sawyer wants rpg to evolve

[HeatEXTEND]

:kwafuckyeah:

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

:kwafuckyeah:

:russiastronk:

 

[fantadomat]

:kwafuckyeah:

:russiastronk:

:vivelafrance:

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

What? No, JRPGs are FF and other similar shit.

Also what fucking interactive storytelling? A game can't be an RPG with a linear story or what is interactive supposed to mean in this case? I control the characters, I decide what to do, that's fucking interactive.

Jesus. Yes, JRPGs are games “like Final Fantasy and similar shit.” Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy were Wizardry clones with some Ultima mixed in and a pinch more narrative. There’s a reason blobber stuff tends to wind up in the JRPG subforum here. So file Wiz 1 under similar shit.

Interactive storytelling doesn’t necessarily mean a branching narrative, but it does mean having more choices than your character build and which spell to cast in combat. I don’t think this is a hard concept to understand. There’s a huge qualitative difference between something like, say, Fallout and something like Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord. Why not say they’re different genres?

Look, is there more to an RPG than exploration, character building, and turn based combat? I would say yes, and that excludes early Wizardry.

 

[Silva]

Are you retarded or what is that supposed to mean?
The question was rhetoric... meaning I don't actually believe a game with a linear story can't be an RPG.
Or are you showing me BG...as proof of a linear game not being RPG?

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

From the comments section:

lyra_asriel

There's something wrong with this guy's brain. First he whines that RPGs could be doing things differently than traditional ones, and points to examples of far more popular genres of RPG doing those very things.

Next he complains about traditionalists getting angry, despite that the vast majority of RPG fans probably enjoy both Bethesda-style, Infinity-Engine style, *and* more besides.

Idiot.

Stardrowned • 5 hours ago
Says the guy making games that are deliberately a throw-back to games from the 90s?

Charles Stillman IV • 18 hours ago

"Problem" I dont see this as a problem. If you want to do something else then do it. BUt there is ALWAYS room for traditionalist RPG's like this

potato • 13 hours ago


Close minded people should play their old games again and again. New games should evolve and change.

 

[Iskramor]

I agree with Infinitron, this article is manipulatively hacked together for clickbait purposes.

No self-respecting game developer would link Skyrim with the direction in which RPGs need to evolve, while speaking in 2018. In the eyes of the mainstream, Skyrim itself has ripened enough to be counted among the "old school" nowadays.

Those have to be interpretations of illiterate journos.

How often do you offer your ass to Sawyer? I hope you two use a lubricant.

I'm one of the most consistently and vocally critical of Sawyer people on this forum, shitstain.

Pardon archalngel he is still sobering from antifa berkley university party

 

[2house2fly]

The current cutting edge of mainstream RPG design is epitomized by Witcher 3, and in the mainstream world, this position is determined by the most objective of all factors - sales figures.

I don't really know what Witcher 3 has over Skyrim, except for less freedom in character building

 

[santino27]

The current cutting edge of mainstream RPG design is epitomized by Witcher 3, and in the mainstream world, this position is determined by the most objective of all factors - sales figures.

I don't really know what Witcher 3 has over Skyrim, except for less freedom in character building

Significantly better writing and at least an attempt at depth, I'd say.

 

[Roguey]

Every time I see this thread title.

 

[FeelTheRads]

So file Wiz 1 under similar shit.

No, I won't. Dungeon Crawlers are not JRPGs.

Interactive storytelling doesn’t necessarily mean a branching narrative, but it does mean having more choices than your character build and which spell to cast in combat. I don’t think this is a hard concept to understand. There’s a huge qualitative difference between something like, say, Fallout and something like Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord. Why not say they’re different genres?

Look, is there more to an RPG than exploration, character building, and turn based combat? I would say yes, and that excludes early Wizardry.

So, there is more, whatever that more is, to RPGs than those, which excludes Wizardry. But, if those things are missing, it can still be an RPG... because of that "more" thing?

Cool story, bro.

Also, choices in character building and which spells to cast in combat, in an actual RPG, are more complex and interesting and more of them than choosing, arbitrarily, a dialogue option in Alpha Protolol (or whatever the fuck is considered an RPG these days) and pretending you "roleplayed" a mysterious tough guy with a heart of gold.

And no, I won't say Wizardry is a different genre just because... lol you think it doesn't have that "more" herp derp.

How about YOU say that whatever games you want and like are not RPGs and give them a special name and keep them just for you?

It's not me getting on your turf, it's you getting on mine, so fuck off.

Call them Best Games Ever for all I care, but don't call them RPGs and especially not evolved RPGs, pretending that you evolved anything, by actually removing features. Fucking lol.

 

[FreeKaner]

The current cutting edge of mainstream RPG design is epitomized by Witcher 3, and in the mainstream world, this position is determined by the most objective of all factors - sales figures.

I don't really know what Witcher 3 has over Skyrim, except for less freedom in character building

Significantly better writing and at least an attempt at depth, I'd say.

Depth where? Witcher's "systems" has less depth than most multiplayer shooters these days.

It counts as a RPG because its focus is on storytelling, dialogue, branching narratives and roleplaying.

 

[santino27]

Depth where? Witcher's "systems" has less depth than most multiplayer shooters these days.

storytelling, dialogue, branching narratives and roleplaying.

Answered your own question.

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

Interactive storytelling doesn’t necessarily mean a branching narrative, but it does mean having more choices than your character build and which spell to cast in combat. I don’t think this is a hard concept to understand. There’s a huge qualitative difference between something like, say, Fallout and something like Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord. Why not say they’re different genres?

The risk with these discussions about cRPG definitions is giving too much importance to the elements of the definiens of your definition at the expenses of actual gameplay elements that are integral to the genre. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that cRPGs are attempts to surpass unnecessary challenges where players’ abilities are represented by stats and skills in a gameplay that involves narrative choices. By that definition T:ToN is a genuine cRPG, but Wizardry is not genuine cRPG. However, and that’s the catch, T:ToN has shallow character building, bad character progression, awful exploration, bad combat system, horrendous itemization and superficial gameplay, whereas Wizardry has engrossing character building, excellent character progression, rewarding exploration and good itemization. So at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter that T:ToN does fit our definition of genuine cRPGs, but Wizardry doesn’t, because the first one fails in everything that we should expect from a cRPG, whereas the last one does so many things well in a way that is consistent with one would expect from a stat/skill informed gameplay that is a much more real cRPG. Another way you can think of it is that pure combat heavy stat games are like heavy combat P&P campaigns designed by a DM that focus on combat. No one would be retarded enough to suggest that your session was not genuine RPG because it was all combat, because the gameplay was stat/skill determined, etc.

I could also spend the whole day discussing how some of these gameplay elements (character progression, levelling, etc) are not essential to a cRPG in the strict sense of the term, but should be implemented in every cRPG because they are fulfilling for this type of gameplay. Once again, the rational reconstructions we can come up have little importance compared to the realities and specificities of the type of gameplay that we are trying to reinforce and flourish. Unless, of course, we are interested in something altogether different, like FPS. In that case, we should throw in the trash all that AD&D and PnP bullshit about dice, stats, etc. But then again, why bother calling this cRPG if we are obviously doing something else? of

 

[Frozen]

Advantage of a Witcher over a TES game is that it has a story, and more than 4 Romanian voice actors are involved.
When it comes to "systems" all Witcher games are less bad arcade games than a TES game (and that's not difficult)
Idiots that like hiking always praise this lack of effort and production values as "a feature" and that's why most of them headcanon while hiking.
I really don't get it where all the money goes in production of a TES game-its the same shit always, they reusing assets and its not difficult to copy-paste derpy environmental simulator from 2008. 2002.every year.
I don't get it why there is no "new" TES game every year like AC. Hell,even some Assassins Creed games look far more distinguished than any TES version and they have shorter development cycle.

 

[Roguey]

I don't get it why there is no "new" TES game every year like AC. Hell,even some Assassins Creed games look far more distinguished than any TES version and they have shorter development cycle.

It takes a lot of time, effort, and iteration to deliver polished mediocrity that appeals to the greatest amount of people. See also 00s era Valve.

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

But then again, why bother calling this cRPG if we are obviously doing something else?

Let me suggest an answer from my own question. Developers like Sawyer, Tim Cain and the ones from Bethesda will call action games without engrossing character building cRPGs because they want a bigger share of market, that part that includes the wider audience that is composed by players that are not interested in cRPGs, but at the same time they want to avoid competition from other developers that are actually experts in the action game department. It’s something similar to what pharmacies do when they sell other products besides medicine—they diversify to avoid competition. The analogy would be more precise if in order to diversify their line of products pharmacies could not sell medicine anymore, because you can’t offer this Skyrim approach without sacrificing what cRPGs are about. Thus, what we have is developers trying to sell bad action games as cRPGs in order to prevent competition and increasing sales, and dumbing down the genre in the process; and players that never liked cRPGs reinforcing this narrative because they want to play action games with high graphic fidelity.

 

[unfairlight]

balance will set us free

 

[Once more unto the Codex]

A mod should really just change the thread title to: “What is an RPG?” to more accurately reflect the content of the thread.

 

[Roguey]

But then again, why bother calling this cRPG if we are obviously doing something else?

Let me suggest an answer from my own question. Developers like Sawyer, Tim Cain and the ones from Bethesda will call action games without engrossing character building cRPGs because they want a bigger share of market, that part that includes the wider audience that is composed by players that are not interested in cRPGs, but at the same time they want to avoid competition from other developers that are actually experts in the action game department. It’s something similar to what pharmacies do when they sell other products besides medicine—they diversify to avoid competition. The analogy would be more precise if in order to diversify their line of products pharmacies could not sell anymore medicine, because you can’t offer this Skyrim approach without sacrificing what cRPGs are about. Thus, what we have is two things:

1. Developers trying to sell bad action games as cRPGs in order to prevent competition and increasing sales, and dumbing down the genre in the process;

2. Players that never liked cRPGs reinforcing this narrative because they want to play action games with high graphic fidelity.

"Josh Sawyer and Tim Cain are in it for the fame and fortune" is what you're saying here, but that makes no sense given what they've made in the past.

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

balance will set us free

in the large fields of the sandbox world.

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

"Josh Sawyer and Tim Cain are in it for the fame and fortune" is what you're saying here, but that makes no sense given what they've made in the past.

Are you trying to insult my intelligence with this low energy trolling, Roguey? How about this: a long time ago, some kids entered in the game industry because they were idealists and didn't know any better. As time passes they outgrown their idealism and got fed up by their teenager passion. The problem is that by now they have no better job prospects so they got stucked in this toxic and risky environment. Their solution is to take every single penny from their hardcore and deluded fanbase in order to appeal to an audience from other genre in order to make some real money and perhaps have some well deserved trip to Hawaii and other little pleasures in life, instead of slaving like a zombie in front of a PC to release another teenager ego-pandering fiction simulator.

 

[mondblut]

Look, is there more to an RPG than exploration, character building, and turn based combat?

Of course not.

 

[Brother Rat]

ITT we have people basically arguing that Telltale games are rpgs.

 

[Roguey]

ITT we have people basically arguing that Telltale games are rpgs.

They could be if they actually provided reactivity instead of railroading you into the same result.