I think that people are willing to play more than just midevil games but there are very few sci-fi rpg''s available. I personally liked the sci-fi fantasy of final fantasy 7. People still used swords but they also used guns. There are people today that prefere the sword as their weapon of choice, I am one of them. Although i do agree with you on the different themes and backgrounds. I liked Valkyrie profile for this reason. That game took place with norse mythology as its core. Legend of mana was a game that it was a little more difficult to determine if it was midevil or not but i could say it was sort of early 19 hundreds. I wouldnt mind wild west backgrounds but Wild arms was a lot like that. I think its time for the writers to start writing their own time frames and stop basing them of of our own.

Allow the flaming to begin
Conshape Electronic Arts

Why so many medieval stuff ? Probably because most computer geeks read Tolkien once, and that was so much they jsut decided it was enough material for one life. Then they entered high school, and as it seem to be a tradition, they joined the AD&D club, which proved them they really only needed Tolkien. I didn''t invent those cliche sorry, I am much more horrified than you to see them on the TV, in XFiles, in the newspapers ... etc.

Lubb : I understand what you are saying. But it''s not just RPG, it''s everything. Excess is a dangerous thing. Too much computers and you turn into a nerd, too much RPG and your parents think you are worshipping Satan, too much reading and you are a daydreamer, too much going out and you are a waster, etc ...
As for me, I played RPG for years, and would still do if I found people of my kind (moderate people), I played Magic (card game) when it came out, and tested tons of other games since then, I played Board games, War games, I have l33t skillZ to frag you with, and quite surprinsingly, I''ll talk to anyone in sight as long as they have something to say, I''ll go out for a pint rather than stay in front of my computer, or sometimes stay in front of my computer because there is nothing fun to do out...
I think you have just been exposed to the dull side of things. I dont claim being an exceptional individual, but as far as I can, I try to be a bit different from the cliches, just for the sake of it
The problem is that being a bit different requires to work for it, something that the law of market doesnt seem to allow. There are tons of brave developpers around trying to develop original stuff, but how many will pass the filter of the marketing guys ?

As well, who want of a dak future when it''s already there ? There is something probably much deeper than we want to admit in always sticking to a glorious past rather than a hypotetical glorious future. The need for safety, even imaginary, is a strong one. Just look at kids, they rather prefer to see the same old story tons and tons of time again, than be counted a new story a day (I know, I have a wee sister ... and she is not the only one I have observed).
And in the end, aint we all grown up kids ?

youpla :-P

- Serious response:
- You have to remember that medieval games have simple classifications based on races that tend to indicate how those races can be expected to act towards you, but those races are, for the most part, very fictional. If you have a typical medieval RPG, and you go out of your way to slay a few goblins for fun, nobody makes any big deal about it. You might even kill unarmed or juvenile goblins, to prevent them from attacking you later. Now let''s pretend that we write an RPG set in modern-day Somalia. You could have lots of different weapons that would do different amounts of damage, from wire snares to .22LR firing airguns to Vietnam-era landmines to firearms. The problem of the game designer is, who is going to be the opponent? It''d be kinda odd to just cruise around slaying the natives, but that''s all you''ve got. And killing unarmed or juvenile opponents (when they represent modern-day people of a particular race) is even more disturbing, especially when that race is different than your own. In some countries games or other material of this type simply are not permitted. It''s difficult to infer any modern race to Orcs or space aliens, so RPG''s set way in the past or way in the future allow creation of fictional races that the players can be racist against, without breaking any regular social norms.
~ I also note that in many games that are modeled after real wars, you can choose to be either side, and both are matched about equally --- even if in real life, they weren''t. If you try to model a game after real life you often see that in real life different sides of any struggle are rarely evenly matched. Their abilities are often "opposite" or "inverse" in a way, which makes for a poor game: Case in point- you could model a RPG after US vs. Osama Bin Laden, but (I am being facetious here) all he does is he picks any US target, and sends suicide terrorists to blow it up. The US responds by bombing some back-country camp where a few of his people might be hiding. The model is roughly accurate of reality (VERY roughly), but it''s tough to make into a compelling game, in my opinion. - Lubb

All we are saying..... is give peace a chance....

(Don''t ask me why I wrote this I have no idea.)
I agree with the previous post.

Sofar games HAVE BEEN good people (really good, almost saint) versus bad guys (not really that bad IMO).

...
(I feared that I''ve designed such a game but that''s not the case.)

All games are about exploring and discovering (new map, new setting, new world,...)

Medieval is heroic in the way that one vs one battle are common, and personnal skills are important, nothing like reality in which anyone can kill anybody simple by pointing a gun and firing.
To kill someone in a medieval setting, you must be skilled, and that makes a difference.
Also you''re changing setting, such freeing your mind, and with no chance to make some players angry because you said that those people were evil and those good, while in their opinion it''s the reverse.

Futuristic games are more about exploration and discovering new worlds, fantastic settings and deep space battles.
In both you find the famous one to one battle, and skills matters thing.

Playing is fleeing away from reality in a place in which you cannot be beaten by easily, and where bad are looking bad and good are good.

(I don''t have seen any really evil vilain in a game, for example, none have tried to kill the player in a city by casting a fireball killing dozens of people. This is really evil, isn''t it ?)

-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-

I think the problem with really evil evil is that it is often not suitable for the target audience.
If you''re aiming for the age 12-18 market a truly evil bandit king can''t really go around slitting throats and raping women, it would be "inappropriate". So really a lot of these games have been quite hypocritical, and there''s rarely a good reason to think the bad guy really is bad (except he has a really shady-looking texture map. )


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~

- I remember that in a lot of arcade games from 10-15 years ago (when I used to do the multi-hour arcade thing!), the enemies you killed were totally abstract, like as in Space Invaders or Robotron. Of games that used actual characters as enemies, you often didn''t really kill them as such, such as in Q-bert or Pac-Man. You just kinda hurt them - but they always came back, and it was very hard to argue that these types of games were violent in the traditional sense. They could have made the Pac-Man monsters bleed and die when you ate them and then have new ones appear, but they didn''t. - Lubb

Why are some of my favourite in-game environments "fantasy-mediaeval)" based? Because they allow for a more interesting set of architecture, lush and attractive forests/fields, and just looks lovely . Whether it is the twisted dark-night beauty of Thief, or the field wondering of Baldur''s Gate these settings appeal to me.

Of course there is no reason why similar stuff cannot be done in Scifi/adventure games (Star Wars-Endor?).

The other factor being a good range of spells which greatly add tactical options to games.

quote: Original post by Ketchaval

Why are some of my favourite in-game environments "fantasy-mediaeval)" based? Because they allow for a more interesting set of architecture, lush and attractive forests/fields, and just looks lovely . Whether it is the twisted dark-night beauty of Thief, or the field wondering of Baldur''s Gate these settings appeal to me.

Ketchaval,
This is my point exactly! If you think a medieval setting is required to create the right atmosphere, then you like others havn''t expanded your minds to the possibilities. I will say it again, experience new things and you will realize the millions of possibilities.

There is sublime beauty in so many places and eerie moods waiting to be created in any number of different settings.

Castles and dungeons aren''t the only inspiring architecture. What about lovely Victorian homes, colonial estates, and ghost towns? How about a southwestern chapel or an abandoned mine? What about a timberframe house nestled away in the forest replete with futuristic accomodations?

What about steamships chugging up river valleys and locomotives blowing their whistle as they stop beside an old train station? How about Spanish conquistadors engaging in swordplay against the backdrop of a tropical coastline?

Instead of a medieval tyrant, consider the mean pit boss of a goldmine. Instead of spells, how about stolen technology from a UFO which has crashed into the plantation of a southern estate?

As for weapons, swords work in most any setting. And what about dynamite and dueling pistols and knives and rifles and blackmail and bribery and scheming and stealth...

And what about hot air balloons and dirigibles and hijacked jetpacks and ''33 Packards and bicycles and ore cars and canoes?

Now, mix it all up. Futuristic settings don''t have to be dark and black and sinister with tubes and black helmets and machinery growing out of peoples''s ears.

Futuristic can mean anything! What about a verdant green valley plied by android fisherman on rafts? Above float dirigibles and hot air balloons. In the small village lies a transporter device for travel. In the nearby jungle is a mysterious entrance into a cavern...

How about a stealthy game of cat mouse with a laser armed lizardman across the tops of boxcars of a freight train as it traverses a desert landscape?

The world is a vast panapoly of ideas. Tap into them or tap into those who have.

This is kind of in response to Nazrix. Asheron''s Call tried to take a pseudo fantasy game, and add new creatures, plot, world, professions, magic system, and a lot of weapons based off of RL, and look where they ended up.

They aren''t doing great but they do have some customers, so I think it makes a reference, good or bad is your own opinion .

Null and Void
At least I don't know COBOL...

quote: ..... BTW, you''re I think talking about an introvert extrovert difference. Introverts maybe seem to tend towards deep, complex games, extroverts want more quick, superficial, get in/get out games. ..... - Wavinator

- Or we could take it from the other direction, and ask why a bunch of social introverts likes games with lots of different races and lots of different weapons. These seem to focus on the differences between participants and the capacity to physically destroy others, usual symptoms of being a male teenager.
Which most of the afflicted outgrow.
-And I''m not advocating making these games illegal, I am only pointing out that you just can''t sell this stuff to most regular people outside that age group. Or most female people in that age group, for that matter.
~
- It might be constructive to dispense with the weapons entirely, as it would seem to me that if you can''t kill other players/bots, their "race" becomes of minimal importance. - Lubb