Quote: Original post by Spoonbender

Quote: Original post by sirGustav
The thing is I really don't think you are against EGOD. I think you are against the standard EGOD. Each EGOD in every game are the same. Rouhly the same appearance, stats, sounds and skills over and over again.

Which is why you're implementing them in their most cliche'd forms in your game? [wink]

That particiular game will not be the standard EGOD RPG game. More like a Rune-like world with a Oni/Re4/Guildwars inspired fighting. The enemies may be (and probably will be) Tolkien inspired, and it is probably because the fighting-felling should be the same as the uru-khai with aragon in the end of the lotr1.
One thing to note is that it will probably go under several versions before I even get to start developing on this game(got 1-2 other ones before this one :) )

Quote: Making an orc a "melee unit" means it's not a race, it's a skill.

Isn't that what warcraft did? Beeing an orc meant that your melee unit was a orc. Your heavy unit was a ogree and you had your goblins as "explosives". There was also some wraith/necromancer unit.
(I count the "ranged unit" as melee unit since they threw their close combat weapons(axes), and in my game(above) all melee-weapons and shields will be throwable :) )

Quote: "Elf" shouldn't equal "archer". Elf should be the name of a race that tends to appears a lot in fantasy games, and has a few, well, racial distinctions (looks pretty much like humans, but has pointy ears and are more graceful, and are connected to trees somehow). That describes a race (however vaguely), while "archer" just describes what the player wants to use them for.
Same goes for orcs. Making an orc a "melee unit" means it's not a race, it's a skill. I don't mind orcs in the sense of "big brutish and aggressive green people", because again, that means they're a distinct race/culture.

Now that you mention it,
A few different human/elf/orc/dwarf enemies would force different-looking levels but still have the same basic enemies(close combat, .

Hrrm. Anyone care to explain 'EGOD' to me?

AP said Elves, Goblins, Orcs and Dwarves

Quote: Give them something they don't know and that should prove more appealing.

Or confusing. I for one (and I realise this is not a statistically valid survey) do not wish to spend time learning what everything is when I play a game. There may be some excuse for this if my in-game avatar is also new to the world, but if they've been living there for years, they - and therefore I - should know something of the background already.

The easiest way to do that is to use a cliche. I see something tall, thin, with pointy ears and carrying a bow - ah, that's an Elf, he will probably be friendly (or neutral at worst) and may even help me in my quest. Oh no, look behind him, he's about to be attacked by the big green thing - it's an Orc, I must help the Elf!

Or alternatively: I see something with six limbs and the face of a rabbit. Erm... WTF? It seems to be about to be attacked by something with red fur and horns. I'm sure I remember reading something about that in the city library, but did it say it was a GOOD CREATURE or an EVIL MONSTER? Oh bugger it, I'll kill them both and be done with it...

Alright, so that's an extreme case, and people might argue that their suggested creation isn't something deliberately obscure, but simply uses a different source of inspiriation to EGOD. Fair enough... but just what the heck IS a jinn, a dactyl, a duergar or even a kobold? Is it any more meaningful as an in-game entity than the six-legged rabbit-headed Qxxxvzzergalxxzq creature from Snarfblar Forest just because it already existed in some culture? I think not.

People play football or golf sims. They don't play korfball or woodball sims, though both are real sports. It's just that (with apologies to korfball and woodball players) football and golf are more widely recognised.

I think that most of us would agree that when you really get to the point we aren't concerned with the overuse of certain fantasy creatures such as Elves. But we are more concerned about the inconsitency of all the different ways in which an Elf is portrayed.

Tolkien elves if you understand and have actually read his books, have a significant amount of history behind the race most importantly their own language. A full language speaks a lot of the depth of a culture because the words that are within a language have origins in the cultures history.

But it wasn't the depth of these creatures alone that sparks people interest and imagination nor show why people use elves in game stories over and over again. The reason I think that elves are so popular is because of the idea that originated in Tolkien's mind and translated to his books. Elves may have an orign in mythology whether it be Norse or otherwise, that did not spark the vast uses of elves in fantasy adventures and Board games and such. It was the way Tolkien portrayed the elves that captured peoples imaginations and the history that he put to them that made them to be noble and mystical and majestic.

The unrest that you all seem to be experiencing is in the implementation and spawns of this specific Tolkien genre of fiction. Writers and game developers have been for years attempting to originalize Elves to their own purposes by changing the history but still referencing Tolkien in some way. The only effective way to use Elves in a fantasy adventure is either to base your writing in the land of Middle Earth where Tolkien's history, language, and culture of its races is preserved or to define with enough originality your own vision of the elves.

Why so many games, stories, have failed to use Elves effectively is probably because they do not adequately change the race and culture too much of what an elf is, relies on Tolkien's vision. Additionally many developers have only come in contact with elves through games that use them or perhaps roleplaying games both computer and pen & paper where they create their own vision to be later used in the creation of another game.

IMHO it is the way something is used that determines it's clicheness not merely the referencing to another source. With WC the original games using the Humans vs Orcs theme stemmed from LOTR and has since been around enough and known by enough people in this thread to be considered different.

You can see that an effective Writer is able to eliminate the Clicheness by adding his/her own vision of what a race of people are not only by imagining them differently but by efficiently explaining it. You see this in the world that Harry Potter lives in. The cliche Witches, Warlocks, and Wizards are not your stereotypical, Brothers Grim, fairy taled creatures. They are a vision of the author and the effectiveness with which they are portrayed shows their uniqueness and destroys the cliche elements that are used.

In The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe, C.S. Lewis writes in a similar symbolic fashion to Tolkien. But you don't see a Warshwiggle running around in games. Though you do see something like fawns and centaurs. But it is mostly because of the amount of imagination that C.S Lewis's writing was able to provoke. If you can get your reader or Player to *cough* immerse themselves within your world the more effectively you can do so then the less cliche your work will be recognized as.

The basic idea of Elves is genuinely attractive. A race of wiser beings living long lives especially skillful with all senses. Slender folk in touch with nature, magical and mysterious. If you are to use Elves either you conform completely to Tolkien's original idea or you risk it all and redefine all their characteristics. So why elves, well just Read Tolkien and then tell me you hate elves.

I definitely agree that the Tolkien fantasy adventure type series and races should be tossed in favor of a type of race that fits in your unique world. If there are only two feuding gods in your world who created five races. One each to be in their image and the others created to be lesser servants to those created in their image. You should choose each races traits to correspond to the future events that you plan on happening. For instance you would not want to call any of the races Elves because this is not Middle Earth nor does it have anything to do with Norse mythology unless you wanted to symbolize a part of norse mythology or philosophies from the mythology in your story. Ok I've been going on long enough. I'll stop!

After this many posts in a thread, I am astonished that nobody else has made my point for me (that always happens). So I'll make it myself.

There are several ways to attempt to get around this problem:

1. Keep on truckin' with those ol' Tolkienien favorites.


2. Change the old standbys a little, with maybe a name change. EGOD with the serial numbers filed off.


3. Go for something actually new, like those lobster guys.

These choices affect different groups in different ways:

1. Pleases the young crowd. Bores the old folks and the writers/designers.


2. Totally pulls the wool over the youngsters' eyes. Old folks think you're a "wannabe". Probably bores the writers.


3. Confuses the crap out of the youngsters. Pleases some old folks but makes others contemptuous of you for "trying to hard". Fun for writers.

So what's the answer? Well, if you want commercial success, you're probably screwed. What sells the most games will bore you as a writer and bore your peers. If you want to have fun, you probably ought to go for option 3 - or just leave fantasy-land behind altogether.

Dont say that doing original things cant be a source of success AND fun. It can, you just have to be clever enough to make it work and how many people do you know that are this clever. Much less, how many of those clever people end up to be writers.

In truth almost none, which is why this conversation is being carried in the first place.

Why Elves?

Because they're familiar. It's much easier to relate to a world with familiar elements than unfamiliar worlds, so by using a well established 'Elf' race you make that learning curve so much easier.

Originality for originality's sake is not necessarily the way forwards. Sure, you can replace elves with 12 foot tall levitating porpoise-men with prehensile nasal hairs, but what does it actually achieve? Too much unfamiliarity will likely put many people off, and those that aren't put off will probably wind up stereotyping them just as much.

I think it's more important to develop a consistent, believable world than to worry too much about how original or different your races are. Of course, if that world is unique and original and populated with interesting new races, then so much the better, but the primary objective is to make it consistent and believable. And of course, there's no reason why you can't try a fresh take on those frequently used races; elves don't have to be tree hugging bow toting pointy eared goody-goodies, dwarves don't have to be beer-swilling, axe-wielding nutters who love gold and mining.

Part of my point (which I made poorly) was that the majority audience from a finiancial point of view is the "youngsters" - mostly guys in their early teens. These tend not to be very clever as audience members. i.e., the majority of income from game development comes from people with a taste for the unoriginal.

Yes, I'm badmouthing young teens - but I'm honest about it. Call me a game curmudgeon.

I would love to see more innovation/originality in games, rather than catering to the lowest common denominator, but I suspect something like the following conversation has actually occurred:

Quote: Game Designer: I'd like to make a fantasy RPG.
Publisher: Um, ok... tell me about it
GD: We're going to eschew conventions and not have any of the standard RPG fare. No elves or other elements that players have come to expect from an RPG.
P: Ok... how much is it going to cost to make?
GD: 5 million dollars.
P: I'm sorry, we're just not interested in investing that much money on what we believe to be a risky proposition.

I just picked up Shadow of the Colossus - really interesting game, but I highly doubt the dev team could have gotten funding from a North American publisher to make it.