What ever happened to RPG games [Archive]

CelticFrost

April 10th, 2011, 16:00

Call me old(40) call me foolish(can be at times) but what ever happened to RPG games. I started playing RPGs with ultima3 on the 64 which didn't have alot of wasted time with hugh cut sceens that really didn't help the play of the game at all(not that the system could run them anyways). But lets take Dragons age 2, there was so my space and wasted programing to wasted cut sceens with your party members that could have went to building Dungens and passages that weren't all the same with just different opens to go. They didn't even take the time to to build rocks around them just blocked them off....
Ultima 4 which i might have called the computer store 250 times to see if it was in came on 8 floppy discs, which took forever to load...but everything was built different...every town had its own feel, dungens were hugh deep and kick ass... you would think with all the tech we have now of days the story's would get better ...
Don't get me wrong I love the how great games look now of days but i want to be deeply ssubmersed into the games story...Maybe its just me....

Fenris

April 10th, 2011, 16:10

It's dead, Jim.
- Dr. Leonard McCoy

That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
- Abdul Alhazred

ChienAboyeur

April 10th, 2011, 16:12

Video games firms want to make money. To make money, they need to sell to customers.
Video games have grown into a large social activity with players playing video games to get a sense of belonging. They play a lot of games, games after games after games and follow the hype.

One solution for RPG producers was to attract more of these glutonous players to the RPG genre, to convert them to RPG players.

Or another solution was to bring the genre to these players by removing any feature they dislike.

The second road was chosen. This is what happened to cRPG.

CelticFrost

April 10th, 2011, 16:35

I understand that companies are in business to make money...hey that is why i get up in the am during the week...BUT...you would think if they cut down the size of the team making the game and all the money payed to voice overs etc there would be lots to make....
Lets face it PC games use to always drive new computers...gamers where always looking to the latest and greatest card, ram, etc to play the latest and greatest...
I know we live in i want i want i need just throw it away but someone out there must want to go back to old school with a good story a great idea that would sell enough games to make money and keep real gamers coming back and begging for more...
The ones that don't like things about RGP games are mostly the ones that couldn't figure out what 1 + 1 was unless someone smarter than themselfs texted it too them...so not even sure how they get the money to buy the game to bring with...
Maybe my coffee isn't working this morning...or just in a mood but ....i long for a game that last more than a few days with nothing to to slove or figure out...Christ they even mark hidden doors now of days...

DoctorNarrative

April 10th, 2011, 16:41

Wow I have never read this rant before ever.

ChienAboyeur

April 10th, 2011, 18:16

Christ they even mark hidden doors now of days…

Quite expected. Games are to be fast in, fast out, easy to digest.

That is what is needed if firms want to sell to glutonous players who buys a game, half played it and buys a new one.

CelticFrost

April 10th, 2011, 18:26

But that is what i am talking about...
There has to be some old school gamers out there that want to make a great game and be happy making some sort of profit....if it takes them 3-4 years to make the game at cost of XXX amount of dollars ..if you make %30 on that and you made something to be proud of...isn't that better than making %150 for crap!!!!!!
Not looking to make millions and millions of morons that can't tie their own shoes without the help of their mommy and daddys...
When i was in school i hated programing so took the hardware end of it...
Now wishing I had the programing behind me...as I just want something that is fun, fair, keeps my mind thinking, and has a reason behind it...
Nothing better than working for 8hours just to find the magic boots that let you walk over fire to get the spell book that lets you open the gate to some house...castle or whatever it might be....

DoctorNarrative

April 10th, 2011, 18:37

But that is what i am talking about…
There has to be some old school gamers out there that want to make a great game and be happy making some sort of profit….

There are plenty, and they make great indie RPGs.

TheMadGamer

April 10th, 2011, 18:54

My view is that gaming is going through something similar as what films are going through.

Computers are able to create fantastic special effects for movies. For example, whether you liked it or hated it, Avatar had some serious eye candy.

But with the special effects revolution, the storytelling of blockbuster movies has diminished greatly, focusing more on the eye candy and less on the storytelling. For fxample, few will argue that Star Wars IV, V, and VI are inferior to I, II, and III in the storytelling department.

With the advent of 3D videocards dating back to the late 1990s (I bought a 3dfx card just to play Ultima IX back in 1999) I've seen the same thing happening with videogames in general - a large focus on visuals with good gameplay taking a back seat. This of course, has impacted CRPGs and how we play them today.

Now don't get me wrong, I was there in the 70s and 80s and I would be lying if I said we didn't care about graphics back then - we did. Better graphics was the rallying cry for each new console from the Oddyssey (sp?), Atari 2600, intellivsion, to colecovision and so on.

But despite the incremental improvements with the graphics capabilities of both cmputers and videogames of yesteryear, their capabilities were hugely lacking by today's standards. And for this reason, I belive we as players got better gameplay - because despite the graphical presentation, there was enough horsepower to make compelling games.

My hope is that this period of time 'discovering visuals' as I think of it, will pass and there will be a better balance between visuals and gameplay. Only time will tell.

In the meantime, when contemporary releases fail to deliver, I get by replaying some of the classics. With gog.com, things have gotten a lot easier to play older games on modenr machines. Right now I'm playing M&M7. The graphics bothered me for about 1 or 2 minutes, but the steller gameplay had me forget about that pretty quickly.

Zaleukos

April 10th, 2011, 19:52

I'm somewhere in between. A lot of the nostalgia for the days of yore is just nostalgia. It is really hard to argue that the goldbox games, Eye of the Beholder, or most other games from the period when I started playing RPGs around 1990 are better RPGs than modern games. Character building, interaction with NPCs, choices and consequences etc have been improved rather significantly compared to most of the oldies. Interfaces have also improved tremendously.

Of course there are some classics that really were ahead of their time in more interesting roleplaying elements. Ultima Underworld, Betrayal at Krondor, Darksun 1/2, and Darklands come to mind. But they arent exactly superior, and in several cases killed by the interface. RPGs prior to the Baldurs Gate/Fallout generation were with those few exceptions (I've probably overlooked a few, never got into the early Ultimas for instance) pretty weak.

I can honestly mainly think of one aspect that clearly has gone downhill, and that is dungeon design. There has been a serious shortage of dungeon crawlers since Arx Fatalis and maybe Dungeon Lords. This doesnt bother me personally as I find that dungeon puzzles often end up in a tedious search for the right button and pressure plate, but I can understand that those who enjoy puzzles in their RPGs miss the classics in that area.

But then there is the thin line between improving interfaces and dumbing down too much, coupled with actual laziness. Ultima Underworld (or for that matter Morrowind) gave enough text hints to solve almost any quest within the games, but a modern Bethsoft (no singling out of Bethesda, they arent the only ones to do this) game might rely on quest markers instead, and simply make the quests impossible without those. I get the feeling this is partially because the devs are too lazy to write up lore or dialogue with hints.

CelticFrost

April 10th, 2011, 20:37

I would have to disagree with some what you have stated above. There was a ton of interaction in games of old. It was just in stead of be voice overs...there was alot of text you needed to read and in alot of cases write down yourself with a pen and paper. I am not saying i don't like that fact you get a journal now to keep tract of what is said to you it is a nice feature. You also speak of them maybe being to lazy to come up with good lore...Take dragon age 2 there were so many useless books and what not that would update i stopped reading them after a few hours....
Just my personal thoughts ... that a RPG should have traps, hidden doors, buttons and what not to figure out....either by your own or by reading what has been left for you to in other places....
I guess more to the point making a game for x-box or ps3 which i have both as i have children and dumbing them down or making them fix for what they can run just seems to be the way alot of things are.,....I think with all the space and ram these days the stores could be so large with more to explore and learn of worlds created for us to enjoy

Dasale

April 10th, 2011, 20:56

I'm quite older than the young kid of OP but also don't have the same level of gaming culture. I started really play at end of 80's only and significantly only during first years of 90's. So I didn't develop any deep nostalgia for 80's or 90's games, because it wasn't my youth not even my teens.

And for me it's a little rude now to play old games. Many have plenty flaws like repetitive area, no story or almost, bad hints design for puzzles and quests, simple fights, dead puppets companions, and more. Sure it's not all and not all have all those flaws. But only very few will not have huge flaws from my point of view. I tried played some years ago some of the first Ultima, it was perhaps the III or even the IV, don't remember. It felt from my hands. And no it's not the graphics, I spend 10 to 50 more time into an ascii game like ADOM.

I played the first M&M, probably 1,2 & 3 or 4. It was good time but I totally don't understand someone quoting one as "stellar gameplay". Or another example, Ultima Underworld, the puzzle design is amazing, the dungeon design is unmatched in 3D category, the merging of story elements and gameplay and exploration is incredible. But the main story is tedious, the fights are limited, the class system is poor.

Now the point is some gaming elements have almost disappeared in western RPG, the picture in JRPG tend be rather different until the very last years. For example WRPG won't have much puzzling and complex exploration, dungeon design quality, secrets and mid secrets design, tactical turn based fights.

I won't try analyze the reasons, the main are probably 3D cost, and perhaps an evolution of players and designers to different games with less cerebral challenges.

But I feel the complain was more valid some years ago, and sort of the Witcher release or perhaps a counter reaction to Oblivion, anyway I felt something changed that year. But yes, not to come back in past.

TheMadGamer

April 10th, 2011, 20:59

A lot of the nostalgia for the days of yore is just nostalgia.

I tend to disagree. I still listen to a lot of 80s music because, well, I was a teenager in the 80s and I'm connected to the music of that time because I was going through puberty and whatnot. Because of that connection, I still find the music of the 80s as enjoyable as any contemporary tunes that I might like today.

Today's teenager may or may not like 80s music, I wouldn't know. But I genuinley still like 80s music so it's a combination of nostaligia and a genuine regard for music from that time, not JUST nostalgia.

However, Gog.com has really put your assertion to the test. Since gog came online, I've bought and played a bunch of old games from the 'days of yore' and I've really been enjoying myself.

There have been a couple of games that I bought from gog where it WAS just about nostalgia and I found my desire lacking to complete those games. But most of the games I've bought from gog I've genuinley enjoyed, so it really is more than just nostalgia in those cases.

It's true, some things are better with contemporary games, particularly UIs are less cumbersome. But my take is that developers had to be a lot more creative given the limited technology of the day and as a result many older games do in fact have superior gameplay compared with modern games, just not superior presentation.

But then there is the thin line between improving interfaces and dumbing down too much, coupled with actual laziness. Ultima Underworld (or for that matter Morrowind) gave enough text hints to solve almost any quest within the games, but a modern Bethsoft (no singling out of Bethesda, they arent the only ones to do this) game might rely on quest markers instead, and simply make the quests impossible without those. I get the feeling this is partially because the devs are too lazy to write up lore or dialogue with hints.

I agree with you. But to be fair, while I did come across a number of quests in Oblivion where the quest marker was your only clue as to where to go (and I agree this is not good and does reek of laziness), the vast majority of quests still had enough hints in the lore to get you where you need to go. This is why I'm a big advocate of being able to turn quest markers on and off with the UI - that way a developer is forced to take into account the possibilty that a player will play with quest markers turned off and therefore include the needed lore to get the player moving in the right direction.

Zloth

April 10th, 2011, 21:32

CelticFrost

April 10th, 2011, 21:33

Well when i was having my coffee this morning and typing away I was thinking alot about how crappy DA2 was after the first one was a nice game to play for a week anyways. Maybe i will hold off any more on this subject until sometime after may17…If what i have seen and readed about on the witcher2 is close to what I am hoping all might be good in my world of gaming….at least for the short term…..

CelticFrost

April 10th, 2011, 21:42

Ah yes, the old hidden doors and switches. Because of those things, I would end up spending hours slowly walking up and down corridors and jackhammering the space bar. Exceptionally bad idea, that. (It wasn't even put into Advanced Dungeons & Dragons very well. "We search for secret doors"… in every friggin' room and most of the hallways. Yuck.) Secret doors can certainly be done well but expecting us to do dumb, repetitive tasks isn't the way.

ChienAboyeur, I don't know if gluttony is the right word but game players sure don't play all the way through games much. Looking at Steam achievements, it seems like less than one in four people actually complete these games with half of them qutting after about a dozen hours. That's got to make developers ask why they bother making long games

Just as i was waving the white flag on the subject i read this...
I really hope you didnt spend hours and hours looking for these things as most of them really werent that hard to find if you followed the quests and what others in the game told you.

As for not finishing games...I have two boys and they dont really finish any game...
Most players rent a game at blockbuster or whatever store and after the glow of a few hours it is left on the floor never to be played again......

Alrik Fassbauer

April 10th, 2011, 23:24

Games are to be fast in, fast out, easy to digest.

Games as Fast Food ?

Yes, this analogy makes some sort of sense … Expecially given the play-through time span seems to shorten with every new generation of games …

Corwin

April 11th, 2011, 00:24

If you like puzzles, hidden doors, traps, etc, then play DDO (it's FREE) and join up with Team Corwin and the RPGWatch Guild on Khyber!! :)

rune_74

April 11th, 2011, 04:25

The reality is that games cost money. Ultima 4 cost a fraction of any modern game to make due to it not having to spend the amount modern games have too on graphics(not cheap on man power and cost) Unfortunately making a game like ultima 4 now a days with somewhat decent graphics would take a few years for someone to develop with a team big enough to complete it and actually make a profit. A game unfortunately needs flashy graphics or mass appeal to make back what they spend making them. Unfortunately RPG fans are a niche crowd so its hard to justify large budget pure no frills rpg games now.

If you are interested in some decent old school type games check out Basilisk games and Spiderweb games, they are pretty much what you are looking for, at least thats what I got from your posts.

www.basiliskgames.com
www.spiderweb.com

Zloth

April 11th, 2011, 04:52

I really hope you didnt spend hours and hours looking for these things as most of them really werent that hard to find if you followed the quests and what others in the game told you.
Oh yes I did, because there weren't any clues. Shooters were even worse about it. Heck, I was doing it in Fallout 3 for one quest because it just said there was a secret switch in the room. That room was sure big compared to the size of the tiny button I was trying to find.

As for not finishing games…I have two boys and they dont really finish any game… Most players rent a game at blockbuster or whatever store and after the glow of a few hours it is left on the floor never to be played again……
I was checking Steam achievements so no worries about rentals and hopefully no worries about pirates that just downloaded the thing to see if they liked it, either. *BUT* there could be quite a few that just bought the game for half price or even less.

P.S. I just finished Fallout 3: New Vegas. The topic title is sounding exceedingly silly to me right now.

ChienAboyeur

April 11th, 2011, 07:03

ChienAboyeur

April 11th, 2011, 07:06

ChienAboyeur, I don't know if gluttony is the right word but game players sure don't play all the way through games much. Looking at Steam achievements, it seems like less than one in four people actually complete these games with half of them qutting after about a dozen hours. That's got to make developers ask why they bother making long games.

Players have their share of responsibility, video games have grown into a social activity, speaking of the experience gives a sense of belonging to a group.

It is also a favourable situation for game developpers. It is more profitable to offer a one third of a game in gold status, two thirds in beta rather than a 90pc polished game.

ChienAboyeur

April 11th, 2011, 08:12

if you make %30 on that and you made something to be proud of…isn't that better than making %150 for crap!!!!!!
Not looking to make millions and millions of morons that can't tie their own shoes without the help of their mommy and daddys…

The industry has said no to this. Much better to sell 4 millions copies of an average, tasteless game and pocket the profit going with it than selling 300k copies of a quality game and pocketing the profits going with it.

Dasale

April 11th, 2011, 09:06

Two points: nostalgia is about something that is lost, no longer present. People who listen to 80s music can not feel nostalgic about 80s music as the music is not gone but fully available to them. You might feel the lose of the 80s as an era though, a bit different…
When someone play a game he played during his youth or teens or even play a game similar to games he played during his youth or teens, there's a nostalgia phenomena that makes him over evaluate the game.

Yes it's about a past period but the mechanism makes people over evaluated what link them to this past.

But no matter the nostalgia it's clear that some points have almost disappeared in WRPG, puzzling and complex exploration, dungeon design quality, secrets and mid secrets design, tactical turn based fights.

But about "an old Ultima with plenty very different towns", well it's more nostalgia that makes look some blocks and few one line dialogs as as strong picture of a town. Anyway if it's really the point, I'd say well ok then release games like that today, even nostalgic people won't rush on them.

ChienAboyeur

April 11th, 2011, 11:17

Life does not end after teen age.

A lot of memories can be attached to a game: finishing it in one week, being absorbed by it ten days straight, eating good pasta while playing it, being on a successful streak at work and so on ...

At this point, it is impossible to speak of a past without associating with other (un)pleasurable experiences that happened during the same time frame.

None of that is nostalgia.

GothicGothicness

April 11th, 2011, 11:41

I'm somewhere in between. A lot of the nostalgia for the days of yore is just nostalgia. It is really hard to argue that the goldbox games, Eye of the Beholder, or most other games from the period when I started playing RPGs around 1990 are better RPGs than modern games.

Well, I want to take Ultima 7 as an example.

It doesn't have a good character building system, and the combat while exciting is not that complex either.

But aside from that and graphics it is superior to any modern game you could suggest to me.

Walk across a huge world, no loading screens, move or manipulate any object anywhere in the world. No invisible walls. Buy a boat, wagon, or other means of travel… which you control yourself.

Lots of unique environments lovingly crafted by artist.

Companions have feelings and will protest if you steal or do bad deads.

People eat, drink, walk around, open windows, have a life.

You can bake bread.

Lots of funny puzzles and dungeons.

Great story, still relevant today.

Huge amount of unique items and weapons.

Lots of interesting companions to choose from.

Great villain.

Great music.

Variety in quests and length in quests. For example the opening murder mystery just wow!

Lots of great dialogue!

Lots of mysterious places… ( something really missing in most modern games )

I could go on.

Anyway it is so sad what games these days have become…. I mean this game is so old… but still so superior to anything out there today.

Alrik Fassbauer

April 11th, 2011, 12:08

[QUOTE=rune_74;1061062674]The reality is that games cost money. Ultima 4 cost a fraction of any modern game to make due to it not having to spend the amount modern games have too on graphics(not cheap on man power and cost) Unfortunately making a game like ultima 4 now a days with somewhat decent graphics would take a few years for someone to develop with a team big enough to complete it and actually make a profit. A game unfortunately needs flashy graphics or mass appeal to make back what they spend making them./QUOTE]

Who demands games actually *need* flashy graphics aha "eye candy" ?

Who demands that ? We, the gamers - or those who build graphics cards, for example ?

With graphics like with in Ultima 4, no graphics card market would ever survive. We would be right here, in stagnation.

Demanding better graphics is like two sides of a coin : It increses the technical development,
but on the other hand it decreses the creativity, because creative developers alone just aren't able anymore to deliver those high-cos graphics a gamer would want nowadys.

And then there's MineCraft. Or Dwarf Fortress.
Games with mass appeal (well, relatively) WITHOUT fancy graphics.
How is this possible ? These games shouldn't exist ! - At least if we follow the thought that games WITHOUT flashy graphics MUST fail instanly !

And then there's the Browser Games, too. Graphics like in Crysis ? In WHICH browser game, I ask ?
But still, they generate mass appeal. Bigpoint isn't a giant in terms o gmes without any reason.
We just don't see it because Bigpoint is working on a different field.

In my opinion, there's just a wrong consensus like "games must be THIS way - or they'll fail intantly !"

And one of these false assumption is - in my eyes - that games MUST have great graphics in order to appeal [to the masses] !
Or, reversely thought : That games WITHOUT great graphics will fail regardless.

Conspiracy theory or not, I just feel like driven cattle - driven by those who prefer to sell their own things - like graphics cards, for example. Ever wondered why they are so bad in 2D ? Because they're always optimizing the 3D part - and neglecting the 2D part or even axing it altogether.

Indies - Than God ! - don't follow these false asumptions. They don't evn hve the money for flashy graphics.

It's just that we - nd the game magazine editirs, of course ! - are just USED to so much luxury like flashy graphics.

But we don't NEED to.

Fun just isn't bound with grapics.

It is bound with something else - like gameplay, for example.

You can have the best-looking meal on your table - but if it tastes like dust, then the best look is in vain.

DoctorNarrative

April 11th, 2011, 13:16

P.S. I just finished Fallout 3: New Vegas. The topic title is sounding exceedingly silly to me right now.

Man after my own heart.

Everyone has an idea of what an RPG is to them. It's part nostalgia and part what got you into the genre, what is the norm for you. Things you prized back then like say map-making or D&D character creation might be things largely absent now, and then you might complain "real" RPGs are dead. It's been happening for two decades now... "these modern games have nothing on Ultima"... "these modern games have nothing on Might & Magic"... "these modern games have nothing on Betrayal at Krondor"... "these modern games have nothing on Fallout 2"... "these modern games have nothing on Deus Ex"... "these modern games have nothing on Gothic 2"... "these modern games have nothing on Fallout: New Vegas"... "these modern games have nothing on Icewind Dale 3: Colder in Hell."

It will repeat over and over again forever and ever until the end of time. Someday there will be some guy making a post about how "we just don't get good games like Oblivion and Mass Effect anymore, it's all dumbed-down now."

In the end you ride the wave as far as you can and you treasure what is important to you. Can't do anything other than that. I still like the waves today, even if I thought the waves 10 years ago were better.

GothicGothicness

April 11th, 2011, 13:58

"we just don't get good games like Oblivion and Mass Effect anymore, it's all dumbed-down now."

I am trying of a way to think more dumbed down than the above mentioned games.

So in the future the games will be about clicking the left or right mouse-button? ( left move the game forward, right move the game backwards ? )

I certainly hope you are wrong and we'll be going in the other direction, with gamers saying. Thanks god we don't get such a dumbed down games as Mass Effect or Oblivion anymore.

DoctorNarrative

April 11th, 2011, 16:20

I am trying of a way to think more dumbed down than the above mentioned games.

So in the future the games will be about clicking the left or right mouse-button? ( left move the game forward, right move the game backwards ? )

I certainly hope you are wrong and we'll be going in the other direction, with gamers saying. Thanks god we don't get such a dumbed down games as Mass Effect or Oblivion anymore.

The point is that it is all perspective based on your experiences. For someone who started RPGing with Oblivion there are entirely different perspectives on what is right and wrong, what is dumbed down and what is streamlined, etc. etc. I started RPGing with Fallout and Baldur's Gate, so when I look back on Might and Magic or Ultima I see hassles and inconveniences. For someone who started with Ultima IV they might look forward and see streamlining and simplification.

It's all relative, is my point. A thread like this pops up literally on a daily basis across PC gaming focused forums like this one. It's the same rant, over and over, about how the modern kids don't get it and real RPGs were _____ and ______. It's the same thing with my father liking Alice Cooper and Ozzy back in the day but yelling at me when I was a kid because I liked Marilyn Manson. It's all relative and based on your experiences.

I thought Oblivion was crap compared to Morrowind. Some people said Morrowind was crap compared to Daggerfall. When Skyrim comes out some people will think it sucks compared to Oblivion. And on, and on, and on, and on…

ChienAboyeur

April 11th, 2011, 17:38

DeepO

April 11th, 2011, 17:54

But lets take Dragons age 2,
Let´s take Fallout: New Vegas, Dragon Knight Saga and Drakensang 2 instead ;).

Just my personal thoughts … that a RPG should have traps, hidden doors, buttons and what not to figure out….either by your own or by reading what has been left for you to in other places….

I too would like a bit more kick ass dungeon crawling antics in AAA/AA games, but it´s not like it´s neglected totally - Fallout: New Vegas has some very good "dungeons" (vaults) and then there´s Risen whose dungeons are as "old school" as it gets - hidden buttons, traps, need to use certain spell in the right moment, using a bow to flip a lever, etc - they just weren´t well placed in the context of the whole game, hopefully PB will "fix" this in Risen 2 (and not abandon dungeons altogether, that would be a pity).

Alrik Fassbauer

April 11th, 2011, 18:34

One could see traps (or better : a character walking into one) as a disturbance in a cinematic experience ... ;)

DoctorNarrative

April 11th, 2011, 18:43

RP games turned into something else in a step by step process: observers report changes at each iteration. Actually, it is just the depiction of a successful transformation process.

If the process has ten stages, the guy who observes from stage 0 to 9 sees differences at each stage but the guy observing from 5 to 9 also reports changes at every stage.

The only difference is that the guy who observed from the start has all encompassing point of view while the guy who initiated in the middle lacks references. And of course, it is relative as people compare RPG genre to what is now sold as RPGames.

RPG genre was characterized by various characteristics like involving role playing situations which are less and less frequent in what is called cRPGaming.

You're pretty much saying what I am saying exactly, I just don't think you realize it. On your 1-10 scale some people started at 1 and think that is what an RPG is, but the people who started at 4 think that 4 is what an RPG is. If today is 7 then tomorrow there will be people who think 8 is what an RPG is.

Where you go wrong is assuming that 1 is the correct answer... it isn't. The first generation of something is far from the perfect version of it in any genre or category, games included. Which number is the "right" number is subjective and based off your personal experiences and tastes. There is no correct answer, it doesn't exist.

DeepO

April 11th, 2011, 18:49

One could see traps (or better : a character walking into one) as a disturbance in a cinematic experience … ;)

You walk into traps in DA:O all the time.

TheMadGamer

April 11th, 2011, 18:58

But aside from that and graphics it [Ultima VII] is superior to any modern game you could suggest to me.

I agree with that. To this day, few games have only come close to matching the feature set of U7.

blatantninja

April 11th, 2011, 19:21

And then there's MineCraft. Or Dwarf Fortress.
Games with mass appeal (well, relatively) WITHOUT fancy graphics.
How is this possible ? These games shouldn't exist ! - At least if we follow the thought that games WITHOUT flashy graphics MUST fail instanly !

I think its a barrier to entry issue, which also depends on the age of the gamer. Younger gamers demand higher levels of graphics because their baseline is much higher than those of us that grew up with gaming in the 80's or 90's.

As an example, I'm 35, so my teenage years were spent in what some consider the 'Golden Age' from '85-'95. One of my good friends is 25. he barely remembers any of the games from before '95. We both lament the current state of gaming, yet when he went back to try the original Ultima IV and Ultima V, it didn't hold his interest at all. Yet he'll play Fallout and Baldur's Gate until the cows come home!

I on the other hand had a blast replaying Ultima's I-V a few years back. I bought M&MI-VI on GOG when it was on sale and can't wait to play them (I never have). He'd probably be bored out of his mind.

I was thinking about the 'rpg problem' last night actually (before even seeing this post) and I thought a couple things:

1) Graphics are definitely a large part of the problem, but only because they cost so much and take so much out of the budget, but that can't be helped if you want to appeal to a decent amount of people that are under 30.

2) In older games, they were often sandboxes where you could do what you want, where you want, and the story was really just small bits and pieces that we filled in the rest. We accepted this and it was fine, but it doesn't work as well in modern games, particularly 3-D games. I take the U6: Project as an example.

Don't get me wrong, I love the remake and had a blast with it, but I still haven't finished it. Why? Because the world is too huge, IMO, for a sandbox game. I spend a lot of time wandering around trying to remember where I left my boat (if its been a while since I played) or find the entrance to a dungeon or whatever. While they improved the story significantly, it still is dependent 100% on the user to advance the story. It's purely reactive instead of proactive. Modern games need a mix of both. Now don't get me wrong, they accomplished what they set out to do, which was modernize Ultima VI, and they did an out of this world job of it.

So what does all that rambling mean? It means in today's games, we NEED a stronger storyline. We need something that drives us from point A to point B, outside of just 'well, I haven't been there yet, so let's explore'. That works for a while, but in games of this size, we need more. Not necessarily in a tactical RPG, but in a story RPG.

The problem is that because the graphics and other technology take up so much of the budget, you either end up with not enough story to keep you interested, or rail-roaded along a specific story arc (like what I hear from DA2). Both are easier to do than creating an interactive narrative with real choices and consequences.

IMO, I think BG2 really nailed that. Yes, ultimately regardless of you choices, you were driving towards the same final battle and choices, but all the things you did along the way determined how you got there.

Modern games need a better balance of story that just seems to really be lacking.

Dasale

April 11th, 2011, 21:35

The point is that it is all perspective based on your experiences. For someone who started RPGing with Oblivion there are entirely different perspectives on what is right and wrong, what is dumbed down and what is streamlined, etc. etc. I started RPGing with Fallout and Baldur's Gate, so when I look back on Might and Magic or Ultima I see hassles and inconveniences. For someone who started with Ultima IV they might look forward and see streamlining and simplification.

I started with Moria, Rogue, Wizardry I, Pool of Radiance 1 to 3, Might & Magic 1&2 then 3 or 4 I don't remember, Citadel: Adventure of the Crystal Keep, Eyes of The Beholder, Ultima Underworld and finally Ultima 7, Wizardry VII, plus few other I don't remember now.

For Ultima 7 it could have been bad luck but once out of startup town the game stop catch me, I think Ultima Underworld grab me instead. I didn't finished both but played quite a lot of UU.

And well with a possible exception of Ultima 7, I consider Fallout 1 hugely better than all of them. And BG1&2 quite better than all of them. For me there's just no comparison. BUT, dungeon design and puzzle design of games like Ultima Underworld or Dungeon Master are just hugely superior. If I remember well, fights of Pool of Radiance series was just more deep. And more.

The problem is some values started decrease with Fallout 1 and BG1&2, dungeons designs, exploration tricks, puzzles and tricks, secrets and middle secrets, tactical fights turn based. At first, mainly for deeper story and characters, but also deeper companions. And then 3D broke all by high rocketing budget.

Once more I'd quote a game like BG would cost up to 6 more time to be done in current RPG standards ie impossible. This is mainly 3D cost and highly detailed environment plus monsters plus characters, and voice acting, and more.

If at least a game like Avernum had impressive sells or let dream the future Avadon. But there's no clear clues that a new game like BG1 or Fallout 1 out of their license context would be able to make enough high sell for a profit. I mean, no 3D but Iso, no voice acting, and so on.

JDR13

April 11th, 2011, 21:47

Well, I want to take Ultima 7 as an example.

*snip*

Anyway it is so sad what games these days have become…. I mean this game is so old… but still so superior to anything out there today.

Agree 100%.

It's so fucking annoying to see people try to claim it's only nostalgia when gamers complain about some of the newer games. I've been playing Ultima 7 recently, and I can honestly say it's *far* better than 90% of the RPGs released in the last 5-10 years. That's only one example..there's quite a few others as well. That's not to say that all modern games are crap, because that's obviously not true. It's just that a lot of the newer games seem to be missing things that made the older ones great.

Dasale

April 11th, 2011, 21:48

I agree with that. To this day, few games have only come close to matching the feature set of U7.

I didn't played that much of the game. I played a bit more some years ago but stopped because fps bored me (I should not have used the original game). so it's just a series of questions:

Are really the fights that good? I remember more something quite average.
Is really outdoor area was so fun to explore? I don't remember at all outdoor was that interesting and consider a game like Gothic 2+NOTR is an example hugely better for that point.
Are really tricks and puzzles that good? Sure better than modern games but I remember them quite weak when compared to games like Dungeon Master or Ultima underworld.
Great dungeons??
Great story? I didn't found the story and the writing even half as good than in a game like The Witcher.

Is Ultima 7 really that good? Well I never quoted it. That said, items interaction, NPC living, story spreading, and more, yes many impressive elements not matched in any other game. But not only amazing points I think.

EDIT:
And for world depth and gigantism I don't think it can even compare to a game like Avernum 1, because the multi scale approach is just a hugely better approach for setting up a wide world, and when it's so well done as in Avernum 1, I doubt Ultima 7 could compare well on that point of view.

JDR13

April 11th, 2011, 21:59

I didn't played that much of the game. I played a bit more some years ago but stopped because fps bored me (I should not have used the original game).

Eh? What do you mean by "fps"? U7 uses an overhead, isometric view. Are you sure you're talking about the right game?

Great story? I didn't found the story and the writing even half as good than in a game like The Witcher..

That's the conclusion you got from playing "a bit" of the game?

blatantninja

April 11th, 2011, 22:05

I think the 90's really represented the inflection point of RPG's. Prior to that, graphics were nothing. More time was spent everywhere else due to the level of the technology. In the late 90's and 2000's, graphics started taking up a disproportionate amount of game budgets, to the detriment of everything else.

We had balance for a while and saw some great games in Ultima 7, Fallout (I'm told), Ps:T, and the BG games, but for the most part, its been downhill since then.

Dasale

April 11th, 2011, 22:07

Fps : frame per seconds. I used the original (crap) engine causing a lot of problems, either too fast either awful fps. I learned only after that I should have used an open source engine instead.

Yes you can question all my feeling I quote, I'm honest (me :p ) and won't fake to have play the whole game, not even a large part. So I'll let people answer about each points.

So for you the story and writing is better in U7 than in The Witcher?

And the other points remain:

I played few dungeons: None was amazing.
I found few tricks or puzzles: All was far to what there was in games like UU or DM.
Outdoor area exploration so fun? I explored parts around first town, south and north, well nothing great for me.
And for the fights: Well I didn't enjoyed.

Yes I'll let those knowing better the game answer, but a true answer not a false answer through a question to skip your own answer.

JDR13

April 11th, 2011, 22:12

Fps : frame per seconds. I used the original (crap) engine causing a lot of problems, either too fast either awful fps. I learned only after that I should have used an open source engine instead.

Ah..ok. Sorry about the confusion. :)

As far as the story in concerned, I think U7 is fantastic from what I've seen so far, although there are others here who are more qualified than I to answer specific questions about it.

Dasale

April 11th, 2011, 22:19

Ok but I quote you skip the comparison with The Witcher and that you smartly avoid all the other points. :biggrin: I'm not far to conclude that on all those points I'm right. :)

EDIT: World setup depth, here the impressive point of U7, a sum, not really the story I feel but yep I'm problably wrong on this point. But many weakness I feel (and could be wrong), fights, dungeons, outdoor, and more.

blatantninja

April 11th, 2011, 22:20

I remember finding the dungeons of U7 lacking. Because of the way they built the world as continuous, they weren't able to build more than one level into the dungeons really. I believe the engine only has 7 levels for things to be stacked on, so while you do have a rooftop in Lord British's castle, that's as high (or low) as you could go.

That said, while the dungeons didn't have multiple levels, I do remember them being fairly well done within that limitation. And I agree with JDR13, the story is great. One of the things I really liked about it looking back was that you really have to just go with your gut. It's not like in modern games where you can look at your stats and see your reputation, or see if you completed a quest positively, negatively, or neutral, etc. You get some feedback from your companions, but ultimately, you have to behave how you think the Avatar would actually behave to advance through the story. You have to make real decisions about what to do without knowing before hand what the consequences will be.

THAT's role playing, IMO.

JDR13

April 11th, 2011, 22:27

Ok but I quote you skip the comparison with The Witcher and that you smartly avoid all the other points. :biggrin: I'm not far to conclude that on all those points I'm right. :).

They're your opinions, I don't see how they could be "right" or "wrong". Do I share the same opinions? No.

As far as comparing it to The Witcher.. well, they're about as different as two games could be. I do agree that The Witcher had great writing, but which game had the "better" story would be purely subjective.

In my opinion, Ultima 7's weakest point is definitely the combat.

Dasale

April 11th, 2011, 22:28

Because of the way they built the world as continuous, they weren't able to build more than one level into the dungeons really..
For me the sin of U7, nothing is better than multi scale if you want setup a wide world. But no, U7 started the original sin, more basic realism, forgetting all the power of symbols and that anyway, games aren't reality but symbols.

Yeah I'm sure I could get some quote that it's the less comprehensive sentence ever wrote in this forum. Well in advance I don't agree.

Alrik Fassbauer

April 11th, 2011, 23:23

You walk into traps in DA:O all the time.

I meant it ironically - in regard to the often-used description of Mss Effect as a "cinematic experience". ;)

Just think of it like ... as if you were watching a movie - but suddenly its protagonists are crying out "uh !" "oh !" "ouch !" because they've run into an undetected trap ! :lol: ;)

Something like this ... It's difficult for me to put into words what I had in mind ... ;)

DoctorNarrative

April 12th, 2011, 00:05

Agree 100%.

It's so fucking annoying to see people try to claim it's only nostalgia when gamers complain about some of the newer games. I've been playing Ultima 7 recently, and I can honestly say it's *far* better than 90% of the RPGs released in the last 5-10 years. That's only one example..there's quite a few others as well. That's not to say that all modern games are crap, because that's obviously not true. It's just that a lot of the newer games seem to be missing things that made the older ones great.

It's not nostalgia really… we had this conversation before. What you played when you were younger and when you got into the genre colored your preferences. We are all a sum result of our experiences.

I am not saying you will always love your first RPG more than anything else, or that you only like X game because of nostalgia. What I am saying is that what you like about RPGs, the features you value and the styles you prefer, is decided by your formative experiences with the genre. Ultima VII is better than anything in the last 10 years for you because Ultima VII is the style of game you have been conditioned to like. It has very little to do with actual release dates… if a new indie RPG came out tomorrow that was a lot like Ultima VII you would love it as well.

CelticFrost

April 12th, 2011, 00:39

I have read things about cost of games and living in the past and this game that game....
What i am talking when it comes to cost...and game play goes hand and hand...
I like the great graphics, I like some cut sceens....but do we need them every 10 seconds...could this cost and space used not be used for more towns, cities, weapons, etc...
A longer story a better story....for that matter a harder story...
I am not saying shy away from all the new great things we can do and make with new systems .....more to the point can we not over dose on it...
Yes I grew up on the ulitma games starting in 84 and yes with every new game there was a better graphics but the story never got weak until he sold into EA games....which drove Lord British to leave the company he started in his parents basement...
But there was always improvements as computers got better...I don't know how many systems I have built over the years nore care to think about all the money I have paid...but like a great book I was never as disapointed as I have been lately...
Maybe i want my cake and eat it too....but why shouldn't I...
I always wanted to the look of what games look like now back in the day...my buddys and always new this day would come...
Just didn't know programers and companys would become so lazy and uncreative with what they slap a 60 dollar tag on for the masses...
As a side point I liked ulitma VII part two better as it let you go back to the days before seven and be good or bad....as i don't like to be forced always one way or the other...sometimes i might want rob the town others i might not lol

TheMadGamer

April 12th, 2011, 00:39

Broadly speaking, what I think made U7 so special was the wide feature set along with the appropriateness and depth of each feature.

There are certainly contemporary games that do better in one area or another compared to U7.

IMO, BG1 and BG2 told better stories and had better character progression and combat. But the worlds of BG1 and BG2 were static and lifeless to me.

Arx Fatalis came close to the magic of U7 and Ultima Underworld games, but lacked in overall features relative to those two games (still I'm a big fan of Arx Fatalis for sure).

Divine Divinity, now that game really reminded me of my U7 experience and was lacking in the overall 'world simulation' stuff found in U7.

Gothic 1 was like what U9 should have been - a 3d U7. But like Divine Divinity, Gothic 1 (and really G2 and G3 as well), while really doing well with some item interaction and some nicely done NPC scripting, still fell kinda short to U7.

But when you consider the technology of the time and the very wide feature set of U7 that was not just skin deep, I've always wondered why no one has bettered it such that it would be no argument.

The developers that I think could create a modern 'U7' experience that could be better than U7 are Laraian Studios, PB, and Arkane Studios.

JDR13

April 12th, 2011, 00:48

azraelck

April 12th, 2011, 02:49

Who demands games actually *need* flashy graphics aha "eye candy" ?

Who demands that ? We, the gamers - or those who build graphics cards, for example ?

With graphics like with in Ultima 4, no graphics card market would ever survive. We would be right here, in stagnation.

Demanding better graphics is like two sides of a coin : It increses the technical development,
but on the other hand it decreses the creativity, because creative developers alone just aren't able anymore to deliver those high-cos graphics a gamer would want nowadys.

And then there's MineCraft. Or Dwarf Fortress.
Games with mass appeal (well, relatively) WITHOUT fancy graphics.
How is this possible ? These games shouldn't exist ! - At least if we follow the thought that games WITHOUT flashy graphics MUST fail instanly !

And then there's the Browser Games, too. Graphics like in Crysis ? In WHICH browser game, I ask ?
But still, they generate mass appeal. Bigpoint isn't a giant in terms o gmes without any reason.
We just don't see it because Bigpoint is working on a different field.

Technically, Dwarf Fortress isn't a financial success; it's freeware. It is a huge gaming success however.

However, Minecraft, World of Goo, and a horde of recent indie hits have proven that top notch graphics are not a requirement to make a successful, highly profitable game. Heck, AA publishers like Capcom have had success with games such as Mega Man 9 and 10, which use graphics like the old NES games did!

As far as RPGs go, specifically cRPGs, look up games like Devil Whiskey, Avernum, Geneforge, Eschalon. The classic-style games are being made, it's just a niche market, with only a few developers. The problem lies in that cRPGs aren't exactly fast games to develop, certainly not to the extent of a U7 or Wiz7, or a Baldur's Gate.

Coming up with both an obstacle, and several ways around it using the game mechanics and then trying to figure out how you would break that point... Not to mention branching the story into a dozen directions based on certain choices, and balancing the whole combat system to boot. It goes on and on and on and on.

Zloth

April 12th, 2011, 03:34

Who demands games actually *need* flashy graphics aha "eye candy" ?
That would be me. ;)

I love the graphics, both in terms of art and tech. The art is pretty or otherwise engaging and I enjoy the tech side just because I find it so impressive that computers can actually do such things (plus higher tech allows even more kinds of art). You don't really *need* these things for a game to be fun but they definitely add to the enjoyment.

Music is the exact same way, though the technical side has pretty much topped out now. You don't *need* any music or positional sound effects in a game but they definitely add to the enjoyment.

Gothic Goddess: more dumbed down than Oblivion and Mass Effect? Please. Those aren't even slightly dumbed down. Try spending a month playing this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE6MSXqouSk) then tell me about how any game on the market is dumbed down. (Oh wait a second, Adventure IS on the market via Microsoft, isn't it?)

rune_74

April 12th, 2011, 06:21

U7 was much better then the witcher. Especailly for when it was released.

GothicGothicness

April 12th, 2011, 10:19

So for you the story and writing is better in U7 than in The Witcher?

And the other points remain:

* I played few dungeons: None was amazing.
* I found few tricks or puzzles: All was far to what there was in games like UU or DM.
* Outdoor area exploration so fun? I explored parts around first town, south and north, well nothing great for me.
* And for the fights: Well I didn't enjoyed.

Story much better, IMHO. But that probably depends on who you ask.

As I already mentioned in my post, fighting is not super. But I think it works very well for the game…. it has a flow, so to have turn-based combat wouldn't work. The action combat can require a lot of strategy and planning for some fights.

You didn't like the beginning? I think the murder mystery and investigation is very well done, and an excellent beginning. Also let us remember that the complete ultima VII is huge! In the second part ( serpent isle ) , there are quiet a few improvements to the engine.

Outdoor area exploring? well, I simply can't see how it is not enjoyable there are so much things to find, so many interesting places to go, so different in different parts of the world. Lots of hidden treasures and secrets, and lots of mysteries. What didn't you enjoy about it? + No loading screens. Yes exploring in the gothics are also good, but it is so limited compared to ultima 7…. you can only go to the end of the barrier. There are no vehicles, only a few towns. ( Not talking G3 which I haven't played for any long amount of time)

As for puzzles, there are lots of great ones, and they included thinking a lot. Mainly because you have so many different kinds of items, and possibilities you have to think, there is no "use item A on item B to create the evidence" kind of clue, you have to figure it out yourselves. Many puzzles also include quite a lot of characters, like the murder mystery, or the traitor or such a quests.

Dasale

April 12th, 2011, 10:56

I won't argue about U7, few quick answers. The investigation murder seem cool at first but its solving in first town disappointed me.

For tricks and puzzles and items interactions, they are great through their clues, if it's like old adventure games I just hate that approach. Myst is a great example, so if it's closer to Myst then I didn't noticed. For RPG I already quote two, Dungeon Master and Ultima Underworld, I wonder why I didn't quoted it too for Ultima 7, perhaps I didn't put enough care. But well ok I wrote I wouldn't argue. I need play more the game.

Another point, ok let say Ultima 7, what else?

GothicGothicness

April 12th, 2011, 11:32

I won't argue about U7, few quick answers. The investigation murder seem cool at first but its solving in first town disappointed me.

Out of curiosity what was disappointment to you about it? Also it doesn't get solved in the first town. ( Perhaps that was the disappointing part ? )

DArtagnan

April 12th, 2011, 11:53

It's not nostalgia really… we had this conversation before. What you played when you were younger and when you got into the genre colored your preferences. We are all a sum result of our experiences.

I am not saying you will always love your first RPG more than anything else, or that you only like X game because of nostalgia. What I am saying is that what you like about RPGs, the features you value and the styles you prefer, is decided by your formative experiences with the genre. Ultima VII is better than anything in the last 10 years for you because Ultima VII is the style of game you have been conditioned to like. It has very little to do with actual release dates… if a new indie RPG came out tomorrow that was a lot like Ultima VII you would love it as well.

Unfortunately, your theory doesn't hold water to as large an extent as you seem to think.

First of all, there were a TON of games in the ancient past that I didn't like - and I mean immediately didn't like.

So, if your theory about conditioning is correct - how come I was already conditioned against entirely new games back in the day?

I mean, isn't it possible that I didn't like them - because, well, they just weren't good in terms of my youthful disposition and early subjective tastes?

It's true that you develop your tastes as you age, and you refine your approach to what you do and what you prefer.

But it's also true that there are things that, for whatever reason, simply appeal to you without there having been any tangible pre-conditioning.

I'm personally very conscious of what I like and what I don't like, and that's because I've spent an enternity analysing how I work inside - and how games work in terms of design. Those are my two primary and passionate interests - in that order. The human mind and game design.

So, I have a pretty good idea of when nostalgia is a factor - and when something is simply of a design my mind appreciates.

There are still new and recent ideas that I latch on to, even without pre-conditioning - though they are becoming rarer by the minute. There was a time when gameplay evolution was at the forefront of AAA game development - and I believe that concept peaked around the mid-nineties with games like X-Com, Master of Magic, System Shock, and games of similar design strengths. For those genres, I've yet to see any kind of real or true innovation.

That said, there are new genres where developers are innovating - like with shooters, MMOs, and RTS games. I consider Company of Heroes a very significant step in a new direction, for instance. I also think games like World of Warcraft, EVE Online, and others have done a lot in terms of innovating and refining genres. I don't need to bring up shooters, because I don't think anyone would deny we've come a long way from Doom and Quake.

So, it's not at all so simple as being conditioned to like something in our youth - as some kind of static truth about what we'll always like and prefer. Evolution and change remain possible even throughout adulthood.

Also, there are games that I used to adore that are WAY too primitive today, and that we've far surpassed in terms of design evolution and technical advancements. Open world immersive CRPGs like Gothic, for instance, just weren't really possible in the past - and so that's another example of a relatively recent birth of a genre that is not about conditioning - as much as it's about taking new steps that we come to love as we discover where they take us.

Dasale

April 12th, 2011, 12:17

Out of curiosity what was disappointment to you about it? Also it doesn't get solved in the first town. ( Perhaps that was the disappointing part ? )
To feel be guided and too easy, sort of disappointment of the investigation mechanism, take it with spice, it's only a vague remembering. What's solved in first town is what you have to do next.

DoctorNarrative

April 12th, 2011, 13:23

I know from our past conversation on this topic that you truly believe what you're saying, so I won't bother trying to change your mind, even though you're wrong.

I never played U7 until recently, and I wasn't playing anything similar to it back in those days either. Nostalgia or "conditioning" has nothing to do with my opinion of it.

When you played U7 doesn't matter, I don't think you're getting my point (and neither did Dart, so maybe I am not explaining it well). The point is that what you enjoy is colored by your own experience... this is not a gaming only thing, it is a life thing. The women you find attractive, the food you like, the music you like, the games you like... it all boils down to the formative experiences you had. In sociology we call it structuralism and it is by far the dominant theory to explain human behavior and preferences in today's research.

Even your very first RPG experiences were colored by personality tendencies you picked up before that from other media and real life experiences. How much patience you have, how interested in narrative you are, your enjoyment of reading, etc. etc. To deny you are a creation of experience is to be largely naive to how society and experience effects you. Think of it as experience points and skill trees!

Think of it this way: if you were 21 and 5 years ago for your 16th birthday you were given an Xbox and Oblivion, and that was your first RPG experience, do you really think Ultima 7 would be as amazing to you right now? Judging by your past comments I have a feeling you will say yes, and I just cannot describe effectively how wrong I think that answer would be.

Agree to disagree I guess, though.

DoctorNarrative

April 12th, 2011, 13:29

But it's also true that there are things that, for whatever reason, simply appeal to you without there having been any tangible pre-conditioning.

I don't agree. You are conditioned by society and those people you interact with from the day you are born. A popular example in sociology is that the day you are born you get either a blue blanket or a pink blanket, depending on your gender. From that moment on you are at least partially a social construct.

Now there is the theory of fundamentalism, that you are who you are regardless of influence, but it's not a very popular theory in today's academic world. That doesn't mean I wouldn't respect your opinion if you were a fundamentalist, it just means it's not a very popular theory right now. Of course you can believe in some kind of mixture, but even then as soon as you look at your personality and persona as being socialized by experience and relationships you are admitting there is no core you that made the decision to like X game or Y game without influence.

I'm not trying to remove your identity or devalue your individuality. I personally look at myself as still being me, a unique person, because no two people can share the exact same experience and socialization over time, it's impossible.

JDR13

April 12th, 2011, 13:56

Think of it this way: if you were 21 and 5 years ago for your 16th birthday you were given an Xbox and Oblivion, and that was your first RPG experience, do you really think Ultima 7 would be as amazing to you right now? Judging by your past comments I have a feeling you will say yes, and I just cannot describe effectively how wrong I think that answer would be.

As I said earlier, it's obvious that you truly believe what you're saying, and that's fine. You limit yourself in assuming that everyone reacts to things the same way though, and you also seem to ignore any points made that don't coincide with your theory. We'll just go with your suggestion about agreeing to disagree.

DArtagnan

April 12th, 2011, 14:06

I don't agree. You are conditioned by society and those people you interact with from the day you are born. A popular example in sociology is that the day you are born you get either a blue blanket or a pink blanket, depending on your gender. From that moment on you are at least partially a social construct.

Oh, I subscribe to that theory myself - but it's so fuzzy and unfounded that I have nothing but my vague ideas of how it might work.

Still, we're not talking about societal conditioning - as we were specifically talking about games and how what you've played in the past will condition you to like that in the future - almost as an exclusive. At least, that's what I get based on your insistence of it in your exchanges with JDR.

That's what I'm saying is very far from the only explanation as to why you like something.

Now there is the theory of fundamentalism, that you are who you are regardless of influence, but it's not a very popular theory in today's academic world. That doesn't mean I wouldn't respect your opinion if you were a fundamentalist, it just means it's not a very popular theory right now. Of course you can believe in some kind of mixture, but even then as soon as you look at your personality and persona as being socialized by experience and relationships you are admitting there is no core you that made the decision to like X game or Y game without influence.

I don't think anyone has any kind of definitive idea of these things, so I just declare myself ignorant. I can't "believe" in something without more evidence.

I do have a "feeling" which is that the environment has more to do with who people are than anything else. Just as long as it's understood that "environment" is everything from the atmosphere in your mother's womb to being sexually assaulted by your uncle.

I'm not trying to remove your identity or devalue your individuality. I personally look at myself as still being me, a unique person, because no two people can share the exact same experience and socialization over time, it's impossible.

I don't think you're trying to remove that :)

I just think you're wrong about what you've been saying about gaming and how the past is almighty in the nostalgic way.

Not entirely wrong, though - and you do have good points.

DoctorNarrative

April 12th, 2011, 15:02

I just think you're wrong about what you've been saying about gaming and how the past is almighty in the nostalgic way.

Judging by JDR's last post I still don't think I am expressing it correctly anyway. The core of what I am trying to say is that preference is always influenced by experience. You will always like "good games" but what you consider good is shaped and formed by your previous experience not just in games, but in life.

GothicGothicness

April 12th, 2011, 15:29

Well, whatever a game is good or bad is a matter of taste.

However whatever it is dumbed down or not is fact. So it is two different discussions.

Go to the workshop ( where quest marker is ) enter it. Put the metal bar down and use the hammer on the anvil ( this will be automatically done if you walk close enough ), put the finished weapon which was just made into the water bucket ( walk close to the bucket with where the arrow indicator is ).

It is a fact this is more dumbed down than.

No instructions at all.. figure out yourself how to make a weapon.

So what is there to discuss? There is no doubt these modern games are more dumbed down. The environment might affect whatever you like dumbed down games or not. But there is no doubt they are dumbed down.

JDR13

April 12th, 2011, 15:45

Of course preferences are influenced by past experience, nobody is denying that. The issue is the insinuation that people are incapable of objectively judging something because of it.

TheMadGamer

April 12th, 2011, 19:32

The core of what I am trying to say is that preference is always influenced by experience. You will always like "good games" but what you consider good is shaped and formed by your previous experience not just in games, but in life.

I was thinking about what you wrote here. Then I thought about my very first experiences with video and computer games when they first started hitting the consumer markets in the latter half of the 70s. I wonder, based on what you say, how I managed to distinguish between 'good' video/computer games from 'bad' ones.

I remember really disliking pong (and other early videogames I got with my Christmas of 1979 atari 2600) but really liking Ultima 1. But at that time, I had no prior experiences with video/computer games.

Relayer

April 12th, 2011, 20:38

It has nothing to do with nostalgia. It's a FACT: in the "old" days, whether it's the 80s, early 90s or even early 00s, RPGs and games in general focused on GAMEPLAY.

But in the last 10 years or so, as graphics and processor horsepower improved by a ridiculous amount, games started getting more and more bogged down in presentation. A few still screen shots with text gave way to short animated scenes which then gave way to games filled with HOURS of cutscenes.

Now it's not only good enough to be in full 3D but you have to have the latest shaders, ultra-realistic backgrounds and character movement, everything has to be HD and special effects must burst out of every seam.

Same with voice overs. So much is spent on recording hours and hours of dialgoue, not to mention hiring widely recognized actors.

So what happens? So many resources are spent on things that in the long run don't matter THAT much. Sure, I love fully voiced games but I haven't forgotten how to READ! Sure, I love realism and detail and purty images but not every game has to look like FF XIII or Mass Effect 2.

I'd take a good looking game with tons of gameplay content and elements than a phenomenal looking game that is shallow and simplistic.

You can blame the console market for doing so well and for PC game developers for wanting to tap into that market. Because of that Oblivion was even more dumbed down and "consolized" than Morrowind. Because of that we got the garbage that was Jade Empire and Mass Effect.

ME grew on me and I'm loving ME2 but only because I view it more as console action/adventure type game than an RPG. And because of the success of these western action/RPG hybrids it seems even a giant like SquEnix has to play the "dumb down" game because in their mind the "kids" want beautiful graphics and repetetive fast paced action games. So now, not only have we lost true PC/Western style RPGs but we may not see hardcore console/Japanese style RPGs again. We're stuck with these terrible hybrids that appeal to gamers with very short attention spans and itchy fingers.

Motoki

April 12th, 2011, 22:11

To throw in my perspective here, I started out as a teenager playing early JRPGs (which emulated early CRPGs to some extent) on consoles. I enjoyed them for the stories, characterization and exploration, but also generally found them to be really repetitive in a lot of aspects.

Ultima 7 was my first CRPG and honestly to this day it is still my favorite and I personally consider it the best. Note that it wasn't the first RPG I played. I played the first Final Fantasy (before it become one long cinema scene which EA & Bioware seem to be trying to emulate these days), Phantasy Star, Dragon Warrior etc. I suppose you could say I was conditioned to like those but I think what they did is give me an idea of what I liked and what I didn't. When I Ultima 7 came along it gave me personally a lot of what I liked and little of what I didn't.

I think most RPGs that came before it were 90% fighting and 10% dialog and exploration. Ultima 7 turned that on it's head and gave me 90% dialog, questing and exploration with 10% fighting. The fighting was very streamlined so that it pretty much happened automatically and it was short and sweet. Since I always liked combat the least in RPGs and found it tedious and repetitive this was a plus for me. Having said that, if someone really enjoys combat, stats and numbers in an RPG this may not be the game for them.

What it also did for me is provide a living breathing world where everyone who resided in it was unique, had different things to say and went about their business regardless of what I did. They didn't just sit around and wait for me or spout the same two lines that the guy next to them did. There were also choices to be made and consequences.

I also like that the story was subtle. It wasn't some save the world from an evil wizard cliche. When you start off initially it even seems like everything is more or less going okay in the world and that is intentional. You have to uncover what's going on, who is behind it and why. You also have freedom to go anywhere and pretty much do whatever you want.

For me personally, whatever the reason U7 was just sort of the pinnacle of an RPG. As with all good things, someone usually comes along and messes it up sooner or later and that someone was EA.

Ironically, the RPG I've enjoyed most in recent years is Dragon Age Origins and guess what? EA strikes again. *sigh*

I liked the Elder Scrolls games and I think they do a great job of world simulation on the macro level providing beautiful or strange worlds to wander around in, but on the micro level they are pretty bad at characterization and dialog and their npcs have about as much personality as a cardboard cutout.

Relayer

April 12th, 2011, 23:31

For me personally, whatever the reason U7 was just sort of the pinnacle of an RPG. As with all good things, someone usually comes along and messes it up sooner or later and that someone was EA.

Ironically, the RPG I've enjoyed most in recent years is Dragon Age Origins and guess what? EA strikes again. *sigh*

I liked the Elder Scrolls games and I think they do a great job of world simulation on the macro level providing beautiful or strange worlds to wander around in, but on the micro level they are pretty bad at characterization and dialog and their npcs have about as much personality as a cardboard cutout.

I've never played U7. Attempted to recently but that weird top down view was distracting. Plus I couldn't get it to run properly on my machine. For me though, the pinnacle of RPGs is Baldur's Gate 2.

It's not perfect but it's as close to perfection for me, having a nice balance of tough combat, interesting quests, decent writing, a huge world, lots of NPCs with optional quests, beautiful graphics and music. I also have a fondness for Wizardry 8, Fallout and Planescape:T.

And as much as I love Morrowind, I have to agree with you - it requires you invest a lot of your own imagination and fall in love with the world in general, to really enjoy it since gameplay wise it's nothing special and the characters are a bit dry. Oblivion improved on the gameplay but still dropped the ball with writing/characters.

I think the last RPG I really enjoyed was also Dragon Age. And even then it was just "ok". Before that? The Mask Of The Betrayer expansion which was already some years ago. None of the games I've played the last 7 years or so have excited me at all. I did miss a couple though, The Witcher and Divine Divinity 2 among them. And didn't play Gothic 3 due to the reviews.

But it's the same with JRPGs - the last games I really enjoyed were Persona 4, Rogue Galaxy and FF XII and all those games are at least 3 to 4 years old. FF XIII was an abomination and sort of reflects what's happend with western RPGs - it's pretty but very shallow - catered to what seems like kids with short attention spans.

Thank the gods for the DS!!!

CelticFrost

April 13th, 2011, 02:29

Not sure how this became an ulitma 7 topic but it seems this is the game that set the bar very high for many of you.

I started with ulitma3 and really enjoyed it …4 was better in the story line and quest…though alot of shrines…6 was boring 7 okay 7 part great 8 was brutial (thanks ea) and 9 was great ending if you played after fans took the game apart and rebuilt it…forgetting the site that did that.

There but with everyone of those games they use the the latest and great that computers offered…but didn't give up on having alot and i mine alot of things to do…places to go and people to talk too…

A hugh world to explore…I guess i should have maybe posted…as i have been out of the computing world for a few years…can we not still get all the great graphics, cut sceens on two three four dvds … we all have massive hard drives hugh amounts of ram….and most of us if we don't have what a game needs are willing to buy it or better….

I want something that takes me months to play…..lets my mind feel its apart of that world…

I know there were tons of chyty games back in my day as well…I think i finished bards tale in 2-3 days and was so pissed…

Still the post could have been about how mad i was at how completely crappy DA2 was….and i know some liked it….and i am fine with that…it was a simple game with alot of running around on simple cookie cut town with a ton of side …extra side quest in which i did all but 4 of them…..

Waiting for may 17th…all could be good….or maybe nov 11 as the last thing i was reading there will be a 5 main areas alot of caves and dungons….

Though glad this topic stirred up feeligns in people…lets put it to bed..
if you want to start a U7 topic as best game ever i can say i don't feel that way at all….it would go U4 U7part2 and U3 then U7

I also never played the frist witcher...and downloaded a few weeks ago but this computer for whatever reason will no play it...My new one is do in next week so will try it then before the second one comes in...

CelticFrost

April 13th, 2011, 02:46

Dont need a ton of cut sceens for every time i kill something or even worst take a piss
Don't need some actor from tv or movie i don't care about anyways to do a voice
Dont' need the latest top 40 crappy band to do the music in the game….
Don't need the frist game toto take everyone by surprise about how great it is and then make crap for the fast food crowd there after…

Need a great story that leads to more great stories
Need towns not one two three four or more
Cities
caves
what ever happened to bridges where troll would or wouldn't be there..????
Dungons…and not ones like in DA2 where they(bio) couldn't take the time to make many but copy and paste
and if the game cost me more than 49 59 i would pay 109 129 if it is worth it and you know what you would too if you are here reading this…..so you want to make your profit….charge more…if I can spend 700 on a video card to play the game i can play 129 for the game…

Zloth

April 13th, 2011, 02:55

It has nothing to do with nostalgia. It's a FACT: in the "old" days, whether it's the 80s, early 90s or even early 00s, RPGs and games in general focused on GAMEPLAY.
Yeah, it's a fact, but it's a false one. Graphics have always been a big deal in RPGs. Not as big as in first person shooters but not far behind.

rune_74

April 13th, 2011, 03:11

Funny fact: Origin was known for pushing the computer requirements up in all the games they released. Expanded memory anyone?

CelticFrost

April 13th, 2011, 04:02

Zloth are you even i the convo....???
or do you just read what you think you are reading

CelticFrost

April 13th, 2011, 04:18

I bought a 486 dx 66 with 4m of ram and 1/2 m video card for ulitma5 i do believe it might have been a different game in 90. It cost me almost 4000.00.
When i got into counter strike for a short term i spent 6000.00 back in 99. Plus countless systems and upgrades from my frist C64. My point is gamers have jobs have money and are willing to spend their money on games and systems…If companies make the games i don't care what it cost…the people companies seem to be going after don't.......which is a shame...as i am sure most here would agree if you spend your money you don't care what it cost as long itis worth the money…..BTW sorry for making anything personal in my post to Zloth…my bad

Couchpotato

April 13th, 2011, 04:19

Simple answer is they evolved into something you either love or you hate. New gamers to the genre are fine as there growing up with the new rpg as us older gamers become more jaded. It will happen to the new generation of gamers eventually also.

Corwin

April 13th, 2011, 05:40

U7 Pt2, UU2 and PS-T are my 3 favourite games. I hate to think how they would be ruined today if they were being released now. UU2 was COMPLEX with people and places to find, mysteries to solve, etc, etc. Can you imagine today's players getting upset that the person you needed to find urgently, A) wasn't always in the same place, and B) didn't have an exclamation mark over their head!!!!

Zloth

April 13th, 2011, 06:44

I the convo?? I'm too confused to get insulted! I'm fairly certain that I'm not reading anything that I don't think I'm reading...?

Hmmm... I don't know about UU2 (Ultima Underworld 2, I presume) but Planescape: Torment wasn't all that terribly complex, was it? I would be most worried that the story would get trimmed down to something less wordy (and cheaper to do via voice acting). It might be a lot like seeing your favorite book turned into a movie. I would shudder at the thought of what EA marketing might do to it, too. I wouldn't mind wandering around in a 3D city, though!

DoctorNarrative

April 13th, 2011, 07:16

Of course preferences are influenced by past experience, nobody is denying that. The issue is the insinuation that people are incapable of objectively judging something because of it.

But your judgements are based on that same process of experience shaping your tastes and outlook. There is no objectiveness with media, with art... only subjective. If someone says Ultima VII is a piece of crap but Oblivion was great that does not make them wrong, it just means they had different experiences than you that led them to value different things in RPGs.

ChienAboyeur

April 13th, 2011, 08:51

You're pretty much saying what I am saying exactly, I just don't think you realize it. On your 1-10 scale some people started at 1 and think that is what an RPG is, but the people who started at 4 think that 4 is what an RPG is. If today is 7 then tomorrow there will be people who think 8 is what an RPG is.

Where you go wrong is assuming that 1 is the correct answer… it isn't. The first generation of something is far from the perfect version of it in any genre or category, games included. Which number is the "right" number is subjective and based off your personal experiences and tastes. There is no correct answer, it doesn't exist.

Stage one is not reached in one move. It took time to mature RP gaming as a genre. At one moment, it happens that enough characteristics were secured to speak of a different genre in gaming.

That is stage one: when the RPG genre was mature enough to be distinguished by their characteristics. People playing games that would lead to the genre before stage 1 did not play RPGs.

For cRPGs, today, games are labelled RPGS when they hold much more of other genres that existed before. That is where it changes it all. It is not a new redefinition within a same genre but one genre being sold as another.

Anyone who played beat'em ups in the 80s can see how DA2 is the natural evolution of beat'em ups thirty years later.

DA2 even recovers the classical three classes separation that so many beat'em ups thrived on.

ChienAboyeur

April 13th, 2011, 08:55

Dasale

April 13th, 2011, 09:10

Of course preferences are influenced by past experience, nobody is denying that. The issue is the insinuation that people are incapable of objectively judging something because of it.

The underlying meaning is, there's one truth, the judgment of a game.

That's where you are wrong and what is trying to explain DoctorNarrative. The problem with DoctorNarrative argument is it ends in an impossibility to evaluate and debate of qualities of a game. But ultimately this argument is right anyway.

And one cause of evaluation differences is experience, age, nostalgia, and many other elements. So in the arguing, DoctorNarrative is right, and there's no subjectivity here. But it leads not very far when you want debate about games.

GothicGothicness

April 13th, 2011, 09:24

If someone says Ultima VII is a piece of crap but Oblivion was great that does not make them wrong,

No but as I already mentioned, if someone says Ultima VII is dumbed down and Oblivion isn't that makes them wrong.

Dasale

April 13th, 2011, 09:26

..Can you imagine today's players getting upset that the person you needed to find urgently, A) wasn't always in the same place, and B) didn't have an exclamation mark over their head!!!!

Did the game provided clues where was this person? If not, the search could work because it's a pretext too explore more. But is anybody is enjoying in real life to search something he lost? I doubt a lot. There's matter of discussion on that sort of element. And even more when some games use a top down approach giving a more global vision and other give a much closer view and less global vision.

In no way I'm defending the awful cursor pointer of Oblivion and exclamation mark of Dungeon Siege, or it was some Diablo the first, not sure. But I'm trying to explain it's not that simple and obvious.

DoctorNarrative

April 13th, 2011, 09:31

It is about being part of a genre or not. At this point, either the notion of genre is accepted as useful or it is rejected. But once it is accepted, you have to discipline yourself into accepting the constraints going with it.

Why classify a game as RPGs when it exists another genre that better characterizes the game?

The whole "what defines an RPG" argument is long and involved, I don't think anyone has a real answer. That's even more decided by experience if you ask me, since it's likely the previous games you played that identified themselves as "RPGs" would define what you consider an "RPG."

I personally think of choice and consequence when I think of "RPG." You roleplay a character you design and make choices based on that character's personality, which then have effects and consequences in the game world. To other people though RPG just means stats, or means a videogame version of pen and paper RPGs, or whatever else. I would bet after Oblivion there are a large number of youngsters who identify an RPG around exploration.

DoctorNarrative

April 13th, 2011, 09:36

No but as I already mentioned, if someone says Ultima VII is dumbed down and Oblivion isn't that makes them wrong.

"Dumbed-down" is subjective as well. You can streamline a game in a positive way that does not diminish the gameplay. If you streamline badly or too much then it is "dumbing down" but what is "bad" and "too much" will depend on the player, i.e. subjective.

I think Oblivion is dumbed down to hell and back but many people would say it streamlined Morrowind in a positive and enjoyable way.

I guess you could say streamlined is an objective descriptor while dumbed down is a subjective remark.

DArtagnan

April 13th, 2011, 10:24

But your judgements are based on that same process of experience shaping your tastes and outlook. There is no objectiveness with media, with art… only subjective. If someone says Ultima VII is a piece of crap but Oblivion was great that does not make them wrong, it just means they had different experiences than you that led them to value different things in RPGs.

I'm really confused as to what your point is now.

This started with you claiming that nostalgia and gaming conditioning being the reasons for what you like. I agree with that to a certain extent, as I've said.

But now it's about how you develop as a human being - and it's like games and what they do and their designs are largely irrelevant.

I mean, isn't that somewhat cyclical to you?

Why ever talk about what you like and what features you prefer - if it's never about that. If all games are potentially brilliant if you're "conditioned" by your environment to like them - then all games are basically 10/10 games that you just have to be conditioned to like?

That makes absolutely no pragmatic sense to me, but I agree that theoretically it's a way to look at things.

Still, I certainly prefer to believe that what I think games are doing right is something that's worth taking notice of - and something developers can learn from.

Otherwise, I find the whole thing becomes incredibly fuzzy and there would be no point to any vision at all. We could just remake Tetris indefinitely and resign ourselves to having to be pre-conditioned to like them or do without fantastic games.

Essentially, we all have our subjective angles to what we like and what we don't. That's fine - and I don't think it serves as a revelation to any adult human being.

But with that said, I actually do believe there are universal markers of fascination - however blurry - and while some like this or that, there will be things that will appeal to a particular mindset - regardless of tangible pre-conditioning.

Things like exploration, puzzle-solving, combat, or what have you. These things are part of the human condition as a whole - and won't be dependant on conditioning apart from being human on Earth.

DoctorNarrative

April 13th, 2011, 11:35

I'm trying to say it's not nostalgia. To me nostalgia means I like Quantum Leap because I watched it as a kid, despite knowing that show actually really sucks. That is nostalgia to me.

With games I am simply saying the era you started gaming in and the games you chose to play over the course of your development as a "gamer" heavily influence what games you like today. Someone who was introduced to RPGs 5 years ago will very often have much different perspectives on RPGs than someone who was introduced to them in the mid-80's. Even something as simple as tolerance for Morrowind's attacks not necessary hitting despite looking like the hit can be baffling and insanely off-puting to someone who played Oblivion before that.

There are exceptions of course, you can re-train yourself. I'm trying to train myself to enjoy FPP dungeon crawlers like Lands of Lore. In general though when I see comments like "OMG RPGs ARE DEAD" I tend to immediately classify the person saying that as someone with one idea of what an RPG is that was probably decided a long time ago.

And then I rambled on and brought greater sociology into it… that your personality is largely decided by societal interaction in my opinion, and that includes why you play games and what games you like. That's really a much grander and more abstract point though.

Anyway, I've rambled a lot. I enjoy thinking about this kind of stuff and talking about it. I find the idea that someone decides which games they like based purely on objective quality to be quite silly. There is no objective quality in games. Every game you like someone hates. Every game you hate someone loves.

DArtagnan

April 13th, 2011, 11:52

I'm trying to say it's not nostalgia. To me nostalgia means I like Quantum Leap because I watched it as a kid, despite knowing that show actually really sucks. That is nostalgia to me.

Ok, but then you should probably not have started out saying it's part nostalgia.

With games I am simply saying the era you started gaming in and the games you chose to play over the course of your development as a "gamer" heavily influence what games you like today. Someone who was introduced to RPGs 5 years ago will very often have much different perspectives on RPGs than someone who was introduced to them in the mid-80's. Even something as simple as tolerance for Morrowind's attacks not necessary hitting despite looking like the hit can be baffling and insanely off-puting to someone who played Oblivion before that.

Who, in their right mind, would deny that your past is a strong influence on your present?

The point is that because you liked something in the past, it doesn't necessarily translate into liking it in the future. So while the influence is there, it can also be the opposite effect - in that you EVOLVE and genres can do the same.

So we agree there's an influence, but we most certainly don't agree that influence is as simplistic as you make it seem.

There are exceptions of course, you can re-train yourself. I'm trying to train myself to enjoy FPP dungeon crawlers like Lands of Lore. In general though when I see comments like "OMG RPGs ARE DEAD" I tend to immediately classify the person saying that as someone with one idea of what an RPG is that was probably decided a long time ago.

I find myself disagreeing that it has do with willful "training" - as much as it has to do with naturally or randomly evolving or changing.

These things are not static or as simple as you seem to believe. That's my opinion, though.

It's also about mood or "where you are" at the point of playing. You can start enjoying something you used to hate simply by being in the correct mood - or because you've been inspired recently. In that way, I think our past is much less a chain around our angles than you seem to think.

I can't "train" myself to enjoy things like you seem to be able to do. I can only hope to enjoy that which I'm playing - and I find it changes all the time.

But there are certain core features that I will always love - like exploration and strong immersion. Those things have less to do with "gaming conditioning" and more to do with my basic personality.

In fact, I think most of these "core markers of fascination" are pretty universal. As such, I think all people are fascinated by it - when presented in the right way, at the right time. So sometimes our past can make us rigid and prevent us from trying new things. In that way, I suppose we agree - partially.

And then I rambled on and brought greater sociology into it… that your personality is largely decided by societal interaction in my opinion, and that includes why you play games and what games you like. That's really a much grander and more abstract point though.

Indeed.

Anyway, I've rambled a lot. I enjoy thinking about this kind of stuff and talking about it. I find the idea that someone decides which games they like based purely on objective quality to be quite silly. There is no objective quality in games. Every game you like someone hates. Every game you hate someone loves.

We can agree on that, but unlike you - I don't really think anyone here is that deluded. There is no such thing as quantifiable objective quality when it comes to entertainment.

DoctorNarrative

April 13th, 2011, 14:16

Who, in their right mind, would deny that your past is a strong influence on your present?

The point is that because you liked something in the past, it doesn't necessarily translate into liking it in the future. So while the influence is there, it can also be the opposite effect - in that you EVOLVE and genres can do the same.

So we agree there's an influence, but we most certainly don't agree that influence is as simplistic as you make it seem.

I don't think I mean to make it sound simplistic. I think we pretty much agree entirely, only my expression and your comprehension are not synching. Probably the same thing with JD.

In any case the point is X likes Y for reasons more than just "it's a good game." When people start threads like this I don't think "yeah, RPGs suck now," I think "what makes this person think RPGs suck now?"

DArtagnan

April 13th, 2011, 14:29

I don't think I mean to make it sound simplistic. I think we pretty much agree entirely, only my expression and your comprehension are not synching. Probably the same thing with JD.

In any case the point is X likes Y for reasons more than just "it's a good game." When people start threads like this I don't think "yeah, RPGs suck now," I think "what makes this person think RPGs suck now?"

Well, for my part - I don't think CRPGs objectively suck now - but that they're objectively very different now.

As for whether that's good or bad, that's the subjective part.

I think it makes sense to debate why we think the new CRPGs "suck" - because I actually do believe that there are casual/new gamers out there who simply haven't been exposed to certain features and certain gameplay paradigms - and I actually believe that, regardless of any prior conditioning, there is a good chance many "new" gamers can come to GREATLY appreciate "old" paradigms.

Not old games, as such, but new games that re-employ old strong ideas - rather than these streamlined experience driven games.

I have no interest in forcing game designs on anyone, but simply to expose them to them - and through that, explore how we can all come to appreciate where things were and where they are.

To test, in a way, whether there really ARE designs or approaches that are "universally appealing", if you take my meaning.

I think there are, and I think a much better merger of the old and the new can exist in the future - should we wish to try.

JDR13

April 13th, 2011, 16:53

blatantninja

April 13th, 2011, 17:17

I bought a 486 dx 66 with 4m of ram and 1/2 m video card for ulitma5 i do believe it might have been a different game in 90. It cost me almost 4000.00.

The likely would have been Ultima VI. The requirements for Ultima V weren't that great for a 1990 PC. Ultimat VI though brought my 286 to its knees and I had to beg my father to buy us a 386 just so we could get the game to play! We actually were even able to play Ultima VII on that PC (with a new video card IIRC), but it had some issues. There was a bug in U7 near the telescope in the Lyceum IIRC that on most 386's, totally locked the game up. And you had to use the telescope to go forward in the game. Ended up not finishing U7 until the next year in college when I bought a 486SX.

Relayer

April 13th, 2011, 17:57

Yeah, it's a fact, but it's a false one. Graphics have always been a big deal in RPGs. Not as big as in first person shooters but not far behind.

That doesn't even make sense. A false fact?

I didn't say graphics were never big, my point is graphics were never the main focus AT THE EXPENSE of gameplay.

The problem these days is that graphics have become so advanced that it just takes a hell of a lot more time and resources than it used to. Time that could be spent more on the gameplay elements like A.I., puzzles, more organic and involving quests, less linear structure.

And my point wasn't just graphics themselves but overall presentation: In-game graphics + cut-scenes + voice acting + sound effects.

It's gotten to the point where games take too long and cost too much to make. And I feel it doesn't need to be that way for RPGs which always seemed to appeal to gamers more on a cerebral than a visceral level.

I care more about stats, character systems and gameplay than I do about real-time shadows, "60FPS" or whether Patrick Stewart is voicing a character.

And what happened to isometric 2D/3D games? I'd gladly play a game using the TOEE engine or something similar. Not every RPG has to mimic an FPS or be real time action for that matter - I want TB games!!!

It just seems like RPGs have suffered the most in the modernization of games. Platformers, action games and FPS games haven't changed a whole lot but RPGs have gotten simpler and simpler as time goes by and are emulating action/shooters more than ever, it seems.

Relayer

April 13th, 2011, 18:07

And I must add: it's NOT that I'm afraid of change or hate other genres.

Like I said, I disliked ME but eventually warmed up to it. I finished it only because I'd gotten ME2 as a present though, I found it boring. But I absolutely had a blast with ME2.

YES, it was further streamlined from ME but it actually helped the game. Did it become the RPG I've been waiting years for? Nope, it felt more like an action game than the first one did but guess what? It WAS FUN.

And approaching Oblivion as an action/adventure with light RPG elements or as a medieval GTA after all these years, and playing it on the 360, I'm actually enjoying it. Not LOVING it, not even close, but it's mildly enjoyable. Hell, maybe I still do hate it deep down, but it's enjoyable for a few minutes at a time. And I certainly changed my mind about Fallout 3 recently as well.

So again, I welcome change and not every RPG has to follow the same formula, but it would be nice if there was still room for classic style RPGs, with TB combat, lots of stats and optional quests, and little to no handholding. I want that sense of discovery and wonder that is missing in so many RPGs these days.

DArtagnan

April 13th, 2011, 18:10

Video games are not art, and yes, there are objectively good and bad games. Although I could have said subjective and my point would have been the same.

You're kidding, right?

What games are objectively good?

Alrik Fassbauer

April 13th, 2011, 18:10

I didn't say graphics were never big, my point is graphics were never the main focus AT THE EXPENSE of gameplay.

The problem these days is that graphics have become so advanced that it just takes a hell of a lot more time and resources than it used to.

[...]

It's gotten to the point where games take too long and cost too much to make. And I feel it doesn't need to be that way for RPGs which always seemed to appeal to gamers more on a cerebral than a visceral level.

[...]

It just seems like RPGs have suffered the most in the modernization of games. Platformers, action games and FPS games haven't changed a whole lot but RPGs have gotten simpler and simpler as time goes by and are emulating action/shooters more than ever, it seems.

I agree very much. I think you've hit the point quite good.

Look at it like a set of scales :
On the one side there's graphics ...
On the other side there's gameplay ...

dteowner

April 13th, 2011, 18:50

You're kidding, right?

What games are objectively good?Ones that run. Objectively bad ones are games that have game-breaking bugs. Ha! It's a simple yes/no question with easily quantifiable criteria. That's objective, mister. Ha!

Let's not mire the discussion in philosophical pontificating, eh?

DArtagnan

April 13th, 2011, 18:53

Ones that run. Objectively bad ones are games that have game-breaking bugs. Ha! It's a simple yes/no question with easily quantifiable criteria. That's objective, mister. Ha!

Let's not mire the discussion in philosophical pontificating, eh?

Don't ruin my entertainment!

I was really looking forward to hearing JDR explain why the games he likes are objectively good and those he doesn't, aren't ;)

JDR13

April 13th, 2011, 18:56

You're kidding, right?

What games are objectively good?

So System Shock isn't objectively better that Dungeon Lords?
You can't tell me that some games aren't developed better than others.

Do me a favor and spare us your usual semantics. It's a simple yes or no answer.

DArtagnan

April 13th, 2011, 18:59

So System Shock isn't objectively better that Dungeon Lords?
You can't tell me that some games aren't developed better than others.

Do me a favor and spare us your usual semantics. It's a simple yes or no answer.

Of course it's not objectively better.

It's objectively different - and the rest is about personal tastes.

I can pretty much guarentee that there are people who think System Shock is a piece of shit and yet love Dungeon Lords.

Is it REALLY that hard to grasp that people have "weird" tastes, and that they're entitled?

I know you love simple answers, and I know people who love fluffy bunnies.

But we can't all have what we want in this world.

JDR13

April 13th, 2011, 19:04

It's obvious we're not talking about the same thing.

DArtagnan

April 13th, 2011, 19:05

I sure hope we're not.

JDR13

April 13th, 2011, 19:09

DoctorNarrative

April 13th, 2011, 20:12

You're referring solely to the gameplay, I'm talking about the product as a whole, as was dteowner. I tried to make that obvious in the way I stated it, but it's not a big deal.

Product as a whole? Explain.

crpgnut

April 13th, 2011, 20:19

I'm afraid JDR and Dart are going to get a divorce. They never get along :D

SAGO

April 13th, 2011, 20:36

Ones that run. Objectively bad ones are games that have game-breaking bugs. Ha! It's a simple yes/no question with easily quantifiable criteria. That's objective, mister. Ha!

Let's not mire the discussion in philosophical pontificating, eh?

even that is subjective

some players will claim kotor2 to be a great game despite game breaking bugs and cut content (common obsidian trademark)

Dasale

April 13th, 2011, 21:16

even that is subjective

some players will claim kotor2 to be a great game despite game breaking bugs and cut content (common obsidian trademark)

I totally agree if there's a part of clear objective values, for example I could list most modern RPG as lacking of puzzle and tricks out of fights that make you shake your brain.

Still overall it's a lot more complicated, even more for RPG that use a very complex approach of game design, and even more because there's ton of different kind of RPG. For example I'm playing Mass Effect 2 and wonder why I got from other players a so negative image of a dumbed down RPG more an interactive movie. For me it's just one of the best RPG I ever played. If it go on like that up to end, it will be a clear winner somewhere in my own top 5 RPG of all time. That's pure subjectivity. :)

DArtagnan

April 13th, 2011, 21:30

Oh I'm quite sure we're not. :)

You're referring solely to the gameplay, I'm talking about the product as a whole, as was dteowner. I tried to make that obvious in the way I stated it, but it's not a big deal.

No, I'm actually talking about the game as in the entire experience. This including the packaging and purchase - and the value for money aspect.

Since every individual is unique, each response to the experience will be unique.

This is why there is no such thing as an objectively good game - because it would require a universally agreed upon set of quality factors - that could be quantified.

Even the most universally praised games will generate a negative response in numerous people - which includes non-gamers.

You might think System Shock is a fantastic game - just as I do. But we should recognise that it has to do with our own subjective approach to it, and the experience we've had with it. There are many people who don't share our opinion and they're not wrong.

At least, it's impossible - and I do mean absolutely impossible - to prove them wrong.

I know it can be alluring to live in a world where you can pretend to know something like a game is good, for a fact, but I can't delude myself like that.

I leave such fantasies to people like you and DTE ;)

Somehow, it fits with the whole "sports" thing :p

JDR13

April 13th, 2011, 21:34

If you truly believe that then I'm not sure what to say. I certainly won't try to change your mind though. :)

DArtagnan

April 13th, 2011, 21:36

If you truly believe that then I'm not sure what to say. I certainly won't try to change your mind though. :)

Now there's a relief ;)

JDR13

April 13th, 2011, 21:40

Product as a whole? Explain.

You really need me to explain that to you?

JDR13

April 13th, 2011, 21:51

Now there's a relief ;)

I'd guess that feeling is unanimous. :biggrin:

GothicGothicness

April 13th, 2011, 22:51

Are we debating philosophy or games? I really don't know anymore.

DoctorNarrative

Are you by any chance a philosophy student?

CelticFrost

April 13th, 2011, 23:23

Metalica or Megadeath
Slayer or Behemoth
Personal taste...
But if you are into metal 90% would say they are all great bands
Ulitma games or BG
Great games...
Most would agree that have played them
And not trying to put down PS3 or Xbox but only a person that has only played RPG on those would think DA2 is a great game or maybe I am wrong.
But love reading whatever one has to say on the subject...

Thrasher

April 13th, 2011, 23:25

Well I think that it's not black and white. Some aspects of games can be objectively evaluated: i.e. it runs or doesn't run on Windows 7.

Others are subjective: some like boobies, others do not. ;)

JDR13

April 13th, 2011, 23:32

Others are subjective: some like boobies, others do not. ;)

Don't be silly, everyone likes boobies.

Nerevarine

April 13th, 2011, 23:52

I'd have to say that I disagree with the opinion that "RPGs are dead, it's just not the same anymore!" Now let me make myself clear: I'm just as frustrated as anyone else about the state of the industry and the current trends of "streamlining" (let's be honest: "dumbing down" in most cases). RPGs have long been my favorite genre, but I still enjoy a wide variety of games from different genres, and all of them have suffered from contemporary trends that have a negative effect on the quality of the games. Some genres have practically become extinct: Turn-based strategy, space-sims, stealth, etc. It is sickening to see an art-form - yes, I consider games to be a form of artistic creativity and expression - become mired in the depths of corporate decisions made by non-gamers who only want to cater to the bottom line. So yes, I can empathize with the frustrations of RPG fans like myself - and especially the older RPGers who started role-playing with The Bard's Tale and Ultima series - and I can understand why the current state of RPGs is mostly disappointing, because it is.

However, if we can just accept and move on from the fact that games like Ultima 7 are dead and gone, never to return to prominence again, I'd say that things aren't completely terrible in the RPG realm (at least from a "quality over quantity" standpoint). When I look at the past 3-5 years with an open-mind, I'd say that there have been some solid RPGs that I have greatly enjoyed. The Witcher, Fallout 3+New Vegas, Drakensang 1+2, Divinity 2, Dragon Age: Origins, Risen… This is a pretty impressive list, right? I haven't even mentioned some of the solid indie RPGs that are available, and most of the games I listed are very recent. The Witcher 2, Dead State, Risen 2, Elder Scrolls 5 (as long as they don't pull an Oblivion again ;))and Age of Decadence are also promising RPGs that are on the horizon. So RPGs are far from dead, and while it legitimately sucks that the amount of great RPGs (and also great games form other genres) have declined, there are still plenty of reasons to enjoy some of the offerings from the genre. I wish that I didn't have to be as patient in waiting for the next solid RPG to come out, and I always cringe when something like Dragon Age 2 gets released, but there's always something solid on the horizon. I'd rather take a positive look at the situation and focus on the few RPGs that are enjoyable than focus on the incredibly frustrating (and slightly depressing) fact that revolutionary games like Ultima 7 are a thing of the past.

CelticFrost

April 13th, 2011, 23:53

WOW WOW WOW so if it doesn't run on windos 7 what????
I fought using windows until there was no choice in the matter...
Call me sick call, say i like pain....I loved having to make dos boot discs and then making them again and again until i got it just right...
I hear best buy has Xbox on sale this week maybe you should get a couple and that should be the stanard if a game is any good...
And yes everyone liks boobies...even woman that is why alot of them buy new ones.

DoctorNarrative

April 14th, 2011, 04:49

You really need me to explain that to you?

I guess so, since I asked.

If you mean the graphics, sound, story and other such things that aren't specifically gameplay then I completely disagree that any of it can be objectively good.

DoctorNarrative

April 14th, 2011, 04:51

Are we debating philosophy or games? I really don't know anymore.

Are you by any chance a philosophy student?

Sociology major, graduated.

Motoki

April 14th, 2011, 05:25

Metalica or Megadeath
And not trying to put down PS3 or Xbox but only a person that has only played RPG on those would think DA2 is a great game or maybe I am wrong.
But love reading whatever one has to say on the subject…

But that isn't really the fault of the medium so much as the developers and the audience, or rather the perceived audience.

There have been some innovative console RPGs, not a ton, but a few. There also have been console ports of (imho) good RPGs like Morrowind and Dragon Age: Origins.

I'd rather take a positive look at the situation and focus on the few RPGs that are enjoyable than focus on the incredibly frustrating (and slightly depressing) fact that revolutionary games like Ultima 7 are a thing of the past.

I think the Dragon Age state of affairs opened up that old wound for me. After the excellent Ultima 7 we got Super Avatar Brothers and now years later after the excellent Dragon Age Origins we got Final Fantasy: Kirkwall.

Unsurprisingly, Electronic Arts was involved in both cases. *sigh*

The Witcher 2, Dead State, Risen 2, Elder Scrolls 5 (as long as they don't pull an Oblivion again )and Age of Decadence are also promising RPGs that are on the horizon. So RPGs are far from dead.

Oh I agree and I haven't completely lost hope, or else I wouldn't have Skyrim and the rather spendy Witcher 2 Collector's Edition on pre-order. ;)

DArtagnan

April 14th, 2011, 08:16

Well I think that it's not black and white. Some aspects of games can be objectively evaluated: i.e. it runs or doesn't run on Windows 7.

Others are subjective: some like boobies, others do not. ;)

Sure those things can be objectively measured - but even if it runs on Windows 7 can't be said to be objectively good.

If you have a Mac or you use Windows XP - it's pretty irrelevant.

So, while we must accept that nothing can ever be proven to be 100% objective - there are many things that can be measured and stated with reasonable pragmatic certainty.

But even being able to do that, doesn't give us a way of saying whether the experience as a whole is good or bad.

Because that will depend on the individual and what he or she likes.

I'm pretty shocked to find that there are still adult and otherwise intelligent people who really think that what they like/love - somehow must be "good" in any kind of objective way. It doesn't take much to realise that there are games out there most people love, but for some reason you happen to hate or dislike.

That's really all you should need to realise the point.

Dasale

April 14th, 2011, 10:25

I do agree, and that's why I feel embarrassing when on this forum some posts let think there's a sort of single blueprint for RPG.

But that doesn't mean there's no point to exchange about how good or bad is this or that RPG.

dteowner

April 14th, 2011, 17:26

Are we debating philosophy or games? I really don't know anymore.JDR used a technically inappropriate term. Everybody knew what he meant, but a few folks felt the need to roll around in some ivory tower wankery. I think we've pretty well abandoned the issue of games in favor of some in-depth navel watching. ;)

JDR13

April 14th, 2011, 18:28

Some people will just insist that everything is subjective, usually because it's the simple solution.

I could insist that sex is only "subjectively" better than stabbing myself with an icepick, or that someone claiming filet mignon taste better than moldy bread is only being subjective. After awhile it just gets stupid.

DArtagnan

April 14th, 2011, 19:08

Nothing is more annoying than when reality gets in the way of the simplistic mindset :)

JDR13

April 14th, 2011, 19:19

Nothing is more annoying than when reality gets in the way of the simplistic mindset :)

Or vice versa.

dteowner

April 14th, 2011, 20:17

Nothing is more annoying than when reality gets in the way of the simplistic mindset :)Actually, I'd say completely derailing a discussion purely for obnoxious and pointless pedantry might be more annoying, but that's really a subjective ranking.

TheMadGamer

April 14th, 2011, 20:34

I'm not going to add anything other than I just disagree! :P

Zaleukos

April 14th, 2011, 20:56

I tend to disagree. I still listen to a lot of 80s music because, well, I was a teenager in the 80s and I'm connected to the music of that time because I was going through puberty and whatnot. Because of that connection, I still find the music of the 80s as enjoyable as any contemporary tunes that I might like today.

I still enjoy some old titles, and I dont think that age disqualifies something from being very good (listening to Mozart and 80s metal myself). I do think it is nostalgia to claim that the state of computer RPGs was better in the 80s than today though. It would be interesting to put some of the classics through the RPG-meter that was posted on this game a few years ago, and compare to more modern titles. My guess is that the standard would be higher in factors related to dungeon design but worse in choices & consequences and NPC interaction, which often were completely absent back then. The oldest RPGs that I've played that have a "modern" feature set are probably the Ultima Underworlds and the Darksun games.

I agree with you. But to be fair, while I did come across a number of quests in Oblivion where the quest marker was your only clue as to where to go (and I agree this is not good and does reek of laziness), the vast majority of quests still had enough hints in the lore to get you where you need to go. This is why I'm a big advocate of being able to turn quest markers on and off with the UI - that way a developer is forced to take into account the possibilty that a player will play with quest markers turned off and therefore include the needed lore to get the player moving in the right direction.

No argument there:)

Well, I want to take Ultima 7 as an example.

…

I agree that Ultima 7 (and Ultima Underworld) were very competitive when it comes to a lot of features! They compare rather favourably compared to the bog standard RPG of the 2000s.

They are hardly typical of their era though. I think it is more relevant to compare the "average" high profile RPG of the early 90s with it's modern day counterpart before lamenting that period as a golden age.

Heck, in some areas (C&C and character building) the likes of casual and streamlined Kotor do better than most titles from that period…

DArtagnan

April 14th, 2011, 21:00

Actually, I'd say completely derailing a discussion purely for obnoxious and pointless pedantry might be more annoying, but that's really a subjective ranking.

You say potato....

ChienAboyeur

April 14th, 2011, 21:06

The whole "what defines an RPG" argument is long and involved, I don't think anyone has a real answer. That's even more decided by experience if you ask me, since it's likely the previous games you played that identified themselves as "RPGs" would define what you consider an "RPG."

I personally think of choice and consequence when I think of "RPG." You roleplay a character you design and make choices based on that character's personality, which then have effects and consequences in the game world. To other people though RPG just means stats, or means a videogame version of pen and paper RPGs, or whatever else. I would bet after Oblivion there are a large number of youngsters who identify an RPG around exploration.

A real answer? Technical details can be discussed endlessly but the bulk of it is determined.

For some people, walking means walking, for some other, walking means running, and other, it means crawling. It is all about moving, displacement.

You wont get far with this line of reasoning, when stuff is open to redefining at whims of people.

Do you even acknowledge that different genres exist? DA2 is a space sim. There is space to explore and sim of moving around.

Certain games/players put the emphasis on certain characteristics used to characterize the genre. Often by personal tastes. Some prefer the stats side, other the combat angle, the exploration etc…

DA2 is the natural evolution of a beat'em up. Save you consider beat'em up to be RPG…

As to Oblivion, the game was pretty weak in terms of RPG elements. Actually, to play the game as an RPG, one needs to know how to play an RPGame. It would not be surprising if indeed people who started with this game have a blurry vision of what a RPGame is as Oblivion was blurry in that regard itself.

ChienAboyeur

April 14th, 2011, 21:11

My guess is that the standard would be higher in factors related to dungeon design but worse in choices & consequences and NPC interaction, which often were completely absent back then. The oldest RPGs that I've played that have a "modern" feature set are probably the Ultima Underworlds and the Darksun games.

Knowledge is an accumulative process. Comparing 10 years old games to nowadays has to be trimmed of generic improvements of video gaming as a whole.

This approach leads to the acknowledgement that RPG features have been diluted over time.

DArtagnan

April 14th, 2011, 21:17

A real answer? Technical details can be discussed endlessly but the bulk of it is determined.

For some people, walking means walking, for some other, walking means running, and other, it means crawling. It is all about moving, displacement.

You wont get far with this line of reasoning, when stuff is open to redefining at whims of people.

Do you even acknowledge that different genres exist? DA2 is a space sim. There is space to explore and sim of moving around.

Certain games/players put the emphasis on certain characteristics used to characterize the genre. Often by personal tastes. Some prefer the stats side, other the combat angle, the exploration etc…

DA2 is the natural evolution of a beat'em up. Save you consider beat'em up to be RPG…

People can shout at each other all day long about what makes an RPG - and each believing they know some kind of wholesome definition - and yet they can't agree. They've never been able to agree.

Same with what makes a classic game or a great game.

We can't ever agree, and we all know it.

Still, we have people pretending to know what's objectively great - though it's staring them right in the face that they can't get all others to agree.

If that's not ignorance or denial, I don't know what is.

It's certainly arrogant in the extreme.

When EVERYONE agrees, then maybe we can call it objective truth - for pragmatic reasons.

As JDR pointed out, it's "stupid" to consider sex worse than backstabbing - and he's right to the extent that I think we'd all agree that sex is preferable (unless it's REALLY bad sex) - but that's not the common kind of argument, is it.

This is about games and objectively good games simply don't exist. Unless someone can point out a single game and prove that every single being in existence agrees that it's good.

For pragmatic reasons, we could agree that as long as 99% thinks it's good - it's good - but it wouldn't be objective. I doubt anyone here could find such a game - so even that is useless.

It's about accepting the utterly obvious truth and shedding your own delusional state of arrogance. As shocking as it is, there is not a single game anyone has ever tried that he'll find everyone will agree about.

Isn't it interesting that people who claim there are objectively great games fail to mention a single example?

That's because they know every single example will be shot down immediately. They have to make it fuzzy by making a comparison between two extremes.

I'd still LOVE to hear an example of an objectively good computer game - or an objectively good movie.

Anyone?

Thrasher

April 14th, 2011, 21:18

Sure those things can be objectively measured - but even if it runs on Windows 7 can't be said to be objectively good.

It certainly can. If a game runs on the most common platform, then in general its better for more people. If you don't have a Windows machine it may not be good for you, but I think we are talking in the large here, not just about yours or someone else's individual personal preferences.

There will always be someone who disagrees with norm, even if facts show that that person is wrong.

DArtagnan

April 14th, 2011, 21:22

It certainly can. If a game runs on the most common platform, then in general its better for me people. If you don't have a Windows machine it may not be good for you, but I think we are talking in the large here, not just about yours or someone else's individual personal preferences.

So you're saying some people aren't selfish and that there are not people who don't give a shit about whether a game runs on a specific platform?

Have you ever visited a site with PS3 and Xbox 360 users? You'd be surprised how much some people invest in games being exclusive for their own platform.

There are people out there who refuse to switch to Windows 7 because they don't like how Microsoft operates. Everything that promotes Windows 7 as a platform will seem like a bad thing to them.

There will always be someone who disagrees with norm, even if facts show that that person is wrong.

Yup, like people who think games can be objectively good.

Zaleukos

April 14th, 2011, 21:54

Knowledge is an accumulative process. Comparing 10 years old games to nowadays has to be trimmed of generic improvements of video gaming as a whole.

This approach leads to the acknowledgement that RPG features have been diluted over time.

I agree about the bolded part. Sometimes the improvements simply make for a better game though.

Icewind Dale was a goldbox game on steroids and clearly a better game (whether it was a better game for it's time is irrelevant by comparison). Drakensang was a better game than the old DSA games due to streamlining (more rational interface, less tedium with broken weapons, removal of the many unexplained and useless spells), added features, and more direct PC-world interaction. Etc...

By this I dont mean that newer always is better, but to some extent the newer titles build on experience from past successes and mistakes in that additive manner, and the genre is still a bit too young for the stagnation that comes with maturity.

Thrasher

April 14th, 2011, 21:54

So you're saying some people aren't selfish and that there are not people who don't give a shit about whether a game runs on a specific platform?

No, That is a strawman argument. I am talking in the large, about averages not individuals. As is everyone else here. There will always be people with different opinions. It doesn't automatically make everything subjective though.

DArtagnan

April 14th, 2011, 22:02

No, That is a strawman argument. I am talking in the large, about averages not individuals. As is everyone else here. There will always be people with different opinions. It doesn't automatically make everything subjective though.

No, it's a question based on what you seemed to say. A strawman would be without the question.

Unless you profoundly misunderstand the word "objective" - you won't be using averages when talking about what's objective.

What's objective is something that is completely independent from thought or personal opinion. It's "truth" if such a thing even exists.

So, when the average opinion is that a game is good, it's a COMPLETELY different thing.

Quite simply, for a game to be objectively good - we must all be able to see it and agree.

Using your approach to the concept, we might as well call Oblivion an objectively good game - and I hope we're not going there :)

Thrasher

April 14th, 2011, 22:28

My argument is that because a few kooks think the world is flat doesn't make the flatness of the Earth suddenly opinion.

The same argument can be said about the goodness of games.

DoctorNarrative

April 14th, 2011, 23:25

There will always be people with different opinions. It doesn't automatically make everything subjective though.

Actually that is exactly what makes all media quality subjective.

There is a difference between judging a piece of art and judging something that can be quantified or agreed upon in consensus. 10 is factually a larger number than 9. Bees produce honey, it's a fact. Ultima VII being "good" is not a fact.

Media is completely subjective. As Dart said there is no movie, album, book or game in this entire world that has a consensus about it. Your favorite game is hated by many, many people and completely ignored by many more. Art can never be objective, ever.

My argument is that because a few kooks think the world is flat doesn't make the flatness of the Earth suddenly opinion.

The same argument can be said about the goodness of games.

No it can't, since they are vastly different things (science fact that can be tested and observed versus art appreciation).

DeepO

April 14th, 2011, 23:26

The same argument can be said about the goodness of games.
It can´t, unless you assign "goodness" or "badness" solely bias-independent properties.
Otherwise "objectively good" is a logical nonsense ("objectively" has to be opinion independent, but "good" isn´t, thus when put together one nullifies the other).

Couchpotato

April 15th, 2011, 03:11

A Little off topic but one reason is this read the article-http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/04/the-incredible-shrinking-game-the-truth-of-game-length-in-the-modern-industry.ars

Thrasher

April 15th, 2011, 04:21

Aspects of a game can evaluated objectively, certainly. And if those aspects are so overwhelming bad or good, I think that takes precedence over the subjective qualitites.

CelticFrost

April 15th, 2011, 04:42

That is not off little off topic…that is what is happening to RPG,….for the simple moron with a pocket full of change from mommy and daddy..

DArtagnan

April 15th, 2011, 08:03

Aspects of a game can evaluated objectively, certainly. And if those aspects are so overwhelming bad or good, I think that takes precedence over the subjective qualitites.

You don't seem to understand that we're not talking about individual aspects, but about the game as a whole.

Even if we WERE talking about individual aspects, you'd find that the combination of "seemingly good" aspects - like great graphics and sound - don't necessarily combine into something good, because there is a connection between them that also has to be good. Beyond that, there is no such thing as objectively good graphics - though I concede there are cases where the vast majority agree. I've yet to hear anyone say Crysis (on max) is an ugly game - and yet I'm 100% convinced there are people out there who'd say so. Unfortunately, even though most agree it's beautiful - most don't agree it's a good game - because it's an entire experience, and not just graphics.

Some people care about story, so the story has to be good - in that they have to THINK it's good. Some people found the story in Dragon Age great, others found it crappy. Some people care about combat - so the combat has to be good to them. Some people found combat in The Witcher good, others found it horrible.

You'll never find a game that everyone agrees is good. If you really think there are thousands of "kooks" for each game that is otherwise universally praised, then I have to say you're being incredibly arrogant. What entitles you to objectively claim people are "kooks" for not agreeing with the masses?

Funny thing, is that I bet there are cases where YOU disagree with the masses - and that makes you a "kook", right?

Dasale

April 15th, 2011, 09:18

…
Still, we have people pretending to know what's objectively great - though it's staring them right in the face that they can't get all others to agree.

If that's not ignorance or denial, I don't know what is.

It's certainly arrogant in the extreme.
….
There are multiple factor that are leading anybody in this direction and to such conclusion even knowing the relativity of what makes a game good or not, for example:

Community: Your opinion is close to the community so you feel you are right, your feeling gain some objective quality.
Experience: You have played so many games of a genre that you feel it gives you a better background to evaluate the game, which is right, and conclude your opinion is more objective, which is less right.
You analyze in deep the game: You don't stick to a general feeling you get from a game and put effort into analyzing it: This process give you the feeling to go above the subjectivity, sort of objectivity. In part it's certainly right, but often the process will be, what are the details or evidence to justify my overall feeling.
This list could be extended.

Nerevarine

April 15th, 2011, 10:18

Well, this thread has veered ridiculously off-topic, but I will jump in anyway ;) I personally feel that judging whether or not a game is good is subjective in the majority of cases. Alpha Protocol is a recent example that comes to mind; this is a game that has received very mediocre critical and user scores, but I personally feel that it is a good game. Does that make me wrong? Does it mean that I'm right and the rest of the world is "ignorant" as to what makes a game "good?" All it means is that for some reason, Alpha Protocol possessed certain elements that appealed to me and therefore made the experience enjoyable in relation to my own subjective tastes, likes, and dislikes. So yes, I think that judging on an extremely basic level of whether a game is simply "good" or not is subjective. The only time that objective results can be gained in this regard is when a game is so completely terrible and broken that it is practically unplayable or un-enjoyable.

ChienAboyeur

April 15th, 2011, 20:59

The veering maybe exhibits the issue: it is all about liking or not liking.

It is all about tastes.

What have tastes to do with characterizing RPG as a genre? Nothing.
There were good, bad RP games based on the subjectivy of people, on their tastes.

From that point, people jump to the conclusion that RPGaming as a genre can not be characterized, it is all about subjectivity.

The thread was not about good/bad games but the characteristics of RPG as a genre have been diluted or removed while maintaining the same label.
It was unnecessary as DA2 had already a characterization as a genre, beat'em all, hack and slash...
If a movie director decides one day to scrap the cameras and to get the actors playing live on a stage before an audience, the term theatre suits perfectly well the activity he will engage in. No needs to call it cinema.

ChienAboyeur

April 15th, 2011, 21:03

I agree about the bolded part. Sometimes the improvements simply make for a better game though.

I meant the generic improvements like graphics, the access to modding, larger maps and all.

They have to be removed from any assessment. With IP ruling on, updating a game with current technologies is nearly impossible. So it is easy to shield behind generic improvements to claim that today's games are better than yesterday's games.

Thrasher

April 15th, 2011, 21:32

You don't seem to understand that we're not talking about individual aspects, but about the game as a whole.

On the contrary, you fail to understand that there are objective aspects the can overwhelm any other aspect of a game. For example, at release POR2:RoMD would erase your hard drive after uninstalling. I doubt anyone would call it a good game "as a whole", when it destroys your system. After it became patched, it was a good game again.

DArtagnan

April 15th, 2011, 21:37

On the contrary, you fail to understand that there are objective aspects the can overwhelm any other aspect of a game. For example, at release POR2:RoMD would erase your hard drive after uninstalling. I doubt anyone would that is a good game "as a whole", when it destroys your system. After it became patched, it was a good game again.

What?

That would depend on where you installed it - and some people were well aware of the issue. Besides, uninstalling the game with a failure doesn't mean the experience of the game as a whole is bad.

Personally, if I played a good game - it would make absolutely zero difference if there was a bug that erased data. The game would still be good.

So, you'll have to come up with another example.

I promise you, you'll fail again and again, until you finally realise that your opinion remains just that.

Thrasher

April 15th, 2011, 21:42

I don't believe you. Sorry. You would not play a good game if it erased your hard drive. You're being ridiculous now, and just arguing for the sake of arguing...

DArtagnan

April 15th, 2011, 22:25

I don't believe you. Sorry. You would not play a good game if it erased your hard drive. You're being ridiculous now, and just arguing for the sake of arguing…

It's not about whether I would play it or not, it's about whether the game is objectively bad.

As I said, PoR didn't erase your harddrive unless you installed it in a certain way - and you could get around that.

You're confusing a faulty uninstall routine with the game as a whole.

But if you can't accept that there are people who considered PoR a good game, even upon release - then there's nothing more to say.

That said, even whether the bugged uninstall routine ruins the whole game or not is subjective. I don't think the two are inseparable - but you do. That's just another demonstration of why it's impossible to determine.

Thrasher

April 15th, 2011, 22:52

You're confusing a faulty uninstall routine with the game as a whole.

The uninstall game IS part of the whole game. You're not making sense. A game as a whole is ojecitvely bad if if destroys your ahrd drive. Period. If you can't see that, then it's pointless to continue.

Again, I think yourare arguing just for the sake of argusing, and just won;t admit being wrong, when it's clear you've lost. Be a man. ;)

But if you can't accept that there are people who considered PoR a good game, even upon release - then there's nothing more to say.

BTW, I can accept the existence of a lot of idiots in the world. I see them everyday. ;) It doesn't make facts suddenly subjective because they hold wrong opinions.

Captain Buzzkill

April 15th, 2011, 23:25

I really enjoy bacon.

Nerevarine

April 15th, 2011, 23:48

I really enjoy bacon.

Wrong! You cannot say that you objectively enjoy bacon; your enjoyment of bacon is purely subjective based on what appeals to you and what you personally enjoy from pork-related products ;)

Captain Buzzkill

April 15th, 2011, 23:49

I'm pretty sure that the love of bacon, like boobies, is universal. I think I have some data that proves it, but it's washed out by bacon grease.

Nerevarine

April 15th, 2011, 23:54

I'm pretty sure that the love of bacon, like boobies, is universal. I think I have some data that proves it, but it's washed out by bacon grease.

Indeed, I just thought I'd continue the tone of this never-ending, looping in circles debate about objectivity-subjectivity ;)

Captain Buzzkill

April 16th, 2011, 00:01

Then, I submit my reply in typical American fashion: If you don't like bacon, then you're probably a turrirrist.

DArtagnan

April 16th, 2011, 07:42

The uninstall game IS part of the whole game. You're not making sense. A game as a whole is ojecitvely bad if if destroys your ahrd drive. Period. If you can't see that, then it's pointless to continue.

Again, I think yourare arguing just for the sake of argusing, and just won;t admit being wrong, when it's clear you've lost. Be a man. ;)

You have absolutely no argument except YOU think it's objectively bad as a whole, because of the bugged uninstall routine - and it's clear not everyone does.

As for being a man, I think you've got that covered for both of us. I can think of few things more manly than insisting upon ignorance and expecting another to to join in and pretend you're somehow right, when you're so obviously wrong.

BTW, I can accept the existence of a lot of idiots in the world. I see them everyday. ;) It doesn't make facts suddenly subjective because they hold wrong opinions.

Not that it wasn't clear already, but thanks for making it extra obvious how arrogant you are about this - and how weak your point is ;)

You're not making much of an impression - but at least it's fun.

Dasale

April 16th, 2011, 09:06

You have absolutely no argument except YOU think it's objectively bad as a whole, because of the bugged uninstall routine - and it's clear not everyone does.
Your answers are only about a global judgment of the game, when Trasher is persistently answering you about isolated elements.

Put some synchronization in your exchange, that will perhaps make this garbage a little bit more interesting to read. :p

Thrasher

April 16th, 2011, 10:43

You have absolutely no argument except YOU think it's objectively bad as a whole, because of the bugged uninstall routine - and it's clear not everyone does.

So, let's just make this clear. If a game unequivocably destroys your hardrive contents, then I think it's objectively bad. POR2 is not such a game. But if such a game exists, you don't think it would be objectively bad?

JDR13

April 16th, 2011, 11:16

Dasale

April 16th, 2011, 11:56

Woo I won't even struggle with that, I'm like the musketeer I just think unbelievable you can't understand the relativity of a global opinion on a game.

Ha well I believed there was some misunderstanding on the subject because some posts was very unclear about that, but ok there's probably no confusion that it's only about a general opinion on a game not about precise elements. But no I won't argue about that, too obvious for me.

EDIT: Well I'll argue a little bit anyway. A suggestion try think it differently. If I ask you compare 3 apple with one pen, what you say? For me your posts mean you have an objective universal answer to that.

You don't see the link? Ok then compare 1 apple and 2 pen with 3 apple and 1 pen. Again for me your posts mean you have an objective universal answer to that. And for me that makes no sense.

SirJames

April 16th, 2011, 13:54

I'd like to see a modern attempt at a game like Arcanum, Fallout, Divine Divinty, Baldurs Gate.

More 2D isometric games with beautiful sprite art!!

That said, after finishing UFO:aftershock im playing UFO:afterlight and its awesome. Its got everything you need in a game. Its all the RPG I need! It fills the void left by games like Syndicate, for me. I imagine this is what syndicate 4 would play like.

I've never found a game where I got lost in the story. Try a book. Read Dune? That one took me away and I didn't want to come back.

DoctorNarrative

April 16th, 2011, 14:07

There is no doubt you can objectively say some games are better than others if you're talking about the entire product.

By "product" I mean the game, bugs/glitches, packaging, hardware compatibility, DRM, technical support, etc, all taken into consideration.

There is plenty of doubt, and you and Thrashers continued insistence otherwise is truly baffling. No game in this world is objectively good or bad. It has never existed, it will never exist, for all time. Every game you consider bad someone likes. Every game you consider good someone hates.

Talking about the "product as a whole" does not change that. DRM, a broken installer, a bug, whatever... despite these things there are still people who will love that product, without question. I do not see how you can ignore the simple truth that media is all subjective in quality, without question.

CelticFrost

April 16th, 2011, 15:41

There is a butcher down the street that makes the best bacon ever

JDR13

April 16th, 2011, 18:28

There is plenty of doubt, and you and Thrashers continued insistence otherwise is truly baffling. No game in this world is objectively good or bad. It has never existed, it will never exist, for all time. Every game you consider bad someone likes. Every game you consider good someone hates.

Talking about the "product as a whole" does not change that. DRM, a broken installer, a bug, whatever… despite these things there are still people who will love that product, without question. I do not see how you can ignore the simple truth that media is all subjective in quality, without question.

You're either not getting what I'm saying, or you're the one who is ignoring the truths here.

I'm not saying those things make the game good or bad, because I'm not talking about just the game, I'm talking about the product. No matter how you rate the product, the actual game itself is still subjective. There have been plenty of games that were objectively poor products, yet were subjectively great to me. (i.e. VTM: Bloodlines) You need to make the distinction between the media and the product.

skavenhorde

April 16th, 2011, 19:34

No game in this world is objectively good or bad. It has never existed, it will never exist, for all time. Every game you consider bad someone likes. Every game you consider good someone hates.

You've never played E.T. : The Extra-Terrestial for the Atari. If anything could be considered objectively bad that would be it. ;)

Just kidding, I'm sure there are some sadomasochists out there somewhere who enjoyed that game.

Corwin

April 17th, 2011, 00:13

Hey, I've even heard of some people who claim they liked Dungeon Lords!! :)

DoctorNarrative

April 17th, 2011, 03:18

I'm not saying those things make the game good or bad, because I'm not talking about just the game, I'm talking about the product. No matter how you rate the product, the actual game itself is still subjective. There have been plenty of games that were objectively poor products, yet were subjectively great to me. (i.e. VTM: Bloodlines) You need to make the distinction between the media and the product.

I suppose you could say a flaw itself is objectively bad, like the uninstall error previously mentioned. You said product as a whole before though, which includes gameplay and story elements which can make up for those flaws. The subjectivity arises when you factor in different people's responses to the objective issues.

In any case this thread is lowering my enjoyment level of RPGWatch at the moment, so I'm gonna let 'er go ;)