In addition to all said above to non-fantasy rpgs on computers, there are additional problems:
-People like bishop would be the recurring nightmare of the game designers. Imagine a medieval setting: how big is the gameworld? Perhaps not bigger than a few weeks ride. In the middle age, people needed weeks to travel just from Paris to Lyon. Today, anybody could travel that distance in a few hours. Then imagine a contemporary setting: your adventure is set in NYC. So what if you want to see the Grand Canyon? A game world needs to be described from here to the event horizon of the character: in the middle ages that was about as far as you could throw a stone, today it''s the entire world, in 2500 it might be the galaxy.If you hit the boundaries, disappointment sets in.

-Computer rpgs often emphasize combat to get players involved. If I start a fight in a contemporary setting, employing all the advanced weapons and tools available, I expect one of three things to happen:

1. My character dies (or is out cold for weeks at least).
2. It gets boring after the third fight.
3. I have to fight more cops than the Blues Brothers.

This taken into account, it''s just easier to make fantasy rpgs on computers. Remember, I agree to the point already mentioned.

quote: Original post by _Josh

The bow and arrow in Thief would obviously be a lot weaker than a sniper rifle, though.

Uh, no. Do you think a headshot, arrow or slug, won''t result in the same effect?

quote:
I guess what I''m trying to say is that futuristic multiplayer doesn''t work too well on a large scale.

I''ll bet you could turn Unreal Tournament''s mission based Assault games into RPGs. It already has triggers and such, but you''d need to add character interaction and System Shock level inventory management.



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster

-People like bishop would be the recurring nightmare of the game designers. Imagine a medieval setting: how big is the gameworld? Perhaps not bigger than a few weeks ride. In the middle age, people needed weeks to travel just from Paris to Lyon. Today, anybody could travel that distance in a few hours. Then imagine a contemporary setting: your adventure is set in NYC. So what if you want to see the Grand Canyon? A game world needs to be described from here to the event horizon of the character: in the middle ages that was about as far as you could throw a stone, today it''s the entire world, in 2500 it might be the galaxy.If you hit the boundaries, disappointment sets in.

Once again, people want to come up with excuses to not try something different, rather than devise solutions.

How is transportation faster in a wild west setting than in a medieval one? Maybe by train, which is a constrained path. As for river valleys and boats, we all know boats don''t move very fast and once again, the river path is constrained. As for hot air balloons, aren''t they subject in part to wind currents, which translates to not 100% player control of his destiny. And, lastly, dirigibles likely are operated by a service which has a particular destination in mind.

Speaking of the galaxy, successful games like Starflight modeled this on 640k machines.

And please, don''t tell me it would be boring to be a passenger on a dirigible instead of the pilot. Once again, use your imagination.

It is funny. We keep using the term RPG, and we still don''t know WTF they really are. That''s really okay w/ me, but it''s got to be the most loosely defined genre though.


""You see... I'm not crazy... you see?!? Nazrix believes me!" --Wavinator

"All you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be." -Pink Floyd

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

quote: Original post by Wavinator
So what are you doing to prevent being YAMG (yet another medieval game)?

Wavinator,
Brainstorming, learning, evaluating algorithms, reading, living life, thinking, and so on.

Seriously though, every now and then I come around and get real intense about coding new algorithms, coming up with some truly new ideas, and trying to put something together. And then life takes a turn, I get bogged down in the details of everyday living, and everything I was working on gets set on the back burner for four or five months, until inspiration hits again, and then I''m back to thinking about it 24 hours a day.

Actually, I was thinking about my previous statement, and I think I have come to a conclusion about genres. I think what happens is a certain "genre" (before the name of the particular genre is coined) of game is created and it's quite popular so a bunch of people copy it. Then the media or whatever thinks we need a name for this...Then FPS, RTS, and so on are born.

I suppose the term RPG is an exception because it was probably around before video games had really used the term...

Although when we are speaking of CRPGs the rules apply there.


""You see... I'm not crazy... you see?!? Nazrix believes me!" --Wavinator

"All you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be." -Pink Floyd

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.



Edited by - Nazrix on October 21, 2000 7:12:58 PM

I suppose that the conclusion is developers need to stop thinking "I want to create a [such-and-such genre of game]" because all it is some name that people starting giving to a group of games that were copying each other.

It happens in every artistic medium I am sure. The message that bishop is trying to convey is we should stop having these pre-determined attributes that a genre must have and just make a damned good game. I think a wise old walking fish said this about 4 months ago


""You see... I'm not crazy... you see?!? Nazrix believes me!" --Wavinator

"All you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be." -Pink Floyd

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.


Edited by - Nazrix on October 21, 2000 7:17:37 PM

No offense AP, but the lack of imagination in your post surprises me!!!!

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster

In addition to all said above to non-fantasy rpgs on computers, there are additional problems:
-People like bishop would be the recurring nightmare of the game designers. Imagine a medieval setting: how big is the gameworld? Perhaps not bigger than a few weeks ride. In the middle age, people needed weeks to travel just from Paris to Lyon. Today, anybody could travel that distance in a few hours. Then imagine a contemporary setting: your adventure is set in NYC. So what if you want to see the Grand Canyon?

This is a question of __SCOPE__ not a question of __SETTING__. The medieval world no smaller than the modern world. Same world, right? You could just as well ask why you couldn''t see the steppes of Russia, or the Great Wall of China, or Medieval Japan, or the kingdoms of Hawaii?

quote:
A game world needs to be described from here to the event horizon of the character: in the middle ages that was about as far as you could throw a stone, today it''s the entire world, in 2500 it might be the galaxy.If you hit the boundaries, disappointment sets in.

You can just as well limit a modern game to a single city, or a future game to a space station. But you have to be clever in the same way that fantasy games are. All game worlds have walls. It''s just a question of how clever you are about these walls. (Not presenting freeform travel options like airports, and car rentals is one way!)

quote:
-Computer rpgs often emphasize combat to get players involved. If I start a fight in a contemporary setting, employing all the advanced weapons and tools available, I expect one of three things to happen:

1. My character dies (or is out cold for weeks at least).
2. It gets boring after the third fight.
3. I have to fight more cops than the Blues Brothers.

The medieval world was not infested with goblins, trolls, or dragons. So why the double standard? If we distort the representation of the medieval world in the interests of adventure, then why can''t we do the same for the modern world?

We can''t because most designers seem not just to lack the imagination, but are unwilling to apply the necessary critical thought. I don''t believe designers like Bishop are really the problem: at least then we''d get something new once in awhile!!

Let''s face it. When it comes to fantasy, ripping off Tolkein is a helluva lot easier than coming up with something new. In fact, I see even SF sometimes falling back on fantasy for swords and magick in a world that is so fantastic it shouldn''t even need that! But coming up with alternatives requires real friggin'' research, and man is it easier to copy.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...