| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Moxie
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 38
|
Great discussion Dhruin. Here's a theory to try out:
Before FPS's it seems that computer games tended more toward a thinker faire. Adventure games, simulators, gold-box RPGs, lemmings, incredible machine, etc. As computers allowed for better action experiences, maybe the slow, thoughtful game took back seat. Now, the FPS is migrating onto the consoles and those will probably become the primary host (if they aren't already with Halo 2). I think that migration could create some breathing room in the PC market.
I think the ClearChannel debate in the radio market could serve as a good scenario to draw from. Up till a few years ago, there were tighter restrictions in the States about how many radio stations in an area could be owned or controlled by one person. Government lifted much of these restrictions which made way for ClearChannel to buy up a lot more stations. ClearChannel is huge and made way for the exact same programming to be heard everywhere in the States. This was the gripe of the indie stations that feared being bought up and there was this nervousness that unique and original content would be replaced with the same stuff everywhere. Legitimate concern, but what really happened was that a lot of the local mid-range stations that weren't original and just trying to copy the big stations anyway had a hard time competing and started falling away. The little guys however have been buoyed by their originality and have had the middle guys cleared out of the way allowing for greater exposure and more fans.
If you throw in the fact that PC's and connectedness are pushing what individuals can do on their own, I think we have a bright future in the area of new innovative titles done by the little guy. People make their own movies and music on shoestring budgets. Computer games are another logical thing to expect. |
Sun Jul 03, 2005 8:52 pm |
|
|
Namirrha
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 218
Location: Utah County, Utah. |
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous
Why it would be so hard to get more Fallouts and Baldur's Gates? I mean, it has been done before at low cost so why not now, right? I hear all this jibber jabber about rising development costs. Thats BS because you can make isometric look good without all the bells and whistles.
The Fallouts and the BG games, despite what you think, were not low cost projects; they were full-scale productions with decent-sized teams and big funding. And according to an interview with Tim Cain I read, the funding for Fallout 1 in fact went overbudget. The budget for BG2 was far from small.
quote:
The truth of the matter, I think, is that gamers have changed.
I disagree. The audience sold to changed; or, in other words, gaming changed scope. Gaming came out of the closet and went mainstream, which meant that the composition of gamers that started with hardcore enthusiasts expanded to include casual gamers, who probably are the majority by far, in the mix.
Changes in individual gamers of course will happen--gamers that were kids and young teens became young twenty-something yuppies going to college and working, and thirty- and forty-year old husbands and wives, holding down jobs, having kids, and rearranging their priorities, but, unsurprisingly, many of them still play games. Maybe different games that relate to their different selves and different circumstances. But to conclude this next bit
quote:
They are dead because this new gen of gamers is retarded.
Disregards all common sense and observations of gaming and the game industry.
_________________
Give me the shadows, shield me from the light, and I shall let nothing pass in the darkness of the night. |
|
Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:58 pm |
|
|
FadedC
Guest
|
If you look at what makes many of the best games good, it's not so much the engine or the game system, but the work that went into creating the world and giving you alot of options in your gameplay. In fact alot of the best games had pretty bad game balance and combat mechanics if you think about them. Fallout and Arcanum both had horribly balanced and sometimes clunky combat systems. BG and Torment had workable but unmemorable combat. But all of these succeeded because of the time and effort put into the world, the story, the many different ways to play and things to do (well more so for BG2 then BG1).
So ultimately it doesn't really matter what engine people use, it's the sheer amount of effort and polish that really matter (to the core gamers at least). Creating something on that scale is difficult for any Indy company to do. |
|
Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:20 pm |
|
|
Soothsayer
Guest
|
First of all, yes...Lands of Lore 2 was very bad. It was billed as an "RPG" and was the sequel to an "RPG", so I won't take the easy way out like so many others and call it an action game.
I especially loved the fellow who denounced my list and claimed both Divine Divinity and Gothic are Action RPGs. I suppose Oblivion is also beneath you too?
See, this is the real reason why the genre is dying: Elitism.
You have people who are so stuck up, so egotistical, so high-and-mighty that they think even the mere utterance of "BG" or "KOTOR" results in landslides and volcanic eruptions on a worldwide scale. It's these elitist gamers that swallow a game like Mount & Blade whole and proclaim it to be the bets thing since sliced bread. The fact is, like Devil whiskey before it, Mount & Blade is another indie game that just simply isn't good enough to appear on a shelf...and if it did, it would tank.
After all, if truly genius RPGs like Wizardry 8 and Gothic tank at retail, a half-hearted combat simulation like Mount & Blade wouldn't even register as a blip on the radar. Let's face facts here folks.
Sure, I could play Wasteland, Daggerfall, Ultima 7, Planescape, The Gold box games and fallout until the day I die...but why deliberately limit myself? Why avoid, on purpose, "Mainstream" CRPGs?? To make myself look cool and "Avant garde" to the rest of the elitist online gamer clique?
Think about it. What I speak is the truth, and elitism is not only a sign of insecurity, but also a sign of stupidity.
I'll leave you with this:
Get out of my hobby, you are geeking it up. |
|
Mon Jul 04, 2005 12:10 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
First, a quick thanks for all the thoughtful responses.
I have enjoyed a number of indie games, from Helherron to Geneforge, Prelude to Darkness to Mount & Blade. I am guilty of dabbling with a number of them and never getting around to buy/finish them.
Namirrha pinpointed a number of issues I fully agree with. I have no doubt that the mainstream retail gaming industry will continue to leave a number of us behind with the exception of a small number of projects - and indies can fill this gap. I just don't have a good picture of how this future will take shape.
Despite tools like the Torque engine, I don't see an obvious rise in the number of indie RPG projects. A visit to Sourceforge reveals thousands of projects but they quickly boil away to rogue-likes (nothing wrong with rogue-likes but I'm thinking of more quest-driven games rather than randomly-generated content), MMO-related projects, RPG "engines" and remakes -- amazingly few attempts to create original quest/story-driven cRPGs.
I presume a good number of these projects start out as a programming "excercise", so the project develops from a certain perspective.
That aside, if indie projects are to flourish, the issues Namirrha raised are all relevant. Where will the funding come from? Aren't people mortgaging the house and stripping their savings likely to be as risk-adverse as a traditional publisher? If someone else provides assistance/investment, don't they become a defacto publisher?
I think the first step is a successful distribution system. Any developer can stick their product on a web page but gamers won't necessarily find it. We need a TotalGaming / Steam / portal that works, gamers are comfortable with and is affordable for small developers. Then developers might start taking the risk because they can see a viable distribution system that gets their game out there, beyond the handful of geeks that find their webpage by themselves.
I'll get to one of my personal irritations. Advertising and marketing. Frankly, I'm absolutely dumbfounded...flabbergasted...that we don't get more contact from indie developers. I'm not saying a newspost at RPGDot will move 1000s of product but it's a start. Our newsbits are often picked up by RPG Vault, RPG Planet and so on...and it filters out there. For heavens sake, use the free resources out there to communicate with gamers.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:23 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by Soothsayer
First of all, yes...Lands of Lore 2 was very bad. It was billed as an "RPG" and was the sequel to an "RPG", so I won't take the easy way out like so many others and call it an action game.
I especially loved the fellow who denounced my list and claimed both Divine Divinity and Gothic are Action RPGs. I suppose Oblivion is also beneath you too?
See, this is the real reason why the genre is dying: Elitism.
You have people who are so stuck up, so egotistical, so high-and-mighty that they think even the mere utterance of "BG" or "KOTOR" results in landslides and volcanic eruptions on a worldwide scale. It's these elitist gamers that swallow a game like Mount & Blade whole and proclaim it to be the bets thing since sliced bread. The fact is, like Devil whiskey before it, Mount & Blade is another indie game that just simply isn't good enough to appear on a shelf...and if it did, it would tank.
After all, if truly genius RPGs like Wizardry 8 and Gothic tank at retail, a half-hearted combat simulation like Mount & Blade wouldn't even register as a blip on the radar. Let's face facts here folks.
Sure, I could play Wasteland, Daggerfall, Ultima 7, Planescape, The Gold box games and fallout until the day I die...but why deliberately limit myself? Why avoid, on purpose, "Mainstream" CRPGs?? To make myself look cool and "Avant garde" to the rest of the elitist online gamer clique?
Think about it. What I speak is the truth, and elitism is not only a sign of insecurity, but also a sign of stupidity.
I'll leave you with this:
Get out of my hobby, you are geeking it up.
I'll start with this: get out of my genre, it has always been filled with geeks, but you are sissying it up with your "you should like whats popular" talk.
If I like indie games I think are good, and older games I think are good, how does that make me elite? It makes me niche. I was once a mainstream rpg player, then rpgs changed, my tastes didn't. While game after game that isn't an rpg, are billed as an rpg, and get review scores in the 90's as rpgs, and other companies try to emulate their success, and create action games that are called rpgs.
I can't kill a dead genre with my elitism now can I, smarty pants? If I think the only good rpgs being made are from small devs or indie devs and none of them will be big sellers, and no one cares about them, this makes me what? The elite of the stupid game lovers?
If alienware creates cutting edge elite computers, and I have a 386 would I be elite? You need to read a dictionary, kid, or at least a thesaurus.
This post by a guest in another topic sums it up: "After taking a look at the screenshots. no thanks.
Games made by professional rpg companies with real budgets and financing do have a huge advantage over amateur developers in that they can afford to put nice looking games out, which appeal to most people."
So not caring about graphics makes me elite? Liking my rpgs to have some rp in them makes me elite? I would say your rant makes you a fool. Whereas my super duper fancy "elite" taste just leaves me gameless. The mainstream wrecked my genre.
And don't presume I don't try what comes out. I have a closet full of crap games I can't stand that got reviewed in the 90's by all the major sites. If I like a game I like it. I liked the action game Bloodlines. I really liked the adventure game Beyong Good and Evil. I like "Law and Order", Chessmaster 9000, trivial pursute, and many other non-rpgs. I like some of the non-rpgs that get labled as rpgs. And there are a lot of rpgs I don't like , like NWN. I loved Daggerfall and Arena, and can't stand Morrowind.
ANd if Mount and Blade doesn't sell, I would say thats due to the elite taste of the gamers today, who demand fancy smancy graphics over any type of quality gameplay and innovation. Its not due to "just not being good enough to appear on a shelf", when the gamplay is great for a fantasy action game. So your idea of good-enough is fancy graqphics. You, and your ilk, the real elitists, who demand fancy graphics over content and streamlined dumbed-down gameplay, and condemn people who don't like the crap that you do, have already wrecked the genre.
I like what I like. And I know I don't like fools who go on the attack when someone disagrees with their taste during a civil discussion.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Mon Jul 04, 2005 2:33 am |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
Let's see, I have written articles on both Mount and Blade and Devil Whiskey, so I know them well. Both are openly niche games with limited appeal to the general gaming public. So yes, they might not sell millions off the shelf; doesn't stop them being good, fun games. Now consider Dungeon Lords!! Need I say more, how about Daikatana? Big budget, big hype doesn't mean either a good game, or great success. I remember when BG was coming out and I had my pre-order in months in advance. Most people I talked to had never even heard of it before it was released by a then almost unknown, small developer called Bioware. Fortunately, it had a robust Interplay there to help. Oh how the times have changed!!
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:57 am |
|
|
theverybigslayer
Village Dweller
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Namirrha
5. Old-school & copycat indie. I've seen quite a few indie games which are trying to make new old-school games (such as ones inspired by first-person, party-based RPGs--the Might & Magic series, Wizardry, Bard's Tale, etc.) without a number of new innovations or indie games trying to copycat popular action-RPGs, except with a more limited budget and scope.
Could you tell me the name of these games? I have never found any indie game like Wizardry, Bards Tale or M&M except Devil Whiskey. |
|
Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:50 am |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
He could be referring to Grimoire!!  Blatant plug!!
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
|
|
Mon Jul 04, 2005 12:58 pm |
|
|
Namirrha
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 218
Location: Utah County, Utah. |
quote:
Originally posted by theverybigslayer
Could you tell me the name of these games? I have never found any indie game like Wizardry, Bards Tale or M&M except Devil Whiskey.
Devil Whiskey (I love that name), Minions of Mirth, Grimoire (another blatant plug!), a few M&M-inspired remakes that have died or faded away, some inspired by Ultima Underworld that have come and gone, etc. I wish my memory extended back a couple more years. The staffers here at RPGDot who've reported on them would be able to name more. It might not sound like a lot, and I'm not saying there are mobs and mobs of them, to mug indie gamers and take their money--but these appear to be part of a trend. I loved the Wizardry & M&M games that I played. Those were my preferred kind of RPGs for some time. But I played them to satiation. Fundamentally, Wizardry 8, M&M6, M&M7, etc. didn't offer me a greatly different experience each time I switched to a new game. The core mechanics, views, and stories (or lack thereof) were quite often similar. While certain things of the subgenre are givens (1st-person viewpoint, party-based, etc.), I was hoping that indie developers might add some more advancements to them, like giving them real, cohesive stories for once. I know they were great, gritty dungeon crawlers, and there's a place for those kind of games. It seems every time I see another one of these announced, it offers "more playable races, more loot, more weapons, more armor, more dungeons, etc." and not "more story, more moving characters, more memorable experiences, etc." I played some of the best of this subgenre had to offer, and I need something new, something different to bring me back. More monsters, more loot, more playable races won't. After a while, I can't tell how having 10,000 different swords or 100 different races to choose from will meaningfully impact gameplay. That's why I said these are in essence trying to recreate the experiences of old. Don't just try to recreate the experiences of old, create new ones and improve on them! If not evolutionary, be revolutionary.
quote:
Originally posted by corwin
Let's see, I have written articles on both Mount and Blade and Devil Whiskey, so I know them well. Both are openly niche games with limited appeal to the general gaming public. So yes, they might not sell millions off the shelf; doesn't stop them being good, fun games. Now consider Dungeon Lords!! Need I say more, how about Daikatana? Big budget, big hype doesn't mean either a good game, or great success. I remember when BG was coming out and I had my pre-order in months in advance. Most people I talked to had never even heard of it before it was released by a then almost unknown, small developer called Bioware. Fortunately, it had a robust Interplay there to help. Oh how the times have changed!!
You make me laugh, Corwin. I love the humor in your posts. 
On topic, it's quite all right for games to be openly niche. I don't want people to equate marketing and advertising with big business ethics and greed, but it is useful to think of it as a means of communication. It's the way a business (or any entity for that matter) can let an intended audience know, "Hey, we exist, and we have something you might like." In any for-profit business, a product should sell enough to make a reasonable profit, and a reasonable profit is one that pays the bills, pays workers, and leaves something extra for the company. I hope developers want to make a profit of some sort, because, like Vogel said, it does take a little more than well-wishing to feed one's family. 
_________________
Give me the shadows, shield me from the light, and I shall let nothing pass in the darkness of the night. |
|
Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:22 am |
|
|
Sir Markus
Counselor of the King
Joined: 11 Jan 2002
Posts: 369
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA |
In my opinion, the release of the original Doom and the advent of 3d cards and multimedia CD rom, is what really set back CRPG development in the mid 90's. The whole multimedia thing (thanks Hollywood) brought in big money, and a bunch of people who didn't know crap about making games, but they wanted to gravy train the success of Myst and Doom.
That didn't leave a lot of room for intelligent, stats based games. |
|
Sat Jul 09, 2005 3:59 am |
|
|
Ugly_Prayer
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Posts: 38
Location: Sinking Fast |
Soothsayer: "Get out of my hobby, you are geeking it up."
"Careful with that axe Eugene."  You could become the dreaded anti-elitist elitist... people who think they are better than people who think they are better than other people.
My grandad used to tell me that elitism was a half-brother to racism. Both focused exclusively on "circles" and "exclusion." But he was wrong because he generalized too much with that statement. It's the generalizing about people that gets you into trouble...
I certainly agree with some of what you said. There are elitists who make you want to knock them to the ground, and stomp them silly... and beyond silly - maybe even doing a little brain damage: so they will know what it feels like to be an average Joe. However, there are "some" elitists who are cool... (a few are here on this Forum) and others are my friends. And you enjoy their company - and ok - you yell at them in posts, or in the case of my friends, smack them in the face every now and then; but you regret it later.
Hey, people are complex things.
Take my sig. quote for instance... Thoreau - what an elitist a-hole! But hey, I love the guy.
_________________
What I am I am, and say not. Being is the great explainer.
-Thoreau |
|
Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:30 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:23 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
