traditional mechanics.
"Videogame" is basically an outdated term that has hung on because it's familiar and has been around for awhile. Videogames in reality, however, are a still growing and evolving artistic entertainment medium that includes a huge variety of experiences linked only through their interactive nature, and sometimes that interactivity can even come via emotional connection as opposed to traditional mechanics. Videogames don't need to be traditionally gamey or "fun" to be good. There aren't really any real rules for what needs to be in a videogame.

im sorry but if a game isn't fun then its bad period. Now if its fun for some then it is fun, just not for everyone.

Eh, perhaps it could be considered semantics but a good game has to be engrossing or entertaining or engaging but it doesn't have to be "fun." Even disregarding recent developments in games that lead some to question whether or not something is actually a game, there are still classics like the Silent Hill series that are arguably not really "fun" experiences.

if you have enjoyment from playing a game you are indeed having fun.

 

[Lightspeaker]

Videogames need to be "fun" and have traditional mechanics.
"Videogame" is basically an outdated term that has hung on because it's familiar and has been around for awhile. Videogames in reality, however, are a still growing and evolving artistic entertainment medium that includes a huge variety of experiences linked only through their interactive nature, and sometimes that interactivity can even come via emotional connection as opposed to traditional mechanics. Videogames don't need to be traditionally gamey or "fun" to be good. There aren't really any real rules for what needs to be in a videogame.

im sorry but if a game isn't fun then its bad period. Now if its fun for some then it is fun, just not for everyone.

Eh, perhaps it could be considered semantics but a good game has to be engrossing or entertaining or engaging but it doesn't have to be "fun." Even disregarding recent developments in games that lead some to question whether or not something is actually a game, there are still classics like the Silent Hill series that are arguably not really "fun" experiences.

if you have enjoyment from playing a game you are indeed having fun.

Enjoyable does not automatically equal "fun".

Schindler's List is widely considered very moving and a lot of people like it. But I'm pretty sure none of them would call it "fun".

Nineteen Eighty-Four is considered one of the greatest books of all time and is a very enjoyable read. But hardly "fun".

Just yesterday I finished watching Puella Magi Madoka Magica. It was a great anime series and was extremely entertaining to watch. I wouldn't call it "fun" though.

This War of Mine is a game I firmly believe everyone should play. It is very powerful in its message. I wouldn't call it "fun".

The word "fun" has a lightheartedness to it that does not properly encapsulate the whole of "enjoyment".

at least add a bit of weight to that.

Thanks, that's the word I was looking for but couldn't think of when writing that. X-D

Yes, sidequests should have some weight to them. Not just a box to tick off on a menu screen.

 

[ecoho]

Videogames need to be "fun" and have traditional mechanics.
"Videogame" is basically an outdated term that has hung on because it's familiar and has been around for awhile. Videogames in reality, however, are a still growing and evolving artistic entertainment medium that includes a huge variety of experiences linked only through their interactive nature, and sometimes that interactivity can even come via emotional connection as opposed to traditional mechanics. Videogames don't need to be traditionally gamey or "fun" to be good. There aren't really any real rules for what needs to be in a videogame.

im sorry but if a game isn't fun then its bad period. Now if its fun for some then it is fun, just not for everyone.

Eh, perhaps it could be considered semantics but a good game has to be engrossing or entertaining or engaging but it doesn't have to be "fun." Even disregarding recent developments in games that lead some to question whether or not something is actually a game, there are still classics like the Silent Hill series that are arguably not really "fun" experiences.

if you have enjoyment from playing a game you are indeed having fun.

Enjoyable does not automatically equal "fun".

Schindler's List is widely considered very moving and a lot of people like it. But I'm pretty sure none of them would call it "fun".

Nineteen Eighty-Four is considered one of the greatest books of all time and is a very enjoyable read. But hardly "fun".

Just yesterday I finished watching Puella Magi Madoka Magica. It was a great anime series and was extremely entertaining to watch. I wouldn't call it "fun" though.

This War of Mine is a game I firmly believe everyone should play. It is very powerful in its message. I wouldn't call it "fun".

The word "fun" has a lightheartedness to it that does not properly encapsulate the whole of "enjoyment".

at least add a bit of weight to that.

Thanks, that's the word I was looking for but couldn't think of when writing that. X-D

Yes, sidequests should have some weight to them. Not just a box to tick off on a menu screen.

fun


adjective

: providing amusement : amusing or enjoyable

sometimes fun·ner sometimes fun·nest


Full Definition of FUN


1

: providing entertainment, amusement, or enjoyment


2

: full of fun : pleasant <have a fun time

actual definition of the word. now do I think its always the best word to use? hell no but it does in fact mean enjoyment.

as to your examples the word works but is not the best to use as it does not flow naturally.

 

[Lightspeaker]

Videogames need to be "fun" and have traditional mechanics.
"Videogame" is basically an outdated term that has hung on because it's familiar and has been around for awhile. Videogames in reality, however, are a still growing and evolving artistic entertainment medium that includes a huge variety of experiences linked only through their interactive nature, and sometimes that interactivity can even come via emotional connection as opposed to traditional mechanics. Videogames don't need to be traditionally gamey or "fun" to be good. There aren't really any real rules for what needs to be in a videogame.

im sorry but if a game isn't fun then its bad period. Now if its fun for some then it is fun, just not for everyone.

Eh, perhaps it could be considered semantics but a good game has to be engrossing or entertaining or engaging but it doesn't have to be "fun." Even disregarding recent developments in games that lead some to question whether or not something is actually a game, there are still classics like the Silent Hill series that are arguably not really "fun" experiences.

if you have enjoyment from playing a game you are indeed having fun.

Enjoyable does not automatically equal "fun".

Schindler's List is widely considered very moving and a lot of people like it. But I'm pretty sure none of them would call it "fun".

Nineteen Eighty-Four is considered one of the greatest books of all time and is a very enjoyable read. But hardly "fun".

Just yesterday I finished watching Puella Magi Madoka Magica. It was a great anime series and was extremely entertaining to watch. I wouldn't call it "fun" though.

This War of Mine is a game I firmly believe everyone should play. It is very powerful in its message. I wouldn't call it "fun".

The word "fun" has a lightheartedness to it that does not properly encapsulate the whole of "enjoyment".

at least add a bit of weight to that.

Thanks, that's the word I was looking for but couldn't think of when writing that. X-D

Yes, sidequests should have some weight to them. Not just a box to tick off on a menu screen.

fun


adjective

: providing amusement : amusing or enjoyable

sometimes fun·ner sometimes fun·nest


Full Definition of FUN


1

: providing entertainment, amusement, or enjoyment


2

: full of fun : pleasant <have a fun time

actual definition of the word. now do I think its always the best word to use? hell no but it does in fact mean enjoyment.

as to your examples the word works but is not the best to use as it does not flow naturally.

Logical fallacy there. Affirming the consequent I believe its called.

"Fun involves enjoyment therefore all enjoyment is fun."

Or more explcitly:
If fun then enjoyment.
Enjoyment, therefore fun.

They're not exactly the same thing. Something being fun implies it is enjoyable, but something being enjoyable does not immediate mean it is "fun".

 

[ecoho]

Videogames need to be "fun" and have traditional mechanics.
"Videogame" is basically an outdated term that has hung on because it's familiar and has been around for awhile. Videogames in reality, however, are a still growing and evolving artistic entertainment medium that includes a huge variety of experiences linked only through their interactive nature, and sometimes that interactivity can even come via emotional connection as opposed to traditional mechanics. Videogames don't need to be traditionally gamey or "fun" to be good. There aren't really any real rules for what needs to be in a videogame.

im sorry but if a game isn't fun then its bad period. Now if its fun for some then it is fun, just not for everyone.

Eh, perhaps it could be considered semantics but a good game has to be engrossing or entertaining or engaging but it doesn't have to be "fun." Even disregarding recent developments in games that lead some to question whether or not something is actually a game, there are still classics like the Silent Hill series that are arguably not really "fun" experiences.

if you have enjoyment from playing a game you are indeed having fun.

Enjoyable does not automatically equal "fun".

Schindler's List is widely considered very moving and a lot of people like it. But I'm pretty sure none of them would call it "fun".

Nineteen Eighty-Four is considered one of the greatest books of all time and is a very enjoyable read. But hardly "fun".

Just yesterday I finished watching Puella Magi Madoka Magica. It was a great anime series and was extremely entertaining to watch. I wouldn't call it "fun" though.

This War of Mine is a game I firmly believe everyone should play. It is very powerful in its message. I wouldn't call it "fun".

The word "fun" has a lightheartedness to it that does not properly encapsulate the whole of "enjoyment".

at least add a bit of weight to that.

Thanks, that's the word I was looking for but couldn't think of when writing that. X-D

Yes, sidequests should have some weight to them. Not just a box to tick off on a menu screen.

fun


adjective

: providing amusement : amusing or enjoyable

sometimes fun·ner sometimes fun·nest


Full Definition of FUN


1

: providing entertainment, amusement, or enjoyment


2

: full of fun : pleasant <have a fun time

actual definition of the word. now do I think its always the best word to use? hell no but it does in fact mean enjoyment.

as to your examples the word works but is not the best to use as it does not flow naturally.

Logical fallacy there. Affirming the consequent I believe its called.

"Fun involves enjoyment therefore all enjoyment is fun."

Or more explcitly:
If fun then enjoyment.
Enjoyment, therefore fun.

They're not exactly the same thing. Something being fun implies it is enjoyable, but something being enjoyable does not immediate mean it is "fun".

once again the word does not flow(that's the best word I can think off to describe it) well but has essentially the same meaning. this is more semantics really as games tend to be "fun" if you enjoy them and while this war of mine is thought provoking and grim the gameplay itself is rather enjoyable if a bit dark so one could say its a fun game.

So for the sake of everyone's sanity and to not derail the thread anymore can we just agree to disagree?

 

[Namewithheld]

Myth: Storytelling and narative are most important parts of a videogame.

Reality: If you want a story, you read a book. if you want pretty graphics, you watch a movie. Games are unique in that they have gameplay. Why forgo that to turn a game into a book?

Storytelling isn't just words.

Yes, a single sentence can tell a story - Baby Shoes for Sale: Never Worn - but so can a picture. Stringing together pictures tells a story. A shot of a man, a shot of a bowl of porridge, a shot of the man licking his lips.

The man is hungry.

Games tell stories all the time - in fact, games are the only experience that tell their stories through every form of storytelling we have. A bit of flavor text in WoW tells a story. A cut-scene in Mass Effect tells a story. Audio-logs literally TELL stories in the oldest way possible.

But even a game with all of that stripped away...tell a story: They tell them through mechanics and art design, and by how you interact with the world. The stories can be simple, and yet moving and direct.

Doom, for example! Not exactly what we'd call overburdened with story, but the narrative the game creates through gameplay is honestly one of my favorites, because it distills out a single, unbelievably optimistic and cheery narrative.

A single human - if they are awesome enough - can defeat pure evil. That evil, despite it's seeming power, is inherently weak. Everything ABOUT Doom tells that story. The way that the combat is skill focused, and rewards clever use of weapons and position to herd enemies. The way the enemies fight one another at the smallest provocation. The fact that human technology, from the simple shotgun to the hyper-advanced BFG - can eradicate SUPERNATURAL MONSTERS as if they had never been.

"Oh, but ID software wasn't TRYING to tell that story!" I'm sure someone has said. Well, there's a reason literary theorists have said that the author is dead. Authorial intent is meaningless in criticism and analysis because criticism and analysis are about taking what is on the page...or, in this case, the floppy disk...and trying to enlighten ourselves through that study.

The myth I would sorely love to see destroyed, though, is the myth that hardcore gamers want gaming to be taken seriously.Because if they did, they wouldn't throw a massive fit every time someone tries to critically analyze their game - whether it is through a political, racial, sexual, or religious lens.

Guess what!

Getting analyzed by people who think too much about things?

That's a sign that your favorite medium is BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

We live in a world where S.T.A.L.K.E.R is both an FPS/RPG and a Tarkovsky film. We live in a world where video games - silly little things played just for fun - are getting real, serious attention for the stories they tell through their gameplay and their narratives and their themes and their ideas.

That's FANTASTIC!

...of course, I'm fine with people disagreeing with my or anyone else's reading of a game. Just so long as they do it politely. Just...don't say, "Oh, stop bringing up X in gaming!" because that's just being a dick.

 

[Strazdas]

Storytelling isn't just words.

And neither is a book. If you think a book is just words then a game is just code. Though i can see where you are getting there. But i never said story is a bad thing, i only said that it should never overshadow the parts that make gaming unique - player agency.

"Oh, but ID software wasn't TRYING to tell that story!" I'm sure someone has said. Well, there's a reason literary theorists have said that the author is dead. Authorial intent is meaningless in criticism and analysis because criticism and analysis are about taking what is on the page...or, in this case, the floppy disk...and trying to enlighten ourselves through that study.

and this is why literary theorists are nothing more than assholes. Authoris intent is not meaningless, what is meaningless is incorrect interpretation somone made and then had the gall to teach others. this is exactly the reason we get schools where they teach that "curtains is blue means the author was sad" even after author has flat out stated it simply meant "curtains are fucking blue"

The myth I would sorely love to see destroyed, though, is the myth that hardcore gamers want gaming to be taken seriously.Because if they did, they wouldn't throw a massive fit every time someone tries to critically analyze their game - whether it is through a political, racial, sexual, or religious lens.

good thing that they dont then. they only throw a fit when somone is clearly trying to be Jack Thompson v2

Getting analyzed by people who think too much about things?

That's a sign that your favorite medium is BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

No, it is not. thats only a sign that some people like to analyze things.

Getting put into the national art gallery - thats the sign of being taken seriuosly.

We live in a world where S.T.A.L.K.E.R is both an FPS/RPG and a Tarkovsky film.

As somone who has actually saw the film in question in its entirety (damn it was long) the two have pretty much nothing they share.

That's FANTASTIC!

It is as long as it is not the only reason they get attention.

Just...don't say, "Oh, stop bringing up X in gaming!" because that's just being a dick.

I dont agree. im always of the opinion that we should let people say things even if they are stupid because that is an easy way to spot people that keep saying stupid things.

 

[Namewithheld]

and this is why literary theorists are nothing more than assholes. Authoris intent is not meaningless, what is meaningless is incorrect interpretation somone made and then had the gall to teach others. this is exactly the reason we get schools where they teach that "curtains is blue means the author was sad" even after author has flat out stated it simply meant "curtains are fucking blue"

But the thing is..."the curtain is blue means the author was sad" isn't a very good reading. It's nonsensical and anyone who tried to use that in ANY of the lit classes I've been in or ANY of the discussions I've participated in both on and offline would be laughed off the stage.

The author's intent doesn't matter because actions have consequences divorced from intention. If I shoot someone, they're dead no matter what my intention was.

If I write a racist scene in a book, the scene is racist. It doesn't matter what my intention was.

If a game tells a story, the game tells a story. It doesn't matter what the game programmers intended to do. What matters is what HAPPENS, what the effect is, what can be learned and inferred from something.

 

[Strazdas]

and this is why literary theorists are nothing more than assholes. Authoris intent is not meaningless, what is meaningless is incorrect interpretation somone made and then had the gall to teach others. this is exactly the reason we get schools where they teach that "curtains is blue means the author was sad" even after author has flat out stated it simply meant "curtains are fucking blue"

But the thing is..."the curtain is blue means the author was sad" isn't a very good reading. It's nonsensical and anyone who tried to use that in ANY of the lit classes I've been in or ANY of the discussions I've participated in both on and offline would be laughed off the stage.

The author's intent doesn't matter because actions have consequences divorced from intention. If I shoot someone, they're dead no matter what my intention was.

If I write a racist scene in a book, the scene is racist. It doesn't matter what my intention was.

If a game tells a story, the game tells a story. It doesn't matter what the game programmers intended to do. What matters is what HAPPENS, what the effect is, what can be learned and inferred from something.

And yet it is being taught in schools. But then theres plenty of nonsense being taught i guess.

You may write a scene that may be interpreted as racist when it was not. for example of bad interpretation: recent scandal with Far Cry 4 cover art. A lot of people jumped on racist badnwagon when it actually wasnt. The intent matter because there are plenty of wrong misinterpretations.

A game telling a story was fine and i nevert claimed otherwise.

 

[thoughtwrangler]

The author's intent doesn't matter because actions have consequences divorced from intention. If I shoot someone, they're dead no matter what my intention was.

If I write a racist scene in a book, the scene is racist. It doesn't matter what my intention was.

If a game tells a story, the game tells a story. It doesn't matter what the game programmers intended to do. What matters is what HAPPENS, what the effect is, what can be learned and inferred from something.

I think the Author's intent should carry *some* weight, but no it should not be considered final say, except in a narrative sense. Narrative would be the "physics" of the author's world and the author defines those.

When it comes to meaning--the metaphysics, if you will--I'd say the Author's opinion is only slightly more valid than anyone else reading it. But never the final say. A work that is released to the general public belongs to the general public. The author relinquishes the exclusive "right" to its meaning the moment they show it to someone else.
-------------------------------------------------------

Here's one illusion I'd like to see broken:

Dear Majority of Character Designers of Japanese-Style RPG's,

We don't need protagonists to be 13-17 years old to be able to relate to them. Really, you can make young adult characters, middle aged characters, even geriatric characters in the party if you want. If your brand of demographics held true, the only audience for Pokemon would be sapient woodland animals living by Chernobyl that liked to fight one another.

Also, aging does NOT work the way that many of you seem to think it does. Those RPG Protags are supposedly 13-17 years old, but look like they're in their early 20's, which VERY few teens do. Characters that *are* in their early-to-mid 20's are consistently depicted as old, soemtimes even having wrinkles and/or gray hair and complaining about their age.

Misguided fans may try to counter by saying "Well, that's how it was in the Middle Ages, people grew up fast," but you know that's not what you're going for. For Cthulhu's sake, most of the worlds you create don't bear a resemblance to Medieval ANYTHING, hence why those teenage protagonists aren't working a farm with a wife and three kids because the other two kids died of the Plague.

Uh, so yeah. Fix that please.

 

[NPC009]

Here's one illusion I'd like to see broken:

Dear Majority of Character Designers of Japanese-Style RPG's,

We don't need protagonists to be 13-17 years old to be able to relate to them. Really, you can make young adult characters, middle aged characters, even geriatric characters in the party if you want. If your brand of demographics held true, the only audience for Pokemon would be sapient woodland animals living by Chernobyl that liked to fight one another.

Also, aging does NOT work the way that many of you seem to think it does. Those RPG Protags are supposedly 13-17 years old, but look like they're in their early 20's, which VERY few teens do. Characters that *are* in their early-to-mid 20's are consistently depicted as old, soemtimes even having wrinkles and/or gray hair and complaining about their age.

Misguided fans may try to counter by saying "Well, that's how it was in the Middle Ages, people grew up fast," but you know that's not what you're going for. For Cthulhu's sake, most of the worlds you create don't bear a resemblance to Medieval ANYTHING, hence why those teenage protagonists aren't working a farm with a wife and three kids because the other two kids died of the Plague.

Uh, so yeah. Fix that please.

Wait, what? I don't know what games you've been playing, but if anything adult JRPG characters are guilty of looking too young. Look at Sterk in Atelier Meruru. Must be like 40 by then, still looks 25.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

[

Thanks, that's the word I was looking for but couldn't think of when writing that. X-D

Yes, sidequests should have some weight to them. Not just a box to tick off on a menu screen.

No problem and spot on. The "creative" part of so many games studios are leaderless and don't have half a clue why they include half the things they do.

It's almost as if the checklist of an RPG reads "gove the user something to do" as opposed to "add depth to the characters, world and story via side missions"

The basic failing in this in so many games is shocking.