So we have a new open world kind of game, SoulKeeper.

[bjornk]

Game in subject will also have predefined PC ...

as i understand the definition it talks about "acting role" not jobs/proffesions.

In an acting role, you are bound by the script and the definition of the character you play. You have to pretend that you are someone else and act exactly the way the character would act. If I am to follow a certain script and be forced to act like someone else then it is not a game, it's either a play or a movie.

 

In a RPG, you are neither bound by a script nor by a precise definition of your character, you play as yourself, but you choose the position/profession you want to play as, such as "I'm going to be a wizard, or a barbarian" and then create and develop a character accordingly.

 

A cRPG is basically made of two things:

 

1. Character creation (may or may not include the design of physical appearance)

2. Character development

 

Story and all other stuff are optional and may or may not add to the experience. If simply assuming a role, and the popular buzzword some RPG devs love to use, "choice and consequence" could make an RPG, then we'd have to consider chess as one of the greatest RPGs, as it has both of them.

[TheLordofMist]

 

Game in subject will also have predefined PC ...

as i understand the definition it talks about "acting role" not jobs/proffesions.

In an acting role, you are bound by the script and the definition of the character you play. You have to pretend that you are someone else and act exactly the way the character would act. If I am to follow a certain script and be forced to act like someone else then it is not a game, it's either a play or a movie.

 

In a RPG, you are neither bound by a script nor by a precise definition of your character, you play as yourself, but you choose the position/profession you want to play as, such as "I'm going to be a wizard, or a barbarian" and then create and develop a character accordingly.

 

A cRPG is basically made of two things:

 

1. Character creation (may or may not include the design of physical appearance)

2. Character development

 

Story and all other stuff are optional and may or may not add to the experience. If simply assuming a role, and the popular buzzword some RPG devs love to use, "choice and consequence" could make an RPG, then we'd have to consider chess as one of the greatest RPGs, as it has both of them.

 

 

In a -certain type- of RPG, you are neither bound by script nor a precise character. But those things are not definitive of what an RPG is or is not any more than the idiocy of that Wiki article. Genres are not hard definitions, they're loose associations of similar content... and the only people who will tell you otherwise are the "hardcore" genre-snobs of any given denomination who love nothing more than to fight for the 'purity' of the species. There's a long and storied history of RPGs in which the character is one the player simply 'steps into the shoes of', and they are every bit as much a part of the landscape of the 'genre' as those games in which sandboxy goodness and character customization reign supreme.

 

And that's a GOOD thing. It means everyone gets to play the kinds of games they like. Some people like to play through a story, one in which their actions have a direct and measurable effect on the world... albeit pre-defined. Other people like to play through THEIR OWN story using the game as a medium in which to roleplay. Neither player is wrong. Neither of the game is NOT an RPG.

 

Normally, I would just stay out of these kinds of things... but I really think that this game looks pretty cool. I hope it's good, because it has potential. It's not Skyrim, and it's not The Witcher. It's its own thing, and they're not so wrapped up in the idea of 'adhering to convention' that they can't think outside the box.

 

Frankly, I'm glad nobody in this little fued is a developer... it means I don't have to deal with the disappointment of buying a game only to have someone developer's video-game ideology rammed down my throat for the sake of winning an internet pissing-contest.

[Guest endgameaddiction]

Oh, I'm certain even developers have their point of views. They don't ventilate because they maintain that professionalism towards the public. But I'm more than certain they do vent about how RPG should be. Otherwise there wouldn't be a multitude of RPGs interpreted in many different ways. So you should be disappointed because everyone has voices and opinions. They just discuss it differently in different places.

 

And while I may not agree with a lot of the things here, I know these are opinions. Some may try to force them down others throats, but it's just opinions. And you take that with a grain of salt.

[leddis3]

In a -certain type- of RPG, you are neither bound by script nor a precise character. But those things are not definitive of what an RPG is or is not any more than the idiocy of that Wiki article. Genres are not hard definitions, they're loose associations of similar content... and the only people who will tell you otherwise are the "hardcore" genre-snobs of any given denomination who love nothing more than to fight for the 'purity' of the species. There's a long and storied history of RPGs in which the character is one the player simply 'steps into the shoes of', and they are every bit as much a part of the landscape of the 'genre' as those games in which sandboxy goodness and character customization reign supreme.

 

It's not being a genre snob to put down some proper definitions for a role playing game, because the ones certain people are using where you "step into the shoes of a character" literally encompass every single game ever made that has a character right back to Pacman.

 

 

 

And that's a GOOD thing. It means everyone gets to play the kinds of games they like. Some people like to play through a story, one in which their actions have a direct and measurable effect on the world... albeit pre-defined. Other people like to play through THEIR OWN story using the game as a medium in which to roleplay. Neither player is wrong. Neither of the game is NOT an RPG.

 

Really? I'm not getting to play the games I like.

You know how many open world RPGs have been released since Skyrim in 2011? Fucking none.

People like me have to wait for Bethesda to deign to come down from on high and release a new game. Why do you think so many people are worried that Fallout 4 will have a set male character? The rumours are hopefully false, but the very fact that people fret over this shows what little options we have.

 

 

 

Normally, I would just stay out of these kinds of things... but I really think that this game looks pretty cool. I hope it's good, because it has potential. It's not Skyrim, and it's not The Witcher. It's its own thing, and they're not so wrapped up in the idea of 'adhering to convention' that they can't think outside the box.

 

Really. Making a game that looks exactly like Skyrim but takes away it's best feature, customisation, is "thinking outside the box"?

 

 

 

Frankly, I'm glad nobody in this little fued is a developer... it means I don't have to deal with the disappointment of buying a game only to have someone developer's video-game ideology rammed down my throat for the sake of winning an internet pissing-contest.

 

Trust me. CDPR has an ideology. One they and their fanatic supporters made abundantly clear when I dared to post on their forums a while back, and it has everything to do with ramming their vision of what we should play as down our throats.

[Coopervane]

I can only assume a lot of you have never played an RPG, as in pen & paper, as in AD&D, Shadowrun, Vampire Bloodlines and all the rest. The sheer amount of misconceptions beeing tossed around here is staggering.

 

Misconceptions like "RPG's are about the story", "There's no char-creation in pen&paper", "You can't have a character if they have a set goal".

 

 

This is how any given AD&D campaign starts (i choose AD&D because i'm familiar with it):

 

Step one: The DM gives you a vague story setup, something like "A powerful Vampire has awoken and threatens the lands, he lives in a big castle far away, you should probably go stop him". So much for great story.. no, your average D&D campaign does not have one, it's got a simple setup like this.

 

Step two: Everyone's handed a blank charater sheet to fill out, because yes, charater creation is not only present in these games, it's a massive part of it. And whilst our crew of people may be "vampire hunters", there is absolutely nothing stopping them from creating entirely unique characters. You want to be a female Paladin with a chip on her shoulder and a deathly fear of spiders? Go right ahead! You want to be a dimwitted but good natured Barbarian who fashions himself a ladies man? Nothing's stopping you! You want to be a bad-tempered Dwarf who likes to collect tea-spoons and has a strong hatred of Goblins? He's yours to make!

 

Step three: Start the adventure, and have your motley crew craft their own story as they go along. That's the game in a nutshell, it's a story that you make as you go, and which is flavoured by the personallities that make up the team.

 

That's an RPG, it is entirely about the role-playing. The starting point and destination are largely unimportant, it's all about the journey and an exploration of the characters. It's about role-playing, it's about beeing those characters, both through the mundane stuff like gathering firewood, and the exciting stuff like a sudden Kobold attack, that's the very meat and point of the game.

 

 

This is what CRPG's started out wanting to be aswell, but failed to do.

 

CRPG's as we know them got their start with 8-bit Computers and later on Consoles, they were games that had to be fitted onto a Casette-Tape or 5" Floppies, and installed on machines that had no storage or memory capacity to speak of (including machines like the Commodore-64 which did not have a harddrive). Put simply, people wanted to make an RPG for a computer, but at the time it was completely impossible due to the technology.

 

What was created out of limitation and necessity was basically an entirely different genre of game, usually a simple top-down game with only one character (because there wasen't storage capacity for any more than that) and a very simple "save the princess" or "defeat the baddie" story. The only similarity they actually had with an RPG was that there was a progression system, your char had stats, and killing enemies made them better. And this was called an "RPG", because this really was the best that could be done at the time.

 

As time went, they started adding more story to these games, the storage was now there so that they could, whereas programming a dynamic open world in which the player could make meaningful choices was still out of reach. So they became linear story-driven games, as that was the most meaningful thing that could be done with the tech (around NES and SNES era especially, and the birth of the "JRPG"). And over time, this just became tradition, it's own established genre.

 

 

Well, there's nothing wrong with the genre, there are countless great games within it, including classics like Deus-Ex which i hold very dear. But in truth, it is an entirely different genre to RPG's like AD&D, Shadowrun and so forth, and yet they are stuck with the same name. That's a bit annoying to those of us who want a classic D&D style RPG, because it makes it virtually impossible to find them, and sadly, not many of them get made in the first place since it's now ingrained tradition to make CRPG's in the linear style.

[trpd]

 

 

 

So it can never be as "real" because the voiced NPCs don't say your name? Really? That's your argument?

That's bullshit. I'll take someone calling MY CHARACTER "Inquisitor" over someone calling someone else's character their name.

Clearly you have no idea what roleplaying is.

 

.....

 

I vehemently disagree that a story driven game needs a set PC. That's just an excuse and one that threatens char creation if all developers decide to take the path of least resistance as they inevitably do.

 

 

 

Our conditions for immersion are wastly different (read about roleplaying below).

It is more then being called by name - the world reacts to your appeariance (commenting white hair, two swords, age etc), proffession (being called witcher, mutant, freak but also refering to witcher codex), gender and finally voice acting and expression fiting the character. non of this is possible if you start as blank page.

 

 

 

 

Game in subject will also have predefined PC ...
as i understand the definition it talks about "acting role" not jobs/proffesions.

In an acting role, you are bound by the script and the definition of the character you play. You have to pretend that you are someone else and act exactly the way the character would act. If I am to follow a certain script and be forced to act like someone else then it is not a game, it's either a play or a movie.

In a RPG, you are neither bound by a script nor by a precise definition of your character, you play as yourself, but you choose the position/profession you want to play as, such as "I'm going to be a wizard, or a barbarian" and then create and develop a character accordingly.

A cRPG is basically made of two things:

1. Character creation (may or may not include the design of physical appearance)
2. Character development

Story and all other stuff are optional and may or may not add to the experience. If simply assuming a role, and the popular buzzword some RPG devs love to use, "choice and consequence" could make an RPG, then we'd have to consider chess as one of the greatest RPGs, as it has both of them.

 

 

 

Really? Are you really comparing moral choices to tactical ones? By your definition MMORPGs would be all that RPGs fants need yet they arn't. Why?

Because playing a role or "acting a role" is not acting by script but rather assuming a role of certain character. The character is then defined by his :

profession - like soldier, trader ,scholar - shoud not be confused with skillset, soldier can be a warrior or archer but so does trader. Or can not have combat skills at all . Game where you would play trader that establishes his company, convinces people to his side and then uses the reasources to achive game goal would be very much rpg.

situation - what befals this person, what are his goals - why would you be interested in playing this character? because playing a random day in life of soldier on war and deciding what kind of armor and weapon should he use in upcoming battler is not what makes rpg interesting.

life environment/situation -  hard time naming this one but : how does the enviroment reacts to the person ? is he liked or not? got family? friends? do they play a role too ?

 

That is for the "role" part that you are playing. Question then how does RPG differentiate from other genres as in most games you are playing as someone? There is no definition for that but i would say : RPG focues on character, his/her story and both physical (skillz) and mental development (good evil cruel honest faithful etc.). The pantheon of RPG is when the game shows you the impact of you playing this way not the other.

 

Who prepares the role is not important. In perfect RPG it would be the player that imagines the role and the world would wrap a story around him. Obviously it is not possible. Hence what you play and how you play needs to be limited.

 

 

 

 

 

Trust me. CDPR has an ideology. One they and their fanatic supporters made abundantly clear when I dared to post on their forums a while back, and it has everything to do with ramming their vision of what we should play as down our throats.

 

 

 

They will tie you to chair, put gun to your head and force you to play?

No, it is the playerbase that decides what is popular and err brings in profit and what is not. If you lose and your game genre dies out what you are gonna do about it? Nothing , just like in real life if you lose voiting you just have to deal with it.

I can be mad all day that consoles dumbs down games and killed isometric cRPGs but there is nothing i can do about it (well kickstarter did show us some light)

 

@Coopervane - no character creation in sense of appeariance.

I agree with You.

Journey - yea its about assuming a role and embarking on journey, but its hard to use that as RPG definition

And yes term RPG is very very abused and slapped on games that has nothing more then "gain skills on level" thing.

 

[bjornk]

By your definition MMORPGs would be all that RPGs fants need yet they arn't. Why?

What makes you think that they aren't? Ever heard of WoW?

 

how does the enviroment reacts to the person ? is he liked or not? got family? friends? do they play a role too ?

And yet you think how a character looks doesn't or shouldn't have any impact in the game, despite the fact that it is a major factor in life on how people react towards each other. You also ignore the fact that your beloved witcher, Geralt keeps getting commented on his appearance in the game.

[Chbaakal]

That's an RPG, it is entirely about the role-playing. The starting point and destination are largely unimportant, it's all about the journey and an exploration of the characters. It's about role-playing, it's about beeing those characters, both through the mundane stuff like gathering firewood, and the exciting stuff like a sudden Kobold attack, that's the very meat and point of the game.

 

Exactly. I'd started playing RPG's with the first edition of Chainmail back in the early 70's:

 

 

This was all we had. A book, a pad of paper, dice, and our imagination. Very few video games ever let us truly roleplay our characters to the hilt like a good pen & paper RPG could. Try roleplaying a Barbarian with 4 Intelligence trying to 'haggle' for a loaf of bread from a merchant in TW3. I gave away sooo much valuable loot because of bad dice rolls that I think the DM cheated a few times so I could get better equipment and weapons.

 

THAT is Role Playing. Not 'lead me by the nose 'cause I'm stoopid' to a drawn out cutscene telling me, a character that doesn't even LOOK like someone I want to portray, the whole history behind the Potatoe of Everwhen so I can finally go to another cutscene showing me sail away on a boat to a far off land to find the bloody Potatoe. Does it allow for an unrelated cutscene with my character leaning over the bow throwing up, since he (OR she) gets seasick easily? can I choose the cutscene of pissing over the side, aiming for whatever floaty bit I see? Or can I knock out the guy at the big steery-wheel type thing and just go wherever the Hell I feel like, like Nasri's Naughty Palace of Babes? Hint: The Palace better have LOTS of cutscenes, BTW. And booze.

 

Fuck the Potatoe. Fuck Geralt. To Hell with being the Dragonborn. And screw your mandatory linear storylines and cutscenes. I wanna play someone I choose to play. My way. My story.

 

A real RPG!

 

[SquallPT]

Have a collection of Fighting Fantasy books.( Aventuras Fantásticas in Portugal ).

It was before i had a pc or a console. It was very cool reading the pages and choosing the paths, and fighting opponents by throwing the dice, very awesome

 

[Coopervane]

I feel you are off-base on some of that trpd.

 

 

You absolutely can make a CRPG with char-customization where people will comment on your char. It's possible to voice extra lines for both genders, for different races, for different stats and weapon loadouts, have responses trigger for differently chosen hair colours or whatever else, you can base it on a class selection system or current stats, you can even provide the player the choice of many different names to choose from and have voiced responses for the chosen name (it's not as free as letting the player choose any name, but it's certainly not as limiting as having only one).

 

The one and only thing that could stand in a developers way of doing this is their budget, as the added voice-over work would obviously come at a cost. But it is by no means impossible, and in truth, since it doesen't make sense to have every NPC you meet describe you to yourself in detail, it probably woulden't even be all that expensive as we're talking about a few key establishing lines from selected NPC's, and a good handfull of generic throwaway lines for no-name NPC's.

 

You don't need to force a prefabbed PC to have that layer of immersion, you just need better writing and some more lines recorded. Even Skyrim does have this to a (sadly) minor degree, you do run into some very different dialog if you play as Dunmer instead of a Nord for instance, or as a woman instead of a man. Infact RPG's used to do alright at this back when they were still text based, it was voice-acting that made it more difficult.

 

 

And since when was appearance not a huge part of pen&paper RPG's? Last i checked, a proper character sheet for any P&P RPG includes a large field where you are ment to either draw a picture of your character, or if you haven't the skill for that, describe the character's appearance with text.

 

Appearance is absolutely a part of these RPG's, and any DM worth his salt will also make use of this "stat" when you are interacting with NPC's (IE, a pretty elven woman will do better at a seduction attempt on a human than a stocky dwarven woman would, and a hulking barbarian will do better at an intimidation attempt than the scrawny little bard will).

 

It certainly does matter, and even things like GURPS has modules specifically dealing with appearance.

[trpd]

 

By your definition MMORPGs would be all that RPGs fants need yet they arn't. Why?

What makes you think that they aren't? Ever heard of WoW?

Because the world is persistant? You can't impact the world in any way. If you say that WoW is cRPG then throw character customization into CoD and it becomes cRPG too....

When people are roleplaying in in MMORPG they are using is as nothing more then a stage and their characters as costumes.

 

how does the enviroment reacts to the person ? is he liked or not? got family? friends? do they play a role too ?

And yet you think how a character looks doesn't or shouldn't have any impact in the game, despite the fact that it is a major factor in life on how people react towards each other. You also ignore the fact that your beloved witcher, Geralt keeps getting commented on his appearance in the game.

 

Yes character customization would be imporant if world would react to it, but it doesn't happen. Games that have customization are totaly ignorant to it and player is often threated as "it".

However if games with predefined character it does and thus they are more immersive.

 

 

 

 

That's an RPG, it is entirely about the role-playing. The starting point and destination are largely unimportant, it's all about the journey and an exploration of the characters. It's about role-playing, it's about beeing those characters, both through the mundane stuff like gathering firewood, and the exciting stuff like a sudden Kobold attack, that's the very meat and point of the game.

 

Exactly. I'd started playing RPG's with the first edition of Chainmail back in the early 70's:

 

 

This was all we had. A book, a pad of paper, dice, and our imagination. Very few video games ever let us truly roleplay our characters to the hilt like a good pen & paper RPG could. Try roleplaying a Barbarian with 4 Intelligence trying to 'haggle' for a loaf of bread from a merchant in TW3. I gave away sooo much valuable loot because of bad dice rolls that I think the DM cheated a few times so I could get better equipment and weapons.

 

THAT is Role Playing. Not 'lead me by the nose 'cause I'm stoopid' to a drawn out cutscene telling me, a character that doesn't even LOOK like someone I want to portray, the whole history behind the Potatoe of Everwhen so I can finally go to another cutscene showing me sail away on a boat to a far off land to find the bloody Potatoe. Does it allow for an unrelated cutscene with my character leaning over the bow throwing up, since he (OR she) gets seasick easily? can I choose the cutscene of pissing over the side, aiming for whatever floaty bit I see? Or can I knock out the guy at the big steery-wheel type thing and just go wherever the Hell I feel like, like Nasri's Naughty Palace of Babes? Hint: The Palace better have LOTS of cutscenes, BTW. And booze.

 

Fuck the Potatoe. Fuck Geralt. To Hell with being the Dragonborn. And screw your mandatory linear storylines and cutscenes. I wanna play someone I choose to play. My way. My story.

 

A real RPG!

 

 

 

Would need AI to simulate GM and have world generate around you akin imagination. Not in this century.

 

 

@Coopervane - if your GM ask you to describe character appearance it is beacause he aims to use it during play. The point of discussion here is however that appearance cutstomization is important (essential?) for immersion.

 

Yes in theory it is possible. But in practice ? where voice acting games is must have? Nope. Like you mentioned Skyrim barely does it and the character is mute! If the character would be voiced ... x race x class x some appearance features = nope. And now consider if the game needs to be translated to language with proper verb conjugation.

As result you get threated as IT in games with customization..

[bjornk]

I think I know what's going on here. Everyone who've played TW3 becomes an authority on role-playing games and think they can redefine the genre based on what they saw in that game. Ridiculous.

[Coopervane]

@Coopervane - if your GM ask you to describe character appearance it is beacause he aims to use it during play. The point of discussion here is however that appearance cutstomization is important (essential?) for immersion.

 

Yes in theory it is possible. But in practice ? where voice acting games is must have? Nope. Like you mentioned Skyrim barely does it and the character is mute! If the character would be voiced ... x race x class x some appearance features = nope. And now consider if the game needs to be translated to language with proper verb conjugation.

As result you get threated as IT in games with customization..

 

No, your fellow player also needs to have an understanding of what your char is and looks like for the sake of role playing, so it's quite standard practice amongst P&P players to describe your appearance. I know it's possible to play without it, some people do it for the sake if getting into the game very quickly and play short pickup campaigns, but that's not the normal way to play a P&P RPG. That's basically a "house-ruled" game.

 

 

And again, we have to look at the tech and situation. The added voice work used to be a problem, because the playerbase for videogames was much smaller and the budget for their creation likewise. But now games have gone mainstream, the gaming industry is making more money than Hollywood and dealing with bigger budgets for their games aswell than Hollywood movies do. And then there's the flipside: This is a risk either way. You spend the extra on the voice work, and you may very well also sell extra copies of your game, because it's inviting to a larger audience. You don't do it and go with a canned character, you save on the VO budget, but how many sales does it cost you?

 

I am by no means alone in not buying the Witcher games because of the canned character. Amonst my little group of friends here on LL alone, more than half of them refused to buy it because of Geralt. Of course, i can't draw a meangful statistic out of a small sample size like that, nobody could, but it does make one thing very clear: You'd better belive this cost the game sales, it very much did.

 

 

And this is the side of the coin that you seem so reluctant to see. You keep talking about how having the character be established and canned is so good for the immersion, but you refuse to see how it can also completely destroy it.

 

It works if, and only if, the player can connect to that character. If the player does not, then not only do they not care about the character, they coulden't give a toss what happens to that character, they could not care less what he thinks or feels about anything or the world around him, or his actions in it, and the entire house of cards comes crumbling down, leaving that player completely disinterested. That is the death of immersion, if the player does not care and can't get invested, then it's game over man, game over!

 

 

This is the risk of the canned character that you are skirting over and choosing not to see, but i can promis you that it is very real, and it is why CDPR didn't get any of my money (well, i bought the first game in a Steam sale, so they got 3 dollars from me), and didn't get any from most people i know either.

 

 

Just like in a good RPG, actions do have consequences.

[trpd]

I think I know what's going on here. Everyone who've played TW3 becomes an authority on role-playing games and think they can redefine the genre based on what they saw in that game. Ridiculous.

Back to calling people fanboys? Want chips to go along all that salt?

 

 

 

 

@Coopervane - if your GM ask you to describe character appearance it is beacause he aims to use it during play. The point of discussion here is however that appearance cutstomization is important (essential?) for immersion.

 

Yes in theory it is possible. But in practice ? where voice acting games is must have? Nope. Like you mentioned Skyrim barely does it and the character is mute! If the character would be voiced ... x race x class x some appearance features = nope. And now consider if the game needs to be translated to language with proper verb conjugation.

As result you get threated as IT in games with customization..

 

No, your fellow player also needs to have an understanding of what your char is and looks like for the sake of role playing, so it's quite standard practice amongst P&P players to describe your appearance. I know it's possible to play without it, some people do it for the sake if getting into the game very quickly and play short pickup campaigns, but that's not the normal way to play a P&P RPG. That's basically a "house-ruled" game.

 

 

And again, we have to look at the tech and situation. The added voice work used to be a problem, because the playerbase for videogames was much smaller and the budget for their creation likewise. But now games have gone mainstream, the gaming industry is making more money than Hollywood and dealing with bigger budgets for their games aswell than Hollywood movies do. And then there's the flipside: This is a risk either way. You spend the extra on the voice work, and you may very well also sell extra copies of your game, because it's inviting to a larger audience. You don't do it and go with a canned character, you save on the VO budget, but how many sales does it cost you?

 

I am by no means alone in not buying the Witcher games because of the canned character. Amonst my little group of friends here on LL alone, more than half of them refused to buy it because of Geralt. Of course, i can't draw a meangful statistic out of a small sample size like that, nobody could, but it does make one thing very clear: You'd better belive this cost the game sales, it very much did.

 

 

And this is the side of the coin that you seem so reluctant to see. You keep talking about how having the character be established and canned is so good for the immersion, but you refuse to see how it can also completely destroy it.

 

It works if, and only if, the player can connect to that character. If the player does not, then not only do they not care about the character, they coulden't give a toss what happens to that character, they could not care less what he thinks or feels about anything or the world around him, or his actions in it, and the entire house of cards comes crumbling down, leaving that player completely disinterested. That is the death of immersion, if the player does not care and can't get invested, then it's game over man, game over!

 

 

This is the risk of the canned character that you are skirting over and choosing not to see, but i can promis you that it is very real, and it is why CDPR didn't get any of my money (well, i bought the first game in a Steam sale, so they got 3 dollars from me), and didn't get any from most people i know either.

 

 

Just like in a good RPG, actions do have consequences.

 

 

 

I totally agree with you. I said it before on TW3 thread - it is a trade off. Some people will be put off by the character they are meant to play. That is normal thing to happen in books, movies and so in games too.  There is the whole superman/batman crap i never was into. Hell i even got the revered batman game in some bundle but i have no desire to play it simply because of character i'm meant to play. Yet some/many love those characters and those characters sell games.

 

Yes there is lots of money going into games but most of it go on ads, like 1/4 of TW3 budget was for development. Obviously would be nice if we could have TW3 quality, costomizable character and world that reacts to it. So far we just got DAI on that front that is just bleee

It wouldnt also make much sense in witcher - lore is strict there and they are already breaking it. Going further would make existing Witcher fans pretty pissed.

 

@sales - it is ok for game to be niche. If the sale returns are enough to keep investors happy and have them work on another game. Do they really need to chase bigger audience ? (i fear they still will :[ )

[Chaos63]

You know, there are so many RPGs out there that have a fixed character, and yet damn near everybody in this "discussion" decides to focus their rage on this one specific series.

It's almost like they're jealous that everybody is talking about this great new game that hit the shelves, and they can't partake because it would require them to eat their own words.

Just a thought, of course.

[Guest Vendayn]

You know, there are so many RPGs out there that have a fixed character, and yet damn near everybody in this "discussion" decides to focus their rage on this one specific series.

It's almost like they're jealous that everybody is talking about this great new game that hit the shelves, and they can't partake because it would require them to eat their own words.

Just a thought, of course.

 

yeah, I mean...there is the Final Fantasy RPGs and no one hates on those even though you can't make your own character.

 

I find that pretty hilarious.

[bjornk]

 

I think I know what's going on here. Everyone who've played TW3 becomes an authority on role-playing games and think they can redefine the genre based on what they saw in that game. Ridiculous.

Back to calling people fanboys? Want chips to go along all that salt?

 

Where exactly I use the word "fanboy" in that sentence? Nevertheless, it's exactly what you've been doing, trying to tell us what RPGs are all about, based on a bunch of features that have only recently made their way into RPGs. Things like "choice and consequence", "impacting the game world", or story have never been defining characteristics of an RPG.

 

To answer your previous question, yes, adding character creation and character development into any game would turn it into an RPG and likewise, removing character development from a game like TW would turn it into a simple action game. As I keep saying, these are the common defining characteristics of any game that are categorized as RPGs, including sandbox RPGs with no story or whatsoever, and MMORPGs.

[trpd]

 

 

 

 

I think I know what's going on here. Everyone who've played TW3 becomes an authority on role-playing games and think they can redefine the genre based on what they saw in that game. Ridiculous.

Back to calling people fanboys? Want chips to go along all that salt?

 

Where exactly I use the word "fanboy" in that sentence? Nevertheless, it's exactly what you've been doing, trying to tell us what RPGs are all about, based on a bunch of features that have only recently made their way into RPGs. Things like "choice and consequence", "impacting the game world", or story have never been defining characteristics of an RPG.

To answer your previous question, yes, adding character creation and character development into any game would turn it into an RPG and likewise, removing character development from a game like TW would turn it into a simple action game. As I keep saying, these are the common defining characteristics of any game that are categorized as RPGs, including sandbox RPGs with no story or whatsoever, and MMORPGs.

 

 

 

I have bad news for you. WoW is older then TW games, i did play WoW before i did TW and at no point i have considered WoW to be cRPG.

The reason for that being games that made me love the genre , BG, PT , Fallout1&2 were not about character creation. It added to the replayability but it was the journey that did matter.

Now when i think about it Planescape Torment did not have character creation besides spending stat points yet i have no memory of enyone denying its genre. Insane isn't it?

[Guest Vendayn]

 

 

I think I know what's going on here. Everyone who've played TW3 becomes an authority on role-playing games and think they can redefine the genre based on what they saw in that game. Ridiculous.

Back to calling people fanboys? Want chips to go along all that salt?

 

Where exactly I use the word "fanboy" in that sentence? Nevertheless, it's exactly what you've been doing, trying to tell us what RPGs are all about, based on a bunch of features that have only recently made their way into RPGs. Things like "choice and consequence", "impacting the game world", or story have never been defining characteristics of an RPG.

 

To answer your previous question, yes, adding character creation and character development into any game would turn it into an RPG and likewise, removing character development from a game like TW would turn it into a simple action game. As I keep saying, these are the common defining characteristics of any game that are categorized as RPGs, including sandbox RPGs with no story or whatsoever, and MMORPGs.

 

 

Final Fantasy is an RPG, and has no character customization

 

Same as far as I know with Baldur's Gate, but I haven't played in a long time so maybe there is.

 

I know FF games you play a set character however, and its an RPG. No one hates on that because there is no character customization.

 

I did notice you ignored that last post about it though

 

[bjornk]

I have bad news for you. WoW is older then TW games, i did play WoW before i did TW and at no point i have considered WoW to be cRPG.

What you thought about it is irrelevant, it is a MMORPG and maybe you should ponder a bit about why it's categorized as such.

 

Same as far as I know with Baldur's Gate, but I haven't played in a long time so maybe there is.

Baldur's Gate did have character creation and customization (race/sex/voice/class/kit/alignment/color/portrait).

[Coopervane]

I totally agree with you. I said it before on TW3 thread - it is a trade off. Some people will be put off by the character they are meant to play. That is normal thing to happen in books, movies and so in games too.  There is the whole superman/batman crap i never was into. Hell i even got the revered batman game in some bundle but i have no desire to play it simply because of character i'm meant to play. Yet some/many love those characters and those characters sell games.

 

Yes there is lots of money going into games but most of it go on ads, like 1/4 of TW3 budget was for development. Obviously would be nice if we could have TW3 quality, costomizable character and world that reacts to it. So far we just got DAI on that front that is just bleee

It wouldnt also make much sense in witcher - lore is strict there and they are already breaking it. Going further would make existing Witcher fans pretty pissed.

 

@sales - it is ok for game to be niche. If the sale returns are enough to keep investors happy and have them work on another game. Do they really need to chase bigger audience ? (i fear they still will :[ )

 

 

No i agree that niche games are perfectly viable. Large publishers often don't, they only care about titles they can turn into multi-billon dollar annual mega-franchises, but good solid niche titles that turn a dependable profit are keeping many smaller publishers well fed, not to mention the indie scene (infact, it's because these big publishers are wholly neglecting all but a few mega-franchises that we have such a strong indie scene right now, or so i would argue).

 

And i've got no problem with games like The Witcher beeing a thing. It's obviously making a lot of people happy, so let there be Witcher.

I just hope that CDPR might tackle something that didn't come from a book at some point, something that does focus on roleplay. I like them as a company, i like their buisness model and outlook, so i woulden't mind supporting them, i'd just need a game from them that i'd actually enjoy playing.

 

 

Where the salt comes in is that the old-school D&D-style RPG has become a desperation genre. Fans of these games are starving, there's so little on offer in this catagory, which is going to make them ornery. I'm really not sure why though, i mean, look at the sales of the TES and FO games, you'd think someone out there would want a slice of that pie, surely? But no, the fish just aren't biting, and an RPG like this is almost as rare as a good Flight-simulator..

 

 

yeah, I mean...there is the Final Fantasy RPGs and no one hates on those even though you can't make your own character.

 

I find that pretty hilarious.

 

You're joking, right?

 

Just on the off chance that your aren't, no, the internet is full of people who hate the FF series, and many more people who liked one part of it but hated another part of it, and viceversa. It seems a lot of people hate the latest character in it aswell, Lightning i think she's called? Seems she really rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.

 

Personally i was never a Console gamer, so i have no opinion of the series, i never played any of them and they never had any relavance to me (so yeah, it's also possible for people to not care at all about them). My entire knowledge of the series comes only from what i've gleaned from them beeing name-dropped in Youtube videos though.

 

 

*shrugs*

 

[trpd]

 

 

 

I have bad news for you. WoW is older then TW games, i did play WoW before i did TW and at no point i have considered WoW to be cRPG.

What you thought about it is irrelevant, it is a MMORPG and maybe you should ponder a bit about why it's categorized as such.
 

 

 

Care to not castrate my answer and reply to the whole thing if you do? post 95 Much appreciated.
 

[Cynical Misanthrope]

This look like it could be a good game. Sure looks similar to Skyrim, but way better looking. The "episodic" thingy is a little turn down thou, but to early to tell I guess.

Since Skyrim is a "bland diet" and the world in it, feels completely dead most of the time, I hope that the Soulkeeper will be the opposite.

[bjornk]

Care to not castrate my answer and reply to the whole thing if you do? post 95 Much appreciated.

Why, you deny me the freedom you've been enjoying while ignoring the important bits of people's messages, including mine? What do you want me to answer? PT is not a game I've played. Judging by what you wrote, PT apparently had character creation, but not appearance customization. It's not the same thing as not having character creation at all. As for Fallout 1 & 2, they both had character creation and customization at least to an extend, as you were able to choose your character's sex, stats, traits and both games take all of those into account in the game.

 

Also, I've already told you that character appearance customization was either not feasible or very expensive back in those days, as those games were running on 2D engines which used sprites instead of 3D models. That's the reason why people used character portraits in Infinity Engine games to give their characters a bit of "flavour".

[lordofthedread]

I think I know what's going on here. Everyone who've played TW3 becomes an authority on role-playing games and think they can redefine the genre based on what they saw in that game. Ridiculous.

 

Thanks I lauhed so hard that made my day.....

 

I personally played pen and paper RPGs a lot, I also played virtually every crpg from Ultima 1, I also played a bunch of JRPGs, action RPG and whatever bears the RPG accronym in it (yes WoW was among them).

 

I loved Skyrim and Dragon Age but you can definitly agree that having a mute character was off-putting. Having a voiced character reinforce immersion, that's a fact, and you can say whatever you want about TW3 but the one thing they done right in this game is immersion.

 

Saying CDPR is shoving down our throats a forced NPC is beyond bad faith, the choice to play the game is yours and they never promised any customisation. The game from the first installment of the serie was focused on Geralt, that's a fact and not something that was gonna change at any point, flushing the game down the drain because of that is childish at best. Saying this is not a RPG because you can't choose who you play with is wrong too as far as what games are called RPG these days.

 

Of course TW3 is not a pen and paper RPG, yes Skyrim feels somewhat more "open" but this often sacrifices the immersion. This is often because of hardware, time and budget limitations but as a dev I can totally understand the take on "let's deliver a great story even if we need to sacrifice some liberty".

 

At the end this comes down to a simple fact : you have to take games as what they are, Skyrim is a great sandbox RPG while TW3 is a great driven story RPG. Could they have done it better? Certainly. Could they have turned it into a game as open as Skyrim ? Certainly not without sacrifying what makes it great : immersion.

 

Did I liked to play a teenage boy in FF10? Not a bit but I do consider it to be an excellent JRPG nontheless. Hell I don't even have anything special about Geralt but the quality of writing and the immersion kept me going and it felt good to see that my decisions did matter.

 

Believe me, sandbox open RPG like Skyrim are here to stay, and I am grateful for that but I do hope that we will see more games with the writing quality of TW3 even is they "shove down my throat" a character that I don't like.