Diogo Ribeiro

And because emos support going across the street instead of down the road because it makes them even more emo?

A Toda Cuba Le Gusta La Fiesta de La Rumba!

Going all emo, are you?

Why do you lie, emo boy? Emos don't feel unless they're cutting themselves. Are you cutting yourself? Didn't think so, emo boy.

Sounds pretty emo to me. Emo lover. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Filthy emo lover.

It's Game Over for hippies, man.

Pretty concise report, Blank. Thanks for elucidating some things. Maybe Ender will one day return to guide us into a brave new world.

Great stuff

Join ussss.....

That would be the start of a great cheerleader tune.

Gunstar Heroes Alien Soldier

Yet it largely plays like one. Morrowind (or at least several aspects of it), Knights of the Old Republic and Fable are very much set on, or possessing of, characteristics which make them familiar and more acceptable by the masses (ie, mainstream). Knights of the Old Republic has a recognizable license which has allowed many products, from films to other videogames, to strike commercial success on multiple fronts. And all three of them have gameplay elements which have seen very similar variations, and acceptance, over the years in other console games. Also, I know those games succeeded and sold more than other contemporary console action RPGs. I got it the first time, thank you very much. Then again, most traditional console roleplaying games also tend to outsell console action RPGs. And? Again, these games are exceptions. There's a considerable number of computer-styled games on consoles which have failed to succeed; Diablo on the Playstation and Deus Ex: The Conspiracy on the Playstation 2 certainly didn't. The point is that a computer-styled RPG in consoles is likely to not be as successful as a console action RPG on account of the style of RPGs usually seen on consoles. I have little doubt, for instance, that Knights and Morrowind would have had the same success on the Playstation 2 that it had on X-Box. The consumers are different, the console mentality is different, the roleplaying games in gameplay and design are largely different. Perhaps, perhaps not. You're certainly free to think as much. However the point I've made back there still remains that computer-styled RPGs on consoles are not guaranteed to succeed. You have two successful examples, one of which was using a strong intellectual property to back it up. And besides the three possible conditioning factors I've mentioned, you can also pile upon them the fact that the console for which they were developed is not aimed at the general bulk of console gamers, which lies with Sony. Developing computer-styled games for a console which has many computer-styled roleplaying games to begin with or that promotes that approach is obviously going to work better than developing computer-styled roleplaying games for a console which doesn't. Not a terrible great plot twist there. But expecting them to work or succeed on all major console platforms needs more than two examples. If you're hinting at not knowing what the concept means then why did you apply it to Morrowind, Knights of the Old Republic and Fable? Hopefully not just because I did the same. I believe, even if there's little to go by from available sources, that consoles can in fact have a considerable market share which enjoys and demands computer-styled roleplaying games and that developing them will eventually phase out the computer/console dichotomy when it comes to genres. However, I also think that if a company is planning on doing this they need proper financing and planning, and the former can be obtained by developing 'mainstream' (or commercialy successful, if you will) titles which can provide a long term commercial support; although by no means it is the only way to achieve the necessary revenue.

Exactly!

Take a wild guess.

I favored the concept of the development of titles that, wheter action RPGs or not, would provide enough capital to fund computer RPGs. It just so happened that action RPGs were the genre brought up by the first post where it was detailed the release of one such game. I believe titles like Fable, the Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance series, and Phantasy Star Online, to name a few, have been fairly successful and most have been increasingly successful. The development of sequels would suggest so, at least. More than 2.5 million units? Not that I know of. Fable sold over 1 million units, although reportedly it sold over 375,000 units in its first week, while Knights had only sold 270,000 in its first two weeks. Of course, this doesn't mean action RPGs are not successful, or that their development would not generate a comfortable amount of revenue that would allow to finance the development of "real" RPGs, as you called them. Knights of the Old Republic was an exceptions to the rule, like Morrowind also was. Maybe companies could properly develop computer roleplaying games for consoles but most don't have as much access to the kind of advertisement, production values and/or successful licenses that KoTOR and Morrowind had. Trying to break into the market as KoTOR and Morrowind did isn't easy, and it's certainly not open to everybody. If someone dives headlong into such an attempt without having a considerable financial backup, then they can lose a whole deal; but if someone does have that financial backup (provided by whatever former development of whatever successful genre), such a failure might be overcome or better handled.

Maybe you should ask them since I'm not a console aficionado to begin with. Also, the previous point was about discussing how (successful) action RPGs were a viable means of financing the development of other games, in particular intellectual properties and/or computer RPGs. If there are equally successful RPG subgenres, or non-RPG genres that would provide for the same financial success and long term stability, you can easilly replace the term "action RPG" with the appropriate term. It isn't about action RPGs themselves but rather commercially successful titles. Console action RPGs seem to fit the bill so I assume that's why they were a mainstay of the conversation.

The million dollar question several people here will never acknowledge.

Here's my resume: *Excellent coffee fetcher. *Works best under pressure. Preferably, of the boothill or whip kind.

So, no, I didn't suggest a company should exclusively develop action RPGs for console platforms.

EDIT: Just to expand on this a bit for (hopefully) more positive discussion... It seems to me that a similar approach to freeform roleplaying can often go hand in hand with roleplaying in the context of a game (ie, with rules, as opposed to freeform which is akin to pure acting). To an extent there's this burning desire to see a continued implementation of character definition within the game's rules - subject to various methods of scrutiny that judge and appraise the character in formal (ie, statistical) ways - along with the use of more and better storytelling (y halo thar Llyranor!) by means of allowing for a better dialogue flow and use that doesn't rely heavilly on the character's formalities. I'm not advocating a numberless system (or the absence of any defining character development system) but rather that perhaps there's a place for a more accentuated use of character definition trough quantitative and qualitative methods that influence statistical and 'personal' development. On the subject of alignment I mentioned this before. It's my belief that alignment should often determine what kind of responses are available to the character. Not to the point of overshadowing other roleplaying nuances, but PCs of a given alignment should have more answers available to them depending on their moral views.

Character: Role-Player Attributes: Endloser grimm, ewiger gram.

Nice answer metadigital, and thanks for positively contributing to the thread.

Ah, The Meaning of Life... That explains it. Thanks

Too scared to talk, too scared to try :ph34r:

If these were the TES forums, we'd all get murdered by the waves of ignorance and slobbering fanboyism.