Rant: Why Fantasy RPGs Suck

[Vault Dweller]

From an upcoming, *potentially* super awesome interview:

"My biggest problem with the publisher pitch process (every designer and company will tell you this) is in trying to get them to gamble on new ideas or non-traditional story implementation or story topics. For example, it’s hard to pitch a fantasy game that isn’t Tolkien-derived. It’s not always easy to work with controversial subjects or mature themes without making the publisher nervous. I’m actually very fortunate because I’ve worked on a lot of mature and unconventional game stories.

All this comes back to marketing, which doesn’t like anything that can’t be justified by research, which means they like games that are like other games. I thought marketing was created to figure out how to take a product and figure out how to sell it, but that’s not how it works in any medium anymore. When costs come down, expect that more folks will be willing to take chances. Each dollar is a vote, so as long as people keep buying games of a certain genre/style, don’t expect to see anything that isn’t a slightly different version of something you’ve already played.
...
What few games do try to break convention, those games need to be embraced by as many gamers as possible."

 

[The_Pope]

I say hang the guys who want to "do away with magic". Screw that, thats the main reason I like fantasy settings. Otherwise, why play in a fantasy setting, why not just play in a real world setting? Thats like playing in a Super Hero setting and not letting the player be an actual super hero, or a sci-fi setting where the player isn't allowed any sci-fi weapons or gadgets. Lame-o.

While I agree with you that all powerful wizards who just sit around for thousands of years waiting to be a deus ex machina for some dumbass hobbit are astonishingly lame, there is a point to non magic non historical settings - it allows for cultures or conflicts that didn't exist in the real world. Romans fighting a war against Samurai, for example.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I actually far more dislike settings where mages are exceedingly rare than those where they are a bit more common. Why? Because that more common nature creates checks and balances in the worlds power structures.

Only in theory. The common nature of knights didn't stop the feudal Europe from becoming a battlefield for centuries. Common nature of something that can be used to fight wars will only lead to more wars.

I hate it when there are like 5 uber powerful mages in the setting, and they can pretty much run around doing whatever the hell they want, because no one but another of the uber beings can stop them. It makes these characters the core movers and shakers in the setting, makes them control/influence everything.

Isn't it the way of men though. Who influenced the 20th century? First Lenin started the revolution, unleashing his undead commie legions, which influenced the word for the next 70 years. Then Herr Hitler came to power, unleasing his demonic nazi hordes. Then Truman nuked Japan with impunity. Throw in Stalin, Mao, and those who started WW1, and you'll have a nice family photo of less than 10 people who were responsible for the death of tens (if not hundreds) of millions of people.

Going back to games, one of the good things about very powerful NPCs is that they clearly show that you are not the most powerful being in the universe, even after you hit level 20. Take Bloodlines, for example. You are constantly reminded of your mortality by being surrounded by characters who can kill you as easily as you can kill an average human.

 

[Mayday]

This reminds me of the Megadragon in Might and Magic.
He sure was one annoying fucker.

Yeah, I have nothing against powerful, unbeatable NPCs as long as:
-you can harm them at least a little bit (otherwise I get the feeling : ok, this NPC was specifically made immortal by the devs, kinda breaks the immersion),
-there is a reason behind their power- unless a king is protected by some powerful magic, why wouldn't I be able to assassinate him with a crossbow?
-I can learn how did the NPC gain his power- even if it's a mystery (a good plot device?)

and so on

 

[Jasede]

Wizards and Warriors, ironically, actually did a good job on that. The only NPCs you couldn't [effortlessly] kill were an ancient treant and a powerful dragon. If, however, you did manage it your level 20 party gained like 30 levels. Good times.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Only in theory. The common nature of knights didn't stop the feudal Europe from becoming a battlefield for centuries. Common nature of something that can be used to fight wars will only lead to more wars.

That is true, but I wasn't meaning that the checks and balances would stop wars, only that it would stop one side from completely crushing another.

Like with nuclear weapons. America developed them 1st, suddenly they have overwhelming might compared to their enemy, Japan, and Japan quickly folds. Today, many countries have nuclear power, so America can't simply unleash them, for fear of the resulting retaliation and mutual destruction. Checks and Balances. Now imagine a scenario where America is in that war, has developed that technology 1st, but just doesn't use it at all. Why not? It doesn't make sense.

Its even worse in fantasy because its generally a single being with the power, not a political structure, which has its own checks and balances. Why didn't Gandalf use his uber powers to deal with his enemies? Because he "wasn't allowed to". Bah. I see that too often in High Fantasy, uber mages who do jack shit besides mutter mysterious nonsense and give farm boys magic swords.

I prefer my fantasy with mages who are a bit more human, a bit more fallible, a bit more common and a bit more active. They use their powers to further themselves, but the fact that there are other mages doing the same keeps most in line. You can't mind control the king to take over because his hired court wizards protect him. If magic is so rare, then few counters exist for it, and mages should be able to do pretty much as they please. Who's to know you are controlling the king if even the ability to sense magic is incredibly rare?

Going back to games, one of the good things about very powerful NPCs is that they clearly show that you are not the most powerful being in the universe, even after you hit level 20. Take Bloodlines, for example. You are constantly reminded of your mortality by being surrounded by characters who can kill you as easily as you can kill an average human.

I wasn't saying you shouldn't have powerful NPCs. Only that I think cutting out the low and medium power mages from a fantasy setting, while keeping the high powered guys, is unwise. And too often unrealistic. Hitler didn't wield that power on his own. There was an entire spectrum of Nazis propelling that war machine, from the high powered leaders all the way down to the common soldiers.

 

[The Dude]

I don't buy that. Shivering Isles is a conscious effort toward making something visually different, and that's one of the major selling points. Why do people lap up what (judging from screenshots) looks like a rehash of Morrowind, yet Morrowind was "too strange?"

I think a lot of it has to do with Morrowind being "ugly". It's overwhelmingly brown, and the pre-release trumpeting of cutting edge graphics seemed to apply only to the water.

It's all in how you sell the idea to people.

Sure, marketing might play a role but in the case of SI I think most people will buy that because of "OMG! More Oblivilviodin!!!" rather than any "it's different" spin.

Also, to look to other genres, games like Outcast, Psychonauts, and Beyond Good and Evil sold well below expectations. All these games had solid or wonderful gameplay for their genres *and* recieved widespread critical acclaim. They all also had highly original settings which was made apparent in the marketing. In fact, I have a hard time recollecting any somewhat recent game that successfully made "the fantastic" a selling point. I'm not saying it's an impossible feat, but good luck convincing the suits. Yet another reason to by and large ignore mainstream gaming and look towards the indies.

Oh, and sorry for the late reply, gone fishin' a few days (for real ).

 

[Section8]

Also, to look to other genres, games like Outcast, Psychonauts, and Beyond Good and Evil sold well below expectations.

I don't recall any of them getting the VIP treatment from retailers or media outlets, though. A game that has a single facing amongst dozens or hundred of other games will only sell to someone who is looking specifically for it.

A game with preorder posters in the shop window, on every wall and hanging from the ceiling, along with with a whole wall of preorder boxes on their own display stand, store radio plugs, looping traliers, etc. is going to sell regardless of what it is. The only thing that's going to hold it back would be a poorly presented box. The power of the impulse buy is truly fucking scary.

Take Viva Pinata for instance. You couldn't stray further from the sort of shit a typical gamer considers to be "cool". But that strangeness was part of the appeal, and I know when we gave it the treatment, it sold like crazy.

 

[psycojester]

Also worth considering is the fact that Beyond good and evil is insanely easy, contains bugs that make the game unfinishable on PC and is only 3 level long. It doesn't deserve all the hype it recieved.

Psychonauts and Outcast didn't get a fair go. I own both of em and love em. I'm so happy that nobody has applied rule 34 to psychonauts yet

 

[jplestat]

None of that changes the fact that Fallout and PS:T are good games, no more no less. The environment does not make it better.

So, you are saying that there is no difference between an interesting & original setting and a generic & bland setting?


I am saying that just because a setting is unique, futuristic or different does not make it better. Nor does a game set in a traditional fantasy make a game worse. It is a small element of the game, and to be honest many people, myslef included, prefer a fantasy setting over others.

Nor does "dialogue choices" or multiple paths necessarily make an RPG a better game.

How do you role-play in a game without dialogue choices and multiple path? The only difference would be the manner in which you slay monsters, which makes you an "action RPG" fan. We are all very happy for you, of course, but keep in mind that there is more to RPGs than action.

Again, you are being narrow here. You feel there have to be choices that affect the gameworld to play a role. What character class you choose, what items you use, how you approach the game and combat are all elements of playing the role of you character. That is not necessarily enhanced by dialogue choices or multiple paths. These can certainly help, but are oftentimes done poorl anyway, and make the game slower. The "adventure" part of an RPG is not as critical to me as some other elements but is clearly very important to you.

In your extremely narrow view of CRPGs you may personally think that is of the utmost imprortance, but I do not think that they are a critical elelemnt.

In my extremely narrow view of FPSs I also think that being able to kill monsters is of the utmost importance, but that's probably the elitism in me talking.


Dialogue choices in an RPG and killing monsters in a FPS are certainly not the same thing.

For me, PS:T was interesting for a while, but then it just seemed too dull once you were into it a while. I certainly liked it, and agree it is a good game, but nowhere near my top.

So, what are your 5-10 top RPGs and why?

In no particular order:

Divine Divinity - Best combination of action RPG mechanics with an open world, interesting locations, good character development system and interesting world

Wizardy 8 Strategic and fun party based RPG with great balance, interesting story, nice complexity and the quirkiness of the Wizardy world

Dungeon Master A simple Dungeon crawl that played very very different depending on your party and character choices. The immersion of the dungeon is still strong 20 years and a gazillion graphics enhancements later.

Gothic 2 with expansion Simply an awesome game despite a slightly weak ending when you are essentially a demi-god. The dialogue choices and multiple paths here were done very well and did add to this game. Great combat system, incredibly interesting environment, very immersive world. Loved this game.

System Shock 2 A linear game. No dialogue choices whatsoever, but the scariest most immersive game I have ever played. Character development (role playing) was incredibly detailed and important and the game played totally different depending on the choices you made

Honorable mention: Daggerfall, Arx Fatalis, Dungeon Lords, Wizardry 6 and 7, Thunderscape, Diablo II, Might and Magic 6,7,8, Soulbringer, Captive

RPGCODEX is interesting because most of the people here, such as yourself, have such specific and narrow opinions of RPGS and are so extreme in your views.

Have you seen our top 10 RPGs list? The Bloodlines review? My Gothic 3 review?

It does make for some good amusement, but in the end you guys say the same things over and over and over and there is really no substance behind what you say either.

Unlike your thoughtful posts, of course.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Do you not understand how the quote tags work? Anyway...

So, you are saying that there is no difference between an interesting & original setting and a generic & bland setting?

I am saying that just because a setting is unique, futuristic or different does not make it better.

It's not what I asked.

It is a small element of the game...

Again, I must repeat my previous question. It's possible, of course, that you are crazy about anything fantasy-ish, and any game/book featuring swords, knights, wizards, and monstars is an awesome game/book by default, but hopefully you can see a difference between a well crafted, rich and inventive setting and "there is, uh, magic, and you must, like, stop orcs and undead and stuff".

... and to be honest many people, myslef included, prefer a fantasy setting over others.

So do I. What's your point?

Again, you are being narrow here. You feel there have to be choices that affect the gameworld to play a role.

You feel different? You prefer choices that don't mean shit?

What character class you choose, what items you use, how you approach the game and combat are all elements of playing the role of you character.

Hexen fits this definition. Is it a role-playing game?
http://www.idsoftware.com/games/vintage/hexen/

In your extremely narrow view of CRPGs you may personally think that is of the utmost imprortance, but I do not think that they are a critical elelemnt.

In my extremely narrow view of FPSs I also think that being able to kill monsters is of the utmost importance, but that's probably the elitism in me talking.

Dialogue choices in an RPG and killing monsters in a FPS are certainly not the same thing.

If you say so.

Divine Divinity, Wizardy 8, Dungeon Master, Gothic 2, ...

Looks like you like only dungeon crawlers/action RPGs. The role-playing aspects aren't interesting to you, and you prefer fighting games with character systems and inventory. That's easy to understand, but you should realize that there is more to playing your character than killing monsters using different weapons/skills/spells.

 

[Fresh]

Brilliant rant sir. I liked it a lot, thanks.

 

[Cassidy]

I didn't know today was the Necromancer Day...

The problem about fantasy RPGs, besides the fact that the highly popular D&D is tailored for combat, is that it seems more convenient to stick with many of the conventions that were imprinted by Tolkien work(Lost Ring/Artifact/Crystals as plot devices, fight the Big Bad Evil Lord and so on).

But as the mainstream seems to not mind spending their money on very similar fictional worlds, books and games, there is no pressure from the market for the companies to change and innovate their fantasy works, and as always, innovation and change are considered as risk activities and worst choices than sticking to the tried and tested formulas and putting better graphics to the corporate CEOs that run the large ones.

As long as most people continue buying the same generic fantasy stuff with chainmail bikinis, the market will provide their demand and companies won't be much willing to change the way they make fantasy CRPGs as opening new markets is always riskier.

And as always: As long as you buy such games, you'll be supporting them and encouraging the developers to not change. <s>Of course you can torrent one if you are curious</s>

 

[MisterStone]

As long as most people continue buying the same generic fantasy stuff with chainmail bikinis, the market will provide their demand and companies won't be much willing to change the way they make fantasy CRPGs as opening new markets is always riskier.

Hey, thanks for bolding that for us... I was having trouble following your complex and original take on the CRPG market and its lack of innovation.

 

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

Brilliant rant sir. I liked it a lot, thanks.

 

[Squeek]

Sorry for not reading this entire thread, but I got to this part and had to quote it. This is exactly right, IMO:

The problem is that RPGs are designed by people who are (at best) qualified for two things: programming and game design. So why are you surprised that the plot and the characters suck? Plot / character / world design should be handled by professional dramatists and novelists, working together with the game designers. Betrayl at Krondor is the only RPG I know which did that, and it certainly rocked.

There's just too much emphasis on software design and not enough on writing. Lately the one has been consistently sacrificed for the other. It's junior-high business mentality meets nursery-school writing propped up with university-level programming skills.

Some RPG fans appreciate good writing more than others, but you know who appreciates it the most? Good writers. If they had a bigger voice at the table, these games would be different. But they don't. Talented programmers and non-talented marketing people are at the helm.

I'm not just talking about storyline CRPGs, either. Sandboxy ones need good writing too -- more, in fact.

The solution is for the VPs of marketing at the companies making these games to grow some balls. They're all betting too much on what seems to be the least likely to fail. If they raised their sights higher, they might find out that a good RPG is even better than a cool RPG.

Fantasy adventure is wonderful, IMO. There's no need to get weird in order to avoid monotony. Not saying anybody's wrong about their being bored, I'm just suggesting it's because of bad writing.

 

[Fresh]

Brilliant rant sir. I liked it a lot, thanks.

Sir, I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.

 

[Inziladun]

I agree.

 

[deuxhero]

That would be nifty. And with the massive popularity of dark elves, it's a wonder they haven't.

As long as there are no Chaotic Good Drow rangers with two scimitars...

 

[Keldorn]

I grow quite weary of these typical Tolkien types, so tired and true, leaving me black & blue. The sprit is willing, but this old and battered body needs rest.

It appears that realms occupied by monsters & magic, swords & sorcery and dungeons & dragons are inescapable. They represent CRPG oatmeal, and regardless of how many scoops of strawberries & blueberrires, and regardless of how much brown sugar & cinnamon one heaps upon the basic recipe, it is still oatmeal.

Oatmeal is fine. It is very good for you, and is not intrinsically deleterious. However, if that is all that is consumed, one will ultimately grow weary & indifferent, lacking passion, interest, and dynamic enthusiasm. Eventually, one will become utterly sick of it, possibly even repulsed.


Bring on a new breed of CRPG. Wheter it be a Boxing Rpg, a UFC Rpg, a Politician Rpg, a Futuristic Sci-Fi Rpg (like the Tabletop Rpgs "Traveller" or "Space Opera"). How about an Animal Simulation RPG, where you get to be a wolf or an elephant... in the WILDerness.


I approve heartily of the path I have taken.

 

[Trash]

Damn shame to have missed this thread back then. VD starting post is brilliant. I've always loved fun and strange settings. Playing games is after all a form of escapism, and what's better than to visit somewhere new and exciting?

Lately however I'm thinking that some of the cliche's are being abandoned or at least better used. Gothic 3 is in every way a cliche high fantasy world, but the orcs actually ruling the place and having an interesting culture and storyline makes for a refreshing chance.

Now a game like MOTB shows that even DnD can be done well and refreshing. Same as the witcher. It's again the usual fantasy fare at first sight. But the inclusion of typical human traits like racism, xenofobia, greed and hatred make the society it portrays much more interesting.

I hope this trend will continue, because I'm sick and tired of the usual cliched crap.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Bring on a new breed of CRPG. Wheter it be a Boxing Rpg, a UFC Rpg, a Politician Rpg, a Futuristic Sci-Fi Rpg (like the Tabletop Rpgs "Traveller" or "Space Opera"). How about an Animal Simulation RPG, where you get to be a wolf or an elephant... in the WILDerness.

If that's the future of 'innovushion' i think RPGs are better served where they are.

True and tried > Bizarre random shit in the name of novelty.

 

[Virtz]

How about an Animal Simulation RPG, where you get to be a wolf or an elephant... in the WILDerness.

Like so?

 

[cardtrick]

not intrinsically deleterious.

Why would you write that? Who talks that way?! I hope you got your ass kicked a lot in middle school.

Oatmeal is fine. It is very good for you, and is not intrinsically deleterious.

You wrote: "Oatmeal is fine. It is very fine, and it is has no deep property that makes it not fine." Why did you do that?

EDIT: I'm really curious. Please explain.

I mean, please explicate your rationale and elucidate your prolix prose.

 

[Quaid]

Nice rant. RPG settings I'd like to see:

Ravenloft
Shadowrun
Buck Rogers (SSI did this way back)
Cyberpunk (Neuromancer style)
Marvel Universe
Star Trek

And of course unique and inspired environments like Arcanum. But the above list has solid, well laid out environments that could be drawn from to make games.

The RPGs I'm interested in follow the depth of Fallout and Arcanum, and not the Action RPGs like BG:Dark Alliance or Marvel Ultimate Alliance.