Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Having their cake and eating it too - amateur repost

denizsi

Arcane
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
9,927
Location
bosphorus
Quoting the posts in the order they were posted

Top Hat said:
Quite obviously, there's a big difference between what the mass-market is offering as role-playing games and what the general consensus of the RPG Codex seems to be. Naturally, game companies want to make games that have a lot of flashy features to sell their games, whereas we want games which are a little more meaty.

So, what ways are there for us to ensure that (1) we have games that are marketable to a wide audience but (2) these features don't take valuable time/money/other resources away from making a good game.

The first thing that comes to mind is voice acting. As it stands now, this severely limits the amount of dialogue that can appear in a game. Voice acting also limits future modding potential and makes it harder to make expansions (since the cost of production will increase). However, having selective voice acting for only main people isn't a big draw that companies can use.

The only way out of this problem, I feel, is to have completely computer-generated voices. Now, I haven't been following this too closely, but from my limited experience, the voices often sound too "robotic" to reasonably resemble human voices. One way of working around this is to, well, make all the characters robots.

This also gives a reasonable explanation in regards to the "immortal character" nonsense, where characters can "die" in battle, but are brought back to life if their side wins: essentially, a character can "back themselves up" before any big battles and simply download their memories/skills/etc into a new shell.

You can also add the much-touted character customization, which will work in a much easier way: instead of having to design a good-looking person (when tweaking can destroy the aesthetics of a face if something is a bit off) you merely have to plunk down bits onto a flat surface. You also get more customization: give your character five eyes or two noses or something - then this can improve/detract from the relevant skills.

Naturally, of course, computerized voices will improve. Then we can have voices that sound exactly like the designers want them to sound, instead of exactly like some actor. If named actors are a big draw, then just have them voice a few roles, letting the computer generate the rest.

Well, that's one idea. I'm sure you've got your own.


Lesifoere said:
Top Hat said:
The only way out of this problem, I feel, is to have completely computer-generated voices. Now, I haven't been following this too closely, but from my limited experience, the voices often sound too "robotic" to reasonably resemble human voices. One way of working around this is to, well, make all the characters robots.


I'm intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.


cardtrick said:
Top Hat said:
The only way out of this problem, I feel, is to have completely computer-generated voices. Now, I haven't been following this too closely, but from my limited experience, the voices often sound too "robotic" to reasonably resemble human voices. One way of working around this is to, well, make all the characters robots.

This is one of the best paragraphs on the internet.


skyway said:
This is one of the best paragraphs on the internet.

yes, I LOL'd too. Though there is an AT&T's software that generates human voice very precisely with emotions and all that. I actually played some game, where a voicing part was done using this technology (only a small part though).


Nog Robbin said:
Voice synthesis is improving. I read an article I believe in the Focus magazine (checked their site but it has no search facility) about how close it could be to being able to simulate voices, inflection and all, from a person after recording just a few words. Even if it's close to human sounding I'm sure it would be good enough for gaming purposes. However, you still have the issue of generating the speech - I'm sure they wouldn't include the tools to produce the speech with a construction kit and I would have thought for the time being that sound files would still be used rather than simple speech to text (where inflection and emotion is harder to encode simply.)

The robot idea is really not bad at all though and gets around current limitations.


TalesFromTheCrypt said:
This is fucking sig material :)


Top Hat said:
Musing #2, or Graphics - You've been PVN'D

Quite obviously, the big problem with modern games is the push for high-level graphics, most of the time at the expense of the part of the game that makes it, well, a game.

I'm going to pick on a game - Heroes of Might and Magic V. Apart from the utterly atrocious storyline, one thing bugs me (and not only me - a relative who has the game complained about this as well): because of the three-dimensional engine used in the game, it has become very difficult in some instances to see a treasure chest, etc. Granted, you can move the camera. But really, I shouldn't have to. The earlier games (at least the first four (including King's Bounty)) managed to convey all pertinent information without being bogged down in graphical splendour. This is an example of how NOT to implement fancy graphics.

However, this isn't a rant about what's wrong with modern games. So, the big question is: how can we make elaborate graphics *work* for us? How can we implement high-level graphics in a way that enhances, instead of detracting from, a game? How can we make Bloom sing for its supper, as far as quality gaming is concerned?

I suppose the first question to ask is: can you have a game that is both graphics-intensive and pushes you intellectually? The answer to this is yes: Myst was a game that sold ridiculous numbers of copies on its graphics alone; yet I doubt whether a majority of that game's buyers have actually finished it, given the fact that you actually have to think to finish the game.

I suppose the next argument is: so graphics and puzzles work well. But what about story? Well, to be honest, the Myst series isn't known for its intricate storylines - they are quite linear (until the end, where tere are often a number of choices to make - although there's usually one obvious optimal ending). However, since there aren't so many characters standing around telling you about things, we often get the story through the various books written by the characters.

This set me on to the idea of Passive Visual Narration (PVN): essentially, we use the awesome graphics engines to tell our story without having to resort to character exposition. Let's try an example: and, yes, it will involve robots again. Bear with me.

Now, unless there's some alternative universe or biomechanic basis responsible for our robots, they're going to have to be built as some point in the past, by some kind of intelligent life. Let's suppose that they were built by humans who all died or vanished somehow - yet the robots are still running and they've left artifacts of their passing behind.

For those who've played the game, it's kind of like the Dwemer in Morrowind. However, let's "level up" the idea a bit. First, let's forget about the "Dwemer ex Machina" (he he he) and make it so that there aren't any people around. Let's also suppose that there isn't any "official robot records" of what happened to their creators. So, basically, the only way to learn about their creators is to study what they left behind.

For instance, old newspapers and magazines left behind might report on the rampant supervirus/space exodus from a polluted world/global warming (!) horror that drove away/wiped out mankind. But how do the robots learn what this gibberish means? Maybe they have to jerry-rig some kind of scanner to convert the text to some computationally understood format. Then, once they learned the language, they might be able to decipher less scanner-friendly texts from personal diaries, video and audio clips and so forth.

Analyzing the rubbish and other remnants can tell our robot friends what their creators ate and drank, what environments they liked, what they did for fun, etc. Then maybe some robots think it might bring their creators back if they remade the world in this way, setting off some quests or something.

So, instead of having to just go around, chopping your way through dialogue trees until only the dead stump of "Rumors" is left, you actually learn about the world in the way that archaeologists learn about ancient civilizations. This way, if you were insisting on voicing all your characters with prerecordings, you could save some exposition by letting a picture tell a thousand words. You also cut down on the work of the writers (not the people that come up with the story, but the people who actually write all the stuff), which means that their stuff should be better. And, since you're paying the graphics people anyway, you might as well make their work more integral to the story than just representing who's where and what they're doing.

denizsi said:
About voice acting, I've been thinking about prerecorded voice samples re-synthesized real-time. There are already software doing this (gaining different and realistic voice samples from the same source samples) to acceptable extents. The idea is that 10-50 (or more or less, depending on the words) different pronounciations of thousands of single words would be recorded, like "you, you!, you?", including characteristic variations, ie. there can be difference on voice characteristics between two people giving the same verbal reactions.

A research to determine which words to have different accents, stressing and emphasis as used in common sentences would be in order obviously.

A text interpretation / parser engine with grammar rules with its own coded language would be used to voice the text, so you could either write with the codes and test voices as you write or import a complete text and work word by word for right samples.

For instance, say you want to write this:

"So, of all people in the world, you are the only wise one to suggest his, eh?"


As you write it, program auto-inserts suggested source sample numbers in front of the word, which dynamically change as you keep writing. Eg:

So², of³ all² people¹² in¹ the¹² world³², you¹ are¹¹ the¹² only¹ wise¹³ one¹ to¹ suggest²³ his¹³, eh?¹


You can add further details like accent, emphasis, stressing, stretching etc., eg:

So²., of³ ++all²^ people¹² in¹ the¹² world³², *you¹* are¹¹ the¹² +only¹^ !wise¹³ one¹ to¹ suggest²³ this¹³, eh?¹%


to get it voiced like however you imagine the following might have sounded:

"So.. of AAALL people in the world, *YOU* are the ONLY one to suggest this, ehhh?"


The game would only display the text itself without codes, and you could immediately test any text for voicing at any moment to optimize it efficiently as you go. In fact, depending on the game API, you could modify, test and save voice resampling even in-game.

Additionally, you could import this text into the framework, where the text would be parsed for each word with respect to punctuations, noting the grammar rules, and then you could click on every word to bring a pop-up / pull-down menu to choose sample variations suggested by the program with options for accent, stressing, emphasis etc., or experiment with your own settings.

Finally, before or after you write any text for any specific character, would play with the individual synthesizer settings to come up with a unique or fitting voice type for that character. Game then, would resample the source samples real-time in respect to the coded text and the re-synthesizing

As far as I know, this is completely doable with today's tech. I don't know how efficient and presentable it might turn out in the end, but judging by the available professional sound software, it should be pretty good, and the kind of examples I offered look quite functional to me.
 

Top Hat

Scholar
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
476
Oh, what happened? Internet Drama overload the Codex, huh?

Musing #3 will go here and probably be on multiplatform releases (a nice way of saying CONSOLITIS!!!), once I have a bit more time to write up my ideas.
 

The_Pope

Scholar
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
844
Having all characters being robots also has the advantage of making your game 9000 times as extreme as one involving squishy meatbags. Plus it makes the whole level up scheme a lot more plausible. While a human going from unable to take on a small rat in single combat to taking on armies single handed in a week will never make sense, a robot upgrading its components and optimizing its combat programming to go from C-3PO to the terminator is quite plausible.
 

Cassidy

Arcane
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
7,922
Location
Vault City
The_Pope said:
Having all characters being robots also has the advantage of making your game 9000 times as extreme as one involving squishy meatbags. Plus it makes the whole level up scheme a lot more plausible. While a human going from unable to take on a small rat in single combat to taking on armies single handed in a week will never make sense, a robot upgrading its components and optimizing its combat programming to go from C-3PO to the terminator is quite plausible.

I don't think it's possible to transform a Mark I into a M1 Abrams through upgrades. Mechanic self-propelled and self-aware beings would, no matter how advanced tech was, have some significant limitations as well. Plus why not program them beforehand with the best combat experience available by uploading data from the brains of elite soldiers into such robots instead of sending them out as unexperienced in combat?
 

Human Shield

Augur
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Messages
2,027
Location
VA, USA
Or have cyborgs or suits.

Freespace had the aliens talk in weird sounds and have the translation program play it in robotic English. Could play as a someone in a foreign environment with only translation software.
 

Lurkar

Scholar
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
791
Cassidy said:
The_Pope said:
Having all characters being robots also has the advantage of making your game 9000 times as extreme as one involving squishy meatbags. Plus it makes the whole level up scheme a lot more plausible. While a human going from unable to take on a small rat in single combat to taking on armies single handed in a week will never make sense, a robot upgrading its components and optimizing its combat programming to go from C-3PO to the terminator is quite plausible.

I don't think it's possible to transform a Mark I into a M1 Abrams through upgrades. Mechanic self-propelled and self-aware beings would, no matter how advanced tech was, have some significant limitations as well. Plus why not program them beforehand with the best combat experience available by uploading data from the brains of elite soldiers into such robots instead of sending them out as unexperienced in combat?

Maybe the robot wasn't originally meant for combat. As they go into more dangerous territory, they find more powerful upgrades (afterall, the handgun you have in your house is different from what they've got in a military base, and guess which is better guarded?). As for the self-propelled robots/upgradable bit, allow the AI to inhabit different inputs so long as they aren't repelled. Could make for an interesting game mechanic. Need to sneak into the base? Leave your current body (better make sure it's safe/well hidden though) through an outlet, sneak past the AI defenses, and take control of a cleaning inside. Start as a clunky house cleaning robot, attack Soldier Drone A and, when damaged significantly, force yourself inside the body and consume his intelligence, not only upgrading your own combat expertise but gaining a better form to boot.
 

The_Pope

Scholar
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
844
Cassidy said:
I don't think it's possible to transform a Mark I into a M1 Abrams through upgrades. Mechanic self-propelled and self-aware beings would, no matter how advanced tech was, have some significant limitations as well. Plus why not program them beforehand with the best combat experience available by uploading data from the brains of elite soldiers into such robots instead of sending them out as unexperienced in combat?

Worker droid leads revolt against *insert baddies here*. I'd really like to play on the awesome side of a robot revolt for once.
 

Psycroptic

Liturgist
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
287
Location
Long live the new flesh!
I seem to remember Harlan Ellison pointing out that this phrase was wrong. It really makes no sense if you think about it. You have a cake and then you eat it. Where's the problem? The original quote was something like "Would ye eat your cake and have it too?" Because, well, then you wouldn't have any more cake.
 

psycojester

Arbiter
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
2,526
The_Pope said:
Cassidy said:
I don't think it's possible to transform a Mark I into a M1 Abrams through upgrades. Mechanic self-propelled and self-aware beings would, no matter how advanced tech was, have some significant limitations as well. Plus why not program them beforehand with the best combat experience available by uploading data from the brains of elite soldiers into such robots instead of sending them out as unexperienced in combat?

Worker droid leads revolt against *insert baddies here*. I'd really like to play on the awesome side of a robot revolt for once.

I'm pretty sure that game already exists, it came out on the PS2, unfortunately it was action.
 

Sovy Kurosei

Erudite
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
1,535
Lurkar said:
Maybe the robot wasn't originally meant for combat. As they go into more dangerous territory, they find more powerful upgrades (afterall, the handgun you have in your house is different from what they've got in a military base, and guess which is better guarded?). As for the self-propelled robots/upgradable bit, allow the AI to inhabit different inputs so long as they aren't repelled. Could make for an interesting game mechanic. Need to sneak into the base? Leave your current body (better make sure it's safe/well hidden though) through an outlet, sneak past the AI defenses, and take control of a cleaning inside. Start as a clunky house cleaning robot, attack Soldier Drone A and, when damaged significantly, force yourself inside the body and consume his intelligence, not only upgrading your own combat expertise but gaining a better form to boot.

Roujin Z?
 

Lurkar

Scholar
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
791
Sovy Kurosei said:
Lurkar said:
Maybe the robot wasn't originally meant for combat. As they go into more dangerous territory, they find more powerful upgrades (afterall, the handgun you have in your house is different from what they've got in a military base, and guess which is better guarded?). As for the self-propelled robots/upgradable bit, allow the AI to inhabit different inputs so long as they aren't repelled. Could make for an interesting game mechanic. Need to sneak into the base? Leave your current body (better make sure it's safe/well hidden though) through an outlet, sneak past the AI defenses, and take control of a cleaning inside. Start as a clunky house cleaning robot, attack Soldier Drone A and, when damaged significantly, force yourself inside the body and consume his intelligence, not only upgrading your own combat expertise but gaining a better form to boot.

Roujin Z?[/quote

Can't say I've ever heard of it. Google doesn't tell me much either. My basic idea was that your EXP
 

Lurkar

Scholar
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
791
Sovy Kurosei said:
Lurkar said:
Maybe the robot wasn't originally meant for combat. As they go into more dangerous territory, they find more powerful upgrades (afterall, the handgun you have in your house is different from what they've got in a military base, and guess which is better guarded?). As for the self-propelled robots/upgradable bit, allow the AI to inhabit different inputs so long as they aren't repelled. Could make for an interesting game mechanic. Need to sneak into the base? Leave your current body (better make sure it's safe/well hidden though) through an outlet, sneak past the AI defenses, and take control of a cleaning inside. Start as a clunky house cleaning robot, attack Soldier Drone A and, when damaged significantly, force yourself inside the body and consume his intelligence, not only upgrading your own combat expertise but gaining a better form to boot.

Roujin Z?

Can't say I've ever heard of it. Google doesn't tell me much either.

My basic idea was that, since your AI ISN'T developed for combat, you would gain your EXP by taking over AI that does.
 

chaedwards

Liturgist
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
352
Location
London
Lurkar said:
Maybe the robot wasn't originally meant for combat. As they go into more dangerous territory, they find more powerful upgrades (afterall, the handgun you have in your house is different from what they've got in a military base, and guess which is better guarded?). As for the self-propelled robots/upgradable bit, allow the AI to inhabit different inputs so long as they aren't repelled. Could make for an interesting game mechanic. Need to sneak into the base? Leave your current body (better make sure it's safe/well hidden though) through an outlet, sneak past the AI defenses, and take control of a cleaning inside. Start as a clunky house cleaning robot, attack Soldier Drone A and, when damaged significantly, force yourself inside the body and consume his intelligence, not only upgrading your own combat expertise but gaining a better form to boot.

This sort of reminded me of Freedroid, which Fez and others talked about in the indie prg thread. Maybe worth looking at Lurkar?
 

Top Hat

Scholar
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
476
Uhh, just a quick word.

Not to rain on anyone's robotic parade or anything, but this thread isn't "Top Hat's lame ideas for a Robot RPG"; it's about figuring out how to get mass-market RPGs that people with discerning tastes can enjoy too.

I've got the next part written up, but I'm not using my own computer and it will probably be along either today or tomorrow some time.
 

Nog Robbin

Scholar
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
392
Location
UK
Re: Deniszi

It sounds like a good idea, only the current level available readily would appear to be things like telephone systems automated attendants, the speaking clock and the SMS to voice service. The biggest problem is in that words recorded individually (even with various changes to enunciation) often don't link together seamlessy - the flow of the sentence is lost and sounds very artificial. Even with multiple recordings of any given word the chances of getting a sentence to sound as if it was spoken as a sentence is quite slight. Speech synthesis may be a better technology to be on in the long run.
 

Lurkar

Scholar
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
791
Top Hat said:
Uhh, just a quick word.

Not to rain on anyone's robotic parade or anything, but this thread isn't "Top Hat's lame ideas for a Robot RPG"; it's about figuring out how to get mass-market RPGs that people with discerning tastes can enjoy too.

I've got the next part written up, but I'm not using my own computer and it will probably be along either today or tomorrow some time.

Haha, we got a bit carried away.

Honestly, I think trying to get mass-market RPGs that people with discerning tastes can enjoy too is quite an uphill battle. There's simply too much running against it, be it journalists who rarely seem to play past ten minutes and buy into the hype they're supposed to be sorting through, or a generation of ADD gamer kids who can't go five minutes without killing something, the market just isn't set up for what was once standard, and is now niche.
 

Longshanks

Augur
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
897
Location
Australia.
Lurkar said:
Honestly, I think trying to get mass-market RPGs that people with discerning tastes can enjoy too is quite an uphill battle. There's simply too much running against it,
The biggest being simple, pretty, fun sells in big numbers, there's no incentive for "business minded" game companies to reach higher. Not to be overly cynical, there is no doubt that most/all? developers actually want to make good games, how fulfilling is it to spend years creating polished shit? So, Top Hat's hypothetical game, which has mass-market appeal, while offering something more without the extra cost, is probably the best we can hope for from the big companies. Whilst hoping smaller companies continue to pop up, who believe completely in what they're doing. I don't think we'll get truly great games (we may have had some already, or they may just look great next to the usual dreck) until the industry's treated more seriously and more talented, creative and intelligent people work in it.
 

SilasMalkav

Educated
Joined
Nov 30, 2006
Messages
78
Threads like this are why I love you guys. No matter how plausable robotic voices are for a computer game, the fact remains that they are boring and monotonous. Making up your own theory of how the technoglogy should work isn't going to make it work either.

And, even if you could get it to work, there's still a difference between good acting and bad acting. Someone would need to go through all of the generated samples and check to see if the speech flowed well and fitted the character. Which would probably cost the same amount of money as someone just reading out the lines. Afterall, you could probably get the developers to do the lines in their spare time if you really wanted to cut back on costs. If you didn't care about how it sounded.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
robot idea

Actually that robot idea has quite good story potential as well. The surface plot could explore things like how bound you are to your programming - i.e. are you REALLY exercising free choice or just working within pre-programmed boundaries. Is an AI the MORAL equivalent as a person - if a human tries to kill you are you doing the wrong thing by defending yourself (if AI doesn't count as a person, then arguably you have no right to kill a person in self-defence). This would then open up metaphorical exploration of issues like does free will ACTUALLY exist (ok, obviously we all exercise choice - but we choose in accordance with our desires and wants and the kind of person we are. But we DON'T get to choose what our desires, wants or personality are - so if these are the things that determine the way we exercise our 'choices', doesn't that mean we don't have free wil after all? (could be explored by analogy with programmed AI making 'choices' based on pre-programmed preferences). What IS necessary in order to have moral worth - is thought enough, ie is it wrong to kill anything that THINKS? etc etc
 

Cassidy

Arcane
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
7,922
Location
Vault City
I consider it impossible to conciliate the needs of the next-gen with the needs of the old-schooler. It's like trying to make chess playable and fun for retards without being boring to its usual players. "Teh readin' hurts mah head!" and "AAAAA Words wear teh graphix?" is a sad but true fact. The only way to change this reality is a paradigm shift to make the mentality of the mainstream closer to the mentality of the old-school. But with stuff like the Retard Channels(Mass Media crap) and alike, with the glorification of collective idiocy, of image over content and with the crescent growth of Internets most retarded forums, I don't have much hope such thing would ever be possible.
 

Top Hat

Scholar
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
476
Musing #3, or Take Two To Treat Consolitis

This post is a LOT longer than I planned, but I thought that presenting my entire logical argument would help you people understand more than just stating how I got to the conclusion. And it might also help me in later musings to refer to some previous ideas that I used here. So here we go!

Also, sorry robot fans – probably no robotic examples here, as this is more about marketing than development in a way. I might turn the original thread into a robot thread, since I do have some robot RPG ideas that aren't covered under the topic of "advancing the mass-market RPG".

Multiplatform development, in particular “porting”, comes with a lot of derision. Most often because they seem to forget the essential fact that consoles and PCs are different types of gaming machines – and more often than not, it is the PC version which suffers the most. When games are released with horribly gigantic interfaces, clunky controls and lacking some basic features that have been in the genre for ages, like naming save games without a console(!) hack, it's only natural to view "consolitis" as a bad thing for, in this case, computer role-playing games.

But really, it has nothing to do with porting between PCs and consoles, and multiplatform development. Claiming it to be so is retarded. It's due to the laziness, apathy and/or incompetence of the game companies, manifesting in a lack of proper consideration for the obvious differences between two platforms: one where you are using a hand-held control while sitting on your couch far away from the television, and one where you're about an arm's length from a computer screen using a keyboard and a mouse.

However, whining "ohnoes, consoles" is not the point of these musings; instead, it's about turning what's expected (or what should be expected) from game developers into positives for games (as we would see them).

At first, it was very difficult to think of how multiplatform development could assist in a game's development. The different platforms are liked by different people, and the console gamers have a reputation for not having the most sophisticated tastes, so how the hell can we expect games to cater to multiple distinct markets? In particular, how can we get some sophistication in multiplatform games when the markets seem to dictate dumb and dumber?

Well, I found that to be the key to approach the problem. I'm going to classify gamers into three different groups, that I think cover most
people that play games. Chances are, you'll probably fall into a fferent category for different games, but these are supposed to be applied to the general player behavior.

They are my own definitions, and to avoid confusion I will spell out
exactly what they mean.

1) Casual players: strictly defined, these are people who will play a game but not try to finish it, although they may start it a few times. More generally, it's people that might just pick up a role-playing game to maybe mash a few monsters, do a couple of quests and maybe level up. They're not really going to sit around and play through an entire story.

2) Completist players: strictly defined, these are people who will play a game once, but probably won't touch it after that, although they might play it again if it has multiplayer. More generally, these are people who enjoy saying they've "beaten" a game, and also people who probably would view RPGs in a similar way to a book or a movie - they want a story, but will probably only play through it once.

3) Enthusiast players: strictly defined, these are people who will play them repeatedly. More generally, these are the players who will try different avenues, not necessarily the "right" one that the Completist players will prefer, and will enjoy a branching storyline (a contradiction in terms, but oh well), choice and consequence, etc. In particular, games which offer a lot of variety will probably be played more by them.

Now we have to figure out how they link up to the different platforms. Now, it may be unfounded/incorrect supposition on my part, but based on:
(1) the price of the latest consoles vs the price of competitive PCs,
(2) the relative simplicity of setting up and playing games on a consoles vs on a PC,
(3) relative sales figures for some computer games, and
(4) the psychology suggested by (1)-(3),
would suggest that most console players are probably Casual and
Completist, while computer gamers are more likely to be Completist and Enthusiast (in regards to role-playing, of course).

Why? Let's look at the psychology of a console gamer vs a PC gamer. Consoles are cheaper and easier to use: this suggests that people that don't really want to muck around too much, they just want to play or aren't willing to spend a lot of money on computer games OR that they do not have a lot of money to spend on flashy computer equipment.
* The first group are probably those who don't view gaming as an important hobby, rather as a quick way to pass time with friends before going out clubbing or whatever, or at parties to keep guests entertained (i.e. Casuals).
* The second group probably enjoy playing games but can't afford it, so they view gaming as a hobby, and would possibly prefer to spend their money on games than equipment. Because of limits of time, they won't play a game repeatedly and would rather "clock" a game and move on than play it again.
Similarly, you can make the argument for the PC players, but I'm getting a little off-track.

The biggest plus to multiplatform development is, well, money. Console games have a larger market, and so developing for multiple platforms increases your target audience and therefore your income, which is what game companies want. In fact, apart from accessing a wider audience (which is only about the money in the end, anyway) it's really the ONLY advantage that I can think of for multiplatform development.

The question then moves from "Is multiplatform development good for RPGs?" to "How can RPGs have a big audience (with the added investment that would probably bring) AND also have a good storyline, choice and consequence, etc.?" That is, can we cater to Casuals, Completists AND Enthusiasts and get some RPG goodness?

Now, a good story is a good story, regardless of platform. And a choice on a PC is just as consequential as on an Xbox360 or PS3 or Wii or whatever other platforms there are. So, if a game is to be big-budget, wouldn't ensuring a good story with choice and consequence just increase the audience?

Well, not if those choices and story are seen as "confusing" to the
marketing types. Is this just a euphemism for "Our audience is dumb, so make games accordingly"? Well, maybe a little but probably not the main reason. Instead, I think it comes down to being more along the lines of "Are people new to the genre going to get it? Is it easy to put aside for awhile and come back to it?" - in other words, does it cater to the Casuals? This is because the Casuals are seen to be the largest of the three markets.

I think this is the reason for the success of Oblivion, particularly on
consoles. It got good reviews, so Casuals who don't follow the industry (and so don't read the reviews themselves) think, "We'll these guys like games, so it must be good." Then they got it home, played around with it for a bit and decided, "Yeah, it's fun. You can go and do a bunch of fun stuff." Then went off and played the next game or went out to the pub. Gah! Off on another tangent. Focus, Top Hat!

However, one of the things that most of the Elder Scrolls games do
correctly (in theory, but not in practice), in terms of catering to the
Casuals, is that although it presents a storyline it doesn't force you to follow it, at least not immediately (best implemented in Daggerfall and Morrowind out of the four RPGs). That, I think, is key to capturing this market. Let them muck around doing random stuff that looks cool, and they'll like it.

In fact, they'll probably make their OWN stories (which is what actually supposed to happen in P&P RPGs under the guidance of the guy running it) and say, "Aw, man, you should play this game! I killed this guy and the guards came after me, but I managed to run off!" while another guy might say, "Well, I didn't kill him, and he gave me an awesome sword for saving his wife!" A long storyline forced upon a Casual can be quite poisonous, and in the immortal words of the Elder Scrolls Forums, perhaps we need to look at a reasonable way to "stopp it poisen". The way I suggest will be mentioned later.

The key thing to realize, though, is that Casuals don't hate choice and consequence. In fact, it might encourage them to experiment more in games, as long as it's not too convoluted. We'll leave the Casuals here and move on to Completists.

I'm guessing that some Completists will probably want to just pick up a walkthrough and go through a game. This means that having some kind of storyline with an obvious trail to follow, is going to be mandatory. Seems against the whole choice and consequences thing, doesn't it?

Well, I didn't say "no choice and consequence", I said that there should be an "obvious trail". That doesn't mean that there isn't some hidden pathways that lead off this well-beaten path. You just have to look for them. Just like in real life, there might be more than one correct way to do things, and the obvious might not be the best but obscuring every single quest in a miasma of choice-and-consequence goop is retarded when there's only really two choices to be made - not do it or do it. You can kill the rats in the cellar or not, there's no need to make it into an epic philosophy on the life of a rat being sacred just for the sake of variety.

But the Completists (and Enthusiasts for that matter) also include a group that will probably enjoy long stories – in contradiction to the Casuals who would probably prefer little to no story.

There's bound to be some kind of sweet spot for the length of a storyline. However, I think that the best thing to do will be to have a shorter main storyline, with perhaps a few longer side quests, but more choices (and consequences, obviously) that might provide more rewards for the Enthusiasts – by which I mean player rewards (a longer piece of dialogue or more lore info or getting presented a different angle of the story to follow) rather than character rewards (more phat lewt, etc.). Yes, I know we're talking about role-playing games; but sometimes it's better to reward the player rather than the character to encourage them to stay "in-character".

By having a shorter main story, you can add choice and consequences and more substantial alternative paths (a plus for Enthusiasts), encourage the Completists to do side-quests and then go out and get another game (a plus for Completists – new story material - AND the companies) without them caring about any of the alternate routes, and doesn't overwhelm the Casuals (a plus for Casuals, and the companies again) with a convoluted search for "What can change the nature of a man?"

On the other hand, I personally enjoy long stories and I'm guessing other people do as well. Although a shorter story might seem bad, as long as everything else about the game (controls, interface, etc) are fine then it's really an advantage: shorter main stories can have more complex interactions for the same amount of writer hours (compare the total length of the strands of a spider's web to a piece of dental floss to get the idea). I'm not suggesting trimming the story to save money on writing; I'm saying that the money might be better spent on buying more arachnids than making a big epic tooth-cleaner.

To summarize, I think that if game companies want to make a multiplatform RPG that people who like complex storylines are going to like, then the best way is to make them more like short stories in a sandbox with lots of choices and consequences than epic novels with a long, straight road to gender ambiguity and big hair.

Of course, that's NOT to say that this should be the only type of game that gets made. Most certainly not. BUT I think it's the best way to get
(1) more people interested in RPGs that are at least decent,
(2) getting the game companies more money and
(3) satisfying some of the itches for RPGness that many Codexers want –
in other words, ensuring that, although having to make compromises, everyone wins in the end.

I'll just add a quick note about expansion packs. As we've seen with Mask of the Betrayer, this is a good way of accessing a wider audience. I think that game companies are in too much of a rush to develop new games with flashier graphics that cost a lot of money to develop when a good expansion pack may sell more copies of an original game to previously uninterested parties. Perhaps, if Bethesda had made an effort to make more quests like the Dark Brotherhood and fleshed it out into an expansion, there could have been a similar reaction from us towards Bethesda, and perhaps a bit more hope for Fallout 3.

Now, I'll leave it up to you for what I should write about next:
1) Tie-ins to franchises in other entertainment arenas (movies, books, TV shows, etc).
2) MMORPGs.
3) Tolkein-esque fantasy.

(Note that this is an example of a choice with no real consequence, since I'll probably just do them all anyway.)

Edit: I'm sorry for the occasionally atrocious formatting. For some reason, my clever email program decided to randomly put new lines in at strange places.
 

dunduks

Liturgist
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
389
2 Top Hat
Awesome post :thumbsup:
But there is one thing that makes your plan undesirable to publishers/developers - since the casuals and the completists are the biggest group, devs can get away with making only one plot branch (Case in point - Oblivion). Why? Becouse making a non linear/branching story takes more time and resources, and devs/publishers would rather spend that money on hyping/advertising.
 

JrK

Prophet
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
1,764
Location
Speaking to the Sea
When reading his third musing, I can't help but think of Fallout 2. It has the "I can do whatever I want, whenever I want" thing. It has the "we can follow an obvious trail (arroyo->klamath->den->vault city->gecko->NCR->vault with the raiders->vault with the deathclaws->arroyo->san fran->oil rig)". And to top it all off there's plenty of sidequesting, choices, different ways of solving stuff, monster bashing, amassing loot and so on.

Too bad the setting is a bit incoherent. :(

EDIT: I just realised that even the very casual gamers I know loved FO2! :cool:
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom