Mythic structure in RPGs/video games in general

[Calax]

In terms of graphics and hardware... I'm gonna say that america is the best in the industry because of the fact that most of the hardware developed is made in this country.

 

In terms of free form gameplay... it's very hard to do because we as rpg players are more interested in the story BEHIND the game as compared to the way the game works... there are exceptions but those are few and far between. with free form gameplay you cannot have much of a story line because if the person really wanted too they could probably go to the very end and beat the entire game in under 2 hours. the closest thing to a free form game I've seen is Fallout and there you don't really have a full storyline. rather you have a goal and everything else is pointed to that goal (well... at least the part that I've seen). Other than that is Fable which has very little in the way of free form, you still do everything in sequence like normal the "free form" part of it is the so called ability to choose your direction. and even that doesn't do much because, if your bad, you drop a heap of cash and get good points. If your good you simply start beating the tar out of the town watch and maybe kill an innocent or two. or just sacrifice a guy to the evil god.

[metadigital]

In terms of graphics and hardware... I'm gonna say that America is the best in the industry because of the fact that most of the hardware developed is made in this country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That doesn't make sense, or is incorrect. Please clarify.

[Calax]

In terms of graphics and hardware... I'm gonna say that America is the best in the industry because of the fact that most of the hardware developed is made in this country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That doesn't make sense, or is incorrect. Please clarify.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think I was saying that the graphics was better overhere because most of the devlopment is here...

[metadigital]

... But you're not sure?

[alanschu]

The thing about Square I find is that they are infatuated with killer FMV graphics.

[saintfrancisnudecenterfold]

Perhaps we should start talking about myths again?

 

I've noticed a very unpleasant myth starting to perpetuate, the myth of the happily violent hero who isn't portrayed as anything but a hero. I notice especially in computer games and a few comic books (oddly enough those based on computer games) contain heroes and heroines who relish hurting people (even innocent people), they apparently love it.

 

For example, the City of Heroes comics, where "heroes" often enjoy kicking children or cavort in the pain they cause mere underlings of a villain. Final Fantasy VII, where the characters rub the gore of the dead over their faces and bed in their foes intestines. Very ugly stuff.

 

And there isn't a bit of notice that this is ugly nor abnormal in a protagonist portrayed in the story as upholding principles, a good person, a person who is purportedly a standard of chivalry and virtue.

 

Oh, and to answer...

 

There tends to be a huge gap between enthusiasts who get paid (with livable wages) for what they're doing and enthusiasts who do not.

 

The only real difference I've seen is in graphics.

 

I've not seen the first edition DM's Guide random tables used to create an ANSI game, although they could feasibly be used this way, and also so could the entirity of first edition rules. If a random wilderness, city, and dungeon generator were developed on the basis of these random tables along with behavioral guidelines for creatures and NPC, this would make a far more interesting game than the run of the mill CRPG, with story or without. Then again, rules for keep ownership and such might be beyond the scope of a designer who thought to simply put together a D&D ANSI without much thought or effort, this being so very similar to the mental state of the average CRPG designer (not the blessed companies that actually do seem to think about story structure and such).

 

Of course I normally concieved of the idea of this sort of game as mixed with a story-based CRPG as something that allows players to continue the game after they win, sort of a neverending story kinda allowance.

 

A truly interesting freeform CRPG as put together by someone with the brains of say, a Bioware, Obsidian, ex-Infocom, or ex-Troika employee would probably have quite a few kitchen sink features and probably be a good seller. I wonder what they'd do, if they put together onesuch.

 

You bring up the example of non-linear, free-form gameplay, but games of this genre tend to be even more time- and resource-consuming to create with any semblance of roleplaying beyond hack 'n slash.  Sure, you can make the equivalent of Angband in your basement - look at Jeff Vogel's work - but such production can never reach the quality of what most people here envision as great RPGs.

 

The vast majority of linear and storybased CRPG are not very well designed and I'd hazard that I'd prefer to play nethack and omega to many of these.

 

Consequently, even if they juggle with new ideas, they're unlikely to ever become the progenitors of some new wave in gaming.  At best, they are pet projects known by a few, dedicated gamers like yourself - and even then, not generally taken seriously (which enthusiast game par excellence can *you* name?)

 

Nethack, Omega, The Prisoner (an old Apple II game), the early Ultima series (y'know Garriott was just an enthusiast before he linked up with EA), the first Civilization, and quite a few others.

 

Btw, Atlus and Square-Enix? Forgetting you mentioned Square-Enix for a moment (for you are the first one to accuse Square-Enix of being lacking in the graphics department),

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You are aware that the first Final Fantasy and subsequesent Final Fantasies up to IX used rather archaic graphics in typical gameplay? VIII and IX reminded me of Sierra game graphics, whereas VII seemed a bit like it was generated with a lego storytelling design game. The FMV were good, but without these, the games were nowhere near the equivalent of industry standard in graphics. Yet these games remain popular, as do the older games. I admit a fondness for Final Fantasy Tactics, at least the storyline, but would also enjoy the game should it become without any story whatsoever and adopt a concentration on strategic gameplay such as appears in the Total War series.

 

It's not graphics that sells a game, really. From what I can tell, it's a combination of quality freeform gameplay and quality story that sells a game.

Edited February 16, 2006 by saintfrancisnudecenterfold

[Azarkon]

Perhaps we should start talking about myths again?

 

I've noticed a very unpleasant myth starting to perpetuate, the myth of the happily violent hero who isn't portrayed as anything but a hero.  I notice especially in computer games and a few comic books (oddly enough those based on computer games) contain heroes and heroines who relish hurting people (even innocent people), they apparently love it.

 

For example, the City of Heroes comics, where "heroes" often enjoy kicking children or cavort in the pain they cause mere underlings of a villain.  Final Fantasy VII, where the characters rub the gore of the dead over their faces and bed in their foes intestines.  Very ugly stuff.

 

And there isn't a bit of notice that this is ugly nor abnormal in a protagonist portrayed in the story as upholding principles, a good person, a person who is purportedly a standard of chivalry and virtue. 

 

If you count the number of lives a typical CRPG hero must take by the time he reaches the end of his journey and cast it in real life terms, he would not be a mere mass murderer - he would be a genocidal maniac. However, because combat is so important to these games, it becomes difficult to create a protagonist outside of the classic action hero. As refreshing as a a pseudo-pacifist game might very well be, I doubt it'd satisfy the bloodthirsty urges of most gamers. Still, I applaud games like Fallout for trying...

 

The only real difference I've seen is in graphics.

 

Also music, FX, voice acting, packaging, UI, and so on to all the aspects of a game outside of pure gameplay and story. Now that's not to say that CRPGs must be the equivalent of "cinematic" experiences either in the linear or non-linear sense - but that certainly seems the trend these days.

 

The vast majority of linear and storybased CRPG are not very well designed and I'd hazard that I'd prefer to play nethack and omega to many of these.

 

Possibly, but I think the experience one garners from a game like ADOM/Nethack and the experience one garners from a game like Baldur's Gate is vastly different. Roguelikes are not true RPGs in the sense defined today (though that's a matter of semantics) because they often lack the kind of character interaction and story that people praise when it comes to CRPGs.

 

Regardless, action RPGs of this day and age seem to follow in the footsteps of roguelikes, though they often lack the intricacies and depths of gameplay.

 

Nethack, Omega, The Prisoner (an old Apple II game), the early Ultima series (y'know Garriott was just an enthusiast before he linked up with EA), the first Civilization, and quite a few others.

 

Indeed, game development, as with most forms of entertainment, began humbly. But "growth" in this industry has apparently been a progression towards more and more expensive graphics and sounds, while gameplay outside of a few important titles largely stayed the same. The developers are not really the ones to "blame" for this trend - they only did what the market desired, and therein lies why today's unpaid enthusiast finds it very difficult to attract any kind of attention when it comes to developing basement RPGs (and MMORPGs, which are a pipe dream for many enthusiasts). FPS modding can churn out some very good, near-professional results, but I've yet to see a truly excellent fan-developed RPG (and by this, I don't just mean the gameplay & story, but also the professional polish of graphics, FX, etc.)

 

You are aware that the first Final Fantasy and subsequesent Final Fantasies up to IX used rather archaic graphics in typical gameplay?  VIII and IX reminded me of Sierra game graphics, whereas VII seemed a bit like it was generated with a lego storytelling design game.  The FMV were good, but without these, the games were nowhere near the equivalent of industry standard in graphics.  Yet these games remain popular, as do the older games.  I admit a fondness for Final Fantasy Tactics, at least the storyline, but would also enjoy the game should it become without any story whatsoever and adopt a concentration on strategic gameplay such as appears in the Total War series.

 

The graphics in FF have always been very good. I think you're intoning here the difference between "technologically advanced graphics" and "expensive graphics." The FF series may not have had the flashy rendered engines of their American FPS counterparts, but the kind of art they put into the modest engines they did have were excellent (and expensive, if we count the FMVs). Then again, I'm in the crowd that preferred Baldur's Gate graphics to NWN's - the move from 2D to 3D, though considered a big deal by the FPS market, is not necessarily a move from crappy graphics to great-looking ones, especially for RPGs.

 

It's not graphics that sells a game, really.  From what I can tell, it's a combination of quality freeform gameplay and quality story that sells a game.

 

It's the graphics and the marketing that sell a game (or else roguelikes would sell by the buttloads). Quality freeform gameplay and story keeps the customer around, but it's the graphics (and marketing, and genre/brand-identification) that first and foremost attract the masses.

[Calax]

Perhaps we should start talking about myths again?

 

I've noticed a very unpleasant myth starting to perpetuate, the myth of the happily violent hero who isn't portrayed as anything but a hero.  I notice especially in computer games and a few comic books (oddly enough those based on computer games) contain heroes and heroines who relish hurting people (even innocent people), they apparently love it.

 

For example, the City of Heroes comics, where "heroes" often enjoy kicking children or cavort in the pain they cause mere underlings of a villain.  Final Fantasy VII, where the characters rub the gore of the dead over their faces and bed in their foes intestines.  Very ugly stuff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ummm you scare me... very very much so... COH heroes have never beaten up kids, and in FF7 nobody rubbed themselves in the dead bodies of their opponents.

[saintfrancisnudecenterfold]

ummm you scare me... very very much so... COH heroes have never beaten up kids, and in FF7 nobody rubbed themselves in the dead bodies of their opponents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In one comicbook, Sister Psyche kicked a few children who were supposedly thinking of her in a way that offended her.

 

In Final Fantasy VII, notice the way everyone dances around after combat? Why do they look so joyful about having willfully slaughtered something? On the alt.games.final-fantasy usenet group, a long time ago, I wrote a bit about how this seemed a tad bit weird.

[metadigital]

The only real difference I've seen is in graphics.

Also music, FX, voice acting, packaging, UI, and so on to all the aspects of a game outside of pure gameplay and story. Now that's not to say that CRPGs must be the equivalent of "cinematic" experiences either in the linear or non-linear sense - but that certainly seems the trend these days.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nethack, Omega, The Prisoner (an old Apple II game), the early Ultima series (y'know Garriott was just an enthusiast before he linked up with EA), the first Civilization, and quite a few others.

Indeed, game development, as with most forms of entertainment, began humbly. But "growth" in this industry has apparently been a progression towards more and more expensive graphics and sounds, while gameplay outside of a few important titles largely stayed the same. The developers are not really the ones to "blame" for this trend - they only did what the market desired, and therein lies why today's unpaid enthusiast finds it very difficult to attract any kind of attention when it comes to developing basement RPGs (and MMORPGs, which are a pipe dream for many enthusiasts). FPS modding can churn out some very good, near-professional results, but I've yet to see a truly excellent fan-developed RPG (and by this, I don't just mean the gameplay & story, but also the professional polish of graphics, FX, etc.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Counter-Strike started with almost embarassingly basic graphics, little more than stick figures, and it is a FPS.

 

The original methodology is sound, and now there are more communities to support embryonic developers. By methodology, I mean that the aim should be to use an iterative process to refine a game, with copious honest feedback from the alpha testers, rather than publish The Next Big Thing in a perfectly formed final state.

 

It's not graphics that sells a game, really.  From what I can tell, it's a combination of quality freeform gameplay and quality story that sells a game.

It's the graphics and the marketing that sell a game (or else roguelikes would sell by the buttloads). Quality freeform gameplay and story keeps the customer around, but it's the graphics (and marketing, and genre/brand-identification) that first and foremost attract the masses.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not convinced. Flashy graphics and a Hollywood Blockbuster marketing budget (perhaps even a film tie-in) only get a game a big first-night in the theatre we know as the game market. True longevity and return on investment won't materialise with an empty game, no matter how pretty the green hair is on the pixies.

 

What was the last game with a film tie-in that actually made money? I can't think of one off-hand ...

[Azarkon]

Counter-Strike started with almost embarassingly basic graphics, little more than stick figures, and it is a FPS.

 

The original methodology is sound, and now there are more communities to support embryonic developers. By methodology, I mean that the aim should be to use an iterative process to refine a game, with copious honest feedback from the alpha testers, rather than publish The Next Big Thing

[alanschu]

As someone that played CS in 1999, Beta 2.0, I wholeheartedly disagree that it had "embarrasingly basic graphics." I also remember watching the animations, even in late 1999, which were quite well done for the time.

[metadigital]

As someone that played CS in 1999, Beta 2.0, I wholeheartedly disagree that it had "embarrasingly basic graphics."  I also remember watching the animations, even in late 1999, which were quite well done for the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

alpha

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:D

Counter-Strike started with almost embarassingly basic graphics, little more than stick figures, and it is a FPS.

The original methodology is sound, and now there are more communities to support embryonic developers. By methodology, I mean that the aim should be to use an iterative process to refine a game, with copious honest feedback from the alpha testers, rather than publish The Next Big Thing

[Azarkon]

Nope, don't agree. You're making the case for a single strong narrative over great environment. The narrative can be added (and tested) in as little as one iteration; the beta testers would be helping with the NPC and environment interactions.

 

And anyway, the alpha testers not purchasing the game is hardly going to hurt sales. whistling.gif

 

So what else is there to test? The engine?

 

The vast majority of complaints about RPGs tend to lie squarely in the narrative content, which, as far as I can tell, is extremely difficult to test publicly since you'd essentially be spoiling everyone.

 

Iterative development (at least those involving the customers) is simply not geared towards narrative content. There's a reason why novelists and film makers don't use it. You simply can't release a draft of the book/film, gauge everyone's reaction, go back and change it, re-release it, and repeat. RPGs, so long as we're talking about narrative-driven games, are the same.

 

Quality is in high demand. Always.

 

Industry standard graphics, FX, voice acting, FMV, etc. are all part of what most players would consider quality. See: Blizzard.

Edited February 19, 2006 by Azarkon

[alanschu]

I don't recall CS being released as an alpha.

[metadigital]

As someone that played CS in 1999, Beta 2.0, I wholeheartedly disagree that it had "embarrasingly basic graphics."  I also remember watching the animations, even in late 1999, which were quite well done for the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You weren't important enough to be included in the alpha testing.

Nope, don't agree. You're making the case for a single strong narrative over great environment. The narrative can be added (and tested) in as little as one iteration; the beta testers would be helping with the NPC and environment interactions.

 

And anyway, the alpha testers not purchasing the game is hardly going to hurt sales. "

So what else is there to test? The engine?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Check highlighted quotation.

The vast majority of complaints about RPGs tend to lie squarely in the narrative content, which, as far as I can tell, is extremely difficult to test publicly since you'd essentially be spoiling everyone. 

 

Iterative development (at least those involving the customers) is simply not geared towards narrative content.  There's a reason why novelists and film makers don't use it.  You simply can't release a draft of the book/film, gauge everyone's reaction, go back and change it, re-release it, and repeat.  RPGs, so long as we're talking about narrative-driven games, are the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is more to an RPG than the story. Interesting NPCs, joinable party members, hirelings, setting, technology and/or magic (there are NwN mods like the Enhanced Magic System of arQon, for example).

 

Sure, keep the story quiet. Or not. Just have only a few alpha testers. People write books and include their friends / family / loved ones / et alia, this is no different. I never suggested it had to be an open beta.

Quality is in high demand. Always.

Industry standard graphics, FX, voice acting, FMV, etc. are all part of what most players would consider quality. See: Blizzard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you're just saying the same thing over and over again. There is more to a game than flashy graphics, otherwise Flash would be the ultimate modding tool.

[alanschu]

You were in the Alpha test?

[metadigital]

No. :">

 

I read ann article about it. Um, I think it was in The Escapist.

[Shadowstrider]

Quality is in high demand. Always.

Industry standard graphics, FX, voice acting, FMV, etc. are all part of what most players would consider quality. See: Blizzard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you're just saying the same thing over and over again. There is more to a game than flashy graphics, otherwise Flash would be the ultimate modding tool.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, he also mentioned voice acting. You might laugh, or shrug it off, but voice acting is very important to quite a lot of people.

 

Why?

People don't like reading when they can just listen to a speaker.

Laugh if you want, but focus group after focus group has reinforced this. One of the most poignant and eloquent criticisms I've ever heard about games basically boiled down to "I don't want to read."

 

One of the lines that most struck with me was "I play WoW, but I don't know the first thing about the world or setting." I asked him why, to which he replied "I just haven't read any of the texts or anything, I go to the guy with the exlamation point over his head and pick up my next mission." I asked why he hadn't read, if he was just generally disinterested or found the writing bad. His reply actually astonished me, I'd never thought that "I just don't want to read" would have come from this person. He'd written several page documents, and was studying english as his major.

 

This idea isn't held by just him, either. Tons of people have had similar opinions, and it is sort of a testament to WoW that it is succcessful despite people being disinterested in the actual story of the game... something I don't understand. It is almost a foreign concept to me, playing a game that you have no interest in the story.

 

The most important feature in a game is fun. If a game is fun people will play. There isn't necessarily a specific set of criteria for fun, something that people tend to forget. People get wrapped up in genre title, and what is or isn't an RPG, or action game.

 

I've said it before, I'll say it again; People should like or dislike games based on what they are, not what they are not.

 

There is more to a good game than flashy graphics, yes, but there is more to it than good writing, or intuitive controls, too. It is the combination of all features, that makes or breaks a game. If a game isn't fun people won't like a game, no matter how good the writing is or the graphics are. This, I think, is why people want bigger and better graphics or voice-overs; they're the most obvious part of a game. They are right there in front of you, and you can asses it for exactly what it is, unlike a game's backend systems.

[metadigital]

Sure. (Aside: your friend scares me.)

 

VO costs bugger all. Less than 5% of the cost of a game. Look at Beneath a Steel Sky. Brilliant, flawless VO.

 

Good writing is NOT JUST the sqiggly bits in speech bubbles and descriptions. It is the whole game design. A story. A narrative. Characters. It is the planning underpinning the entire game.

 

Graphics are just eye candy. Just like sugar-saturated sweets, there is only a short-term pleasant effect associated with it. If there's no writing to provide some meat and potatoes, then the game will die.

 

Aside 2: I wouldn't bother reading WoW plots, either. Damn waste of time.

[Shadowstrider]

Sure. (Aside: your friend scares me.)

 

VO costs bugger all. Less than 5% of the cost of a game. Look at Beneath a Steel Sky. Brilliant, flawless VO.

 

It depends on the game, but VO budgets are generally small, yes.

 

Good writing is NOT JUST the sqiggly bits in speech bubbles and descriptions. It is the whole game design. A story. A narrative. Characters. It is the planning underpinning the entire game.

 

To quote the old addage; no ****, Sherlock.

 

Did you post this to distract? I really don't see any purpose to it. I'm fairly sure everyone knows this.

 

Graphics are just eye candy. Just like sugar-saturated sweets, there is only a short-term pleasant effect associated with it. If there's no writing to provide some meat and potatoes, then the game will die.

 

This is not true. At all. In any way, shape or form.

 

Players want, no, demand a visual confirmation to their actions in modern games. They also demand textual and auditory confirmation. If there is none, they feel cheated, additionally there is no more efficient way to express something visual than with a visual trigger.

 

If I score a hit against a guy's leg, he should react to with all three of the aforementioned means.

 

There is also the matter of physics and traps. There is nothing more satisfying than triggering a trap, especially one set by your enemies, to defeat your enemies. Without graphics you could not do this properly, because you would have to be updated every second to be aware of where your enemies where in relation to the trap. It is inefficient and insane.

 

Graphics matter more than you think, to say the least.

Editted addendum: Good writing isn't the meat and potatoes. Writing is the base, without it a soup will suck. Graphics and sound are the meat and potatoes, they are the selling point of the soup, they are more marketable than the base, but without the base, you just have meat and potatoes not a soup.

Edited February 19, 2006 by Shadowstrider

[metadigital]

Sure. (Aside: your friend scares me.)

 

VO costs bugger all. Less than 5% of the cost of a game. Look at Beneath a Steel Sky. Brilliant, flawless VO.

 

It depends on the game, but VO budgets are generally small, yes.

 

Good writing is NOT JUST the sqiggly bits in speech bubbles and descriptions. It is the whole game design. A story. A narrative. Characters. It is the planning underpinning the entire game.

 

To quote the old addage; no ****, Sherlock.

 

Did you post this to distract? I really don't see any purpose to it. I'm fairly sure everyone knows this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I posted this because (to a lesser extent) you, and others (to a greater extent) seem to think that writing is secondary and some abstract part that can be tacked onto the end of the development cycle.

Graphics are just eye candy. Just like sugar-saturated sweets, there is only a short-term pleasant effect associated with it. If there's no writing to provide some meat and potatoes, then the game will die.

This is not true. At all. In any way, shape or form.

 

Players want, no, demand a visual confirmation to their actions in modern games. They also demand textual and auditory confirmation. If there is none, they feel cheated, additionally there is no more efficient way to express something visual than with a visual trigger.

 

If I score a hit against a guy's leg, he should react to with all three of the aforementioned means.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You think graphics are the most important aspect of games. Bully for you. That is your opinion. You really aren't going to convince me, no matter how vociferous you get. Think of Tomb Rader: Angel of Darkness. It had the momentum of a successful franchise and the latest

[alanschu]

At the same time though, if a game is great and has crap graphics, no one will play it either.

 

Just speculating, but I bet bad games with great graphics would ultimately sell better, on the whole, than good games with crap graphics.

Edited February 19, 2006 by alanschu

[metadigital]

... And we shall never know.

[alanschu]

Well, Driv3r was intensely popular.....sales wise.

Edited February 19, 2006 by alanschu