The future of RPGs

[Llyranor]

Didn't they mention using A Song of Ice and Fire as inspiration? I'm not getting the vibe.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Don't care much for fantasy myself, but setting is secondary. What's important is the quality of the game, no matter the genre.

[Rhomal]

I don't know about you but are you not burned of the high fantasy setting yet? Seems bioware just keeps going back to the same well. Yes in the BG era they were creative, now its beating a dead horse IMO. They even said its the spiritual successor to BG.

 

 

BioWare's last four games were Sonic: TDB, Mass Effect, Jade Empire, and Knights of the Old Republic. The last high fantasy game they released was NWN in 2002 (plus two expansions in 2003).

 

And why would I be 'burned' out of the high fantasy setting? It

Edited December 29, 2008 by Rhomal

[Tigranes]

Jade empire seemed like a fighting game with some RPG stats tossed in so they could call it a RPG on a very loose interpretation, at least my impression

 

JE was very much an RPG, because it was, well, the same KOTOR formula but in Asia. The only significant difference was the combat system (which I suppose was 'actiony').

[Rhomal]

Jade empire seemed like a fighting game with some RPG stats tossed in so they could call it a RPG on a very loose interpretation, at least my impression

 

JE was very much an RPG, because it was, well, the same KOTOR formula but in Asia. The only significant difference was the combat system (which I suppose was 'actiony').

 

I'll take your word for it, since I never played it. None the less I failed to get hyped about it for whatever reason as that's the impression I was left with.

[Hassat Hunter]

Games today seem to be more about being an experience to enjoy than a game to be beaten. That's certainly the Valve philosophy of game design, that every player should be able to see everything the game has to offer in one playthrough.

But that would be a VERY bad way to design a RPG, where difference and choices are inherrinent into the idea of playing a "role", so there should be some stuff you do not see until you play a different role. Even if the game follows the same path whatever actions you take (DX for example) the illusion of choice is simulated by alot of added NPC's and conversations you won't see/hear until you play it another way. Same with the Kotors, you have to play atleast 4 times to see everything (female/male, LS/DS). The Valve philosophy works fine for shooters, but would totally NOT fit into a RPG.

 

Do they? With gaming becoming more popular over time, I think there are going to be far more people who just want an entertaining experience, more people wanting to spend a small amount of time having fun than a large amount of time learning how to beat a game. Same goes with movies or books, or hell, the artwork they hang on their walls at home. Most people just want something that looks nice and matches the decor, they don't want to be challenged by the themes put forward by the artist. In others words, I think you're completely wrong, most people don't want a challenge.

And people do game for fun. But what's the fun in being able to spend an hour slaughtering pointless foes (KOTOR2 ending) when instead there could be much more difficult battles to overwin (IWD2 for example). The internal satisfaction is much greater when finally beating that one foe (Eat that Draconis!) than when you have just spend 40 hours of playing without any challenge at all.

A "Challenging" game DOESN'T mean a hard to learn game. It means more challenging fights/events inside that game. Compare Sarevok, Irenicus and Melissan with Malak and Kreia for example. You probably know the game by the time you meet the final boss and in the BG's that meant a very though fight. In the KOTOR's it means damn nothing, they pose no challenge at all.

Take shooters as example. Let's completely simplify it and say you only need to move and shoot ala Doom (no crouching, jumping etc.). It has no learning curve to speak off. But say yourself, what is more challenging in this enviroment? A dozen enemies all seperated and met one by one? Them charging you all as one? Or the dozen trying to attack you from all sides? But now it's like (RPG-)developers think that those dozen are too hard and they should be faced one by one, resulting in a too low difficulty in general.

 

I think you're being a bit dramatic here. The only thing a person can do is put time into the game, time to learn how to play, time to increase their skill, and the more time needed to complete the challenge the less it's going to be worth it for most people, because the reward for completing games is pretty small compared to the "reward" one can get from other, more important activities. There are professional gamers in the world who beat games and other players for money, but they are surely a tiny percentage of all the folks in the world who play computer and video games.

But most RPG's these days don't ask that? You don't need to learn how to play, you don't need no skill because the challenges provided do not ask for any such investment. What's the point of playing and learning a game when there is no event in that game that needs such knowledge?

"You don't need to tactically save all your teammembers, they cannot die anyways as long one stays alive."

Such a system wasn't present in Baldur's Gate. You had to use some skills to prevent losses unlike modern RPG's (new NW2 expansion excluded) where such losses don't mean a thing anyways, as they aren't really losses. What is the point of the reward of "more important activities", as playing this game is supposed to be entertainment, and thus not important other than to enjoy? And I certainly doubt people would be far LESS enjoyed when they watch the credits after 40 hours of exiciting gameplay, rather than 40 hours of boring easy gameplay. Quite the contrary. Satisfaction that you beat the game, defeated the foe, saved the world against all odds. That used to be just fine for RPG'ers of the old days, why should it be changed now?