The real importance of the story for you?

[Winter Night]

Seriously, is the story really so importent? Sure, it may turn a game in to a legend, but in my opinion, it doesnt matter so much.

What i really like in RPG are...

1. The dialogs - if there is one thing i like, then its defeating my enemeis through my wits or sugar lips . Thats the reason i loved the conversation with Ravel. That poor crone actually thought that Nameless One liked her and could possibly return love to her.

2. The setting - Morrowinds story wasnt anything special. However, the setting and the history was just awesome in all of the ways.

3. Character creation - even a hollow RPG can be replayable with an uber character creation system.

So, what do you think?

 

[kingcomrade]

1. The dialogs - if there is one thing i like, then its defeating my enemeis through my wits or sugar lips . Thats the reason i loved the conversation with Ravel. That poor crone actually thought that Nameless One liked her and could possibly return love to her.

2. The setting - Morrowinds story wasnt anything special. However, the setting and the history was just awesome in all of the ways.

The TES setting is hardly special. It's generic fantasy with dinosaur people and Patrick Stewart.

3. Character creation - even a hollow RPG can be replayable with an uber character creation system.

What does this even mean? You need to be more specific. An "uber" character is worthless if the game isn't worthwhile.

So, what do you think?

That you don't.

 

[Daigoji_Gai]

The TES setting is hardly special. It's generic fantasy with dinosaur people and Patrick Stewart.

Funny comment, lol, Patrick Stewart can make anything great fellow poster..

That said, look at it this way. What isn't generic fantasy? LORD OF THE RINGS was generic fantasy, Tolkien himself admitted he "borrowed" motifs from classic european myth... for example most of Tolkien's world was based on the Nibelungen Sagas from German lore....

I guess I'm saying is pretty much everything with an elf in it is generic fantasy, what is important is the treatment that generic fantasy world receives that can make it interesting.

 

[glasnost]

for example most of Tolkien's world was based on the Nibelungen Sagas from German lore...

You need to go farther north for his chief influences. Iceland. Finland.

The comparisons to the 'ring cycle' are superficial. There was a translator who made overtures about that in the introduction to his version of the lotr...Tolkien had a pretty snappish retort: "Both rings were round, and there the resemblence ceases...it has nothing to do whatsoever with the Lord of the Rings."

I would say Tolkien was working within a 'genuine' tradition, myth (as opposed to 'generic fantasy'), at least that was his attempt, He didn't so much 'borrow' from northern myth cycles, but tried to create his own body of legends, with a culture that would have born them, which was a lifelong work. Around the time hobbits were on the scene he was firmly established and immersed in his own created universe, with its own history and legends. The lord of the rings was born out of that (and a bedtime story), not Germanic myth or Wagner, at that point it was no longer bound to or borrowed from established myths...he had invented his own.

I would say 'generic' fantasy, or fantasy in general, is not written in that tradition. It 'borrows' the imagery, but it's not about creating or preserving oral history, or transmitting culture. It's about telling a thriller with swords and sorcery. It's probably accurate to say that Tolkien is borrowed from fantasy authors more so than the earlier myths, as he is the only contact for many with that oral tradition. You can reduce Tolkien and his progenitors to that, but I think you've missed the point by doing so.

-------

As far as story in games goes it's very important, and it's bound up closely with level design. I need an interesting world to explore, and a compelling narrative to uncover/chew on as I do so. If a game lacks these things, than it quickly becomes very tedious for me. Ideally, the story isn't all revealed directly, the player should have to think it out. I.E. I like it better if I have to piece the narrative together from journals, overheard conversations, notes, orders, visual evidence, things like this, rather than cutscenes or text dumps. Make it tightly integrated into the game world. If it isn't, you should just turn it into a novella or short film.

 

[Solik]

I don't care about story specifically; I just care about motivation. Story is often a great vehicle for it, but it can also really get in the way, depending on execution. There are also other things that can function as better motivators.

For example, what I've been wanting to see for a long time is a quality game where I start out as a nobody, do some adventuring, and have the ultimate goal of founding a kingdom and growing an empire. I wouldn't need a story to be motivated for that -- I'd create my own story, and probably have more fun doing it than I would with most stories given to me in games.

 

[Chefe]

Storylines suck. Graphics for the win.

 

[kingcomrade]

Why do you bother going around in circles trying to change the definition of generic. TES is generic, because the setting has always seemed to me like that time in high school when you cut and pasted an essay and then went through and changed the wording of the sentences. Perhaps uninteresting or unoriginal or uncompelling are a better choice of words.

PS:T isn't generic fantasy. New Crobuzon isn't generic fantasy. LotR is generic fantasy, as is D&D, 90% of the RPGs out there, and half the books out there.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Seriously, is the story really so importent?

No. Story is often there to serve only as added motivation for players to go through the game but it's not necessary. All players actually need are objectives to fulfill and advance in the game, and most games can still provide the same level of gameplay if they didn't rely on story. For the most part games still build on the same basic layers that archaic videogames like Pacman or Tetris did, and only add more layers - such as story - to appeal to gamers, not because it necessarily makes the game better.

 

[bryce777]

The TES setting is hardly special. It's generic fantasy with dinosaur people and Patrick Stewart.

Funny comment, lol, Patrick Stewart can make anything great fellow poster..

That said, look at it this way. What isn't generic fantasy? LORD OF THE RINGS was generic fantasy, Tolkien himself admitted he "borrowed" motifs from classic european myth... for example most of Tolkien's world was based on the Nibelungen Sagas from German lore....

I guess I'm saying is pretty much everything with an elf in it is generic fantasy, what is important is the treatment that generic fantasy world receives that can make it interesting.

Don't be stupid. Tolkien is tolkien, and not generic at all. Mythology is not meant to be completely original, but he created a whole mythos.

Generic is when some dickhead skims the surface of tolkien and a few other settings that borrow from it and repackage the same shit with no originality.

 

[Chefe]

Tolkien is only generic because everyone copied him.

If everyone started copying Torment, we'd say that it was generic too.

If no one had copied Tolkien, and suddenly a game came out that had elves and orcs, we'd all be like "WOAH! WTF? These races are like so fucking unique, man! This is so much better than that generic Torment fantasy shit that everyone does!"

 

[Lord Chambers]

I'm kind of with kingcomrade on this one. Though we're arguably representing a more ignorant view than people who can trace Tolkien's influence and speak about his substantial mythos, I feel like it's splitting hairs.

It's got elves. It's got little guys. Dwarfs. Dragons. Humans represent the average, the paradigm and all other races are unique simply for being taller, smaller, more mysterious, sneaky, or evil than humans. It's human-centric.

It's got magic. And magic comes out of staves and wands. Other people use swords against armor and shields.

The technology of the era is almost certainly pre-industrial. People pretty much do manual labor. There probably isn't anyone in a middle class. It's just peasant fodder, maybe some mages, then the king whose kingdom you're saving. My, it's all quite medieval isn't it?

The thing that makes all these settings typical is that they're predictable.

A player of games in these settings knows that heavier armor has higher AC or better damage resistance, and that the trade off is higher weight or reduced mobility. Now, you could claim that's just being realistic. Of course it should be that way, you might think. Well when did every RPG player become savvy to medieval warfare? If we weren’t always seeing this repeated in RPGs or RPG-lite like Oblivion, the average person of today’s world wouldn’t know that about heavier armor as a reflex. In an non-traditional setting the armor mechanic could be heavier = shitty because the society developed differently technologically and uses a lot of crossbow-type weapons, and the concept of a big sharp stick is fucking ludicrous. Or maybe the society is a bunch of creatures that spit shit at each other, and don’t use armor because they have tubs they use to catch the acid spit in. Sounds stupid, but at least it’s different. You won’t find a whole lot outside of European medieval combat + magic in fantasy settings.

It's really easy to point out the exceptions to this rule, because it's so rare the games that do change the formula. Final Fantasy is known for taking the predictable setting and adding technology to it. Technology that doesn't really change anything except give you an airship. Arcanum was notable for combining a pre-modern and medieval. The point is though, more games have a lot in common with this typical fantasy than do not. Few games break from it.

There might be nuances that make Tolkien differ from the vast multitude of fantasy settings (the fact that "fantasy" actually describes a setting in a meaningful way lends credence to the argument that it's all the same shit), but as a gamer and experiencer of these settings, I rarely am surprised. I watched LotR movies, and you know, Legolas wasn't a very unique guy. That Gim li cracked jokes wasn't expected. I can give you that. But that the wizard guy lived in a tower and had a crystal ball, and that his master was represented by FIRE HELLISH FIRE OF EVIL wasn't too original, to me. Again, I'm not concerned with who originated traditional setting, I'm just saying it's pervasive to the point of knowing things about the world simply because other factors are there. There are pointy ears? Oh, 80% chance they’re mysterious elves.

Here I disagree with Kingcomrade. I think Morrowind is an example of diversion in a larger, traditional fantasy world. The Imperial peeps are Romans. They even have legionaries. And provinces. And their armor is modeled like Roman armor. Hey, no surprise, to the North is Skyrim, a bunch of barbaric German/Nordic people. And, don't be startled now, they like fur armor, and beer, and log buildings. Wow, astonishing. Somewhat originally, there are three types of different elves. Dunmer have almost zero traditional elf qualities. And their home of Morrowind is extremely original. They live in big bugs. Or big cantons. Instead of the typical feudal structure they have great houses. Now, even in a relatively original setting like Morrowind, more is in common with traditional fantasy than not. But it does a very good job of changing as much as possible, in the political, architectural, social, and religious realms. It’s still not post-apocalyptic Fallout, but it’s not as bad as Oblivion.

 

[HotSnack]

Sure, it may turn a game in to a legend, but in my opinion, it doesnt matter so much.

Uh-huh.

 

[Data4]

With regard to the thread's title, I think it really depends on the individual game. I tend to lump RPGs into two main categories: Stats and Story. Sometimes the two can intermingle, but it seems that they're mutually exclusive nowadays.

Stats RPGs are those which rely heavily on stats when it comes to accomplishing tasks. Less emphasis is on the overarching story and more on the minute-by-minute situtations. Dungeon crawls come to mind here. Forget WHY you're in the dungeon; only know that you are there, and your success or failure is dependant on your character's stats.

Story RPGs are those that focus more on the plot and less about the individual character attributes. Purists will say they aren't true RPGs, but I'd disagree. These type of games rely on a narrative and the success or failure of your character is dependant less on stats and more on the player's ability to advance a story without metagaming. This is seen in MUDs and forum based RPGs like Alleria (though the latter does have game masters to keep metagaming and godmoding in check).

So, yeah, story can make all the difference in the world if the designers'/Game masters' goal with it is to tell one, but I think you can replace a narrative with simple game goals and still produce an interesting game.

-D4

 

[kingcomrade]

Somewhat originally, there are three types of different elves

How is that original? Everyone and their grandmothers come up with elf subraces.

You go through and you point out a dozen silly clichés, and then say that the Morrowind setting isn't generic, which doesn't make sense.

 

[Drakron]

Yes but granted that TES come out with human subraces and that is something we usually dont see (since "it teh racist").

Morrowind is not very "generic", TES games have interresting parts (Morrowind is a good take on religion) but unfortunatly it simply does not translate in the game were you simply have to read the in game books and read the actually dialogue in order to piece things.

You want to bash ... go ahead but TES never had "Dragons are teh EBIL!!!" and shown originality in many areas, issue is when things get mainstream they get dumb down a lot ... were are the Empire protector dragons in Oblivion? (They sould been there).

 

[kingcomrade]

So, Warcraft 3 has interesting parts, it's still generic fantasy. Generic fantasy isn't all that bad, it's just uninspiring and forgettable, and it is all based off the same crap. The thought process that went into Morrowind seems to be all, "Okay, we have <cliché>, only wait!! <minor deviation from typicality>!!"

Yes but granted that TES come out with human subraces and that is something we usually dont see (since "it teh racist").

How is that any more creative than coming up with sub-races for elves? Redguards are black and they run fast and are strong and stuff, Bretonians are nancy faggots, and Imperials are Romans! Woo woo all aboard the creativity train.

 

[Daigoji_Gai]

for example most of Tolkien's world was based on the Nibelungen Sagas from German lore...

You need to go farther north for his chief influences. Iceland. Finland.

The comparisons to the 'ring cycle' are superficial. There was a translator who made overtures about that in the introduction to his version of the lotr...Tolkien had a pretty snappish retort: "Both rings were round, and there the resemblence ceases...it has nothing to do whatsoever with the Lord of the Rings."

I would say Tolkien was working within a 'genuine' tradition, myth (as opposed to 'generic fantasy'), at least that was his attempt, He didn't so much 'borrow' from northern myth cycles, but tried to create his own body of legends, with a culture that would have born them, which was a lifelong work. Around the time hobbits were on the scene he was firmly established and immersed in his own created universe, with its own history and legends. The lord of the rings was born out of that (and a bedtime story), not Germanic myth or Wagner, at that point it was no longer bound to or borrowed from established myths...he had invented his own.

I would say 'generic' fantasy, or fantasy in general, is not written in that tradition. It 'borrows' the imagery, but it's not about creating or preserving oral history, or transmitting culture. It's about telling a thriller with swords and sorcery. It's probably accurate to say that Tolkien is borrowed from fantasy authors more so than the earlier myths, as he is the only contact for many with that oral tradition. You can reduce Tolkien and his progenitors to that, but I think you've missed the point by doing so.

-------

As far as story in games goes it's very important, and it's bound up closely with level design. I need an interesting world to explore, and a compelling narrative to uncover/chew on as I do so. If a game lacks these things, than it quickly becomes very tedious for me. Ideally, the story isn't all revealed directly, the player should have to think it out. I.E. I like it better if I have to piece the narrative together from journals, overheard conversations, notes, orders, visual evidence, things like this, rather than cutscenes or text dumps. Make it tightly integrated into the game world. If it isn't, you should just turn it into a novella or short film.

Great points.

 

[Drakron]

Its not the question of being creative but a question of not going it for PC reasons.

You really dont need to complain about elven subraces to me since I agree without a few exception (were their biology is very diferent) there is really no point of doing it, what makes it worst is that when you have demihuman subraces you dont have human subraces.

Morrowind is interresting on some points, the "Ultimate Boss" was not the standart cliché "evil bend bend on wold domination" and the means to beat then were also not the standart "hit him until he dies" (you actually had to READ to understand how to beat him), Morrowind was very flawed but it does not mean there was nothing worth on it if you dig up.

 

[Daigoji_Gai]

... where are the Empire protector dragons in Oblivion? (They sould been there).

Wow! You know your TES lore, they definately SHOULD have been there! Woefully absent. Much respect for picking up on that!

 

[Lumpy]

Basically, what KC is saying is that "TES has generic races and shit so it's generic fantasy".
Well, take a look at Fallout - it's a typical post nuclear world, with mutants and radiation and shit. The originality, just like that of TES, is not that obvious.
Morrowind had an interesting setting. Just look at the province - one that is used to the old ways, but where globalization is omnipresent. There are constant conflicts between those who oppose change and those who like it. Telvanni vs. the Mages Guild, Tribunal Temple vs. the Imperial Cult.
The Tribunal is also more interesting than the typical fantasy religion which usually consists of "There is the good god and the evil god and they hate each other and each one gives different spells.". This religion was even doubted by some, unlike usual fantasy, where gods simply are, or aren't. Also, the gods claimed that they achieved godlihood by extreme altruism and wisdom, while actually, they are just a bunch of sorcerers who used Lorkhan's Heart to get uber powers. This also gives an interesting role-playing situation - are they benefic or malefic? Should you kill Vivec or let him live? Should people worship false gods rather than worship nothing?
The Dwemer, too, were more interesting than the average Snow-white-like miner dwarves. They were great sorcerers and enchanters, with no respect to the divine, using profane means to create their own gods, and maybe planning to achieve godlihood themselves.

 

[kingcomrade]

A typical post nuclear world? I don't know about you, but I don't think I've played a single other post-apoc game worth mentioning, nor read more than one or two books, and never one done in the retrofuturistic style of Fallout. I don't think there IS such a thing as generic post-apoc. Everything I've seen from Fallout to certain webcomics have been very different in style, substance, and setting. Most science-fiction is that way, you don't have a whole glut of authors or game devs patterning themselves after someone like Tolkien or D&D. Starship Troopers (the book) is very different from Star Trek, which is fairly different from Star Wars, which is very different from Downbelow Station, which is very different from whatever. Total Annihilation is a much different type of sci-fi than Starcraft, neither of which have anything in common with Star Control II, which doesn't have a lot in common with Master of Orion, which has nothing in common with

In Fantasy, we get all of the D&D games (with some exceptions like PST), TES, Warcraft, almost all fantasy games which are superficially different but in the same way that WW2 shooters are all superficially different. They are all pseudo-medieval societies with other races which are usually some variation of smaller/taller/faster/slower/smarter/dumber than humans and/or taken from Greek mythology and/or unimaginitive anthromorphs (Warcraft is terrible about this). Contrast Githzerai from PST (which, I'm pretty sure, don't have a lot in common with the D&D githzerai that it was based off of) to the incredibly non-generic Night Elves.

The dinosaur people in TES are exactly like the Night Elves. Someone said, "Hey, how about dinosaur people," and someone else said, "Yeah, who are from place X and here is part of their history Y and this is their basic outlook Z, hooray we created a new race." Different in flavor, but not substance.
The same way the people are blizzard went, "Hey, how about purple elves?" and someone said, "Yeah, who are from Kalimdor and here is their history Y and this is there basic outlook Z" hooray we created a new race.

Contrast that to the thought that went into the super mutants from Fallout, who aren't just conjured out of nothing, but they are a direct result of a major device in the setting (FEV). Someone didn't go, "Hey how about really big mutants?" someone went "Hey, what would happen if supervirus was introduced to radiation, then infected people?"

Basically, what KC is saying is that "TES has generic races and shit so it's generic fantasy".

Wrong, I'm saying that TES is generic fantasy because it is generic fantasy. The setting is superficial and so obviously based on fantasy clichés that I've already forgotten most of the lore as uninteresting. I played Baldur's Gate through and I don't remember any of that setting, either, just because it was so generic. When was the last time that you played a fantasy game that wasn't based around a medieval kingdom? (disincluding PS:T).

You've pointed out a bunch of stuff, but it falls directly into what I said:

Okay, we have <cliché>, only wait!! <minor deviation from typicality>!!

You are thinking an order of magnitude to small in difference. Planescape: Torment was not generic fantasy. It had practically nothing in common with the settings of games like Warcraft or TES or Baldur's Gate. The Thief games are not generic fantasy, as it doesn't have much in common with games like Fable, etc. The Final Fantasy games aren't generic fantasy (I've only played down to FF6). Think about how different those are, and how similar the settings I mentioned as generic are. They all have worlds that have different filler, like whether they believe in good and evil or shades of grey in their religions, but beyond the superficial flavor it's almost the same.

 

[Drakron]

You are thinking an order of magnitude to small in difference. Planescape: Torment was not generic fantasy. It had practically nothing in common with the settings of games like Warcraft or TES or Baldur's Gate...

Can anyone say bullshit?

BG and PS:T are both D&D based games from D&D settings, PS:T and BG differ most in story but in terms of mechanics they are almost equal and even if FR and PS are diferent at the time both games were created they shared the same basic concept, PS:T simply taken place on another area of FR since at that time the Great Wheel connecting all D&D setting was in place.

PS:T story could be set on any setting without dificulty, it was pretty generic in that term.

That is what I love about PS:T fans ... they think their beloved game was only possible because of the Planescape setting as we could drop it in Ravenloft (the plane of "punishment") without many changes.

 

[kingcomrade]

BG and PS:T are both D&D based games from D&D settings

I'm not talking about rule sets, retard, I'm talking about setting. The Planescape setting has nothing in common with the other D&D settings, certainly not Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights.

Is it really so difficult to understand what I am saying?

 

[Lumpy]

Basically, what KC is saying is that "TES has generic races and shit so it's generic fantasy".

Wrong, I'm saying that TES is generic fantasy because it is generic fantasy. The setting is superficial and so obviously based on fantasy clichés that I've already forgotten most of the lore as uninteresting. I played Baldur's Gate through and I don't remember any of that setting, either, just because it was so generic. When was the last time that you played a fantasy game that wasn't based around a medieval kingdom? (disincluding PS:T).

You've pointed out a bunch of stuff, but it falls directly into what I said:

Okay, we have <cliché>, only wait!! <minor deviation from typicality>!!

How is it generic fantasy? Morrowind wasn't a medieval kingdom. Daggerfall and Cyrodiil are, but Morrowind was different.
Yes, it was a kingdom, but one where the king didn't have the power. It used to be a theocratic society, one ruled by the Tribunal. And it still is, although the empire has more and more power and influence. The gods aren't superficial, like in most games, they are much more complex, as I explained.
Take Gothic for example. We have the kingdom ruled by king Rhobar II. There are three gods, the good god of fire, the neutral god of water, and the evil god of darkness, gods which are very superficial. There is a big bad monster who was summoned by the orcs, and you have to kill him. That's generic fantasy. Morrowind is not generic fantasy.
Or, if you want to convince me that it is, stop saying things like "It's generic fantasy with slight tweaks." Tell me how the Tribunal Temple is the typical fantasy religion with tweaks, tell me how Morrowind is the typical fantasy kingdom with tweaks, and tell me how they could have done better.

 

[Zomg]

Well, I have a pretty good opinion of the Morrowind setting, but it certainly was created by a process of texturizing and deepening the generic Tolkienoid/D&D fantasy that started out in Arena and which Daggerfall took some steps to deepen, and it usually feels kind of "tweaky" - They're wood elves, they have a bonus to bows! They're wood elves, they're nomadic secretive tree dwellers! They're wood elves, they only eat meat, drink fermented blood, and they're goddamn cannibals!