The RPG Genre is fucked up

MrBumble said:
Well, I would sure as hell buy a Fallout 1 remake...

Experiencing the Glow in 1st person can't be a bad experience...

Doing it right would be very complicated for obvious gameplay and design issues but if done right I would totally play that.
yes it can be a bad experience when it was not designed to be played that way in the first place.

By saying that dont missunderstand me I have not any issues with first person per see. I just dont see why a Fallout "remake" (for example) would have to be done in a first person perspective (or any other game similar in concept) when you have a lot of oportunities avialable like for example a Fallout game done with the design and gameplay of F1/F2 but a engine like those of DEMIGOD

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vd8an0P5LI[/youtube]

I have no doubts that such a engine could even support without any issues a tourn based gameplay. Things can still be impressive even in a top-down-view. Thats why I am saying, graphic today is seriously NO more any issue. Things look alraedy good enough to support any possible vision. What games lack is true content in the form of interactions and such. But thats another issue.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zOyjZsKEZc&feature=related[/youtube]
 
Kyuu said:
Yes, it's brutal. Probably not really necessary. It's not unfair, though, IMO (the attack being an insinuation about Todd's mental abilities, not an attack on his mother).
Indeed. I said it before, as long as it's perfectly fine for people to call him a genius, visionary, mastermind, etc. then it should be equally fine for people to call him a dolt, idiot, moron, fool, etc., as it's simply the flip side of the same coin. As long as personal compliments are fine with folks, personal insults should be as well. That said, it really doesn't get you anywhere to do either so both are best left out.

x'il said:
Yes, i agree, the "force-feeding" and the "PR", must start at some point like in that website you're talking about, it is, let's say it, education.<snip>
So you're saying that unless a game is marketed, it probably won't sell? No shit. That's like saying that a car can't drive without wheels. Thing is, it completely contradicts your previous post which stated:
x'il said:
<snip> so even if a company were to release a complete Fallout 1 and 2 remake with the full graphics capabilities of nowadays, today, they would still plummet, and that's because kids nowadays have a set of mediocre standards sculpted into their brains by years of mediocre games, movies, music, etc.<snip>Change in people's mindsets and standards doesn't happen overnight.
Advertising is all about luring customers to buy your product ("changing peoples' mindsets") over short periods of time.
 
UncannyGarlic said:
So you're saying that unless a game is marketed, it probably won't sell? No shit. That's like saying that a car can't drive without wheels. Thing is, it completely contradicts your previous post which stated (...)

UncannyGarlic said:
Advertising is all about luring customers to buy your product ("changing peoples' mindsets") over short periods of time.

Ok, you're right, that was a statement of the obvious, but a question: what do you think all those fanboy reviewers that said (and are still saying) that FO3 is just "Fantastic!!", would say of a really good quality CRPG (that gets released today, for example)?, will they change their minds inmediately about what makes a game "fantastic" and therefore invalidate all their previous praising of FO3 and the like? or will they slowly but surely start poking holes in it (inventing "flaws" and calling it long and tedious and whatever else)?, and what will the vast majority of kids who've grown accustomed to such "reviewers" and believing in their "expert" opinion will think, and do? also, what will those kids who are used to playing "sandwich' crpg's and therefore used to the short attention span requirements of it, dumb easy gameplay, (and i seem to remember someone posting in this thread or another, not sure, about how players nowadays get frustrated if they die in the game because they made a mistake) will "feel" when playing the game?, i think that the hypothetical game i'm talking about here, being really good, will get many hooked, but i also think many more will just stop playing (specially if they start reading the "experts" opinions).

Also, how would this hypothetical "really good crpg released today" be marketed?, how would, for example, a trailer of it look like?, showing the great complexity of the dialogs and interaction systems and the like? or showing a bunch of combat and graphics and explosions?, more likely a combination of both, for all markets... (that is, dumb down market and high standards market, FO3 fanboys and, well, us).

Once an industry and it's consumers take a general direction, (which include a constant, general lowering of the standards with each passing game) it's not easy to turn away from that direction and into the opposite one.

It all comes down to money, and what i said in one of my previous posts about time and money.

So, there's no contradiction, only a "moving forward" of my basic original argument. I previousy posted that i would love to be proved wrong and kids nowadays could change theirs standards, MrBumble's post almost did it, it made me realize what i, perhaps foolishly had overseen, that PR and "standards education" work both ways... but like i said, it would not be easy. :wink:
 
What I've noticed is that RPGs of the present seem to get worse and worse word of mouth as time goes on while older RPGs just get better word of mouth as time goes on.
 
x'il said:
You're:

A) assuming i'm talking in absolutes, which i already posted that i am not,
Sorry about that.

x'il said:
B) reading what you want from my post and ignoring the rest,
Sorry about that.

x'il said:
C) ignoring my previous posts and the fact that it wasn't i who posted the Fallout 1-2 remake example,
Sorry about that.

x'il said:
D) ignoring the undeniable fact that consumers have more than their share of responsibility (along with the media, of course), with the direction game developing takes,
That is no fact. Mass market have little to no say in what they like. They just play what journalists tell them to play and that's it. If in ten years journalists tell people that strategy games ar teh shitt, then they'll play strategy games, whatever's hyped the most.

That's how things work and there's no way around.

Now, mass market is mass market, and lots and lots of games completely avoid it on purpose. Maybe not Bioware, maybe not Bethesda, but others do. I mean, at least to some extent. Most if not all D&D games are not aimed at mass market. They sure take the trends into consideration, 99% of designers SHOULD take them into consideration, that's just common sense. Now, specifically aiming at it, that's another thing, and it's stupid to say and/or think that any game who doesn't care about the mass market fails by default.

I don't know if you're saying that, again, sorry about that. As for me, I'm just saying.

x'il said:
E) dismissing your interpretation of my arguments with a plain "that's stupid" (now, that's smart!!),
It is actually! :|

x'il said:
F) playing "i don't know" on the fact, that games nowadays are more about graphics than anything else,
Mass market games? Well, they are starting to be more about the epicness than the graphics, as the consoles have been very much capped since the first games arrived, so...

In any way, I get your point, but, again, that doesn't mean ALL games have to be about graphics or they'll fail. The fact that so many indie devs are rising now should be a clear indicator of that. And not only on RPGs. I mean, SPECIALLY not on RPGs, but still, there's quite a few indies that are gaining significant importance today, and they don't go for graphics. Then there's stuff like Wii, the most sold console, and like DS, the most sold protable console, and like Xbox Live Arcade and WiiWare and DSiWare and PSN, they are not about graphics.

For the most part.

And they turn a profit. In fact, most of them turn HUGE profits, because they are not very expensive to create.

That's what happened with PC games back in the day. Well, most of them anyway. And with many nintendo games too (dunno about Sega's). People would go up and make something, and then the lowest sales would turn out to be good hits. And frankly, it was quite hard to do those "lowest sales" back then, because we didn't have the internetxz2.35 and all these gimmicks and whatnot. Now? It's even cheaper to create a game, and it's a lot easier to sell.

On the other side you have big companies investing millions in pieces of junk with outstanding production values, taking incredible risks with stuff that only lives because of media hype. That's not healthy, and it sure as hell ain't any way to play the cards with an oldschool RPG. If you're doing a niche game like Fallout was and is, then you should have niche budgets and niche mentality.

Why is something I'd say you have no idea about. Then again, I have other stuff to do, unfortunately, and I can't read the whole thread. So I'm just saying.

x'il said:
G) "aiming to the correct market" you said it yourself and yet, you ignore what i said and just claim "that's stupid"...so, thanks for playing.
Sorry about that.
 
I agree in many things with Morbus.

Many things, not just games, lack heavily what I would describe as "diversty". And actualy in my eyes it starts to hurt games now a lot. And I dont mean by it the mediocre gameplay or stories, but developers like Bethesda feeling "fine" with extremly huge plot holes ... I mean com on. Seriously. Its like making a product with heavy flaws you know about since the begining, but feel absolutely fine with it cause you know your "fans" will still buy it.

Bugs in your game and even mediocre content are one thing, but to get away with very slopy design elements like those in the story and dialogues of Fallout 3 is really something (for a RPG at least) what I would describe as the bottom of the gaming buisness. I mean they could at least try to think something trough ...
 
I think the fact that we had dungeons in Fallout 3 is a very clear sign that everything is upside down. And another sign that corroborates that one is the fact that very few people are actually able to point that specific design flaw out, or at least talk about it.

Dungeons are a specific design feature, in fact, they are a genre-defining feature of dungeon crawlers, a genre in which, of course, and as we all know, Elder Scrolls always fit in.

Again, of course, as we all know, Bethesda doesn't really understand anything about design. Or it would seem so, given their incapability of designing Fallout 3 without dungeons, a feature that is kind of the complete opposite of everything Fallout always stood for.

Having heard this, most people, including Bethesda, will start making excuses, citing Troika, citing Tactics, citing trends, citing inconsistencies in the original titles. That's all very nice, and that's all very ok, and they may even be right. After all, Fallout was never a perfect game to begin with, in fact, it has many flaws (which, unfortunately, and by the way, have rarely, if ever, been worked upon in other titles). But it doesn't change the fact that people are not able to discern clear design elements as dungeons in Fallout 3 as a nigh complete alien element to the series. I'm not even talking about Bethesda's ability to do the same. And if they were reading this, I'd tell them all once again I'd quit my job RIGHT WAY and seriously consider admitting myself to a psychiatric rehabilitating facility if I worked at Bethesda. I don't consider ANY of their workers worthy of admiration. None of them have reached any kind of quality standard with their recent games, despite what people may say or think.

Design.

Sure, Fallout 3 wasn't a COMPLETE design failure, it had some good elements. Guess what? They are basically copy paste of previous games, and selective copy paste at that. So, for me, Bethesda's design is a total failure, Bethesda's plot, as Crni Vuk rightly pointed out, is a near total failure, Bethesda's writing is a complete and utter failure, sound engineering is actually average, but subpar when compared with decent AAA titles, their soundtrack is aggravating in most occasions, with some occasional bright spots, level design is catastrophic, voice acting is terrible, game balancing is nowhere near where it should be, being formulaic at best. Formulaic is also the artistic direction, ridden with inconsistency. Formulaic is the perfect adjective though, and that's not good at all. The game engine is badly optimized, but that would actually pass if the graphics were any good, which they are not. Remember: many polygons doesn't equal good graphics, and Fallout 3 is basically many polygons.

Worst thing is, and, again, as Crni Vuk pointed out, people are not able to detect these obvious flaws, which, if you ask me, are actually not that common in AAA games. They lack the critic drive a worthy gamer should have. I think that's why... no, that is actually why may gaming site is aimed at creating discussion, making people think for themselves by giving them near absurd perspectives or the gaming industry (well, I'm not very sure we're delivering it as we should, but still). That is also a fault from the journalists' side, and it's a very obvious one. They don't care, they only care about their revenues, and they translate from how many people read their shit. And the more their shit goes in the direction of the mass market's opinion, the more people will read it. It's a vicious cycle that can only be broken, apparently, by this economic crisis we're facing. People start having less money to spend, they start being more critic, they start pirating more, stupid companies (i.e., those who don't understand the concept of cost cutting) start going down and intelligent companies either breed because their games were good to begin with or their cut prices, which is likely to lead to the increase in the quality of their products (see upcoming Need for Speed titles to see what I mean).

I may be being a tad optimistic here, and I'm definitely being boring as hell, so I'll stop.
 
This article filled me with joy. It is nice to know that we aren't the only critics in the destruction of CRPGs. Fallout 3 will forever leave a dark depression in the core of my being for how much it raped my favorite setting in a videogame.

I guess my only option now, after looking at what has come out in the last few years, is to start up some PnP games. Those are way more fun than any video/audio game I've ever tried. (IMO)

Well, maybe except for Civilization. Mhhhm, civilization.
Damn, gotta go play them now.
 
Morbus said:
I don't consider ANY of their workers worthy of admiration. None of them have reached any kind of quality standard with their recent games, despite what people may say or think.
Now thats really a bit unfair in my eyes.

You can not blame a usual coder, concept artist or any other smaller employee for just doing what he is payed for. Their job. You can not expect from everyone to care about his work in the same way as a fan about Fallout. Many of them just do what someone has told them to do. Thus why I think Bethesda has more issues to higher you go in their management.

Even I would think twice about saying something or always go in some argue with the department chief over every small detail I might not like. I would think that there are some people that dont feel always comfortable with what they do even in Bethesdas department. But they probably just do what many do in such situations. Go to work, do it how they tell them, get the payment and finally go back home to their family and never thinking about work again and enjoying their life.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Morbus said:
I don't consider ANY of their workers worthy of admiration. None of them have reached any kind of quality standard with their recent games, despite what people may say or think.
Now thats really a bit unfair in my eyes.
Others have said the same.

Crni Vuk said:
You can not blame a usual coder, concept artist or any other smaller employee for just doing what he is payed for.
Oh, you got me wrong. I mean, is the usual coder and concept artist worthy of admiration because he does his job? I mean, admiration? That's what I'm talking about.

And videogames are mostly about admiration. That's what drives people to buy them.

Crni Vuk said:
Even I would think twice about saying something or always go in some argue with the department chief over every small detail I might not like. I would think that there are some people that dont feel always comfortable with what they do even in Bethesdas department. But they probably just do what many do in such situations. Go to work, do it how they tell them, get the payment and finally go back home to their family and never thinking about work again and enjoying their life.
You make it sound like the lowly bums who work at Bethesda don't even like games :P Well, it's always a possibility.
 
Morbus said:
I think the fact that we had dungeons in Fallout 3 is a very clear sign that everything is upside down. And another sign that corroborates that one is the fact that very few people are actually able to point that specific design flaw out, or at least talk about it.

Dungeons are a specific design feature, in fact, they are a genre-defining feature of dungeon crawlers, a genre in which, of course, and as we all know, Elder Scrolls always fit in.

Again, of course, as we all know, Bethesda doesn't really understand anything about design. Or it would seem so, given their incapability of designing Fallout 3 without dungeons, a feature that is kind of the complete opposite of everything Fallout always stood for.
Fallout 1&2 had dungeons. Fallout 2 actually had a decent collection of them. I understand that Fallout 3 has more, but you are setting up a false dichotomy that contradicts reality.
 
I agree with most of the folks here that personal attacks on Howard and Co. are wrong.

The flipside, however, is the disproportionate amount of praise being levelled at this mediocre (if not downright talentless) game studio by media and fans.

Bethesda have proven time and again that they are creatively bankrupt and utterly inept when it comes to crafting rpg games of quality.

It just so happens that they are making games at a time when expectations and quality control in the gaming industry are at an all time low.
 
Personally I hope that what Morbus said and that this recession might 'weed' out developers like Bethesda.

I don't think they will ever get their act together so it might be better that they go.
 
I hear what y'all say but let's put it this way : is there really a really good alternative to Fallout 3 outside of indie rpgs ?

We've got Bethsoft, Bioware, Obsidian, CD Projekt and...well, that's it !

I wasn't really impressed with The Witcher even though it was really above the rest of the competition. Mass Effect had a cool atmosphere and execution, but as far as roleplaying goes, even Fallout 3 offered more possibilities. Never liked NWN ( shitty story, lame characters, lame game )...

Sure, I wouldn't mind if Bethsoft suddenly disappeared since they ceased to be relevant back in 2006 but is there a real alternative anyway ?

The last rpg that I really, really loved was Arcanum. Didn't even like Vampire Bloodlines that much so....

Yeah Bethesda sucks, but they are just applying the same formula as everyone else.

What we need is a new studio and a game that would redefine the mediocre standard set by Oblivion.
But I don't think that's feasible without a massive hype machine and Bethesda and Bioware are really good at that.
 
AskWazzup said:
The comment about Todds mother was a bit immature.
he remained a Toddler, so we have to keep it on his level. ;)

anyhow, while it serves no rational purpose to makes stabs of this kind, it sure makes you feel somewhat relieved of some of your anger. :)

MrBumble said:
Yeah it's kinda funny.

In France there is that huge website, Jeuxvideo.com. Last week, they did a series of 3 different ten minutes gaming live videos in which they played Fallout 1. In the first video they introduced the plot. Second video : the mechanics. Finally, in the last video, they showed that you could solve a quest in five very different ways, depending on your stats or simply on how you wanted to approach it.

Now, the Fallout 1 forum is full of teenagers asking where you can buy Fallout 1 and 2...
that's cool, i'll surely check it out!

come to think of it, maybe we can make something similar at NMA? something to help people get introduced more easily, since quite frankly it's not really easy to convince people to give it a shot (and quite many quit in the rat cave because they can't figure out combat too well or because they failed to read the manual).
 
SuAside said:
that's cool, i'll surely check it out!

come to think of it, maybe we can make something similar at NMA? something to help people get introduced more easily, since quite frankly it's not really easy to convince people to give it a shot (and quite many quit in the rat cave because they can't figure out combat too well or because they failed to read the manual).

There you go :

http://www.jeuxvideo.com/jeux/videos/0000/00000378.htm
 
Back
Top