Why the hell aren't there more "space opera" / futuristic CRPGs?

[DraQ]

Fuck Star Wars.

Star Wars is easy because it's such an established setting with plenty of material to use. OFC, I would love a completely original universe and setting, but that requires a level of optimism in a studios writing department that I simply don't have.

We already have a fuckton of both fantasy cRPGs and Star Wars games.

SW is boring, exploited to death and not actual sci-fi.

 

[ItsChon]

We already have a fuckton of both fantasy cRPGs and Star Wars games.

SW is boring, exploited to death and not actual sci-fi.

Name a single Star Wars isometric RPG? What about a SW RPG that has nothing to do with the Jedi? I doubt you even know much about the EU and what that might entail. I can understand not liking SW, but it's not fair to claim it's boring when there are actually a lot of really fascinating bits regarding its setting and universe.

 

[Roqua]

Also, you've got some serious reading to do - not making even feeble attempts to understand the universe you live in is a disgrace and should make you ineligible of any decision making - including but not limited to any sort of democratic process.

What I know or do not know has no bearing on what is known and common knowledge by the vast majority of people in the bell curve of physics and scientific theories. Which was my (super correct) point.

I can barely think of any high brow rpgs (and that's for quite relaxed definition of high-brow) altogether and can't think of any hard sci-fi ones. Are we seriously heading down "nothing can exist unless it already does" alley, despite copious, constantly increasing body of evidence to the contrary?
We are not living in a fantasy setting where the only really good stuff are artifacts of eras gone by.

I don't remember the reason for this exchange or point either of us was trying to make so I can't think of a reason to apply.

I've recently been playing an ultra-realistic, hard sci-fi game (albeit not an RPG one). Your point?

My point was realism in a game is unattainable and will always be triumphed by gameplay. In that game is time reflected accurately? Or can you skip long distance travel? How fast can ships travel in RT? Does high-G maneuvers or from speed incapacitate or kill your crew? Its not realistic if it has completely invented science not based on any feasible scientific theories. You probably have a game with a bunch of invented stuff coupled with some actual science where it didn't completely ruin the gameplay.

I'm not saying that is bad. I am saying that is the reality of games. Its why they are fun and people like them.

 

[gaussgunner]

It is fantasy because it's full of derpy shit (genetic memory, prescience, etc.) and dubious, usually nebulous technologies (and also technological restrictions) transparently serving entrenchment of fantasy tropes.

Take shields, for example. If Dune was sci-fi, the interaction of shields and lasguns wouldn't lead to near elimination of ranged combat. Rather it would be engineered around and ruthlessly exploited in a way that should be immediately obvious to anyone with IQ greater than room temperature (and that's in Celcius) - using small single shot lasers as warheads/mines and quickly nuking shields along with their users into oblivion of complete obsolescence.

"Muh ecology!" doesn't make Dune any more of a sci-fi series than well researched swordplay would turn a fantasy novel also featuring magic and dragons into a historical one.

Dune was Lawrence of Arabia in space, that's the opera part. It's still probably my all-time favorite soft sci-fi epic. It wasn't realistic but at least it was consistent. Not bad for a 20,000 year prediction made during the most rapid era of technological advancement. Nukes, lasers, transistors, quantum mechanics, computers, biotech, jets, rockets - all that shit was brand spankin' new in the 20 years before Dune. In the 1960s people thought quantum mechanics and DNA could explain supernatural phenomena. The sky was the limit. It's hard to imagine today, when the greatest inventions of the last 20 years are Google and iPhones.

But you're right, the shield/lasgun mechanics don't make sense and wouldn't work in a game.

 

[Ranarama]

I remember quite liking Mines of Titan.

I think the real reason SciFi RPGs are rarer than Fantasy RPGs is the former relies generally on ranged combat, and idiot designer decides to make a shooter instead of an RPG. Whereas it's only been fairly recently that decent action melee combat has been done successfully.

I doubt many designers start with a genre and then pick a setting.

 

[gaussgunner]

So why aren't there more space opera RPGs? Maybe because the book/movie genre is about technological fantasies and big wars. Master of Orion comes to mind. Star Control 2 is the closest thing to a space opera RPG that I can remember playing.

Hard scifi's a better fit but it goes against the tide of fantasy RPGs, and furthermore, predicting the future is a risky business. Too conservative, and real technology will zoom past you before you've even made the game. Too far out, and it's just soft scifi or fantasy. What would a plausibly futuristic game be like, and would it be fun? Drones and self driving cars everywhere? Techno-fascism, techno-socialism, or techno-anarchy? Are certain technologies forbidden? Is Europe a Caliphate or the Fourth Reich, and do you dare put that in your game?

 

[Emily]

I'm not really sure whether Star Traders qualifies as "space opera", but it is certainly low budget. The second ST game "Frontiers" which raised $61K on Kickstarter was just released out of early access. Final Equinox will be a low budget space opera RPG; (I think the KS could have gone much better if they'd done more promotion beforehand).

I'd bet the market for space opera RPGs is smaller than medieval / fantasy RPGs, but it exists.

Star trader frontiers is pretty much finished and playable to around 20-30 hours easlly. There is just new content being added and patches and many other new things comming out but they are more akin to mini expansions/dlcs.

 

[Louis_Cypher]

Humanity is in a constant process of degeneration and devolution. Our peak was reached long ago. Everything is gradually turning to shit now, not only our species but also our environment. For this reason it's better to immerse oneself in visions of our noble past (Vavra Chad Simulator, Tolkien, etc.) than to subject oneself to hopelessly optimistic (or realistically deplorable) visions of our future.

Counterpoint: a lot of scholars like Steven Pinker argue humanity is progressing by a ton of different metrics and that Star Trek style enlightenment optimism was right.

 

[Serus]

So you are saying that it is fantasy because it is fantasy and that it isn't SF because it isn't SF ? That's deep.

It is fantasy because it's full of derpy shit (genetic memory, prescience, etc.) and dubious, usually nebulous technologies (and also technological restrictions) transparently serving entrenchment of fantasy tropes.

Take shields, for example. If Dune was sci-fi, the interaction of shields and lasguns wouldn't lead to near elimination of ranged combat. Rather it would be engineered around and ruthlessly exploited in a way that should be immediately obvious to anyone with IQ greater than room temperature (and that's in Celcius) - using small single shot lasers as warheads/mines and quickly nuking shields along with their users into oblivion of complete obsolescence.

"Muh ecology!" doesn't make Dune any more of a sci-fi series than well researched swordplay would turn a fantasy novel also featuring magic and dragons into a historical one.

There is more than ecology there. And there are no "dragons" (you and your obsession... ).
If you want to exchange comparisons here Is mine:
It would be more like a historical novel with well researched swordplay and poorly researched historical events in a chapter or two - but well in the rest of the book.
Shields vs lasers things is not just a practical or technological limitation. This is a feudal society who once decided that you don't use lasers against shields and because it is traditional and un-innovative it stick to it. Think about the use of crossbows in medieval era that the society tried to ban (even the Church was involved). They were unsuccessful back then but the principle exists in history. Also the Harkonnens did exactly what you demand and expect. They used their IQ - and exploited the whole system and its artificial, rigid, mostly self imposed, limitations.

Any way, it's really not like one gadget, one element decides if a work is SF or not.
The point is not to discuss every single gadget in the book like internet autists but ask if, in general, it tried to build the setting adhering to scientific principles. And in my opinion it did try to do just that, only not perfectly so. It's not hard SF but still enough of SF to be SF. Unlike SW which by design didn't care at any point about any science at all. Dune's author was interested in very typical SF themes: how technology and extreme environments influences humans, as individuals and as a society, what technological progress means to humans and humanity... and so on. That's what SF is about in my opinion. Not about whether made up lasers vs shields interaction make perfect sense or not.

You need to ask yourself something, if only very hard SF is SF then are you willing to remove from SF cannon all the ones that aren't? It's not just Dune we are talking about but hundreds, thousands of titles. Is SF only when the author is 100% successful at adhering to scientific knowledge or is it enough that he tries and is successful for the most important parts of his work (like in Dune)? I don't know about You but I for once don't want to call every work with unexplained faster than light travel as non-SF even if the books are SF otherwise. Which You have to do if you want to be consistent. Nor will I call "A Canticle for Leibowitz" non-SF because people don't grow fully developed second heads due to radiation - despite all the rest of the book having a great and well-thought description of post-apocalyptic society. Would You? Which is probably where we can agree to disagree.


Edit: wasn't the idea of genetic memory in scientific circulation when Dune was written? Honestly don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Edit2:
Is Alfred Bester's "The Demolished Man" SF or not according to You DraQ? I'm curious because it has some "derpy shit" (telepathy) in it.
And I could go on with examples as I remember them but I believe I made my point already.

 

[Darth Canoli]

What about a SW RPG that has nothing to do with the Jedi?

That would be boring as hell, there is plenty of writers who did much better creating universes (even if i enjoyed Timothy Zahn's trilogy).

Star wars without the force would be like highlander without the immortality; just a bunch of lunatics chopping each others head's off; like strawberries & cream without the strawberries.

I always thought a Star Trek space-ship crash could be the start of a great adventure (the beginning could start like Wizardry 8, or not ... ), Vance's Tchaï cycle do something like this and with such talent.
Still, i don't see the problem of mixing fantasy and sci-fi, i mean what we call fantasy is just a mix of clichés, is you remove magic from the equation, it's just reality.

 

[Louis_Cypher]

Any way, it's really not like one gadget, one element decides if a work is SF or not.
The point is not to discuss every single gadget in the book like internet autists but ask if, in general, it tried to build the setting adhering to scientific principles. And in my opinion it did try to do just that, only not perfectly so. It's not hard SF but still enough of SF to be SF.

Exactly.

Something like Star Trek isn't perfect science, but was on the harder end of science fiction by TV standards; it succeeded in inculcating audiences with good SF principles. It had the right attitude. Even if we didn't know the mechanism of action, the implication was that things like telepathy operated via fundamental forces like EM.

Some people here argue Star Wars is fantasy because of one element in it's vast mosaic: The Force. But firstly, we don't know if the Force is a natural phenomena in that setting, and secondly it might just be a secular metaphysical idea similar to "Tao", which people attribute unrelated powers toward due to a complex interplay between their attitude and their ability. Star Wars, like Warhammer 40,000 or Star Trek, is a vast setting where Jedi are only a small part and you can do ANY story, as others rightly said.

But frankly I just want stuff in space that utilises the cosmos as the ultimate fictional stage. If it's in space, it's science fiction as far as I'm concerned, except in cases of a clearly fantasy attitude like Spelljammer or a JRPG like Rogue Galaxy.

 

[DraQ]

Name a single Star Wars isometric RPG? What about a SW RPG that has nothing to do with the Jedi? I doubt you even know much about the EU and what that might entail. I can understand not liking SW, but it's not fair to claim it's boring when there are actually a lot of really fascinating bits regarding its setting and universe.

You know what?
I don't care.

SW should have had decency to keel over and die after the third movie (which was still ok, but already stunk in a few places - and that's accounting for it being a popcorn space fantasy adventure flick, lowering the expectations quite a bit) as far as non-interactive media are concerned, and after exhausting the material and potential outlined in the movies when it comes to interactive ones (including odd few remakes and revisionist/ironic stuff).

It has definitely never justified an army of rentawriters churning out piles of glorified fanfics.

 

[Louis_Cypher]

I feel like this is one of those cases where geeks are self sabotaging; focus on the fundamentals we share; like that a space RPG would be pretty cool, and add some variety, instead of warring over what sci-fi is, which just gives developers the impression of a market that is impossible to please.

 

[Cael]

What about a SW RPG that has nothing to do with the Jedi?

That would be boring as hell, there is plenty of writers who did much better creating universes (even if i enjoyed Timothy Zahn's trilogy).

Star wars without the force would be like highlander without the immortality; just a bunch of lunatics chopping each others head's off; like strawberries & cream without the strawberries.

I always thought a Star Trek space-ship crash could be the start of a great adventure (the beginning could start like Wizardry 8, or not ... ), Vance's Tchaï cycle do something like this and with such talent.
Still, i don't see the problem of mixing fantasy and sci-fi, i mean what we call fantasy is just a mix of clichés, is you remove magic from the equation, it's just reality.

Imagine a hyperspace mishap caused by a badly damaged fighter that sent one of the Old Republic Jedi crashing into Faerun. His adventures and the adventures of his descendents, the only people able to wield the Force and his heirloom lightsabre. Won't that be fun? :D

 

[DraQ]

My point was realism in a game is unattainable and will always be triumphed by gameplay.

Actually the game in question was built under operating assumption of "fuck gameplay, let's try to model how near future space warfare would really look like", with most of what does and doesn't work determined by the players and most of the stuff used *built* by the players.
It's essentially a realistic near future space battle simulation engine (and that's its declared goal - the author essentially stated that he got fed up with pointless green VS purple discussions about missiles and lasers and decided to solve the problem by actually modelling all the well explored techs).

Any departures from realism are result of the limitations of the simulation mechanics - either because the simulation would become too computationally expensive or because - given it is essentially a one man project - the author had to pick and choose what he would rather code and what would benefit the simulation the most.

It's surprisingly fun.

In that game is time reflected accurately? Or can you skip long distance travel?

Yes to both. Since the technology is limited to stuff that has already been built in some capacity you can't just zip back and forth through our solar system - interplanetary transit times tend to be counted in months to years, and when you can't depend on infrastructure, in particular a network of propellant depots - for example when staging an invasion, you need an awful lot of tankers to carry you through.
OTOH the game is mission based (with only some missions dealing with long distance transfers) and out of combat you can just fast forward time (which is a must have when time before anything interesting happens might be measured in months), while the ships follow realistically modelled orbital trajectories (so the end result is realistic).

How fast can ships travel in RT?

Depending on how fast they move and relative to what, duh.

Does high-G maneuvers or from speed incapacitate or kill your crew?

Of course. You can even have crews killed when a ship is spun-up by ruptured propellant tank.

Its not realistic if it has completely invented science not based on any feasible scientific theories. You probably have a game with a bunch of invented stuff coupled with some actual science where it didn't completely ruin the gameplay.

Actually, no. The stuff in game is modelled down to material properties if existing materials used to make up stuff like engine chambers, laser mirrors, coilgun solenoids and, obviously, armour.
You can try to design engine, for example, and have the game tell you that it will rupture from excess pressure or melt.

The most far-fetched thing is the premise - humans actually managing to establish a space based civilization after fucking the Earth up into Venus 2.0.

 

[DraQ]

There is more than ecology there. And there are no "dragons" (you and your obsession... ).
If you want to exchange comparisons here Is mine:
It would be more like a historical novel with well researched swordplay and poorly researched historical events in a chapter or two - but well in the rest of the book.

Shields vs lasers things is not just a practical or technological limitation.

Except it is presented as such - lasers are a no-no against shields because boom. Besides, it's not like cultural restrictions are particularly sensible in the setting either.

Any way, it's really not like one gadget, one element decides if a work is SF or not.

You see, the crucial difference between fantasy and sci-fi is mindset.
Sci-fi mindset goes from cause to effect - you assume X and see what and how much havoc this wreaks on the world, and then try to spin a story from it.
Fantasy mindset assumes effects - for example "I'm going to have my sword/knife fighting as main form of combat" and then tries to arrive at that conclusion no matter the cost. That's why fantasy usually deals with mystical, inexact and mythological - it's easiest to meld that to the narrative - unsurprisingly given that all that stuff arose from narratives in people's heads in the first place.
This is inherently inelegant, but given sufficiently good narrative it may be worth it.
Mind you, the distinction can be somewhat fuzzy, especially if someone designs their setting iteratively, but with Dune it's rather clear which side it's on.

And seriously, trying to sell Dune as SF does it great disservice. I got burned by that, because frankly, if it's SF it's a really shitty one. When I reread it at some point, as I'm planning to do, I will read it as fantasy it actually is and probably think much higher of it as a result.

Is Alfred Bester's "The Demolished Man" SF or not according to You DraQ? I'm curious because it has some "derpy shit" (telepathy) in it.

Have not read it.

 

[TemplarGR]

Why would space opera games be more expensive than fantasy games? I'd say asset-wise they might even be a bit cheaper since environments and clothes tend to be cleaner than in fantasy worlds and you need less detail and clutter to make areas look believable.

For the same reason fantasy games are expensive to make... AAA single player games are expensive to make in general, so the VERY FEW that get made are based on fantasy for more financial safety. As for non AAA games, most of the time financing those is a bitch, so they tend to be about fantasy as well...

One other thing you need to consider is that space opera games need to create new worlds, races, etc. There are few space settings available to use like Star Wars and those are EXPENSIVE. And if you attempt to create your setting yourself, then you are in danger of creating something bad and destroy the game. It is safer to just use typical Tolkien tropes...

 

[TemplarGR]

Name a single Star Wars isometric RPG? What about a SW RPG that has nothing to do with the Jedi? I doubt you even know much about the EU and what that might entail. I can understand not liking SW, but it's not fair to claim it's boring when there are actually a lot of really fascinating bits regarding its setting and universe.

Star Wars: Yoda Stories. I actually played it back in the day. Don't judge.

https://kotaku.com/5841946/this-star-wars-game-was-so-bad-they-should-have-made-more-of-them

 

[Grampy_Bone]

My guess is fantasy sells better. Star Wars definitely has more fantasy markers than sci-fi. Wizards, magic, swords, knightly duels, chosen one, legendary heroes, etc. etc.

There was one thread on here a while ago about how fantasy was inherently conservative/reactionary, which was kind of an epiphany for me. Fantasy is usually about returning to or restoring some past pure, superior state, whereas sci-fi is usually more progressive and about moving into a different, better future. The best sci-fi makes as few assumptions as possible and tries to extrapolate realistic scenarios from it's few "magic" technologies. Like how Mass Effect was all based around one impossible thing (element zero) and tried to stick to that. The problem is it's hard to fit stuff like fireballs and healing spells into a framework like that. With fantasy you have an easier time setting up diverse gameplay and characters, it can all be waved away with "a wizard did it."

Then again certain games have been blending sci-fi and fantasy for years with decent results *cough* final fantasy *cough* *cough*. The sharp demarcation between one or the other is mostly a western thing.

 

[Louis_Cypher]

A lot of the definitions of science fiction being used here are specifically for Hard Science Fiction - nowhere do the rules of society say that science fiction must be so rigorously conservative in it's use of fictive/imaginative devices, only that it is considered "hard" if it does keep them to a minimum. Classics by Asimov or Le Guin are not going to be ejected from the canon just because they use a couple of fictive things to spice up their setting (e.g. FTL, telepathy).

I know there are multiple meanings, but using Wikipedia as a guideline:

- Hard Science Fiction deals with "an emphasis on scientific accuracy"

- Soft Science Fiction deals with either "soft sciences" or are simply "not scientifically accurate"

Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5, Farscape, Dune, Stargate SG1, Firefly, Warhammer 40,000 would all obviously be science fiction. Some of them are harder than others. Some of them vary by episode, with some incredibly hard science fiction being mixed in with ones containing a lot of fictive/imaginative devices. By television standards, Star Trek was on the harder end of the scale (technical manuals specifying how many megawatts of power the matter/antimatter reactor at the heart of the enterprise puts out, how the deuterium and anti-deutrium is collected, etc). Some episodes are quite hard, such as ones involving physics problems, but it has had some very soft ones too, and the movies tend to be softer than the show. I remember reading that The Original Series was so procedural and bealivable by the standards of the 1960s, with it's treatment of life in space as a profession, use of correct SI units, acknowledgment of FTL being necessary (not common in TV until the 90s, shit just 'flew' to other planets), that when shown to a test audience of science fiction fans it received a standing ovation. Some of it's social science fiction was seminal.

For fun, here is how I would place some of the big works:

*Harder*
|
|- Revelation Space, Tau Zero, Red Mars, Rendezvous with Rama, Permutation City, Greg Bear, etc
|
|- The Expanse, The Martian
|
|- Foundation
|
|- Babylon 5, Star Trek, Stargate SG1, Firefly, Mass Effect, Dune, Warhammer 40,000, Farscape, The Dispossessed, etc
|
|- Star Wars
|
|- Doctor Who, Space 1999
|
|- Philip K Dick, Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, Lensman, John Carter of Mars, Flash Gordon, etc
|
*Softer*

But truthfully they are mixed; most of them contain hard and soft elements. The best works there are all over the scale of hardness, so hardness isn't mutually exclusive with value. Star Wars, when not dealing in mystical energy fields, has engineering material and makes only a few assumptions outside science like most of the popular TV space opera. At the end of the day, labels, while a useful tool for the hard sciences, since science by it's nature is about catagorisation/discrimination, are perhaps not a wholesome way of looking at stuff like creative genre.

 

[Giauz Ragnacock]

So the above video is from the anime 'Psycho Pass'. The only part of the man in the video that is still organic is his brain. He is explaining how everyone is a cyborg like him by degree because everyones' lives are seemlessly aided and controled by computers and devices.

Also, some newer episode of The Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits from years ago had AI ships that bred humans to maintain them.

I think these premises could make a different hard sci-fi space opera. Conflicts would be societal, trying to maintain individualism in a collective, and interactions with other ship worlds. I'm not sure what stats or character growth your PC(s) could have. Perhaps your group could be a "resistance" cell trying to keep up the masquerade from the collective society mind of the ships. Weapons could be whatever you can pick up to throw or swing or stab with or maybe you scavenge and craft real weapons.

Sorry this doesn't really help the OP.

 

[aweigh]

Space opera... is this that thing incels like?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Publishers are horribly out of touch with the public demand which makes getting certain projects funded nigh impossible

 

[laclongquan]

Am I going to mention the white elephant in the room? Betcha I am.

Whenever people think of space opera futuristic crpg they think of Andromeda.

And it flop miserably.

The End.

 

[Louis_Cypher]

Most companies in the current industry are focused on one out of 4 things:

1) Fortnite/MOBA/lightweight FPSes Twitch fodder F2P online games for the masses

2) Pixel art Indies that are cheap to make and can make you filthy rich even if you sell like 100k copies

3) AAA games from the big 3 and a few other companies that are especially suited for microtransactions, like Destiny, Shadow of War, Battlefront, Battlefield, etc.

4) The occasional AAA exclusive game on consoles from first and second parties.

Other than that, we may occasionally get a better quality indy or a AAA that is not complete shit like for example Witcher 3, but in general this is the industry currently.

Space opera games are expensive to make and since there are not many well known universes to set them up into, they are a huge bet financially. So naturally most develoeprs and publishers won't make that bet.

Sad but true.

Publishers are horribly out of touch with the public demand which makes getting certain projects funded nigh impossible

Indie developers and crowdfunding is where this is gonna have to come from. I have no doubt publishers have ruined the AAA side of the industry, and turned it into something that isn't even gaming anymore. Shun it. But we don't want AAA games if those are the conditions. Why does the community need big publishers? They are a relic, and we should buy from closer to the source if possible. People should start with small hardcore RPGs that are isometric, either by a small bunch of enthusiasts or a smaller studio, a blobber here and there (StarCrawlers was the right thinking). Torment: Tides of Numenera was in many ways exactly what PCs need, so InExile or Obsidian cracking out a BBB isometric would be good too.

Honestly the real exciting stuff in the industry has just migrated to indie and smaller companies, as demonstrated by stuff like Battlefleet Gothic: Armada, The Banner Saga, Battletech, Legend of Grimrock, UnderRail, Satellite Reign, Xenonauts, Shadowrun Returns, Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice, Phoenix Point, etc. That is where real gaming has gone; I didn't believe it a couple of years ago, but I can see it clearly now.

That stuff is the real AAA, in terms of creativity, focus and purity. It's like they are doing what games were originally about; by and for nerds. Look at Battlefleet Gothic, I would never have expected such a tight adaptation of a tabletop starship-combat game to appear, but that is exactly what indie developers are doing right under the nose of the AAA shite, as seen in such tight games as Battletech too. In that kind of environment I could imagine some small French developer or something doing a really faithful Traveller adaptation, with the pen-and-paper rules respected.