Fear Not!

I''m in the process of putting together a few simple design docs that I have been working (poorly) on.

There is not a single RPG among them!

I mean, I''m putting one together for an RPG also, but it''s not included..

WE WILL BREAK THE MOLD!

In addition to some of the reasons given, it would seem to me that RPGs are more often discussed here (and thus I would asssume more often made by frequenters) because they are easy to make initially and yet support a great deal of complexity. Let me explain.

The simplest game interface? Text based. Suitable for RPGs and little else. Ramping up, all type of game systems support RPGs. Try and make a simple sprite based FPS (oxymoron nowdays) or even sports game that has story quailties that outweigh it''s graphic shortcomings. Yet it can once again be done and done well with an RPG. But wait, you want to include complex 2d or 3d graphics, digital sound, all the goodies? Well NOW you can finally make a viable FPS, RTS, sports/racing game. But the RPG genre is most familiar (from previous practice) and you''ve worked out a lot of the problems. So once again it''s an RPG.

I think also the fact that a ton of work with RPGs can be done outside of programming (story, rules, universe, etc) draws many novices to the genre. It''s a similar situation with RTS games.

You make it sound like games development starts with RPG''s then works it''s way UP to other genres! Surly I must have mis-read.

An RPG can be far more complex then any FPS. What''s wrong with a 3D RPG with 3D sound? Nothing. RPG''s CAN be simple to make, but I find it boring to do something tooo simple. RPG''s can be as easy or hard to develop as you want. I am positivly sure that a lot more work could be put into an RPG then any other type of game. How do you know when the RPG is finished? You don''t you just decide it''s finished, there is no limit to RPG development. An FPS have eisily definable components with well defined tasks.

The main thing you missed out on though, is AI. What other games even attempt to realistically portray other sentient beings? Sure you can script it all, but then again, you could attempt to make the AI good, and complex. I really believe that developing an RPG can go on for as long as you want it too, there will always be something you want to add.

It''s funny how it seems to me that issues like this seem to converge to the same problem discussed in other threads. In "The Player Makes the Story" thread started by Wavinator, I personally came to a conclusion that RPG probably is the most ... bizarre, complex game genre there is. And people are naturally fascinated by it, I think. Particularly those who like to take on a global scale challenge.

RPG can be ultra simple, or ultra complex, like a lot of the people above have said. I''m sure RPG will always be the main focus of major accademic development.

I know this comment may be pure flame bait, but here goes anyway:
RPGs are also one of the easiest genres to design for. The main reliance is a good story, which is often a lot easier to come up with than a revolutionary (by revolutionary, I mean will impress the marketing department) idea for a FPs or RTS.

Again, I am in no way, shape or form having a go at RPGs or their designers (okay maybe a little bit) but it does seem at times that a lot of the designs that I see for RPGs, and being a publisher we see a LOT, have a fairly good plot, but not much else. They also seem to contain the horribly ambiguous phrase complete freedom for the player in the game world, which is entirely unsuitable for games that you want to have an ending for. You can''t have total freedom and a good story, the user has to be almost constantly guided in right direction other wise they''ll lose the plot entirely.

This post may seem a bit harsh, but it''s monday morning and, despite Liverpool winning the FA Cup on Saturday, I''ve had a really bad weekend so I''m venting my spleen at every oportunity.

Rant over.

Okay, now I''m really intruiged!
As far as I can read this post, you''re part of a publishing company, and responsible for the "break" that many of the people here are looking for. I.e., you''re a guy that gets a say in if a certain design will be published or not.
I''m very interested in that perspective, so I''ll pick up on part of your post:

quote: Original post by Scouser In Exile
They also seem to contain the horribly ambiguous phrase complete freedom for the player in the game world, which is entirely unsuitable for games that you want to have an ending for

I''ve finally seen the link here between why so many RPGs are absolute rubbish, and why they draw so much attention here.

On the one hand, there''s the "all an RPG needs is a good story" camp. A lot of wannabee designers are in this camp, it seems (from your post).
On the other hand, there''s the table-top gamers, who cry out "the essence of an RPG is the freedom to do anything you want!".
And the problem is that most design/implementation teams try to find a middle ground, that probably isn''t there.

The futile attempts at having a "red thread" story while trying to retain player freedom to some degree is what got the CRPG section of the computer game store branded with the bad name it has. Final Fantasy, while I''ve never played it, seems to have shied away from the middle ground, and gone head-on for the story-only approach.

Perhaps it IS true that player freedom and a predesigned story are mutually exclusive. You either have a software tool(note, I''m not saying game) for freeform roleplaying, or an adventure-game-like product that happens to have certain role-playing elements, but drastically limits player options.

I wonder if anyone thinks I could be right on that?



People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.

What if most people here aren''t making RPGs? May the people doing RPGs just have more to talk about than the people whoe arent. That would make it seem that the majority of people are doing RPGs.

When making an RPG you have to consider the story, time frame, is there going to be magic, how are battles going to work, etc. For everything else, there is not that many things to choose from. That would limit the amount of post for the other genres.

I also think that game writers and designers often feel that they can use there artistic minds a little more in an RPG than the other genres because of the different things that can go on in the world.

One last point, RPGs take us back to when we were little kids and when we use to like to pretend an do make beleive. I would think most game developers have to have done this when they were young. There''s probably a little pyshologically element caused by it. The bigger your fantasy imagination was as a child, the more you''re going to want to do something that can bring your fantasy to life.

Just my 2 cents.


Domini
Rastagon 2 Engine

As much as I like RPGs, funnily enough I agree with those people who flaked RPGs above.

It's a weird thing to do, but let me quote from my last post, just for the sake of clarity.

quote:
RPG can be ultra simple, or ultra complex ...(edited)...

And I think it's that variation in complexity that cause problems. Because it can be simple, it's also easy to produce a rubbish.

As Scouser In Exile and MadKeithV have said, there are problems with RPG in today's market... they do tend to turn out mostly rubbish. Some try to be creative and "interesting", but fails. Some are just down-right rubbish, probably just trying to fetch some cash from poor kids who decided to try it out.

I think this wide technical spectrum RPG gives is its strength as well as weakness.

quote:
I'm sure RPG will always be the main focus of major accademic development.

Accademic development. I think that's another focus.

As Domini hinted at, RPG has space for every area in programming one can imagine. If you want to omit or include one or more areas, you can... That doesn't determine if it's going to be good or bad game. Nontheless, I think its wide range of problems it could face is what makes RPG a good accademic subject, and why many people are tackling it.

I guess RPG programming is one of those "Easy to learn, Hard to master" stuff. It can be excruciatingly complex, or spectacularly simple. And this complexity often has nothing to do with its success as an RPG.

I think Success and Failure are inherent in the RPG genre, because of all those multiple complex factors.

Finally, I think Domini's point on "psychological" trait RPG has is interesting... I agree with that. I'd like to end my post with a quote from The Designer's Notebook, Gulliver and Game Design by Ernest Adams:

quote:
Children escape into a fantasy world where they are no longer powerless and subjected to the whims of thoughtless adults, but masters of all they survey.

Edited by - PugPenguin on May 14, 2001 1:53:54 PM

Goblins Not Included
---------------------

The thing that I concentrate on in my thoughts about RPGs, is considering the ways in which a dramatic world can be made which react to the player''s playing style and provides an interesting, diverse and entertaining world, and hopefully some character oriented stuff to make things more interesting by providing a human frame of reference for the action.

The dominance of RPGs in development discourse lies in the skewered perceptions that drive the markets for other genres: technology, technology, and more technology. No FPS is coming out in the near future without the phrase "revolutionary technology" affixed to it, even when it utilizes a pre-existent engine. "We''ve been able to do some amazing things with the [insert successful FPS title] engine, making it truly revolutionary." Sports titles are driven by "accurate" stats (which have little effect on gameplay), "prefect" recreations of arenas and players, and, of course, "improved" graphics.

RPGs are a very malleable and versatile genre, as has been noted here. One of my interests is in expanding the RPG genre by fusing it with others, resulting in crossovers such as the Sports RPG - a complete sports title in which the gamer was responsible for one player only, having to train, perform well, sign endorsements (only if he/she does well), etc. The complication lies in varying the tasks sufficiently so as not to bore the gamer into a coma...

OTOH, actual _design_ has been neglected in many genres, evinced by shoddy gameplay options. (Being a sports fan, I draw most of my examples from that genre). Take basketball games. They suck. All of them. There is no conception of motion and momentum, so a stationary player can suddenly leap and glide six feet to deliver a rim-rocking dunk. There is no concept of team play, so teammates effectively screen each other and switch opponent defense based on position rather than threat. I''m told Madden 2001 is a joy to play, though (I withhold judgement), and that NFL2K1 is an excellent title. We''ll see.

Designers need to push graphic advances to the background and follow the lead of RPG makers, emphasizing elements of games that make them more fun to play, more involving.

Nuff sed.

---
Those who can do nothing criticize; those who can, critique.