| |
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
|
|
|
|
roqua1
Guest
|
quote:
Originally posted by MadPriest
Excellent post, good points, I agree 100% haha
who art thou??
I art Inigo Montoya, or maybe the village idiot, I forget which. |
Fri May 13, 2005 4:54 pm |
|
|
Lysiander
Village Dweller
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 4
|
quote:
The way i see it if a guy and a couple of his friends built a house, and they poored their heart into it, and instead of going for the regular bland design desided to really go all out and add a mosiac floor, detailed woodcrafting, all the extras that give a house personality. And maybe they overreached themselves and had to pull back and remove things they planned for, but the end result is a house with more personality than anything the big house devopers churn out. Maybe you don't like the house the made, but if the choices are between the same, but slightly different houses a big house devloper/builder makes with a heartless team and corporate mindset, and the one the guy made, I know which i'd choose.
And even if I didn't like the house he made, I'm not going to take a crap on what he did. This guy poored his heart, soul, and creative energy into building something different and unique. Maybe its not 100% rock solid. Maybe it didn't work out as he planned. Maybe its not the dream house he invisioned. But this is a house made out of blood, sweat, and tears and everything is infused with TLC. And taking a crap on something someone worked their ass off on is wrong. Even if you like the plain, bland houses from the big guys, i know your momma's taught you how to show some respect and not tear apart someone elses hard work like a heartless sociopath.
I have yet to play Dungeon Lords, but from what I heard the problem most people have is that the game is in a way the same old same old. Biggest complain I have heard and read so far is that the world simply lacks life. So in your analogy, the guy build the same house as the company but did a worse job.
Now, this *could* be wrong. Again, I have not played the game. But the way it seems to be now, the features that seem to have been cut out, the lack of furnituring, the inability to customize characters, the lack of a override for conversations and all that remind me of many many other games that looked good on first glace, but were all the same in a way. I mean, what makes a good RPG above most things is a good story, customizability and *smooth* gameplay. Most people very quickly loose interest if you have to restart the game a couple of times in order to finish a simple quest. Make that the main story and they start screaming for patches all over the place.
What I head, dungeon lords lacks all three of these qualities, making it another game on the shelves that could have been great if someone would have taken the time to actually finish it, test it and give it a soul.
On the rest of your post I agree tho. Game design is a tough job and with the size of games these days its utopian to expect bug free software. Even the best industrial and corporate software these days isn't bug free simply because there are millions and millions of lines of code to test.
This doesn't free the companies from quality assurance tho. Knowing bug free is impossible is one thing. Counting on it to be a viable excuse is another. and that is basically what the gaming industry has been doing for a long time now. |
|
Fri May 13, 2005 7:40 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
Two posts in a row calling this dungeon crawl "innovative" and "amibitous"? Ladies and gentlemen, we have entered the twilight zone. Or the naive fanboy sector - you decide.
You've gotta hand it to D.W, though: he's a master at design concepts that outlived their worth in the eighties. |
|
Fri May 13, 2005 8:23 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lysiander
I have yet to play Dungeon Lords, but from what I heard the problem most people have is that the game is in a way the same old same old. Biggest complain I have heard and read so far is that the world simply lacks life. So in your analogy, the guy build the same house as the company but did a worse job.
Now, this *could* be wrong. Again, I have not played the game. But the way it seems to be now, the features that seem to have been cut out, the lack of furnituring, the inability to customize characters, the lack of a override for conversations and all that remind me of many many other games that looked good on first glace, but were all the same in a way. I mean, what makes a good RPG above most things is a good story, customizability and *smooth* gameplay. Most people very quickly loose interest if you have to restart the game a couple of times in order to finish a simple quest. Make that the main story and they start screaming for patches all over the place.
What I head, dungeon lords lacks all three of these qualities, making it another game on the shelves that could have been great if someone would have taken the time to actually finish it, test it and give it a soul.
On the rest of your post I agree tho. Game design is a tough job and with the size of games these days its utopian to expect bug free software. Even the best industrial and corporate software these days isn't bug free simply because there are millions and millions of lines of code to test.
This doesn't free the companies from quality assurance tho. Knowing bug free is impossible is one thing. Counting on it to be a viable excuse is another. and that is basically what the gaming industry has been doing for a long time now.
Inability to customize a character's looks, not anything else. Lets go over the list of games were there was no choice at all, or less choice than in DL:
Diablo 1, Diablo 2, DS (one race, limted customization), Gothic 1 and 2, Jade Empire, on and on and on and on and on and on. At least DL's customization of looks is going to be fixed in patch 1.2. Those other games will never have it. Even if you take a game like Kotor, the races of DL give you almost as many appearance options.
Knocking what-passes for an rpg these days for lack of appearance customization is silly and juvinille and unfair seeing that best selling "rpg" ever never had any cutomization at all at any time ever.
I have yet to encounter a bug at all, besides the prfx glitches like gold getting stuck in the air. But that impacts my enjoyment about as much as the furniture. I just don't care at all. there is furniture, just not much of it. It couyld be argued that DL got it right for a fantasy medieval world. Most houses wree single roomed and had a bed near the fireplace with a rollout bed under it for the kids to sleep on. rooms have bookcasees, beds, shelves, and dungeons have more barrells and chest than you could shake a stick at. Its not like Metal Dungeon where it is bland, and some of the detail is very ...detailed. (I can't think of another word that fits). If people actually complain about the graphics in this game I would have to say they are shallow and whatever that other word is I use to describe them that I just forgot.
If they played to the first town and noticed mostly guards walking around that is explained in the game. How hard would it be to add useless wandering npcs that have a one sentence vocabulary that serve no purpose. The first town in Jade Empire was practically empty. All of Diablo 2 was empty. You are hearing people complain to complain. If you compare DL to gothic yes it is lifeless in towns, but so is almost everygame compared to gothic. I don't remember that hurting Diablo 2's reviews or warrant much to whine about on forums.
Almost everything I've heard people whine about is baseless when compared to other, great reviewed, great selling games. There is one huge valid complaint, which will be fixed in 1.2, which is the automap. It is needed. Granted Gothic 1 and 2 didn't have an automap, but that was never part of the plan i don't think, and not a temporarily cut feature.
Now I'll let you in on what is the biggest design flaw (besides going rt-twitch combat instead of party-tb) is the goddamn lockpicking of chests. I don't know what team of sado-masichists thought up this little scheme of turture and then said it was great but it stinks. I can't open chests. Skill doesn't matter, using a lockpick to boost my skill doesn't matter. If there are two pictures I have to get then it is impossible. But my hands are broke and near useless from doing floors so the average fake-rpg player might like this stupid feature.
So it comes down to maybe, just maybe, people are hatefilled and look forward to the next game they can bash. People enjoy attacking and being pompous. I'm a pompous ass but at least i'm a consistant pompous ass that doesn't go with the crowd like a lemming. I've seen the same people that condemned the demo, and state the game is unfixable, buy the game and then complain some more. If I don't like a demo, guess what? No matter what the devs say I don't buy the game. The devs could say Jesus was reserected and helped witth the crunch time bug fixing and I still wouldn't care.
Its not like I'm a DL fanboy as I can't stand twitch games. But if you're going to play a stupid twitch action game you might as well play one with a little panache, a couple features, and some unique characteristics. Unless you like to watch a game, in which case you should stick to Jade Empire and games like that that are more like slightly interactive movies. |
|
Fri May 13, 2005 9:00 pm |
|
|
GothicGothicness
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 04 Oct 2003
Posts: 110
|
I know this would happen from after playing the demo, he is right about the bugs and problems. The demo was hardly playable and things didn't improve by much. Like I said at this time, it's a great game hidden beneath all the problem though.
It's so sad, but my guess is... that this is a another victim of the "We must realese the game it'll get dated, time to get money" thing that close to all games suffer from these days. Unless made by the big developers like Valve, Bioware or Blizzard. |
|
Fri May 13, 2005 9:03 pm |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
Wow, this review prompted some responses.
First off, I think the review is poorly written and gets some things wrong - but most of the criticism is deserved. The problem with your BioWare comparison, Roqua, is that Dungeon Lords really has no creativity and pales in comparison to a BioWare title in most respects.
Now, I'm not much of a BioWare fan. I completely agree they like simplifying all manner of things and their idea of roleplaying is to offer a good path and a whiny school-boy bully who steals lunch money evil path. But, the fact that they offer at least two paths with some attempt to write good dialogue and interesting characters (even if they don't fully succeed) puts it light-years ahead of this.
Dungeon Lords' problems don't end with bugs, lack of features and a lifeless world but go far deeper to fundamental desgin flaws at the highest concept level, while maintaining outdated practices in other areas.
BioWare's stuff is popular for a variety of reason but one of them is they try to create characters with some depth and emotion. I hate Bastila (who is just Aribeth who is just Jaheira in a different guise) as much as the biggest Bio-hater but most players enjoy the emotional connection to a character with a little depth. The writing in DL along with the long-outdated keyword system with no choices (just click every entry in order) creates generic fantasy cardboard cuttouts of no interest with no choices (other than "yes" or "no" to accepting quests).
Worse, however, is that DWB didn't understand what he was designing. This is really a 3D Diablo and that doesn't entirely mesh with the more complex character system, combat system, magic system or user interface.
Bugger, running out of time to go to work, so I'll have to rush the rest.
A quick example of how DL offers no understanding of roleplaying. In action RPGs I like to embrace the action aspect and create full-on fighter builds. Dungeon Lords forces you to multi-class, so I chose magic to have some extra offensive capabilities. None of that underhanded, cowardly, thief-life for me! I have come to a required dungeon (and the door is locked behind me, so I can't come back later) where I have to open several chests to get some runes.
I have no thief skills - I didn't take any. Opening chests involves a mini-game that combines skill points and player dexterity. I have no skill points and my dexterity just won't do the job (like the other poster). Stuck, because my fighter/mage needed some thief skills. That's 20 years of RPG design experience?
I've got to go. I've painted a pretty negative picture (and it deserves it) but I must admit I like some old-fasioned dungeon crawling, the combat kinda works and there's a fair bit of nostalgic value so I am enjoying it to some degree.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Fri May 13, 2005 9:51 pm |
|
|
roqua1
Guest
|
"The problem with your BioWare comparison, Roqua, is that Dungeon Lords really has no creativity and pales in comparison to a BioWare title in most respects."
I disagree. In what respects? The ingunuitive magic system? The deep character customization? Or its pluthora of features compaed to a bio title.
"I completely agree they like simplifying all manner of things and their idea of roleplaying is to offer a good path and a whiny school-boy bully who steals lunch money evil path. But, the fact that they offer at least two paths with some attempt to write good dialogue and interesting characters (even if they don't fully succeed) puts it light-years ahead of this."
The paths bio offers are arbitrary. Its the same game played through evil or good. Nothing changes but your responses in dialogue. I can't think of it now but I thought of a good game in which doors open and close and the game is pretty different if you play evil or good but I can't remember it. Hell, even Genforge choices impact the game more than a bio title. But that is besides the point. I know your a fan of numerous games that offer one path and only one path through the game. I read through a fallout 2 walkthrough once and event hough I played that game 5 billion times I realized I missed an assload of crap. I'm not far enough into DL to say how it works out, I am slow and just got out of the first town.
"Dungeon Lords' problems don't end with bugs, lack of features and a lifeless world but go far deeper to fundamental desgin flaws at the highest concept level, while maintaining outdated practices in other areas."
Besides the bug part this could be a summary of Diablo 2, and with the bug part it could be said that its true for any number of games that got great reviews. What are the numerous bugs everyone is complaining about that 1.1 didn't get? I totally disagree with lack of features, as this game cut more features than most games offer at release. Thats inarguable. This game might have flaws, and flawed features, and misising features, but it doesn't lack in the feature department. But what practices are you talking about that are outdated? And if a mechanic is good in 1990 time made it bad? Whens the last time you saw a top down space fighter like the Jade Empire mini-game? Thats outdated, but still fun.
"BioWare's stuff is popular for a variety of reason but one of them is they try to create characters with some depth and emotion. I hate Bastila (who is just Aribeth who is just Jaheira in a different guise) as much as the biggest Bio-hater but most players enjoy the emotional connection to a character with a little depth. The writing in DL along with the long-outdated keyword system with no choices (just click every entry in order) creates generic fantasy cardboard cuttouts of no interest with no choices (other than "yes" or "no" to accepting quests)."
Like Morrowind? Diablo? Like wiz 8 (which I remember you saying you loved), and a but load of others. But I guess it all comes down to values, I only ever feel any sort of attachment to characters I created and infused with life with my imagination. Like in both BGs I played a lan game with myself so I could have 100% characters I made. I don't like all the talking and skip dialogue whenever possible. My wife always wants to talk and I avoid that nonsense like the plaque, why would I want to seek it out in a game. I also think games that don't let you skip cutscenes and diologue should get gigged a lot of points for that crap. I play role-playing games to play a role that I created and that I want to play, not the one (or ones) the computer decides I should. I think games should go back to the old Sierra title way of typing in your own response personally. If a game is going to choose my role for me I will skip it and have my imagination tell my whats going on. Besides divdiv which had grade a voice acting and dialogue. If every game had voice acting like that I might pay attention.
"Worse, however, is that DWB didn't understand what he was designing. This is really a 3D Diablo and that doesn't entirely mesh with the more complex character system, combat system, magic system or user interface."
This statement cuts deep and actually made me cry. So he should of just tried to emulate diablo? The more complex the character system the greater the game in my opinion. I think he 100% understood what he was designing: an action game that is more like an rpg than all the slightly interactive stories being made today. How much better of a game would Gothic be if it had character creation and a more decision heavy advacment? And I know you're a Gothic fan and no Gothic fan can really hold poor interfaces against anything. I don't hold it against gothic.
"A quick example of how DL offers no understanding of roleplaying. In action RPGs I like to embrace the action aspect and create full-on fighter builds. Dungeon Lords forces you to multi-class, so I chose magic to have some extra offensive capabilities. None of that underhanded, cowardly, thief-life for me! I have come to a required dungeon (and the door is locked behind me, so I can't come back later) where I have to open several chests to get some runes."
Ther is no such thing as action rpgs, that kind of hints dwb knows more about rpgs than you give him credit for. And in every single one of my favorite games the ability to be gimped rates high on what makes them my favorite. FO 1 and 2, Realms of Arkania, Darklands. All games that require beating the game mechanics and not making a gimp. But DL doesn't make the list since all you have to do is walk around until you level and raise the skill, so you're not gimped, just sol until you get it up. But still none of this has anything to do with roleplaying and more to do with crpg design. Two totally different things as no crpg is an actual roleplaying experience.
"I have no thief skills - I didn't take any. Opening chests involves a mini-game that combines skill points and player dexterity. I have no skill points and my dexterity just won't do the job (like the other poster). Stuck, because my fighter/mage needed some thief skills. That's 20 years of RPG design experience?"
That other poster was me, come on. I'm the only idiot making the same stupid arguments. I hate the minigame, I want to smash my computer into tiny pieces when I raise my skill and say hell, i'll give it a try aggain and have an 85% chance but always get dowsed in the flames (or the zap). But every real and fake-rpg should include the becoming a gimp option as it weeds out the men from the boys, and keeps the kids playing cowboys and indians and barbie and might actually force the super-duper bioware and blizzard to make games aimed at 12 year olds instead of crack-baby drunken 6 yr olds. So I disagree with dw's decision and design on this only because characters can become ungimped instead of screwed for eternity.
"I've got to go. I've painted a pretty negative picture (and it deserves it) but I must admit I like some old-fasioned dungeon crawling, the combat kinda works and there's a fair bit of nostalgic value so I am enjoying it to some degree."
I don't understand how the dungeon crawling in this is any old-schooler than any of the dungeon crawls released in the past five years besides having more to it. I can't think of one old school game remotley like this in any way. The only game I can think of is a d&d title called the genie of al-quadin (that was marketed as an action title even though it is more of an rpg than most modern rpgs, but the world was sane then) and that was a top-down scroller and nothing like DL. I can't think of any twitch-action crpg or console rpg even remotley like this not released in the past 6 or 7 years. The closest would be UU. Or arena but thats still not close. Would you say morrowind played old-school? Will you say that about Oblivian? Is Gothic old school? I really don't understand what caused nastalgia and why.
Alright, its always good to debate with you Dhruin, I like to win debates, and its even better to win by such a wide margin.
I have this week off of work, if you can call what i do work. I have one of the biggest shame jobs in the history of mankind. The hardest part of my job is fake-working. I worked more defending this game that I don't even like than i do at work. So maybe I'm really vacationing while working. |
|
Sat May 14, 2005 1:04 am |
|
|
fulloflight
Guest
|
"Two paths in a forest"... i am glad you are relying on "running a telethon none of us know about," because sophisticated chaps (including you in at least one possible world) don't quote cultural dribble (even if it was a decent,nay, mind bending, life-changing, generation-defining, poetic masterpiece (please let me get in on the next festschrift those of you in the know).
I respect your position. I think it is one badass position. But if you do not work for the tiny, everyman, heart-wrenchingly impoverished and under-appreciated developers of DL, or do not yourself share the surname Bradley, then you might want to consider saving that caricature of ethical platitude for an actual person, maybe from the inner city, and not for corporate bodies in the context of a review, by someone self-professed as intending to raise the bar for game developers.
Listen dude, I love when independent companies put something good together. Mount and Blade is great, and honest about its limited state of development. My dosbox has become my most resented ally in the search for quality gaming entertainment. But lots of developers have become successful by being responsive to their fans and customers. Others are learning to do the same. While I agree that the Wizardry and W&W games were in many ways groundbreaking, and large-scale games today are likely to run into bugs that escaped beta-testing, I do not think watching out for the little-guy, despite the quality of the actual product is in our best interest as fans, consumers, or meta-ethical supermen. Best,
Ghost
qual |
|
Sat May 14, 2005 2:48 am |
|
|
SimonSays
Guest
|
I can't wait to see the response to that. Hopefully they'll post it (minus the editing errors) on the main page.
-
----------------
SimonSays
"I wouldn't done it had I known you would be affected"
------------------------------------- |
|
Sat May 14, 2005 2:59 am |
|
|
bjon045
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 234
|
Looks like they are adding automap and character customization in 1.2. I don't see the problem with waiting for a patch.
Even old games needed patches. Death knights of krynn of the c64 had a 1.0 that unfinishable in most situations, they had to release a 1.1. |
|
Sat May 14, 2005 4:15 am |
|
|
rouqua1
Guest
|
quote:
Originally posted by fulloflight
But lots of developers have become successful by being responsive to their fans and customers. Others are learning to do the same. While I agree that the Wizardry and W&W games were in many ways groundbreaking, and large-scale games today are likely to run into bugs that escaped beta-testing, I do not think watching out for the little-guy, despite the quality of the actual product is in our best interest as fans, consumers, or meta-ethical supermen. Best,
If responsive to fans means the games responsive companies like bioware, ionstorm, and blizzard put out I'll pass. You failed to mention that their fanbase who they respond to are 7 years old, or the mental equivalent. So their responsivness is actually screwing those of us that like a little complexity in their games. I could argue that DWB was responding to fans by making a non-party twitch game, instead of a party TB game, and base this on the stagering sales of TB games and what Trokia said publisher's response is to a dev mentioning TB. So DL rests on the shoulder's of the fans, who are the driving force of what rediculous drivil is published or funded for development.
"developers have become successful by being responsive to their fans and customers" have caused no good games to be made. Rpg fans demanding stupidity in their games (or slightly interactive movies, same thing) and complexity be removed have been raping me in the butt for years. So thank God for unresponsive developers living in yesterday's world. |
|
Sat May 14, 2005 5:24 am |
|
|
Priest4hire
Head Merchant
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 52
Location: Slocan, BC |
quote:
I agree with your statement that wiz 7 was an outside dungeon crawl, expect for obvious reasons, but I get your point. But in fairness, the same can be said for almost any game besides a couple such as ToEE and BG wich had outside areas that were vastly different and unmaze like.
It varies from game to game but simply compare Wizardry VII to Clouds of Xeen to see what I meant.
quote:
I never heard of cybermages, is it good? When was it released?
Cybermage was a FPS with RPG elements put out by Origin in the mid nineties. It was pretty decent alright. Had a very strong comic book feel.
quote:
I really don't remember U7 being buggy, but I also wasn't a big fan. I played and liked 4-6, but 7 was vastly different. I do remember I spent more time getting 7 to play than I did playing it. My biggest problem was its combat, it wasn't my idea of good combat. I don't remember darklands being buggy either, and I still play it often. Daggerfall was the first game I ever patched, and i do remember it being buggy.
Ultima VII had voodoo among other things and had the whole 'undocumented feature' debacle. Darklands had a few patches and arguably it was the famously buggy release that held it back.
quote:
But I disagree heartily that wiz 7 was outdated. It had never before seen features, such as automap tied to a skill. Skills that open-up through game events (like markmanship through the umpani's), NPCs classes that remembered events and reacted to them, and a million other never before seen features that made it light years ahead of its time.
I already said it had some cool ideas. But you can hardly claim the engine was cutting edge. Really it's a warmed over version of the Wizardry VI engine. And the map illustrates perfectly what I was getting at. Yes it was a very cool idea that made the map part of the fictional world. But at the same time the actual map wasn't exactly a paragon of functionality. Compare it to Ultima Underworld that had note taking and was line of sight. Wizardry VII's map didn't even scroll.
quote:
My biggest problem in general is the way people react towards games. Yes, Jade Empire had all the promised features, but it didn't have any features. Every game has ingame music, thats not a feature. Whats DS features? They're all tech features and certainly not rpg features. A game that has more to it, and especially what people classify as an rpg, should get credit for the more rpg features it has. How customizable is the character, is there a character creation, is there a lot of equipment features, etc, ect. but thats nopt how it works.
This presupposes a singular model towards which all CRPGs must aspire. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The genre is very broad and incorporates a number of different design philosophies raging from the Rogue-like with its random dungeons, scoring system, and hack & slash emphasis to the sandbox games like Alternate Reality. Besides, the features you claim as the core of RPGs have nothing to do with role playing and only represent part of the original P&P RPG experience. The most influential CRPG series - Ultima - deemphasized all those things in favor of a sophisticated world and natural interaction with that world.
I am also reminded of the concept that in beginning a review the critic should ask two basic questions: What was the intent of the creator(s) and did he/they achieve it? In that sense a game should be reviewed against itself and at most games with more or less identical design goals.
This reminds me of the Dragon review of Realms of Arkania: Blade of Destiny. (Dragon is the official D&D magazine) That review accused the game of beings made for accountants and being so stat heavy it missed the point.
quote:
DW could have made a bioware clone, and it wouldn't have been buggy since there would have been a linear story, crappy and choice-light character progression, and other big selling game staples. He could have chose to do the same old same old. He walked off the beaten path and got the crap kicked out of him for it. No one cares that featureless games with inherently be less buggy. the deeper, more complex games with more variables, creative design, and other things that really should be valued in a sane world add variability and bugs.
Yes, complexity lends itself to bugs but that has nothing to do with a game being incomplete. Walking off the beaten path had nothing to do with the sad state in which Dungeon Lords shipped. In fact the whole argument is a strawman.
quote:
And even if I didn't like the house he made, I'm not going to take a crap on what he did. This guy poored his heart, soul, and creative energy into building something different and unique. Maybe its not 100% rock solid. Maybe it didn't work out as he planned. Maybe its not the dream house he invisioned. But this is a house made out of blood, sweat, and tears and everything is infused with TLC. And taking a crap on something someone worked their ass off on is wrong. Even if you like the plain, bland houses from the big guys, i know your momma's taught you how to show some respect and not tear apart someone elses hard work like a heartless sociopath.
You're coming dangerously close to contradicting your own advice. Do you honestly believe the men and women of Bioware work less diligently? That the founders - three medical doctors - are somehow different kinds of humans? Maybe they don't create the kinds of games you like but does that mean you should show no respect for the amount of time and effort it takes to create one of their games? Bioware started out at the bottom as a nobody just like everybody else.
quote:
Where are the reviews or responses that tip their hat in respect at someone showing ingenuity and creativity. HP could of made a clone game with no variables, no features, no bugs, and no heart. But they didn't. Two roads diverged in the woods and they took the one less travelled. And the corporate gaming giants get their knobs slobbed on. Who holds the gainst, churning out the same old featurless, but rock-solid, juvinille sophmore crap upto a critical light? The big guys get a free ride for catering to the almighty dollar, and the little guy gets beat up and attacked for not doing what the money-grubbing, bottom-lined focused, corporations are doing.
Some speculate that money had something to do with Dungeon Lords shipping obviously incomplete. That the publisher may have forced HP's hand. Certainly I feel sorry for the developer. This debacle of a release surely couldn't have been their intention. But once again all this talk of money grubbing and corporation is a strawman. None if it has anything to do with a game that was shipped in a terrible state.
That the game was taking a different path and all that only makes it worse. You can blame gamers all you like but they are well within their rights to expect a game be reasonably compete when it ships. If the more hard core RPGs are to make a comeback they will have to strive for a better standard of completion. It is frustrating to be a fan of the hard core RPGs and then see game after game come out and make the genre look bad.
I personally pimp Spiderweb Software at every chance I get. They also make games that take a different road. Only their games are always solid and well constructed. Older graphics and retro gameplay styles are perfectly fine with me. But it is so frustrating to see what should have been a stellar entry in the genre get kicked out so premature it's barely more than a frame.
quote:
If responsive to fans means the games responsive companies like bioware, ionstorm, and blizzard put out I'll pass. You failed to mention that their fanbase who they respond to are 7 years old, or the mental equivalent.
I take real exception to that comment. Resorting to such ad hominem attacks not only makes you look bad but overshadows the good points you make. Tearing down everyone else doesn't elevate your cause.
_________________
Watch your back. Shoot straight. Conserve ammo. And never, ever, cut a deal with a dragon.
Grammaton Dragon
-==(UDIC)==- |
|
Sat May 14, 2005 7:36 am |
|
|
GothicGothicness
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 04 Oct 2003
Posts: 110
|
It appears like it's impossible to pull-off a finished RPG, with a lot of attractive features these days, Troika tried, and produced a unfinshed mess.. now they don't exist anymore, the result of HP's effort was an even more unfinished mess. Is there any hope for the great RPGs for PC, that has a lot of more depth than the everyday rumble? I wounder if it is... please someone ( developer ) show me there is!!!
The sad part is, that dungeon lords did get a lot of attention, and many people anticipated it, it was a big chance, to get a hit, and a comeback for the old-style.
That's why it's even more irritating that they pull something like this, none, not even the most loyal fans can excuse things like buttons that doesn't do anything, and a manual that talks about a whole lot of features that's not even in the game.
I think about every review will sound like gamespot "The game has many fun parts, too bad it's not even close to finished" , it's a little too late to fix it with a horde of patches, since the initial bad impression will already be there. |
|
Sat May 14, 2005 10:52 am |
|
|
Guest
|
GothicGoodness, good points, i can't disagree with that.
Priest4hire:
"It varies from game to game but simply compare Wizardry VII to Clouds of Xeen to see what I meant."
I thought I know what you meant but this made me kot. I played Clouds and Darkside, the map layout and dungeons where silimlar, and the free exploration restricted by high level mobs.
"Ultima VII had voodoo among other things and had the whole 'undocumented feature' debacle. Darklands had a few patches and arguably it was the famously buggy release that held it back."
The darklands I got came with a blue disk that was a cheat utility to make any party you wanted any way you wanted (which wrecked the game) but the game disks are the ones I still use, maybe it was aan already patched version. But daggerfall was seriously the first game I patched so I'm sure I played a slew of buggy games and just never knew it. Like the person who said krynn was bugged. I remember I could never beat that game so thats probably why and I was too young and inexperienced with bugs to figure it out. I remember Darksun 1 had some points where I had to go back and do things different, I figured it was something I did but was probably bugs.
"I already said it had some cool ideas. But you can hardly claim the engine was cutting edge. Really it's a warmed over version of the Wizardry VI engine. And the map illustrates perfectly what I was getting at. Yes it was a very cool idea that made the map part of the fictional world. But at the same time the actual map wasn't exactly a paragon of functionality. Compare it to Ultima Underworld that had note taking and was line of sight. Wizardry VII's map didn't even scroll."
Wiz 7 map got much better and functional with added skill in cartography (or whatever the word I'm trying to spell is). In the next paragraph you claim your love of U7, which had the same big ingame map as the cloth map that came with it. No functionality at all. Certain maps scemes fit certain games better. u7's map didn't detract from the u7 experience, Gothic's map scheme didn't detract from its experience. Wiz 8 did, in my opinion, make it a big step back from 7. And I played both UU's and its clones like Valour, but I'm not a twitch action game fan. I know i like more realistic map systems like u7, Gothic, or Wiz 7 (map tied to skill that improves with skill). If DL never had a map or map feature I wouldn't have cared, but since it was supposed to and that its missing it pisses me off for some reason, but everyones arguument for its inclusion can be said for Gothic also, which had huge outdoor areas to explore.
I think when you talk about engine you talk about graphics, while I'm talking about mechanics. Wiz 6 and 7 are like night and day when it comes down to mechanics, and I'd also say that graphics wise too. Wiz 7 graphics impressed me on release, more so than u7 (besides the opening cinemetics which were great graphics at the time, but also was the biggest problem of getting the game to work for me). But I can have a good time playing zork and I think anything beyond svga is almost the same. I thought the world was nuts when wiz 8 got hit for graphics which i thought were fantastic, and not hit for having dummed down gameplay.
"This presupposes a singular model towards which all CRPGs must aspire. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The genre is very broad and incorporates a number of different design philosophies raging from the Rogue-like with its random dungeons, scoring system, and hack & slash emphasis to the sandbox games like Alternate Reality. Besides, the features you claim as the core of RPGs have nothing to do with role playing and only represent part of the original P&P RPG experience. The most influential CRPG series - Ultima - deemphasized all those things in favor of a sophisticated world and natural interaction with that world."
There is no single model I claim. Complexity would lend itself to multiple models far more than simplicity. I never claimed any features were the core of rpgs, but I do believe claiming a game is an rpg requires certain criteria for it to be an rpg. But this is a different argument (and one I'd love to continue in the crpg general forum).
I disagree that ultima is the most influential rpg series. And I would say its not an rpg since rpg stands for role-playing game, role-playing has a historical precidence of someone creating a role and playing it. u7 was the biggening of crpgs taking the path of not playing a role bug giving you a role, much the same as super mario brothers and every other non-rpg. RPGs started as a way for people to make their own characters, breathe life into them, and not follow a predestined path that fantasy books provided, but make their own path limited by their own imagination. In the beginning of crpgs this freedom was impossible, but as technology improved and it became more possible no one tried to achieve this, and games that went the other direction of striving for this sold better.
My imagination creaqtes far better characters, with far more intersting conections, squabbles, etc than any "rpg:" to date has. Kotor is an interactive book or movie. But when i play Darklands it is an empty book or movie that I fill. The game doesn't have to provide party banter because my mind does that better than any game dev could possibly imagine.
Every p&p rpg to date has included character creation, even roll and rule-light ones like fudge. The cornerstone of an rpg is creating a character and infusing that character with life. Take that away and the rule of consistency and the LAW (not rule or guideline or suggestion) of non-contradiction dictates that what you have isn't an rpg, because it destroys what an rpg sets out to create.
I have semi-come to termsthat that is the direction c"rpg"s have taken but saying stripped down functionality is good is just plain silly. The new Zelda's provide the same experience and are not considered rpgs. Why?
"I am also reminded of the concept that in beginning a review the critic should ask two basic questions: What was the intent of the creator(s) and did he/they achieve it? In that sense a game should be reviewed against itself and at most games with more or less identical design goals.
This reminds me of the Dragon review of Realms of Arkania: Blade of Destiny. (Dragon is the official D&D magazine) That review accused the game of beings made for accountants and being so stat heavy it missed the point."
I couldn't agree more. That is what I'm trying to say but stated much more coherently. Did DL acheive what it set out to do? And are the flaws people claim make the game suck so bad not flaws in other games that were reviewed highly.
Realms of Arkania series isn't stat heavy at all. It isn't even rule heavy. It is skill heavy but when you boil down the skills that have functionality it isn't even skill heavy. And what did the designers miss the point of? making the game they set out to make with the system that the game was based off of? No, they nailed it. That Dragon review is stupid drivel, I would say Diablo and most other crpgs missed the point.
"Yes, complexity lends itself to bugs but that has nothing to do with a game being incomplete. Walking off the beaten path had nothing to do with the sad state in which Dungeon Lords shipped. In fact the whole argument is a strawman."
My theory is that MP was a stipulation of funding, and MP is the cause of the game missing milestones and being incomplete. But besides some missing features that are being added in with patches I don't see how the game is incomplete, please elaborate, what is missing and makes it incomplete. Or more incomplete than the great review game Kotor 2. Or more incomplete than the featurless Jade Empire.
"You're coming dangerously close to contradicting your own advice. Do you honestly believe the men and women of Bioware work less diligently? That the founders - three medical doctors - are somehow different kinds of humans? Maybe they don't create the kinds of games you like but does that mean you should show no respect for the amount of time and effort it takes to create one of their games? Bioware started out at the bottom as a nobody just like everybody else."
The only thing i'm coming close to is making sense. No matter where bio started where are they now? Bill Gates wasn't always a billionare and the MS corp wasn't always a powerhouse. I used to do hardwood floors and was also in the demolition union and have worked on many new houses for a construction firm. It was hard work, very hard work. As hard as work as the person doing it by himself. I'm not talking about working hard, I'm talking about the underlining reasons of working hard. Are you doing it out of love, or like me and Bio are you fdoing it for money?
"Some speculate that money had something to do with Dungeon Lords shipping obviously incomplete. That the publisher may have forced HP's hand. Certainly I feel sorry for the developer. This debacle of a release surely couldn't have been their intention. But once again all this talk of money grubbing and corporation is a strawman. None if it has anything to do with a game that was shipped in a terrible state."
It has everything to do with it. DWB didn't make smart business decisions. He kept a similar advancement system that was in w&w, a game that sold abbout as well as crack to the Amish. He isn't stupid, he could have made a rock-solid diablo clone, but he didn't. Almost every design decision he made besides the twitch-action combat equates to low sales. The more "stream-lined" and simple a rpg is the better it sells. He basically screwed himself from the beggining. Does BIoware or Blizzard say, "Hey, lets make a game with features that equate to low sales and that the majority of rpg fans don't want in their games." Streamlining equates to dumbing down which equates to bigger sales. While eiz 8 was a dumbed down wiz 7, w&w actually added complexity and functionality. Whixh gamne is the better game is largley up to personal taste, but that one was less complex and "stream-lined" and the other was not is not up to opinion (mechanic wise).
If the one point I get across and that other people concede is that DW didn't do this for the money (or if he did, he is so stupid as to make it impossible to imagine he can dress himself). If he didn't do it for the money then why did he do it? Why make the design decisions he did? Answer that.
No one can argue that Bioware and Blizzard take a bottom-line aproach to game making. They make games for the majority and wouldn't make a design decision that market research implied would equate to lower sales.
Everyone hear should be bright enough to know how it works. DW entered negotiations on behalf of HP with a design concept. The publisher tweaked it to include what they think are high selling poiunts like MP. They probably would have been giddy ass hell if the idea he picthed was a diablo-clone but he was probably adamant on some design autonomy and decisions that the publishers felt were not high selling unti highlights. Milestones were set as pressure points, and missed. And instead of designing a game DW probably just fought fires with the pubs and hoped and prayed for a miracle that could let him finish the game being forced out the door. The pubs wanted him to focus on MP and just cut other stuff, and the game got messed up in the crossfire and comprimised because DW isn't a superb business man, and he bit off more than he chew just to get funded. Like Trokia he probably new the milestones were impossible or unlikely or wishful thinking at the best, but if it comes to hoping for a miracle or not getting funded, you lie and hope. But neither trokia or HP sold out and comprimised what the wanted to appease the mainstream and I respect that more than anything.
In my mind at least, these are the true game developers. The ones that didn't sell out to the almighty dollar and pander to the lowest common denominator.
"I personally pimp Spiderweb Software at every chance I get. They also make games that take a different road. Only their games are always solid and well constructed. Older graphics and retro gameplay styles are perfectly fine with me. But it is so frustrating to see what should have been a stellar entry in the genre get kicked out so premature it's barely more than a frame."
All of spiderweb cgames have never been retro, they offer new gameplay and blaze new trails with new and innovative ideas. I don't understand where people are coming from with all this old-school retro nonsense. Not fancy graphics doesn't mean gameplay is retro. Is mount $ blade retro?
"I take real exception to that comment. Resorting to such ad hominem attacks not only makes you look bad but overshadows the good points you make. Tearing down everyone else doesn't elevate your cause."
You are right, it was juvuinlle of me. But the meat of the statement is true. As FPS's, space sims, and rts's and other genre's get increasibngly more complex, rpgs are getting increasingly less complex. I enjoy the occasional moindless game to relax with, but when that has become the standard of the genre and with each new hit the bar is lowered, it starts to wear you down after a while. I seek a mental challenge and rpgs have consistently taken that away from me and replaced it with a physical challenge of my reflexes, timing, and button clicking ability. SW makes good games that I love but they aren't challenging mentally. I love SS ( a tbs and not a rpg but articulates my point the same((I'm a new Nival Fanboy)) but even on impossible with extra difficulty mods it was pretty easy, and is considered the most difficult game released for a while. Toee was challenging on ironman, as was wiz 8 to a lesser extent, but diablo 2 sure as hell wasn't. The combat in kotor was so simple my 1.5 year old daughter could win any battle by whacky the mouse with her diaper.
So the way I said what I said was rude, crude, and uncalled for, but the meat of it is true. There was a huge debate and outcry to nintendo when windwalker was announced that claimed the cartoony, aimed-at children zelda was a slap to Zelda fans faces. The fans that grew up, supported, and have been loyal fans of Zelda want an adult game aimed at them and not their children. Goddamn Zelda. And they won. They have there game being made. Where is the outcry from the rpg community? Where is a game that targets us? I'll tell you were, not being developed.
I have nothing against the hard working person that comes home from work and the last thing they want is to thoink hard about the game they are playing and after a long day of fighting the good fight the last thing on their mind is to fight a complex rpg and force it to subdue to their will. I am the same way sometimes. But when rpgs are made exclusivly for this situation, and aimed at children who don't work and don't deserve to relax after a hard days work, I say screw em. Make a game for me and my kind for once. And if you don't and I never got it, I have the right to be jaded by a community that stole my hobby away from me. |
|
Sat May 14, 2005 5:40 pm |
|
|
Priest4hire
Head Merchant
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 52
Location: Slocan, BC |
quote:
I thought I know what you meant but this made me kot. I played Clouds and Darkside, the map layout and dungeons where silimlar, and the free exploration restricted by high level mobs.
Yes, but the overworld is not mazelike which was my point. Wizardry VII had a maze for an overworld and was thus a dungeon crawler through and through. This is what it should have been. It was the next logical step in the series.
quote:
Wiz 7 map got much better and functional with added skill in cartography (or whatever the word I'm trying to spell is). In the next paragraph you claim your love of U7, which had the same big ingame map as the cloth map that came with it. No functionality at all. Certain maps scemes fit certain games better. u7's map didn't detract from the u7 experience, Gothic's map scheme didn't detract from its experience. Wiz 8 did, in my opinion, make it a big step back from 7. And I played both UU's and its clones like Valour, but I'm not a twitch action game fan. I know i like more realistic map systems like u7, Gothic, or Wiz 7 (map tied to skill that improves with skill). If DL never had a map or map feature I wouldn't have cared, but since it was supposed to and that its missing it pisses me off for some reason, but everyones arguument for its inclusion can be said for Gothic also, which had huge outdoor areas to explore.
Hey, I love Wizardry VII. Besides, my personal favorite Ultima is number 5. As for my love of the series... observe the signature. But this is beside the point. It was frustrating to check the map in Wizardry VII only to discover that what you need is several blocks off the end of the thing. Things like note taking are a neat luxury, but scrolling seems so basic that it boggles the mind it was left out. A great idea but lacking something so fundamental. I do regret though that the idea of skill based mapping wasn't picked up on more.
quote:
I disagree that ultima is the most influential rpg series. And I would say its not an rpg since rpg stands for role-playing game, role-playing has a historical precidence of someone creating a role and playing it. u7 was the biggening of crpgs taking the path of not playing a role bug giving you a role, much the same as super mario brothers and every other non-rpg. RPGs started as a way for people to make their own characters, breathe life into them, and not follow a predestined path that fantasy books provided, but make their own path limited by their own imagination. In the beginning of crpgs this freedom was impossible, but as technology improved and it became more possible no one tried to achieve this, and games that went the other direction of striving for this sold better.
I'd simply bet that I could point out more features and core fundamental concepts that showed up in an Ultima first. But again it's beside the point. It's important to point out that RPGs and CRPGs are not the same genre and are not built on the same roots. While the CRPG did start by emulating the RPG it did not nor has ever been able to offer role playing itself. The name is a bit of a misnomer for this reason.
quote:
My imagination creaqtes far better characters, with far more intersting conections, squabbles, etc than any "rpg:" to date has. Kotor is an interactive book or movie. But when i play Darklands it is an empty book or movie that I fill. The game doesn't have to provide party banter because my mind does that better than any game dev could possibly imagine.
Yet it fails the ceiling test. A test I invented on the spot that simply asks if the feedback to the so called role playing exceeds the feedback my ceiling above my bed gives me. I can imagine all kinds of characters and conversations whilst I lie in bed and gaze at the ceiling but that doesn't make my ceiling a role playing game.
quote:
Every p&p rpg to date has included character creation, even roll and rule-light ones like fudge. The cornerstone of an rpg is creating a character and infusing that character with life. Take that away and the rule of consistency and the LAW (not rule or guideline or suggestion) of non-contradiction dictates that what you have isn't an rpg, because it destroys what an rpg sets out to create.
One word: Dragonlance.
quote:
have semi-come to termsthat that is the direction c"rpg"s have taken but saying stripped down functionality is good is just plain silly. The new Zelda's provide the same experience and are not considered rpgs. Why?
The Zelda issue is way too complex for this. But let me just point out that stripping down functionality is neither good nor bad. It's about achieving the overall effect that's desired. Things are far more complex and there are many aspects that can be emphasized or deemphasized.
quote:
Realms of Arkania series isn't stat heavy at all. It isn't even rule heavy. It is skill heavy but when you boil down the skills that have functionality it isn't even skill heavy. And what did the designers miss the point of? making the game they set out to make with the system that the game was based off of? No, they nailed it. That Dragon review is stupid drivel, I would say Diablo and most other crpgs missed the point.
What exact purpose does a skill without functionality serve in a game? Yes they made a game off the system they chose but then stuffed it with pointless skills that only served to fill out three pages of the stuff. That's bad design. After all it is a game and if it doesn’t serve the game then if doesn't belong in there. The game is good despite the issue not because of it. Complexity should serve the game not itself.
And what has the Rogue-like Diablo have to do with anything? It's part of a venerable tradition of CRPGs going all the way back to the beginning. Of course I think it's boring and somewhat pointless but then that's just me.
quote:
My theory is that MP was a stipulation of funding, and MP is the cause of the game missing milestones and being incomplete. But besides some missing features that are being added in with patches I don't see how the game is incomplete, please elaborate, what is missing and makes it incomplete. Or more incomplete than the great review game Kotor 2. Or more incomplete than the featurless Jade Empire.
KotOR 2 was incomplete in that especially later on you can see elements of story go nowhere and obvious elements missing. Jade Empire is not featureless and it achieves everything it sets out to do.
Dungeon Lords has features mentioned ingame missing, no ingame music, almost no NPCs, almost no furniture, extreme balance issues, random monster generation issues and a general lack of polish. I can hardly believe that the developers intended there to be an army of one or an expensive inn with no furniture in the room. Add in the lack of non-story related content and it seems the game was basically put together in an extreme hurry with only the most critical content in place.
quote:
The only thing i'm coming close to is making sense... Are you doing it out of love, or like me and Bio are you fdoing it for money?
In my humble opinion you're creating an excuse by which to demonize the developers you don't like and the success they've enjoyed.
quote:
It has everything to do with it. DWB didn't make smart business decisions. He kept a similar advancement system that was in w&w, a game that sold abbout as well as crack to the Amish. He isn't stupid, he could have made a rock-solid diablo clone, but he didn't. Almost every design decision he made besides the twitch-action combat equates to low sales. The more "stream-lined" and simple a rpg is the better it sells. He basically screwed himself from the beggining. Does BIoware or Blizzard say, "Hey, lets make a game with features that equate to low sales and that the majority of rpg fans don't want in their games." Streamlining equates to dumbing down which equates to bigger sales. While eiz 8 was a dumbed down wiz 7, w&w actually added complexity and functionality. Whixh gamne is the better game is largley up to personal taste, but that one was less complex and "stream-lined" and the other was not is not up to opinion (mechanic wise).
Wizards & Warriors sold poorly because the game was problematic at best. The character system is typically considered the best part of the game and if it sold poorly I'd put forth that it was despite the character advancement system not because of it. The same is with Dungeon Lords. I have read many complaints, some very bitter, against the game but not one was against the character development. That usually gets praise from all quarters. Wizardry 8 did better than W&W as far as I know and it was probably due to the vastly better interface and generally more solid feel of the game. The character building system was the same as the previous 2 games and it was more than robust enough.
quote:
If the one point I get across and that other people concede is that DW didn't do this for the money (or if he did, he is so stupid as to make it impossible to imagine he can dress himself). If he didn't do it for the money then why did he do it? Why make the design decisions he did? Answer that.
No one can argue that Bioware and Blizzard take a bottom-line aproach to game making. They make games for the majority and wouldn't make a design decision that market research implied would equate to lower sales.
I'm sure he made the decisions because he felt they were the right ones. I'd ask for proof that Bioware made their decisions for another reason. Popularity is not proof of anything besides that the game is popular. When Baldur's Gate was in development it was anything but a sure thing. Yet the choices made in that game have informed many latter choices as well. Just because Bioware is popular or their games are more mainstream doesn't mean they sold out or any of that crap. Perhaps they simply make the games they like to play. Personally I think they are by far the best console RPG developer in the West.
quote:
Everyone hear should be bright enough to know how it works. DW entered negotiations on behalf of HP with a design concept. The publisher tweaked it to include what they think are high selling poiunts like MP. They probably would have been giddy ass hell if the idea he picthed was a diablo-clone but he was probably adamant on some design autonomy and decisions that the publishers felt were not high selling unti highlights. Milestones were set as pressure points, and missed. And instead of designing a game DW probably just fought fires with the pubs and hoped and prayed for a miracle that could let him finish the game being forced out the door. The pubs wanted him to focus on MP and just cut other stuff, and the game got messed up in the crossfire and comprimised because DW isn't a superb business man, and he bit off more than he chew just to get funded. Like Trokia he probably new the milestones were impossible or unlikely or wishful thinking at the best, but if it comes to hoping for a miracle or not getting funded, you lie and hope. But neither trokia or HP sold out and comprimised what the wanted to appease the mainstream and I respect that more than anything.
Yes, I respect that as well but it changes nothing. Every time a hardcore RPG is released and it is in terrible shape like this only reduces consumer confidence in the genre. Like I said everyone seems to like the hardcore elements of Dungeon Lords but the other issues get in the way. The Gamespot review really hit this point and it's an important one. Sure, you or I may be able to overlook such issues and enjoy the game within but you can't expect to lure new customers that way.
quote:
All of spiderweb cgames have never been retro, they offer new gameplay and blaze new trails with new and innovative ideas. I don't understand where people are coming from with all this old-school retro nonsense. Not fancy graphics doesn't mean gameplay is retro. Is mount $ blade retro?
Avernum and Exile that it's a remake of are very retro. They are basically a new form of the Ultima III style RPG. There is nothing wrong with retro and in this case it's obviously deliberate. Retro does not mean primitive or outdated. Another good example of retro would be Wizardry: Tale of the Forsaken Land which is a modern version of the old Pre-Bane Wizardry titles. Yet the 'allied actions' system makes the combat more interesting and the story is both interesting and it actually makes the old town & dungeon setup work.
quote:
So the way I said what I said was rude, crude, and uncalled for, but the meat of it is true. There was a huge debate and outcry to nintendo when windwalker was announced that claimed the cartoony, aimed-at children zelda was a slap to Zelda fans faces. The fans that grew up, supported, and have been loyal fans of Zelda want an adult game aimed at them and not their children. Goddamn Zelda. And they won. They have there game being made. Where is the outcry from the rpg community? Where is a game that targets us? I'll tell you were, not being developed.
Actually most Zelda fans realized that Wind Waker wasn't any more a kids game than any other Zelda and the cell-shaded look was just a visual style. Not to mention the whole 'it's kiddy because it looks cartoony' reeks of the old 'animation is for kids' prejudice which never fails to annoy me. Tradition animation, as a medium, is no more for kids than the painting it is based on.
I share your frustration with the direction RPGs have taken. While I enjoy the Bioware games I wish there was more variety. Being a turn-based combat fan I especially regret that it seems everyone is going the action route. It seems that the only hard core RPG developers that do well are Bethesda and Piranha Bytes and they both lean in the action direction. But I respect that Bethesda's series has a long enough tradition and Gothic is a spiritual successor to Ultima. At least they try to make each game bigger - in the case of PB - and sophisticated in world simulation.
But this is not necessarily the fault of the fanbase or community. How can we know if such a game will sell well when there are so few uncompromised examples? If turn-based combat turns them off why are the turn-based Japanese RPGs and tactical RPGs popular? If it's the character creation system then what about MMORPGs which tend to offer more complex character building?
I personally believe that it's just a bad time for RPGs. Gaming can by cyclical in nature and right now the trend has moved away from the mechanics heavy RPG. But that doesn't mean they won't make a comeback. Constantly attacking the people who make games of a different style doesn't help. In fact a smart developer might look at how a studio works in order to deal with the problem. Spielberg made Jurassic Park in order to get funding for Schindler's List. That's playing it smart. Gaming still needs to grow up. Honey attracts more flies than vinegar.
It is also important to remember that it is not an either-or situation here. That Bioware games do well does not mean that other games can not. Their success does not somehow steal from other types of RPGs. The truth is that the entire genre was in a slump around the time Bioware did their first game and there’s every likelihood that if Bioware didn’t exist that the hardcore RPGs wouldn’t be doing any better.
_________________
Watch your back. Shoot straight. Conserve ammo. And never, ever, cut a deal with a dragon.
Grammaton Dragon
-==(UDIC)==- |
|
Sun May 15, 2005 4:28 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:14 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
