Goilveig

Some of my favorites in no particular order, and why: * Final Fantasy IV - Had the most expansive storytelling in its day; paved the way for modern RPGs * Chrono Trigger - Time travel was a novel game mechanic that gave a whole new twist on the game * Terranigma - Very unusual plot, setting, and some great plot twists * Arcanum - Pretty much the only steampunk RPG ever, and a great game which subverts fantasy tropes hard * Mass Effect series - Good setting and characters * Live-A-Live - Game told over seven unique settings from caveman era to far future, and the 'evil' ending is one of the best game concepts ever * Planescape:Torment - Great game, great setting, great characters

I am a firm believer that every great game needs to have a 'hill to stand on' - something that separates them from the vast sea of other games. Novel settings aren't the only possible hill to stand on, but they are *a* hill to stand on. Western medieval fantasy RPGs make up 95% of the genre, so a setting change makes an easy hill to stand on. An interesting and engaging story isn't usually enough for a great RPG. Since story is at the heart of the RPG, an interesting and engaging story is necessary for a great game, but it's rarely sufficient. Story is a difficult hill to stand on, because there are already so many good stories told in RPGs. Few indeed are the RPGs that set themselves apart purely by story. Most of the great games with great stories also set themselves apart by unique and memorable settings, etc.

Gilbert Gottfried is the only voice actor you need.

If the existence of homosexuals is evidence of an LGBT agenda, then reality must be one hell of a strong supporter of the LGBT cause.

I would disagree with #1 - I think it's easier to take a game made for MP and make it work well SP than to take a game made for SP and make it work well MP. (As long as you aren't talking about MMOs, most of which have fundamentally poor gameplay that would make a transition to SP impossible). If the core gameplay is fun, the social aspect would be icing on the cake, not the only reason to play. And yes, I know it's going to be a single player game. My comment was more of a lament on the fact that nobody makes good co-op RPGs. I do - I generally have two or three games going at any one time. Sadly, a number of the people I'd really like to play with are hundreds or thousands of miles away - so they simply can't participate.

I am not sure if it really is that much different in terms of effort - if the game was designed around the idea of multiplayer from the get-go. Too many games build a solid single-player game and then tack on some awkward multiplayer afterwards (e.g. Mass Effect 3). In these cases, sure, it adds time because it's something else appended on to an already complete game. A true cooperative campaign, though, designed from the ground up, probably doesn't add that much, assuming the engine already has multiplayer support and can take care of the networking/syching aspects for you. And while there is certainly risk, I think there's also a reward as well, at least depending on what kind of reward one looks for. For a purely ROI point of view of most companies, it's probably not worth it. Most of the people who would want a great multi-player game would also buy a great single-player game, so from a financial point of view, it's not really necessary because you don't really attract more customers. On the other hand, starting from the goal of creating a revolutionary or memorable game, it's more attractive to focus on the underserved niche; your game can shine all the brighter if it shines alone, and being a trailblazer makes one more memorable than the games that follow. That's one of the reasons I would hope Kickstarter could do something like this - there's more freedom for originality and trailblazing when you don't need to answer to corporate bean-counters who probably don't even like video games. I hope so; I think crowdsourced funding is one of the only hopes for that style of game. Much of the reason I don't play many RPG video games anymore is the lack of co-op. I think while certain aspects, like dialog, might suffer a bit from reading speed issues, having a group of real people presents new opportunities as well as new challenges. There are entire dimensions to gameplay that would be possible that just can't exist with scripted AI companions. I am also a very fast reader and played what few multiplayer RPGs there are with a friend who is a slow reader. That does slow how fast I would go through dialogs, but it's never been a real problem; if anything the main problem the games we've tried suffer from is trying to shoehorn co-op into a game that was designed to be single-player.

/thread Yeah, I know it won't happen. Really, it comes down to the devs' vision, not anything else - I do like that they have a clear focus and a clear vision and won't sway from that, because projects without that level of vision are simply doomed. I just find it disappointing, because I think this group has the talent to make a great multiplayer RPG if that was their goal. There are just so many great single-player RPGs and so few (if any) great multi-player RPGs that it's a bit disappointing when time after time the great teams of the industry won't take the road less traveled.

I don't know if you've ever read the Thomas Covenant novels, but it's pretty common that each consecutive series reveals that his decisions in the previous series, while preventing the immediate problem, served in the long term to enable an even worse problem than the one he was trying to prevent the last time.

Things that annoy me about RPGs: Lots of loot, limited inventory. I want to play a roleplaying game, not an inventory management game. Terrible companion AI. Yes, I know they will never be human-like in intellect, but c'mon, a brain damaged chimpanzee won't run straight into a gigantic rain of fire pummeling the baddies. My party members shouldn't, either. "The one" syndrome - where every bit of prophecy, lore, or other flavor text that exists anywhere in the game universe all directly applies to you and only you. The entire world exists just for the benefit of this one moment. Related to the last one, games that just play every RPG trope straight (ESPECIALLY the 'prophecied one' or 'amnesiac' tropes). I love Arcanum for many reasons, not the least of which is that it subverts the hell out of tropes. Too much linearity / not enough choices Choices and character development that is either forced or encouraged by game mechanics towards solidly black or white morally. I'd like a choice somewhere between "saint" and "genocidal madman", please. Every single problem in the universe is solvable, and conveniently my character is able to solve every one. Poverty, war, racism, hunger, deceit, treachery, and country music were easily eliminated by one party within a few years in the game world. Guess everybody else who has every tried to make a positive difference in all the world's history just needed to be as cool as I am. The 'token' party - we look like a walking diversity special because we have exactly one of every race. The 'two dimensional' party - every member of that diversity special of races will act out every stereotype of that race or (rarely) act out the exact opposite of their race's stereotypes.

Played them, enjoyed them, reverse engineered their file formats and helped mod them

While that's true, I don't think it's because it can't be done, only because it hasn't been done. Part of that, I think, is that it's simply too easy to fall into conventional molds, and the genre of video game RPGs fully matured before widespread internet access was the norm. Newer titles are inspired by what have gone before, and few even attempt to try the road less traveled. Those that do often tack multiplayer on as an afterthought to a game that was not really designed for it, and thus do it poorly. It's a pity, because the original genre that inspired video game RPGs, tabletop RPGs, derives so much of its enjoyment (and, to be fair, drama) from the interaction of the gamers in the party. And unfortunately, we're not going to see a golden age of multiplayer RPGs until someone blazes a trail and proves excellence is possible. Right now, designers are mainly staying at the edges of the spectrum - either single-player or massively-multiplayer - and ignore the middle ground where tabletop gaming has thrived for so many years, the small group. I also strongly disagree about reading not being a team sport - it's just another form of storytelling, which is possibly the oldest form of social recreation. I've had many, many great hours of playing solo RPGs 'co-op' with my brothers when we were growing up - passing the controller back and forth while we were all engrossed in the story being told.