| |
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
|
|
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
quote:
Originally posted by TheMadGamer
I think you guys are getting a bit off track and too bogged down trying to define exactly what is a roleplaying game and that's largely a futile effort.
I think where we can all find common ground is in the statement that was made by Mr. Dromgoole (christ that's some name).
The idea that people of influence in computer game design believe that there is a need for additional 'casual games' is unbelievable given the huge number of shallow games available.
Instead of trying to define a roleplaying game, an effort that will only lead to disagreement, I think it would be more interesting to try to define what isn't a casual game...
Indeed, there is no set definition for RPG, but I know a slap when I feel it. Anyway, I too find it hard to believe there is a market for even shallower games. Maybe "tic-tac toe II: The Revenge of teh Toe," or something? I don't care if they make these games, but I don't want them drag down the more in-depth games that I enjoy.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers."
Last edited by Jung on Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:30 pm |
|
|
Chekote
Where’s my Banana?!?!
Joined: 08 Mar 2002
Posts: 1540
Location: Dont know, looks kind of green |
@ Guest:
Obviously the only way to be a hardcore RolePlayer is to have a superiority complex, and then deny it because everyone else is so stupid as to not know when you are looking down on them.
I understand what you are saying about click click click not being a roleplaying game (Although I may not agree). You mean that the players skills should not have any effect on the characters skills, it should all be down to stats.
Your opinion is welcome here, but your attitude is highly offensive and really needs some attention...
_________________
IMHO my opinion is humble |
|
Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:40 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
Anyone considered it's the same with consoles, simplified process/simplied.. ? |
|
Sat Sep 11, 2004 10:24 pm |
|
|
Firre
Guest
|
| But you are completely missing the point... |
|
If you debate the existance of (TRUE) RPGS on any kind of console or computer... A RPG isn't a true "RPG" because you play a role or because someone really likes that game, niether is it "pure" because it's orginal/innovative or "smart".
A RPG is a game which let's you play a role in anyway you choose. A computer game like that hasn't been made, PERIOD. RPG's allow you to play the role of the character as you choose to within the limits of the world, whereas such games as you have mentioned (although many of them are very good) force you to play a role with no or very VERY limitied choices.
In a P&P you can decide to "screw the plot" and go do _ANYTHING_ else. In a CRPG you can do sidequest 1 to 5 if you want to and you can solve them in a number of ways. My point is in RPG you can disregard the DM's carefully prepared adventure and make him work is ass off while you go along and he has to make up new stuff. While in a CRPG you have no freedom, just the illusion of freedom. |
|
Sun Sep 12, 2004 12:50 am |
|
|
Guest
|
I would argue that you are just swapping one constraint for another.
You are still bound by rules when playing P&P RPG's, its just that at the moment the scope of things you can do in a P&P RPG are far greater than CRPG's. But you are still playing within the rules of a world, just like you do in computer RPG's.
To me, the fun does not come from being able to do anything you want, it comes from exploring and investigation what you can do. That is where CRPG's have an appeal that P&P RPG's could never compete with. If you can do anything, and you know you are free to do anything at any time, then that removes a great deal of the joy of discovery for me. |
|
Sun Sep 12, 2004 1:46 am |
|
|
Priest4hire
Head Merchant
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 52
Location: Slocan, BC |
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous
I would argue that you are just swapping one constraint for another.
You are still bound by rules when playing P&P RPG's, its just that at the moment the scope of things you can do in a P&P RPG are far greater than CRPG's. But you are still playing within the rules of a world, just like you do in computer RPG's.
To me, the fun does not come from being able to do anything you want, it comes from exploring and investigation what you can do. That is where CRPG's have an appeal that P&P RPG's could never compete with. If you can do anything, and you know you are free to do anything at any time, then that removes a great deal of the joy of discovery for me.
Not quite. The issue isn't that games have constraints, but rather that you can make no choice that the developer has not actually put in the game. In other words, it is not freedom at all, but simply a set of limited choices. Even if the choice locked in by the developer makes little or no sense you can not make another for unless they put it in that choice does not exist.
Sure, there are always rules. Even real life has rules. But in order to have the freedom to actually role play you must have the basic freedom to make the choices for your character from the full range of what he could do. That includes creating the dialog as what you say is so key to character.
The 'rules' have nothing to do with being locked into very specific paths. No CRPG has ever gotten around this basic constraint. This is why even as the guild head of the mage's guild in Morrowind I still could not get out of a stupid fetch quest. A quest that no lower individual would ever even attempt to task to their own guild head. It is not that there was a rule that said I couldn't avoid the quest. The words I would - should - have said didn't exist. That choice was not even possible. I couldn't react as my character should have.
PS. CRPGs are really a separate genre from RPGs, and only share a few characteristics. However, while the RPG genre was built by games like D&D, the CRPG genre is built on games like Ultima and Wizardry. Different bases lead to different approaches and thus different genres. It's disingenuous to use RPGs as a way to try and force a definition of CRPGs.
_________________
Watch your back. Shoot straight. Conserve ammo. And never, ever, cut a deal with a dragon.
Grammaton Dragon
-==(UDIC)==- |
|
Sun Sep 12, 2004 9:58 am |
|
|
Lord_Brownie
High Emperor
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Unfashionable arm of the spiral galaxy |
I got into computers to play CRPGs, and for almost a decade I bought as many games a month I could. Even before that I would play CRPGs at a friends house on his Apple IIe. Most people considered me a hardcore gamer because I played so many CRPGs and I followed the industry. However, in the last year I have lost my passion for CRPGs. I still buy and play a few titles a year, but I have slowly dropped off following the industry. Gothic titles, FO 1 & 2, TOEE, and KOTR are all great games, but the majority of the games coming out, CRPG or not, just don’t appeal to me. It is just too much of the same old thing. And the complexity that once made EVERY game fun to play has not been around in over five years.
For me, this is the problem with focus on the casual market in CRPGs and in computer games as a whole. Casual gamers by definition are only going to play a few hours at most a week. They need games that are simple and short. If I like games that require a long learning curve, lots of exploring, and epic length, I will not be happy with a game designed for a casual gamer. I got tired of Mario 15 years ago, they can keep changing the graphics if they want, but I’m not going to play it. I'm tired of RTS, I loved Lords of Realm 2, but the other ones I tried were boring. I loved HL, Doom, but how many more times can I run around shooting things and looking for a buttons/keys? (Doom 3 has so far been rather dull).
This article is just silly, because as others have already pointed out, games have been made for the casual market for years now. How much more casual can we get? Games finishable in 15 minutes that only required you to slap the 'A' button a few times. And the silliest thing I have ever heard: "they are here to make money-- that justifies what ever they have to do". Oh, please! I am a consumer, you want my money, JUSTIFY GETTING IT!
To me, just about any game can be a CRPG. Great story, interaction with NPCs, interaction with the environment, skill/character building, or non-linear freedom (which I especial like). Wing Commander 3 was a great game because of game play AND story/interaction of NPCs. Ultima Underworld was the prefect game in all aspects of a CRPG, and I love trying to solve the puzzles with clues scattered across the game. Its environment was the best. Daggerfall was the perfect non-linear game; want to own a home in a swamp, desert, forest, mountains, or in all of these places? KOTR had a wonderful NPC interaction and story line. It along with TOEE, FO games and Gothic had wonderful combat systems. A good combat system engages me physically and mentally. We all may disagree on what we call a CRPG, but all of us who are fighting over a definition of the term are hardcore gamers.
If games become more casual, there will be no substance left for me in them. I would rather spend that time every week mowing the lawn. |
|
Sun Sep 12, 2004 12:48 pm |
|
|
Lorgosin
Head Merchant
Joined: 10 Aug 2002
Posts: 69
Location: Sweden |
To me a CRPG is a game that is trying to give you the freedom to play a role, just as P&P RPGs. Neither will ever fully succeed, but P&P is alot closer.
Lord_Brownie: The current state of the business is pretty sad, but with a constantly growing market for games, niche markets will probably develop (like they have in movies). The problem, after all, is not that the number of hardcore gamers are decreasing (they're increasing), but that the number of casual gamers are increasing alot faster. |
|
Sun Sep 12, 2004 2:01 pm |
|
|
musashi_san
Guest
|
I think there are some underlying points here that have not been realized or at least not mentioned here, so, while usually a lurker, I thought I would put in my 2 cents FWIW:
1. professional game creation MUST be driven by money. games must sell and generate a profit for games to continue to be made.
2. the amount of money a game needs to make today to just break even is drastically higher than it was in the "golden age", (i.e. the time of wizardry, ultima, bards tale, etc.). this is because it cost SOOO much more to do. This is due to a variety of factors:
a. complexity of hardware/operating system (e.g. writing a relatively
bug-free app in windows is several orders of magnitude harder than dos)
b. general expectations of visual/audio presentation. all that eye-candy
comes at a considerable cost in artist/animation/voice acting/motion
capture, etc...
c. complexity of marketplace/competition. many many more games are
made, resulting in lower sales for each. this also indirectly results in
higher costs via more marketing and more expesive marketing (e.g. tv
vs print). Also, more layers exist in the business relationship between
the actual developers (artists/writers/programmers) and the customer
(e.g. publisher, distributor, licensor, etc...), all of which have to make
money
3. the game industry in general, as typified by the quote above, while
realizing that they must sell more games to continue to make money
(since the trends I mentioned above still continue), have failed to make
the fundamental realization about how to deal with it. It is true that there
are a lot of very casual to ultra casual gamers, and that nudging them
more to the hard core end can only mean good things for the industry.
However, they have got it completely wrong about why they ARE casual.
For the most part, (and i'm talking about people who are at least
potentially nudgable), they are casual because no game they have played
(or possibly very few) has really pleased them. Producing yet more over
simplified crap is not going to change this, quite the contrary, it is going
to exacerbate it. These casual gamers can only be "converted" by making
something that specifically appeals to them, and this can only be done by
continuing to make creative, innovative games that immerse the player
in a compelling story. THATS what will make new gamers, and that is also
what will please us...
Anyway, any thoughts about these ideas? |
|
Mon Sep 20, 2004 6:06 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:41 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
