Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster so unless they already have some great concept they want to build off of, they are going to tend back towards the genre cliches.

Honestly, if someone doesn't "have some great concept" and is abusing clichés, I hope they're not being paid to design games! ;-)

I mean, just read some good fantasy novels for a flavor of all the different things you can do while still in a "swords and sorcery" kind of world. George R. R. Martin, Robert Jordan, Raymond E. Feist, and Barbara Hambly (Dragonsbane series) all have *very* different takes on the genre, while still being recognizably faux-medieval. But sadly, most games just do the Tolkien/D&D-alike thing.

I think the part of most medieval (or fantasy) RPGs is the goal of the game. Usually it is the player trying to save the world or avert some catastophy. This has become a fantasy (or even just a game) cliche.

How about this ofr a fantasy/medieval RPG plot:

You are a Knight. You have sworn fealty to a minor noble. The King dies (old age or whatever) without an heir. The nobles all start to scramble for rulersip of the kingdom. Meanwhile, the barbarian tribes that were kept in check by the Knigs army have taken advantage of the civil unrest and have started raiding accross the borders.

As a Knight you must protect the Kingdom, but you also must obey your Lord and these two duties do not always coincide (as the nobles scramble for power and position). You cna either support you lord or become roge, or even attempt to seize power for your self. Do you help protect the kingdom from the barbarians, or will you try to join them, or even conquer them?

I see this kind of game, not like the dungeon crawl style of RPG, but a game made up of many mini games. These minigames would be

Basic RTS: No buildings, just have a number of troops that battle
Adventureing dungeon crawl: For questing and other melee combat related encounters
Conversations: This would form most of the main core of the game. You would travel to various locations and talk to various NPCs (or if an MMO then other PCs). You would use this to create alliances, and such.
Dueling: This is a mingame where you would directly abttle a major NPC (or if an MMO then other PCs) in a sword fight (or magic, etc). This would be more like beat-em-up, or even a FPS style minigame.

I think it's not the theme that it getting cliche, but the goal of the game (how many times can one person save the world?)

Quote:

Original post by TheOddMan How about this? An RPG that concentrates on ROLE playing not ROLL playing. There will be no stats, no die rolls, no random monsters. You develop your character by playing the game and learning how to perform skills yourself.

Actually RPG was defined as a game where you are interacting to the world only through character skills, not your own. If you want to lay down on carpet hogtied in handcuffs and try to wrigle from them by your skill, not a character skill, be my guest and play LARP, or other type of RP.
This abreviation is one of these abreviations that has different meaning than the literal meaning of each abreviated word.

Quote:

Original post by Edtharan I think the part of most medieval (or fantasy) RPGs is the goal of the game. Usually it is the player trying to save the world or avert some catastophy. This has become a fantasy (or even just a game) cliche.

Damn straight. I feel that a 'lower level' playing 'space' in terms of setting works much better - look at the GTA games - they're loads of fun, because you're not trying to save the country, you're just trying to get by (and getting deeper and deeper in trouble as you try).

MMO's, oddly, don't focus on saving the world (apart from CoH) that much - putting such 'endgame' content in them just doesn't work. Even for single player games, it limits the use of the IP if it's 'serious' - just how many times can the world be saved BY THE SAME FRICKIN' PERSON? (Austin Powers aside obviously).

Era and equipment do not a clone make, as drakostar says. The activity that is done by the player can make it a clone, even if it's wearing a different skin. What's needed for originality in a Role playing game, is originality of the Role - and this is more than just what you look like and what you use, it's how and why.

My 2p.

Quote:

Original post by Raghar Actually RPG was defined as a game where you are interacting to the world only through character skills, not your own. This abreviation is one of these abreviations that has different meaning than the literal meaning of each abreviated word.

Thus the Ministry for the Upholding of the Standards and Definitions of Entertainment Genres Evermore hath spoken!

*sigh* Just what the industry needs...genre police! :P

Quote:

Original post by Trapper Zoid MSW, is there some sort of history behind this argument with makeshiftwings regarding fantasy RPGs? I'm not sure what you have against the staples of the fantasy genre but you do seem to have a bit of a grudge against it. There seems to be an opinion in this thread that "medieval fantasy" is the same as "unoriginal clone", and frankly I take exception to that. Just because a game has people wielding swords and casting spells does not mean it can't be original in many ways. In fact, one of the reason I am drawn to the fantasy setting is that it is freed from the restrictions of reality, allowing more scope to define the world in whatever way you want. Now that doesn't mean all "medieval fantasy" games should be Tolkein-esque rip-offs, or the same damn Japanese RPG characters and plot-lines over and over again in every fricken title; I fully agree that there are some very uninspired elements in many mainstream RPGs. And I also would like to see a wider variety of settings for RPG games. But that doesn't mean there is no merit in setting your game world in a medieval fantasy setting.

My grudge, as you call it, is simply that there are staples to the fantasy genre.

I can fully relate to what draws you to fantasy settings...but my beef is that 99% of the time those fantasy settings are but variations on the concepts Tolkeen established....there is no law proclaiming that the fantasy genre must so often include the staples of swords and sorcery, yet that is nearly all we get.

Quote:

originally by TheOddMan Final Fantasy 8 - Monsters don't drop gold, you get paid a salary. - No magic points, magic needs to be drawn. - Monsters level up as the characters do. - Totally cool but way-too-complicated-for-some junction/refine system. - Experience and levels have little effect on stats and HP.

Let me just say, that the second bullet there (an *ORIGIONAL* idea), was the one thing that totally turned me off from FF 8. It made magic in the game completely useless, because now instead of magic per se, it was more like stat boosters. These stat boosters you never wanted to get rid of, therefore removing them (i.e. casting them in combat) made no sense because it would decrease your characters effectiveness. That and the fact that I had to sit there in combat for 20 mins drawing every spell from every monster for every character!!! Like someone said about the FF series, "FF series has a lot of quests/items in the game that serve no purpose other then artificially increasing the game" [grin]

All I am trying to say is what some other ppl here already said. Originality DOES NOT equal fun.

I hear some people saying; "Originality does not equal fun" well you are right. You are also wrong too. If doctors said there was need of home grown food instead of processed, because it is good for you. That does not mean every homegrown food is going to taste good. The idea as a whole will make man healthier in the long run.

The same analogy can be applied to the RPG genre; where homegrown food equals originality, processed food equals semi-clones and doctors equals consumers. Semi-clones are not evil (like I said before I think they are great when you are starting out.) its just that too much of anything can make you sick (especially if it is not normally 100% good for you).

There is no guaranty for anything to be 100% fun.