For me, Diablo 2''s emphasis on hell kind of shot that game for me. How about you guys?

Actually, I thought Diablo 2 had a great setting. Using Hell as a basis set a certain mood to the game that most games don''t offer. Instead of a standard done it a thousand times save the princess from the evil wizard game, Diablo 2 brings the theme closer to home.

In some way (whether you are religious or not), heaven and hell, good and evil have some meaning to just about everyone.

But as far as your topic goes, what settings ruin a game for me. I have never liked any of the CyberPunk type games. "Hell" had to be one of the worst games I ever played.

borngamer

Personally, I never find setting a major problem. What kills games for me is when they have a setting, and then present you with a challenge that blatantly doesn''t belong in it.

The game I most recently played that did this continually was _Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver_. In it you play Azriel, an immortal ex-vampire who was, before dying, the second most powerful vampire in existence, and, after death, can consume the very souls of his enemies.

However, Azriel can be foiled in his attempts at divine retribution by some strategically placed blocks which he needs to rotate so they match the pictures on the walls. Not content with bringing this mighty Angel of Death down into the gutter once, almost every puzzle in Soul Reaver is a variation of the basic ''block-rotation'' puzzle.

Except for one in which he has to smash some fist-sized glass domes covering switches, using musical notes. Apparently Azriel - who sports a Lucas-esque sword capable of reaving a soul from its body with which his previous master had ruled the world for thousands of years, and is physically strong enough to impale his enemies (longwise) with a rusty spear in one strike - is unable to break these domes himself.

In my experience, it is not settings which kill a game. It is violations of the setting.


Just Plain Wrong

Good post above. I agree a big problem is inconsitency in setting. When plot elements or characters or rules don''t fit in with what has been established.

As far as setting themselves go, I am game for anything but I shy away from games that advertise "new with D&D ver 3.101b ruleset!!!" I could care less what the rules of D&D are as long as the game rules are fun and make sense, and I assume that these games are basically catering to D&D players. In the same vein I don''t go for ultra-generic fantasy like Heroes of Might and Magic. Fantasy is fine but I would like some unique enemies or unique looks or animations or *something.* I don''t want to feel like I am playing the game version of every bad fantasy book ever written. Especially when it gets into elves and dwarves and orcs and such, looking exactly the same as in every other game ever made. At least if the races aren''t unique give them your own spin and look and feel. Heroes of Might and Magic strikes me as the most generic fantasy game ever made...all the units look so dumpy and dopey and plain...

I agree with AP above...sense when has ''fantasy'' been exclusive to the genaric D&D type settings?...if it isn''t Tolken/D&D type "fantasy" it gets lumped into ''sci-fi'' or ''futuristic''...ever hear of the PSX game Persona...a RPG that took place in modern day Japan concerning demons and other monsters takeing over the world...pure ''fantasy'' setting (in the vien of Godzilla)...but call it that and some folks would jump down your throat!

game settings like "hell" in Diablo 2...are also a turn off...mainly because every game ever made that features "hell" as a setting just can''t capture the images my imagination comes up with when contimplateing what hell looks like....like the contents of the briefcase in Pulp Fiction...sometimes it''s better to suggest things then actually show them.

Any game that is publish has more than likely been professionally thought over. If you don''t like the idea of hell, why would you buy a game called "Diablo." Diablo means devil.

If a game development team thinks through the project, the setting should always match the games concept. I have never played a game where the setting was highly emphasized anyway, other than Metal Gear Solid 2. (Solid Snake is on a Naval Ship, I don''t want to say anymore.)

quote: Original post by Drizzt DoUrden
If you don''t like the idea of hell, why would you buy a game called "Diablo." Diablo means devil.

Never said that...I said that everytime hell is presented in a game (or film for that matter) it just doesn''t even come close to what I imagine it would look like...same goes for heaven.

You know, we can''t really complain that all games these days are clones of old ones....think about how much money there making from doing it.

I am the same AP from above. The SNES/SFC precursor to Persona was a game where God and the Devil were fighting and depending on what side you took one of them could be the last boss. I remember my friend was like "I killed god!" (No surpise it wasn''t released in the US...)

Anyway the thing about fantasy is that is is supposed to be "fantastic." Orcs and kobolds *aren''t* fantastic, they are *mundane.* Elves live in treehouses, dwarves are stout and are good metal workers...yawn. Where is the fantastic in that? The entire genre is a big misnomer. (Sort of like how "modern" art doesn''t actually mean modern, it means a few decades ago...)

We all know the conventions by heart. Dragons breathe fire, maybe white dragons have a cold attack...goblins ride wolves sometimes, elves are smart, nomes are small, yay! It isn''t compelling or original in any way.

I don''t understand why people try to cater to D&D so much. What percentage of the population plays D&D? But then I read reviews of something like Pool of Radiance and they guy is like "one big problem is that in 3rd edition rules dual classes are allowed for halflings, but in this game blah blah blah..." Apparently it *is* a big deal to some people...I guess there is a lot of overlap between D&D and PC game players but I still would think there is a huge market of people who would enjoy RPG''s and ORPG''s without a D&D connection. (Dragon Warrior is the number 1 PSX game ever, that has to mean something!)

JM

quote: Original post by MSW
I agree with AP above...sense when has ''fantasy'' been exclusive to the genaric D&D type settings?...if it isn''t Tolken/D&D type "fantasy" it gets lumped into ''sci-fi'' or ''futuristic''...ever hear of the PSX game Persona...a RPG that took place in modern day Japan concerning demons and other monsters takeing over the world...pure ''fantasy'' setting (in the vien of Godzilla)...but call it that and some folks would jump down your throat!

those "generic fantasy" things (like elves living in trees, et cetera) do not come from D&D, they come from J.R.R. Tolkien.
granted a lot of games use what has become the "standard fantasy" and just suck, but i think it is because of a bad game design and storyline, and not because they used Tolkien''s ideas.
all these RPGs that use the same old elves and dragons and fire spells aren''t necessarily crappy just because they use these tried-and-true themes; neither is a crappy RPG made good by inventing one''s own version of elves (or calling them something else, or [ *gasp *] dropping the elves entirely and placing the game in the future).
face it, many many people like Tolkien''s version of fantasy. no matter how good a game is, it sticks out and seems strange when the elves don''t fit with Tolkien''s elves (just my opinion, but based on the games that get published i''m willing to bet that a lot of other people feel the same way).

--- krez (krezisback@aol.com)