Lhynn
Arcane
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Messages
- 9,854
This is sad. M&B mechanics are the most interesting thing about it.we take only the pure grounded medieval setting of M&B, not its mechanics
This is sad. M&B mechanics are the most interesting thing about it.we take only the pure grounded medieval setting of M&B, not its mechanics
This sounds like something the marketing team of a Bioware RPG would say.Non-linear story lets you choose between being a villain or a savior.
Most importantly: Will there be manboobs? Don't ostracise!Also more importantly.. will there be boobs?
The emphasis. It means that the story is preset (and to some extent non-linear) and is the most important part of the game motivation-wise.The game is story driven? What does that mean?
Skyrim-like. A bit at the very start but for most of the time notWill there be invisible walls that open up as I complete quests?
That's MaB mechanical-wise. Already told you what's our relationship to MaB as an inspiration. Deduce the answer. Also read the whole description. That you do not have shit all over yourself doesn't mean you are a king. You're a smith.Do I get a castle and army and I have to manage them?
If we implement lute. As a weapon. And peasants.Do I run around with a bard lute beating peasents?
that's a question. If it is a schlock it at least will be a historical one. no big deal, i know. That's why we are trying do our own thing which we perceive different from a schlock. We might fail. That's life.why is this game gonna be better then the schlock we see every year?
Yeah that's a bit... simple... unnecessary... I don't know, I didn't write it. And I don't even want to know who did. There might be more oversimplistic statements which don't come across as well as they should.This sounds like something the marketing team of a Bioware RPG would say.Non-linear story lets you choose between being a villain or a savior.
Another example of how moderntards fail to understand medieval society. For them, everything is about class, which fails to explain how somebody could be born a peasant and still become a renowned scholar and eventually even Pope:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Sylvester_II
Most importantly: Will there be manboobs? Don't ostracise!Also more importantly.. will there be boobs?
Apart from that I don't see what's wrong with confining the player to a minor role in the grand scheme of things. I'd love to play a JA2 / Expeditions: Conquistador style game in which you control a band of mercenaries simply out for personal fame and riches, working for multiple opposing factions, set during the Reconquista or Thirty Years' War.The chief problem with a historical setting is that player interactivity intrudes on historic outcomes. And disallowing the player from affecting major events is a major turnoff.
Well, so do strategy games. If you play the Germans in a WW2 strategy game and win, the war takes an ahistorical outcome. If you play as Venice in Europy Universalis and colonize the Americas, it is ahistorical. If you play a historical battle in a TW game and win as the historically losing side/lose as the historically winning side, the outcome is ahistorical.
In strategy games, everyone accepts that once the player is involved, the game will not end up as real history did, because the player might make different decisions to what historical leaders did. Why should that be a problem in RPGs? Let the player take sides and influence the outcome, maybe even just very slightly in some detils, or majorly if your story allows for it. Give Arcanum-style ending slides on what happened. When there's an ending slide saying "your involvement led to Napoleon winning against Russia" or "you helped the Emperor defend Constantinople and the Turks were beaten, the Empire continued to exist for another century", you know that this isn't how things really happened, but it's fucking awesome to know that your actions changed history to such an extent.
This person apparently has never heard of Darklands. Unleash the dogs.
Apart from that I don't see what's wrong with confining the player to a minor role in the grand scheme of things. I'd love to play a JA2 / Expeditions: Conquistador style game in which you control a band of mercenaries simply out for personal fame and riches, working for multiple opposing factions, set during the Reconquista or Thirty Years' War.The chief problem with a historical setting is that player interactivity intrudes on historic outcomes. And disallowing the player from affecting major events is a major turnoff.
Well, so do strategy games. If you play the Germans in a WW2 strategy game and win, the war takes an ahistorical outcome. If you play as Venice in Europy Universalis and colonize the Americas, it is ahistorical. If you play a historical battle in a TW game and win as the historically losing side/lose as the historically winning side, the outcome is ahistorical.
In strategy games, everyone accepts that once the player is involved, the game will not end up as real history did, because the player might make different decisions to what historical leaders did. Why should that be a problem in RPGs? Let the player take sides and influence the outcome, maybe even just very slightly in some detils, or majorly if your story allows for it. Give Arcanum-style ending slides on what happened. When there's an ending slide saying "your involvement led to Napoleon winning against Russia" or "you helped the Emperor defend Constantinople and the Turks were beaten, the Empire continued to exist for another century", you know that this isn't how things really happened, but it's fucking awesome to know that your actions changed history to such an extent.
The chief problem with a historical setting is that player interactivity intrudes on historic outcomes. And disallowing the player from affecting major events is a major turnoff.
Well, so do strategy games. If you play the Germans in a WW2 strategy game and win, the war takes an ahistorical outcome. If you play as Venice in Europy Universalis and colonize the Americas, it is ahistorical. If you play a historical battle in a TW game and win as the historically losing side/lose as the historically winning side, the outcome is ahistorical.
In strategy games, everyone accepts that once the player is involved, the game will not end up as real history did, because the player might make different decisions to what historical leaders did. Why should that be a problem in RPGs? Let the player take sides and influence the outcome, maybe even just very slightly in some detils, or majorly if your story allows for it. Give Arcanum-style ending slides on what happened. When there's an ending slide saying "your involvement led to Napoleon winning against Russia" or "you helped the Emperor defend Constantinople and the Turks were beaten, the Empire continued to exist for another century", you know that this isn't how things really happened, but it's fucking awesome to know that your actions changed history to such an extent.
History is boring.
What's the point, it's already happened so who cares?
But really, may as well ask why so many shooters are set during WWII rather than using bow and arrow. Big picture, History is more niche than Fantasy. RPGs are already a niche. So, a Historical RPG is a niche of a niche. If previous historical RPGs regularly pulled big sales numbers, like Fantasy RPGs regularly do, getting them funded wouldn't be an issue.People say history is boring, and that is true because people are boring.
Another example of how moderntards fail to understand medieval society. For them, everything is about class, which fails to explain how somebody could be born a peasant and still become a renowned scholar and eventually even Pope:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Sylvester_II
Its cause church acted as adoptionist corporation fishing from talents in all societal stratas? And until Renaissance it was not uncommon to be knighted by King in Potatoland for war heroism or other valuable services for crown; funny cause L1berals keep telling us that Medieval ages kept commoners down.
WTF does that have to do with RPGs?I don't know if this has already been said in the replies, but here is my take. Life expectancy was much lower before the 1900s. Disease was far more likely to kill you due to insufficient resources to combat it. Then you have wars, revolutions, and other events that any nation could be vulnerable to. Oh, and did I mention that combat was to-the-death quite often with no save-reload?
That's because they are fed the bullshit marxist version of history which is utterly retarded and based on herp and derp. 100% of history is class struggle and the powerful keeping the poor down, and religion has always just been a way to blind people from the truth, be it the ancient cults with many gods or the medieval Christian and muslim churches. In Marxist world view there is no place for spirituality and idealism, it is all just about bullshit materialism and people never do anything for reasons higher than themselves.
Question: if historical setting would be so unpopular, why is Ass Creed so popular?
Most importantly: Will there be manboobs? Don't ostracise!Also more importantly.. will there be boobs?
The emphasis. It means that the story is preset (and to some extent non-linear) and is the most important part of the game motivation-wise.The game is story driven? What does that mean?
The counterpart is a mechanical game. What you do creates the context or is more important than the context. These games are primarily fun to play.
Story driven games: Mafia, Witcher, Mass Effect, New Vegas, Baldur's Gate 2, Planescape Torment.
Mechanical games: DayZ, Crusader Kings 2, Heroes of MaM, Far Cry 3, AssCreed, Geometry Wars.
I hope I don't have to explain these two aspects are not mutually exclusive.