BioWare - The Cracks Are Starting To Appear

[kalniel]

Genre definitions are an artefact of early game and retail marketings

Nowadays you just give a broad swish towards a vague genre and use the internet to do its thing.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

The definition is read and rejected.

By whom ?

Genre definitions are an artefact of early game and retail marketings

Okay, but then, please, tell me, why do "modern" companies ONLY use the non-outdated and insterad the newly-invented genre definitions ?

Okay, the definitions of

"action-RPG"
"action-adventures"

are about 10 years old now - but why do they use only these, EVEN THEN when an adventure is NOT an action game ?

And trust me : I've seen that.
An adventure game without any action labelled as an "action-adventure" game.


Bottom line : Next genre definition will probably be

"uncut"

or what ?

 

[DoctorNarrative]

The definition is read and rejected. It is a different thing.

Are you part of some committee making these decisions, or are you a solitary dictator of RPG fandom?

 

[DArtagnan]

Chien

You should appreciate that you're speaking on a public forum, where people are capable of independent thought.

As such, if you want to make an impression - you have to make your case.

It doesn't help your case if you ignore vital questions, and repeat the same flawed claim over and over.

I know it's a popular approach, and it can help to convince oneself when failing to convince others. But it still won't make your case stronger.

This is just like your claim that Bioware supposedly stated that ME2 had to give people a "Dirty Dozen" experience, or it would be a failure.

You're basically inventing things as you go, and you're ignoring vital questions. Eventually, people will stop taking what you say seriously - if they haven't already.

So, unless you can define EXACTLY what RP means, and why you're entitled to make the objective definition when others are not - you will not have much success.

 

[kalniel]

Okay, but then, please, tell me, why do "modern" companies ONLY use the non-outdated and insterad the newly-invented genre definitions ?

Okay, the definitions of

"action-RPG"
"action-adventures"

are about 10 years old now - but why do they use only these, EVEN THEN when an adventure is NOT an action game ?

And trust me : I've seen that.
An adventure game without any action labelled as an "action-adventure" game.


Bottom line : Next genre definition will probably be

"uncut"

or what ?

Well I would argue there's no need to invent new genres, since as with any other part of language, if the people who need to know, know what you mean, then the reference problem is solved and you can just carry on.

Retail is happy with the current situation (which I guess basically describes market segments rather than anything about the game) so it sticks.

Can you imagine what it would be like if every 'ground breaking' game invented a new genre definition?

Market forecasting would struggle, retail stocking would struggle, and store layouts would struggle.

 

[Motoki]

The definition is read and rejected. It is a different thing.

I gave the definition and am giving it once again:

RPGs are games whose main focus is RP.

That is a circular definition.

 

[Dasale]

That is a circular definition.

Its problem is to be so obviously wrong, the wrong word is "main", if RP is the main focus of RPG then almost all games tagged RPG should be denied of the label RPG. Yeah my view but seriously.

 

[Motoki]

Dasale, to be honest I don't even get what the heck you are trying to say exactly other than some vague idea that you are saying I am wrong.

A circular definition really isn't a definition at all. Of course a Role Playing Game is a Game that primarily features Role Playing. Duh. This is obvious and need not be said but it doesn't define what Role Playing is.

 

[Dasale]

Dasale, to be honest I don't even get what the heck you are trying to say exactly other than some vague idea that you are saying I am wrong.

A circular definition really isn't a definition at all. Of course a Role Playing Game is a Game that primarily features Role Playing. Duh. This is obvious and need not be said but it doesn't define what Role Playing is.

Why I should write again and again the same things?

I already explained that first RPG in history get their inspiration from pen and paper RPG with a human master. But those RPG used the tag RPG and didn't even tried a second implement any RP.

Now if you can't see how this can make your assumption wrong, no RPG tag doesn't mean RP, history proves it, if you can't get it well…

EDIT: Damit and also my previous post was about the difference between "main focus" and just "focus". Main means more than fights, pure story, exploration, and more. And I don't see any RPG with more RP than that points.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

What an RPG was in the 70's really has little bearing on what an RPG is today though. Movies in the 50's were black and white, slow-paced, 4:3 aspect ratio and whatever else. The fact that movies today are very different does not make them something other than movies.

Things evolve and change.

 

[Dasale]

No links with the basic knowledge that a tag isn't a proof of a contents. You can't use that RP is in tag RPG to conclude that RPG have RP.

 

[Couchpotato]

What an RPG was in the 70's really has little bearing on what an RPG is today though. Movies in the 50's were black and white, slow-paced, 4:3 aspect ratio and whatever else. The fact that movies today are very different does not make them something other than movies.

Things evolve and change.

Then let me ask you this is the evolution of rpgs whats best for the genre. Or are they evolving just to get more sales while losing touch with what defined them. That's the question. I'm all for evolving the genre but not at the cost of what it once was. Movies are still the same just better visuals and special effects. The core is the same.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

Then let me ask you this is the evolution of rpgs whats best for the genre. Or are they evolving just to get more sales while losing touch with what defined them. That's the question. I'm all for evolving the genre but not at the cost of what it once was. Movies are still the same just better visuals and special effects. The core is the same.

I would say whether their evolution is good or bad depends on the person, same as most things. I can barely watch movies today because they have like 100 cuts in a minute of footage, it just drives me crazy. That's my opinion though, obviously a lot of people like that stuff.

There is no objective "best" RPG, or best style of RPG. There are things you like and they are either done or not done, and you either like the rest or don't. I personally like new RPGs and old RPGs, action RPGs and tactical RPGs. I also like shooters, both linear and not, and adventure games, both old and new.

We all have our tastes, formed over years of experience and exposure, and we all have disappointments and frustrations. The people who love today's games will be angry and ranting on forums in 10 years when everything is online and micro-transaction based.

 

[holeraw]

'Movies" is not a genre it's a medium.

Comedy is a genre and comedies are intended to make you laugh since ancient times. The fact that today we have better visual effects and people might laugh at different things than people 2500 years or 3 months ago doesn't change the fact that that's what comedies are made for.

Similarly thrillers were always meant to be thrilling, romances were always meant to be romantic etc. etc.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

'Movies" is not a genre it's a medium.

Comedy is a genre and comedies are intended to make you laugh since ancient times. The fact that today we have better visual effects and people might laugh at different things than people 2500 years or 3 months ago doesn't change the fact that that's what comedies are made for.

Similarly thrillers were always meant to be thrilling, romances were always meant to be romantic etc. etc.

And RPGs are meant to what?

The movie analogy does not really work, I just used it as an example of how things change over time. The end point is very simple: there is no firm definition of what an RPG is. People might think there is, but it's just their opinion. There is no firm definition.

 

[vurt]

"BioFags - The Ass Cracks Are Starting To Appear."

My only response to this topic is:

(ok, i'm off to bed now, i can tell by my jokes that im tired).

 

[Couchpotato]

"BioFags - The Ass Cracks Are Starting To Appear."

My only response to this topic is:

(ok, i'm off to bed now, i can tell by my jokes that im tired).

Crap here comes Shepard hide your male relatives people.:lol:

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Then let me ask you this is the evolution of rpgs whats best for the genre. Or are they evolving just to get more sales while losing touch with what defined them.

I'd rather vote for the second.

It's becoming like French Quisine compared to McDonals and Burger King.

The latter is far cheaper to produce, is more tasty, and sells better.

 

[Captain Buzzkill]

I'd rather vote for the second.

It's becoming like French Quisine compared to McDonals and Burger King.

The latter is far cheaper to produce, is more tasty, and sells better.

The latter will also coat your arteries, give you diabetes, make you sweat grease, and obliterate your liver. There's also no love in the making of McDonald's and I would know; as I used to work there when I was 16.

Honestly, I wouldn't care at all if companies had 3-5 year development cycles for all of their games, as long as they made a product that honestly reflected the talent of their employees. Don't you think there are at least some people who worked on DA2 that are more than a little disappointed with what they put out?

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I don't really know what they are thinking.

In contrast to many other discussion contributors here, IÄ've been sitting twice within the rooms of a small company, doing a little bit of beta-testing, plus I have learned how to do programming …

From that (my) perspective on, I must say that ANYONE might be proud of what he or she does - with a varying level of degrees.

Dragon Age 2 is still a relatively big game - much bigger than let's say all Commander Keen games combined.

In that scale, it's quite an accomplishment to be able to "develop" such a game (just sit down a minute and try to write down on a sheet of peper what the term of "development" actually implies !)

On my own, I wouldn't be able to o such a game like Dragon Age.

And next ou might probably say that I'm "more than little disappointed with the text adventure game you put out" when I managed to do so (at one point far in the future) ?