I just thought of something else. I think that is the main reason I want do an RPG[ish] in a fantasy medieval setting...because I don't think a lot of CRPGs have captured what I feel that they could. Of course this means that I want to put plenty of my own spins on the races and environment of the world though rather than just throwing some dwarves & elves and dragons and saying it's fantasy. I'm not saying that I am the ultimate RPG designer, but I sure would not mind a crack at it


"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

Click here to see my current project.


Edited by - Nazrix on November 20, 2000 1:58:37 PM

One more reason for writing CRPGs:

(Taken from my Requirements Analysis & Definition at www.rolemaker.dk)

<>

Motivation

I am an experienced Game Master and player of many real non-computer roleplaying games (NRPGs), and I have many times enjoyed a session with good scenario. The scenario is played and sometimes it goes well and other times is does not - either because the Game Master is tired, the players are not motivated or for other reason entirely. Whether the play went well or not the fact is that the scenario has been used, and many hours of preparation are expended. This is a pity; when so much time has been used to prepare a scenario it is despairing to see it wasted after a few hours of fun.

It was after such a scenario that I began to wonder whether better alternatives existed. I wanted to make scenarios so that more people could use them. And if more people make scenarios then others can play without preparation, and this will entail more fun for all.

A possibility is to play each scenario with several parties of players, but this is generally not very entertaining for the Game Master. Another alternative is to create scenarios for roleplaying game conferences (so-called CONs), but this is not always a viable option for a number of reasons.

A possible solution is to write a computer roleplaying game (CRPG). This is the solution that we will choose in this project.

<>

So I make CRPGs because I have gotten tired of all the flaws in PnP RPGs and want them corrected.

Jacob Marner

quote: Original post by Selkrank
I don''t agree totally. I could think of a LOT of improvements to Doom (or Quake) clones while the game would still be considered FPS. RPGs just are inherently more complex, but a simple game doesn''t mean you cannot innovate.

-Jussi

I think you misunderstand, Selkrank. And I think we actually do agree.
By "clone" we mean something that is identical too the original. If you do some significant improvements to any genre then that requires innovation. It requires innovation to make Starcraft stand out from all the other RTS games. However, although it contain original elements it is not fully original, whereas Dune 2 was.

I think there is a lesson here.
If we as CRPG developers try to rip off other CRPGs instead of PnP RPGs then we might actually make our games less innovative - because it has already been coded.

Jacob Marner

quote: I''ve noticed that a lot of ppl here make 2D RPG games here. I was just wondering why they are so popular? Is it because they are easier to make? ..... - Tolerate

-----In a word, yes. People may not want to say so, but there are more technical issues in making a 3-D FPS work well than in a slow-paced 2-D tile-based game. Many of those issues are darn tough to handle when you''re running a single low-end machine and a bare-bones compiler. You can even do (fair, not great) RPG''s and RTS''s in Visual Basic, but a 3-D shooter? Good luck.
-----I do not think RPG''s will ever develop much more than they have now, except maybe better graphics. The problem is that there isn''t really any sort of actual "game" in many of them; it''s more like a "communal digital sandbox". People complain about not being able to wander and do as much different stuff as they want but that''s a sign that the game lacks an objective, not that there''s not enough room to wander around in. Adding more space to wander around in isn''t going to help either, and a computer will never be able to be able to show everything a person''s imagination can. I hear it over and over again many different ways; it''s like they''re saying that they could have fun with the game if it would only let them do it. What do they want to do? "Well, y''know, just more stuff, like other stuff, just, just EVERYTHING!" Yea. Right. No problem. Let me just get started right away writing a game that can simulate everything,,,,,,,,
-----The lack of an objective means that it can be difficult to lose, but it also means there''s not much of a definition of a winner either. And not much reason to play, IMO. And I think others too, though they seem reluctant to admit it.
-----That won''t stop people from buying them, though. The shrewdest Dungeons and Dragons player was the guy who printed the books: when else would you spend $20-$30 for a thin, poorly printed and cheaply bound pamphlet full of arcane rules and info and a few line drawings? - Lubb

Strange as it may seem, I tend to agree with Lubb here. In most CRPGs, there is a distinct lack of a game. It''s a world simulation with some story elements, and generally it isn''t even all that fun to play. I remember getting Ultima8, and hating the interface, but slugging through it to see "what would come next." When I found a cheat to see the end-game animation, I never touched the game again. That was ALL the incentive the game had to keep me going.
Not a whole lot really


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.

- The only difference I can see is that in many RPG''s it''s possible to just "hang around" and be in the game, but not actually playing. There''s no other game where you can do that: just "be there" but not be at risk of losing. When you play poker you never hear anyone say "Go ahead and deal me in, but I''m gonna just sit out the next few hands". How many times have you played chess and chosen to skip a few turns, because you just wanted to hang out for a while? In this respect, PK''s are doing a community service: getting rid of people who are tying up the server but not really "playing" for lack of anything better to do.
- I do not see that computer games are much different than any other type of game. There''s only a few things a computer game can do that board games can''t:
-1-Show views from different perspectives,
-2-Utilize original physics,
-3-Have many players (with an internet connection).
-4-Provide an integrated interface. Such as, in a game, if you''re temporarily blinded, the computer screen can go "blank" for the prescribed amount of time.
-I can''t think of anything else.
-----And there''s a lot of capabilities there, but none that really help a poor game do anything but look better, and maybe let you chat with your friends. Sound familiar? - Lubb

Well, Lubb, ya roused me enough to write a scathing rebuttal.

Well, not scathing... but a rebuttal, anyways...

You sound like what I call a "finisher." You play games to get them over with. Sure you have fun doing it, but your goal is to beat a game and move on to the next. For you, "40 hours of gameplay" and "consummable product" became accepted development goals. You probably want mostly sequential levels, tight mission objectives, and clear right / wrong, success / fail conditions. You want to know where you stand. In game terms, you want to be told what to do, because "play" for you is meeting a successive series of challenges leading to an end goal. Am I right?

The people who are in to hanging out in a game aren''t bad. I don''t agree that PKers are doing a service. The difference is one of people who favor "directed play" versus "freeform play." Neither is superior, but when you mix the two player types (finishers and escapists) you piss both off.

*** warning... rant commences...***

I''m an escapist. When I play a game, I want the kind of feeling I get from good fiction, especially (for me) science fiction: That "sense of wonder." I want to be taken to a place I''ve never seen before, and step into shoes that I''d never be allowed to fill.

You ever go outside at night and look up at the stars? That''s the feeling I want! Pointless to you, but that''s what I want to feel when I play a game. It''s why people want to bake bread and sell it in a small, quaint village in the middle of a snowy continent. It''s why they want to get married, or own a tavern, or be the mayor of the town.

It''s the reason I don''t need a goal, or (for me) a storyline.
I just need a world that''s consistent and functional enough to make me believe I''m there. This is getting harder and harder as expectations of detail rise, which is one reason the gaming world has been cursed (IMO) by one damned find the keycard, mission-based level game after another!

Your type of game is __MUCH__ easier to build. But for me, it''s ultimately too shallow. You say that folks like me complain that we want bigger worlds and more to do, but don''t know what it is.

You''re wrong (in my case, anyway). I want a game world that is professionally crafted: Well drawn characters, consistent world fiction, lush and fascinating history.

I want to be kept occupied while I MAKE MY OWN PATH through the game world. I DO NOT-- let me repeat... wasn''t loud enough... _I_ _DO_ _NOT_ want to be told where to go, or what to do. (Call it an authority thing... )

I want to be presented with multiple challenges. I want the freedom to wander and find my own challenges. I want the game to put pressure on me so that wandering isn''t cost free, and thus trivial. If I have to survive, then I''ve got motivation to go on an adventure.

I want to do more than just fight. Fighting gets damned repetitive after awhile. I want self-contained subgames. These can be things like trading, or stealth work / theivery, or exploration with some type of reward system. Subgames, or "gamelets" rather than level after boring f*ing level of minimally varying monsters.

(And I want it in a non-fantasy environment, for a change!!!!!!!)

Many games of old that you probably haven''t played did this, by the way... Pirates!, Elite, Escape Velocity, Starflight, Privateer... so it''s not impossible, it''s just harder than your typical level based game...

*** whew! my first GameDev rant... ***

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...