The problem is: marketing managers and licencing managers all want to see "marketable features" such as revolutionary technology, acurate stats, licened names etc. not a good game and they, ultimately decide what gets published and what doesn''t. The template that we use to evaluate potential products gives each game a percentage score, like a game review, until very recently this cosisted of 60% what the game was like and 40% how ''marketable'' it is. This would mean that a very good game that doesn''t have much in the way of marketable features would, at most score 60-70%. This sucked. This also meant a few good RPGs, RTSs and RPG/RTS crossovers fell by the wayside because they were not 3D, weren''t a name brand etc.

This, unfortunately, is true in 99% of games publishers. Which is why good RPGs are thin on the ground.

Though the people on this board may be the exception, I think its not marketing, but the buying public that''s to blame for the emphasis on tech and glitz and lack of design. They''re the ones who buy the games, and they''re the ones who largely make possible critically acclaimed flops (can name many, right off the cuff).

cRPG players (to me) seem to be more patient and cerebral gamers, in general. With the exception of the action-adled gamers who flocked to the Diablos and their clones, cRPG players seem to have more of an imagination (wrt games) and greater willingness to model the game world in their head. Thus they don''t need graphics or tech as much, and to the extent that the game is sacrificed for these things, they get annoyed. It''s therefore easier to create games for them, especially for those of us who haven''t a prayer at getting an enjoyable, rewarding design job at Acme Gaming Incorporated.

btw, cRPG players are similar in this way to hardcore strategy players, and are probably the only two gaming groups that will still tolerate a non-3D game if it is well done. The same isn''t true for RTS gamers, and certainly not action gamers in general (seen any popular iso/top down shooters of later? )



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

now you guys are just wrong. Tech vs brains has nothing to do with it. On the contrary I''ve never met a hardcore gamer whose favorite genre was RPG. RPGs are a bit watered down actually. I couldn''t get that far though BG because there just wasn''t much thinking, it was more about stocking up on arrows. I suppose I could have made the game challenging by not abusing ranged weapons and using insta pause, but maybe the designers could have thought it through more. AD&D2nd was so badly designed, and the BG implementation wasn''t that much better. Or we could talk the FF series, I hesitate to even call them games. They are movies with bland battles mixed in. When I play a game I expect a challenge, and quite frankly the only way to do that is pit me against other players.

Then you go on to say that RTS gamers wouldn''t accept a 2d game. I''m on the beta for a 2d RTS game. Occasionally people complain about some issue but never about the graphics not being 3d. As for FPS, you can''t make a game with the same gameplay and not be 3d. That''s just no possible. That has nothing to do with graphics. Yeah graphics are a big seller but the most popular FPS right now (counter-strike) doesn''t have the latest graphics. The reason it is popular is because of its superior gameplay.

It is true that there are many games who are just pretty graphics but don''t judge genres by the bad games. Judge them by the best.

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster

Tech vs brains has nothing to do with it. On the contrary I''ve never met a hardcore gamer whose favorite genre was RPG.

"AP, meet Wavinator. Wavinator, meet AP. Wavinator been playing since ''79. He''s played every genre known to man from Flight Sims to Turn Based Wargames. He''s a hardcore gamer, and his favorite genre is RPGs."

quote:
RPGs are a bit watered down actually. I couldn''t get that far though BG because there just wasn''t much thinking, it was more about stocking up on arrows.

Ah so. Perhaps you''re one of those guys that think all cRPGs are medieval? Might I suggest Fallout? IM-not so-HO medieval has been done to death, so if you focus only on that type of cRPG, then yes, I''d tend to agree.

quote:
Then you go on to say that RTS gamers wouldn''t accept a 2d game. I''m on the beta for a 2d RTS game.

You then are a rare gamer. Two sources to back up my point: Common complaints from the gaming press ("Starcraft is over, 2d is dead"); and sales figures from 3D vs. 2D games. 3D often wins unless a license backs them up (Red Alert being a good example).

quote:
As for FPS, you can''t make a game with the same gameplay and not be 3d. That''s just no possible. That has nothing to do with graphics.

Note that above I said action . I didn''t say First Person Perspective. You don''t automatically need 3D for action.

quote:
Yeah graphics are a big seller but the most popular FPS right now (counter-strike) doesn''t have the latest graphics. The reason it is popular is because of its superior gameplay.

Agreed that the mod CounterStrike has superior gameplay (or simply has a damage model we rocket jumpers haven''t seen ). But I wouldn''t agree that it''s the most popular.

quote:
It is true that there are many games who are just pretty graphics but don''t judge genres by the bad games. Judge them by the best.

Sure, but my point still stands: TB and cRPG gamers are just about the only groups that would accept dated graphics. This is because more of the game is happening in the gamer''s head, and as a generalization these folks seem to be more willing to use their imagination. The more action oriented the genre, I think the more graphically demanding the gamers get (counterstrike being a rare exception).



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

As much as I doubt this ever happening, I see this as all the more reason why truly independently published and widespread games need to be made, to give the gaming public a taste of what they''re missing out on and challenge the "industry" to do better.

Of course there are the issues of publicity, reviews, etc to catch the average gamer''s attention, and so on. I wonder whether a freeware, web-distributed title could garner enough of a following to do this. Of course, the problem itself is somewhat circular, in that games are not trivial programs, and that the production of a quality game takes time, skill, dedication and resources of a magnitude that the average hobbyist developer simply does not possess.

Therefore nothing changes...

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

The most unique games started out short and with really bad graphics. I wrote "Pimp''s Quest" for the TI-85 in BASIC over three years ago and it''s still one of the most popular RPGs for the 85 even though it has no graphics and was never advertised.

Indies just need to focus on the concept rather than flare. My server costs 70 a month to keep up so cost is negligable in getting games available.

Ben
http://therabbithole.redback.inficad.com

Reading all this, it really makes me think of how odd the existance of RPG/Adventure type genre is... I do agree that RPGers are more into *content* of the game (hence the higher tolerence when it comes to graphics).

There are many examples of this as people here have said. One that comes to my mind is console retro gaming scene. Most hardcore initiators and followers enjoy retro gaming using emulators and such just purely for the love of gaming (and rememberance of good ole'' days). But there are also a constant stream of new comers, and they mostly request and ask about good RPGs. And a lot of them are young/younger generation as well.

This never occured to me as something odd. But when I think about it now, it is odd... why would they (kids and grown-ups alike) want to play "cRaP gRaPh1x" RPG in retro scene, when there are plenty of "better" graphics games out there, whether it be 2D or 3D? I''ve come across a lot of new players hyping up on all this classic 8/16 bit RPG, but hardly ever hear of these younger generation hyping up on out-dated action based games.

It IS the content of the RPG that fascinates us, isn''t it? Ultimately. Of course, there are other factors like graphics, sure. But they are only complementary. Some naturally understand that principle, while some don''t. Some come to understand it, taste it and learn to love it over a period of time, while some never do.

What''s/who''s better or worse is irrelevent. Nontheless, I do think that RPG has it''s very own place in terms of its history, its content, its versatility and (most importantly) its peculiar timeless chrisma.

quote: Though the people on this board may be the exception, I think its not marketing, but the buying public that's to blame for the emphasis on tech and glitz and lack of design. They're the ones who buy the games, and they're the ones who largely make possible critically acclaimed flops (can name many, right off the cuff).

I would just like to say that I don't think the blame falls on either side, but both. Too many of the newer gamers today (just so you know, I'm almost what you would call a newer gamer myself, as I have not been around for most of the pre-NES stuff) only pay attention to graphics and effects, because marketing tells them that is all that is important. And then marketing sees the gamers going for the "better" graphics, and pushes them even more. And this is why I feel that the video game market is declining in game play value, too much focus on bells and whistles, and not enough on gameplay.
And for those out there that believe that in order for a game to be good, and popular, that it has to be texured 3d with 1 trillion simultaneous players, and whatnot, let be bring up the hand held known as Game Boy. Computer's and consoles have progressed to where 3d graphics don't take much more proccessor time (i.e. there is a 3d chipset) than 2d graphics. But the game boy, and soon to be relesed game boy advanced, are still in the phase where 2d is the best that can be done. And I dare someone to say that there aren't a hell of a lot of game boy games that are extremely popular (as much as I hate to say it... Pokemon. Probably bigger than any other game on any system in japan for a while).

Well, that was a big long rant... It kind of fits here...

Oh. And no offense, but for future reference Mr. Anonomous Poster, when I see someone who doesn't say who they are, and starts with the line

quote: now you guys are just wrong

I, along with many other people, ignore what they have to say.

Edited by - Drakonite on May 16, 2001 11:18:25 PM

bah, nothing wrong with a spirited discussion. Wav is probably my favorite person on this forum actually. Well anyway maybe I don''t know everything about RPGs but honestly they just seem to be mostly filler. Some of my favorite games were RPGs actually, but after a couple good RPGs I think I''ve had enough story based entertainment. I guess I read too many books as a kid or something.

As for console gaming, I think there are several reasons for RPGs being more popular. The snes FF games and Chrono Trigger were really good games. They didn''t make that many good action games back then. Bomberman was great but you can''t really play it on an emulator. Emulation favors games that adapt reasonably well to keyboards. Some people buy controllers but they just can''t compare to real snes controllers.

Counterstrike is the most popular FPS, or it was when I last checked. I don''t know how gamespy generates its numbers but here''s what they are at the time of this post:

Half Life 34011
Unreal Tournament 3015
Quake 3: Arena 2897
Tribes 2 2580
Starsiege TRIBES 1308

Those half life figures are mostly due to cs of course. There are other mods but since I''ve never played them and I never hear about them I''ll assume they aren''t as popular. I heard Tribes 2 is good too but I don''t really need another game right now. I contend that the popularity of CS isn''t in the damage model, but the overall gameplay. The one life per round is what really makes the difference, you are encouraged to play completely differently. The objective also causes people to play differently, not much because people still care about getting kills more, but a little. The teamplay aspect is nice too. Dying really easily kind of helps too, makes you more cautious (not sure if this is what you meant by damage model, I assume you meant the head/chest/etc.. system)

Well, alright, there are different people with different opinions, and everyone''s opinion is certainly to be considered. But the peculiar "charisma" which RPG has always had is something it proves for itself. And no, I''m not saying that everyone likes RPG for what it is, but large fraction of gaming population has had some favourable interaction with RPGs, and a lot of people still continue to have that passion. Reason for that is often irrelevent.

The bottom line is, though, it''s a bit like your taste in watching films, isn''t it. Some like horror films, some like sci-fi, and so on. "I think such-and-such film was good/it was the best." "No, it wasn''t. That one was better than this." etc etc this sort of debate happens all the time. And there''s no absolute scale with which to measure the contest. But there is a relative scale, and there are films which stood the test of time. There will always be people who hate such films though. Just like everything else we have in this era.

I think RPG genre is like that. There will always be people who don''t quite favour it as much as others would. But I think thats normal... Nothing now has 100% support from people - there are always critics. If those somewhat "negative" critics of RPGs were to be correct, RPG will fade out and die over a period of time. That is yet to be seen - you might be right, it might die. But if it survives the test of time, it does so for a reason, just as much as it can die out for a reason.

Time will tell eventually, regardless of evidence presented for/against it. And so far, RPG has survived without too much trouble, thanks to good installments which crop up here and there. We''ll see if it fades out in the next 10-20 years. I doubt it, but who knows, it might. That would be the ultimate test.