Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Building fantasy cultures underuses scientific knowledge - Discuss

Neanderthal

Arcane
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
3,626
Location
Granbretan
The Qunari were alright in the first game, in fact they an the dwarves were far and away more interesting than any of the humans or (shudder) elves. Thing is that this was done way better in Torment a decade afore with the culture of Sigil, the planes an their inhabitants, as well as Dak'kon and his species.

O course thats all part o that 80s/90s struggle that went on to try an break away from the dull, generic settings of AD&D, which introduced us to Birthright, Planescape, Ravenloft, Dark Sun etc. Of course it failed as most folk want their simplistic shit an same old roles.

Even Calimshan in BG2 was way better than the first game in this regard, its culture was easily defined through a few simple measures, "A pearl to you, ach its red ink to even discuss it." The moratorium on magic was also a nice bit of unique content, and backed up by gameplay as all these things should be. Mask of the Betrayer did even better here with Rasheman, standing in stark contrast to the utter blandness of the Sword Coast an Neverwinter.

Still I think AwesomeButtons right, they could and should go further, I want to feel like a stranger in a strange land, learning the ways and piecing shit together through subtle hints and peculiarities. Instead i'm usually bored off me arse, yawning as I grind through another mob, collect identikit crap, snore through another infodump or wince at painfully cutesy sub par Joss Whedon "witticisms."
 

Bohrain

Liturgist
Patron
Joined
Aug 10, 2016
Messages
1,442
Location
norf
My team has the sexiest and deadliest waifus you can recruit.
I think that CRPG's lack a precedent of how to portray alien values and logic concisely in a visual medium. And this in turn, enforces either conveying such things through persistent characters (typically companions) who act as wikipedia articles of their respective race/faction/etc. or forgoing it entirely and instead relying on the Tolkien-inspired tradition of making fantasy races culturally distinct humans with pointy ears or fursuits.
 

Freddie

Savant
Joined
Sep 14, 2016
Messages
717
Location
Mansion
I agree with Azarkon on the copyist nature of worldbuilding for the masses. People have their expectations of a fantasy setting, and for your setting to be marketable you have to stay within certain creative boundaries.

However, I believe a talented, learned writer, can easily achieve both originality and a good enough degree of conformity. I may be somewhat biased, but I believe "studying history fixes everything". Well, not everything obviously, but to a large part, a wide general knowledge and orientation in historical realities (you don't need to have a PhD for that) can greatly improve the quality of your world building. And you don't even have to go into history's "aid disciplines" like anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, ethnicity studies, etc. Knowledge of these is just a bonus.
It would be very useful to understand what were the problems and how they were solved and see those influence to societies we live in today. Locke is important yes, but so was Martin Luther. Bridges are important to understand, that on high level, our issues aren't anything we haven't seen before. Setting can be fantasy or sci-fi, high fantasy or steam punk, space opera or cyperpunk, magic or scifi technology can't solve human problem of being a human, which includes also things that aren't material and issues coming from that. Magic or technology doesn't help citizen of Nu-Berlin or villager in fantasy realm, whom goal might be settling border dispute, if clerk responsible of handling the case is corrupt. Example is perhaps naive, but it's up to game creators how to utilise opportunities created by knowing historical backround in their setting, whatever that would be.


How I imagine this would work - I see a world, a setting in the same terms in which I see a character. Writing a believeable, a "deep" character in the non-ironic sense, requires a good amount of shared experience on the writer's part. To write a character who is a fisherman for example, you have to know at least something more than the average player about fishing as an activity, as a means of providing sustenance, and you need to have some personal or impersonal observations on people who fish for a living. That may come from your own life's experience, or from first-hand observation, or from stuff you've read about fishermen communities as they existed at some point in time and at some place.
Good writes research stuff they are interested. Example, Ashley Williams in ME1 . How I measure is that this is sort of character that could exists outside of ME world. Other one that comes to mind is non party member Gianna Parasini (again ME1). For fantasy there were several in Arcanum, but it's a long time since I have played it and I don't remember characters names any more, but I do remember I liked it because characters made sense in the world and which motives were believable. I forgot to mention the Witcher 1, which I liked a lot. I never got very far in second one. I didn't liked certain design choices and certain other things felt like very tired tropes.

Similarly, if you are writing a romance between two characters who can't be together due to some natural or cultural obstruction, you need some experience and some natural psychologist skill in order to put yourself in each character's shoes. The fact that most writers lack such exprience has resulted in the cringy interpersonal relations we see in games.
In general it might be a good to ponder a while about sexuality, before writing romances to begin with.

Returning to worldbuilding, in order for a writer to have some kind of "a bag of tricks" or a pool of ideas to pick from when building a world, he can't come up with them from thin air, he needs some experience with the "life stories" of the actual world, in various points in time. In other words he needs knowledge of what has been expreinced by the real world, i.e. with history.

It is the limited genral knowledge of writers that keeps settling us with tropes like "elves are repressed minority, live in ghettoes, but they are wiser than their oppressors and have good hearts, their lives matter". The hacks who call themselves game writers simply have nothing to draw on. I'll try giving a real example next time, of how worldbuilding can be approached better.
Regardless of media, I think it would be good to get rid of incest, which stems from several things. Hollywood and game studios appear to have similar issues, but I hope game studios could be in a better position to take advantage of fresh ideas. Then, I'm not sure what elves brings into this, other than they are some sort of platform where players can reflect their ideas of nostalgy, supposed better times and ideals, etc.

I came to think how it's funny that my favourite rpgs from recent titles are Shadowrun games and what comes to fantasy, older game, Arcanum. I felt that it's quite ironic that when sci-fi and fantasy are already contrived settings, how do I happen to like games set in Cyberpunk fantasy and Steampunk settings? I figured it was the substance, and perhaps those settings were created to get rid of certain things to make room for something else. It might very well be that we may not be the first ones having this conversation.
 

Iznaliu

Arbiter
Joined
Apr 28, 2016
Messages
3,686
Hollywood and game studios appear to have similar issues, but I hope game studios could be in a better position to take advantage of fresh ideas

I would actually say that movie studios are in a better position to take advantage of fresh ideas; I could list a whole bunch of reasons for this, but one important one is the conception that new games replace all older ones and are seen as a pinnacle of gaming, while movies have a much longer lifetime.
 

Freddie

Savant
Joined
Sep 14, 2016
Messages
717
Location
Mansion
Hollywood and game studios appear to have similar issues, but I hope game studios could be in a better position to take advantage of fresh ideas

I would actually say that movie studios are in a better position to take advantage of fresh ideas; I could list a whole bunch of reasons for this, but one important one is the conception that new games replace all older ones and are seen as a pinnacle of gaming, while movies have a much longer lifetime.
I wonder what's the relevant example here? For the films we have sequels and reboots all over the place. Most of it appears to be superhero stuff, which aren't studios original creations but universes and characters from comics which date decades ago. Stephen Kings's It is second film of the novel first published in the 80's. Bladerunner sequel seems to be talk of the Codex, original film in the 80's being very loosely based on novel published in the late 60's.

What I mean is what are Arcanum and Shadowrun equivalents of Hollywood?

Sure if you meant that Hollywood modernises old franchises visually and in (pop)cultural context when they film them, yeah they make lot of money, but essentially they are still cartoons, extremely expensive live actions cartoons. Live action Batman from the past was rebooted as film series in the 80's and now again. Yes, it's relevant because they pour insane amounts of money in production and marking and keep producing more of it, but trap is there. There are certain factors that define Batman, you can't chance them or it isn't Batman any more. So for me it looks like new replaces the old also in that space and I don't see why they had any financial incentive to change the formula and their investors would like them to take risks.

For game space, and I mean cRPG's. I see... well, relevant comparison comes from TV, Black Mirror for example which is sort of thing which can make audience question how much of this is really fiction. So it concept was sold and luckily 2nd series was okay too. Thing is, it cost fraction of Hollywood stuff to produce. Taking risks paid off, even if it's a niche. Same for cRPG's. Hollywood can licence any number of Batman games they wish, maybe good, maybe whatever, but I just don't have any incentive to buy them. Instead games funded by Kickstart have been really good experiences for me and also great value for money. Kickstart is likely pasts its prime, but I hope Fig or something similar takes it place. I can't but wonder what were happened to Troika if they have had crowdfunding option, but I digress.

For example AwesomeButton wrote about Elves. So I did play PnP AD&D decades ago and were also a DM. So with Elves I had the same problem I guess like every DM ever. They sorta cool but what do with them? I have read my Tolkien, I think most of players as well, so Tolkien was there influencing out minds. Some players went and read Silmarillion, so did I. And I realised that much, that I can't have Elves in very central role but stick to the their sticking on their own. Travellers, merchant party or adventurer is one thing, you can live with the short term motivation and that they have a craft also helps, like with any race. But have Elven city, or even town with militia there has to be certain things like in human town, so there would be different kid of encounters. So how do you convey 1000 years of life experience to players? This sort of thing can actually become an issue with Dwarves too. Why is that? Because those are cultures, Dragons, Vampires, Liches, etc. are solitary creatures which much of them practically write itself, but with cultures things get complicated.

To be frank, we used Forgotten Realms and later some Krynn stuff and only once I saw module which tried to do something interesting with Elves and I really can't remember it's name, but it was Krynn module. We actually had very little use for modules, so maybe there were others. Anyway, I think that creators felt that certain aspects of AD&D were better not to be given spotlight. Like why Elves have +1 cha, if they teachers or mentors had 1000, or 200 -500 years of experience, shouldn't that be +1 wis? But that's AD&D for you.

Now replace Elves with alien. Baldurs Gate series Elves were pretty much humans with pointy ears. Kingdom of Amalur cartoonised pretty much everything (I tried demo, it was a trope fest), and it flopped, badly. Bioware again got something right with Asari, Geth and Reapers, but started losing it in ME2. So problem still exists. Can we have anything else with these to do in interactive media other than keeping them distant reflections? Can we improve what can be done with reflection? Something an adult can play?

I think smaller game studios are the ones which might have something to win here. Harebrained games did well enough with Shadowrun series, I don't know how well Tyranny did, Wasteland series is getting another sequel. None, or very limited voice acting, isometric, maybe it doesn't need to be 100+ hours life simulator, and it's not like making a game focusing exploration of single topic but just something to try among other things. No AAA budget needed so might be achievable.
 

Iznaliu

Arbiter
Joined
Apr 28, 2016
Messages
3,686
I think smaller game studios are the ones which might have something to win here. Harebrained games did well enough with Shadowrun series, I don't know how well Tyranny did, Wasteland series is getting another sequel. None, or very limited voice acting, isometric, maybe it doesn't need to be 100+ hours life simulator, and it's not like making a game focusing exploration of single topic but just something to try among other things. No AAA budget needed so might be achievable.

Shadowrun was based on an existing IP, which meant it got attention from fans of that IP, so unless you want more games based on existing IPs, that isn't the best example.
 

kris

Arcane
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
8,836
Location
Lulea, Sweden
For example AwesomeButton wrote about Elves. So I did play PnP AD&D decades ago and were also a DM. So with Elves I had the same problem I guess like every DM ever. They sorta cool but what do with them? I have read my Tolkien, I think most of players as well, so Tolkien was there influencing out minds. Some players went and read Silmarillion, so did I. And I realised that much, that I can't have Elves in very central role but stick to the their sticking on their own. Travellers, merchant party or adventurer is one thing, you can live with the short term motivation and that they have a craft also helps, like with any race. But have Elven city, or even town with militia there has to be certain things like in human town, so there would be different kid of encounters. So how do you convey 1000 years of life experience to players? This sort of thing can actually become an issue with Dwarves too. Why is that? Because those are cultures, Dragons, Vampires, Liches, etc. are solitary creatures which much of them practically write itself, but with cultures things get complicated.

My take is that elves and dwarves having natural lifespans several orders of magnitude higher would make their cultures both extremely risk-averse and growth-averse.

thats the route I took with one of the of the longlived races in my world. That they have become really afraid of dying and spend an amount of time avoiding risks and conflict. Another one is that they have a hard time finding joy in things since they experienced almost everything. Of course, for these things you need to look into their beliefs, what happens when you die?
 

Freddie

Savant
Joined
Sep 14, 2016
Messages
717
Location
Mansion
I think smaller game studios are the ones which might have something to win here. Harebrained games did well enough with Shadowrun series, I don't know how well Tyranny did, Wasteland series is getting another sequel. None, or very limited voice acting, isometric, maybe it doesn't need to be 100+ hours life simulator, and it's not like making a game focusing exploration of single topic but just something to try among other things. No AAA budget needed so might be achievable.

Shadowrun was based on an existing IP, which meant it got attention from fans of that IP, so unless you want more games based on existing IPs, that isn't the best example.
That still leaves Arcanum. So where are your examples to make your case?
 

Freddie

Savant
Joined
Sep 14, 2016
Messages
717
Location
Mansion
For example AwesomeButton wrote about Elves. So I did play PnP AD&D decades ago and were also a DM. So with Elves I had the same problem I guess like every DM ever. They sorta cool but what do with them? I have read my Tolkien, I think most of players as well, so Tolkien was there influencing out minds. Some players went and read Silmarillion, so did I. And I realised that much, that I can't have Elves in very central role but stick to the their sticking on their own. Travellers, merchant party or adventurer is one thing, you can live with the short term motivation and that they have a craft also helps, like with any race. But have Elven city, or even town with militia there has to be certain things like in human town, so there would be different kid of encounters. So how do you convey 1000 years of life experience to players? This sort of thing can actually become an issue with Dwarves too. Why is that? Because those are cultures, Dragons, Vampires, Liches, etc. are solitary creatures which much of them practically write itself, but with cultures things get complicated.

My take is that elves and dwarves having natural lifespans several orders of magnitude higher would make their cultures both extremely risk-averse and growth-averse.

thats the route I took with one of the of the longlived races in my world. That they have become really afraid of dying and spend an amount of time avoiding risks and conflict. Another one is that they have a hard time finding joy in things since they experienced almost everything. Of course, for these things you need to look into their beliefs, what happens when you die?
Yes, it's pretty much like how I interpreted what was in the source books and took that route too.

I still find question interesting and relevant to topic in sense that with games there might be possibility to try making encounters more interesting. We can't ever be aliens, but we could take cycles of our civilisation, our history and actually use that history for a mirror for something deeper than 'You humans, always killing each others'. Have them say 'But there's always been chaos'.

Cultural knowledge could be used, say romantic encounter. 'So your (Rome and Juliet) but that's not really true, not for you and even much less for us. We grow old but, not not like you together. I would see you wither and die, our children wither and die'. The problem, Shakespeare doesn't exist but in our universe but then everyone knows Hollywood ending. I don't think there would be any need to reinvent Shakespeare in universe but to use something to make the connection to something practically everyone is familiar. The point is that in using deconstruction of Hollywood ending, in dialogue, what would someone 200 years old 'young' say to human, might be different than just pointing out the obvious issues regarding lifespan.

So these little pieces in dialogue as what most of the dialogue would be. The goal being that they would be convey that while we are dealing with something that may physically appear much like us, we are actually dealing with something alien to us. Added value might be that romance crowd might not find this sort sort of approach appealing.

I think there might be other things to use by going what AwsomeButton wrote, anthropology and sex, though obvious things like odours which influence our sexual preferences aren't really factor in games. However in cRPG things are written and scripted, so it has advantage over your pnp DM whom making this sort of processing in real time would be quite demanding, IMO.
 

Freddie

Savant
Joined
Sep 14, 2016
Messages
717
Location
Mansion
That still leaves Arcanum. So where are your examples to make your case?

Arcanum was exceptional and doesn't represent the realities of modern game development.
You speculated that Hollywood film studios would be in better position to take advantage of new ideas, it's your position to show empirical examples of this. I also mentioned in my post, that I'm not talking about AAA game production here.

Furthermore, reality is that Harebrained made 3 Shadowrun games, Wasteland 2 was a success, and there is new Wasteland game in production. For the new IP's, I didn't bring Pillars of Eternity and Tyranny for discussion because I haven't played them, yet they are new IP's.

I see this debate is only productive in Codexian sense, as long we have something to work with. Example of Hollywood production which have idea that could be perhaps salvaged in games could be productive, that isn't the situation at the moment.
 

Iznaliu

Arbiter
Joined
Apr 28, 2016
Messages
3,686
My take is that elves and dwarves having natural lifespans several orders of magnitude higher would make their cultures both extremely risk-averse and growth-averse.

That is not an uncommon theme in fantasy, though it is never really used to its full potential.
 

Azarkon

Arcane
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,989
No... they... don't. Some do. Those who wish to appeal to the D&D market... duh. The D&D market is the cRPG genre... duh. Plenty of non-D&D related games do exist in the cRPG genre... duh. Even the games where you bemaon the stereotypes, you choose to ignore any features of originality they provide... duh. A game could be completely abstract from both Tolkien and D&D but have an Orc in it and it would go on your shit list. And this is where it's a fucking nightmare talking to someone like you, because you don't actually talk about games, you talk about generalisations, all of which are bollocks without actual reference to what fucking games are pissing you off so much in their lack of originality and to what extent those games represent 'developers'.

Did you miss where I said that developers make just enough changes so that they can't be sued by WoTC, the Tolkien estate, etc...? A duck with purple feathers is still a duck. European history and mythology can be interpreted in many different ways; but most CRPGs interpret it in a very specific way - with elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. forming the major factions of the world, modern day issues masquerading as history, parties of adventurers going around doing quests, societies organized according to adventuring classes and their guilds, and other, not European cultures being thrown in as stereotypes - African witch doctors, turban wearing Arab traders, kung fu fighting Asians, etc. This approach to world building was popularized more or less by Dungeons and Dragons and Tolkien. It was not necessitated or required by European history and mythology.

You claim that I speak only in generalizations, but I've given several specific examples by now. Further, there are only so many significant CRPG companies in the West, so don't act like Bioware, Obsidian, and Larian only represent a small minority of game developers. In fact, add Bethesda Softworks, Blizzard, and their European imitators into the list and it's basically the majority of the market, with only franchises like the Witcher and Banner Saga offering a vastly different approach.
 
Last edited:
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
Like Bioware, Obsidian, and Larian only represent a small minority of game developers. In fact, add Bethesda Softworks, Blizzard, and their European imitators into the list and it's basically the majority of the market, with only franchises like the Witcher and Banner Saga offering a vastly different approach.

So you think Tyranny had no originality in world building?

Further, if something is set in a medieval, or swords generally, setting and it has magic'n'shit and calls itself fantasy then, no, it's not VASTLY DIFFERENT in approach, its doing the same shit with a slightly different lore structure. And there are no-end of fantasy games that provide a slightly different lore structure. Always has been, always will be. You seem incapable of understanding that the D&D format is a popular format and it can remain popular even when provided in a bootleg format, and that just because you personally are bored by it does not mean those that have built a franchise on that playerbase suddenly need to adapt to your world view just because you don't dig that kind of thing.

You keep bleating on about ducks when you should be bleating on about chickens and eggs. The games which become popular are the games which people like. Developers will be people too, so they probably liked what is popular. Developers will want to make something they think will be popular. Elder Scrolls is about 25 years old, you're not going to change that situation. Bioware also has a heritage player-base, you're not going to change that situation. Same with Larian and blizzard. They all make the games they've always made, because they became popular for producing what people wanted to play.

You are quite welcome to make any game you want, have any kind of lore you want to have, that has always been the case, always will be, but if you want your obscurely lore'd game to be popular then you'll have to submit whatever you create to the exact same criticism 10 to 15 years down the line. 2027: "Oh God, I'm sooo bored of all these Witcher-inspired games, why can't someone do something original for a change".

ie: Your complaint is about the popularity of something, not the something itself. If you make something original for the sake of being original and it becomes popular then you're just back to square one. Your whole attitude only works if something is unpopular or undersaturated, causing you to forever spend your life howling at the moon about why can't originality be popular, because something becomes more and more unoriginal the more popular it gets, by default. Its not up to those with established series to be VASTLY original and by criticising established series for being unoriginal all you're doing is repeating that you don't like those series of games, year after year, on an endless loop.

You are free to encourage new designs and ideas, always have been, always will be, but I don't think you've ever worked out that simply attacking one thing doesn't automatically make everything original. If tomorrow everyone just stopped making the games you perceive to be unoriginal, the market would not immediately fill up with shiny new completely 'original' masterpieces... you'd probably find that people would just fuck off from the genre altogether because... just because someone likes whatever it is you don't like, it doesn't mean they'll automatically like what you replace it with...
 

Jacob

Pronouns: Nick/Her
Patron
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
3,336
Location
Hatington
Grab the Codex by the pussy
ITT we learn fantasy worldbuilding isn't easy and your "original" idea has been used many times before.
 

Azarkon

Arcane
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,989
Like Bioware, Obsidian, and Larian only represent a small minority of game developers. In fact, add Bethesda Softworks, Blizzard, and their European imitators into the list and it's basically the majority of the market, with only franchises like the Witcher and Banner Saga offering a vastly different approach.

So you think Tyranny had no originality in world building?

No, I liked their world building. Too bad the rest of the game is more or less shit. But a company does not get to call itself original simply because its side team put out one new setting, not when said company has made derivatives for almost the entirety of its existence.

Further, if something is set in a medieval, or swords generally, setting and it has magic'n'shit and calls itself fantasy then, no, it's not VASTLY DIFFERENT in approach, its doing the same shit with a slightly different lore structure.

And there are no-end of fantasy games that provide a slightly different lore structure. Always has been, always will be. You seem incapable of understanding that the D&D format is a popular format and it can remain popular even when provided in a bootleg format, and that just because you personally are bored by it does not mean those that have built a franchise on that playerbase suddenly need to adapt to your world view just because you don't dig that kind of thing.

This is simply false. The experience of playing through a setting like the Witcher franchise is significantly different. You cannot tell the Witcher story in a classic Dungeons and Dragons setting, because the social structures of those settings render the importance of lone monster hunters incoherent. When dragons, elves, orcs, undead, golems, etc. are a matter of course, the existence of monsters is trivial and insignificant. The main actors in Dungeons and Dragons settings - powerful wizards and clerics, secret organizations, gods, demons, dragons, and other races - are not designed to be confronted by an individual protagonist, but by equally powerful adventuring parties and organizations. Hence the narrative structure of CRPGs derived from Dungeons and Dragons is completely different from that of the Witcher, which is highly personal, more reminiscent of noir than high fantasy.

So no, I don't agree that all fantasy CRPG settings are just Dungeons and Dragons with a slightly different lore structure - only most of them, making it all the more obvious when a game comes along that isn't the same.

You keep bleating on about ducks when you should be bleating on about chickens and eggs. The games which become popular are the games which people like. Developers will be people too, so they probably liked what is popular. Developers will want to make something they think will be popular. Elder Scrolls is about 25 years old, you're not going to change that situation. Bioware also has a heritage player-base, you're not going to change that situation. Same with Larian and blizzard. They all make the games they've always made, because they became popular for producing what people wanted to play.

I've said in the very first post which side of the chicken and egg debate I fall on, and repeating the question doesn't change my answer. The market didn't decide that Dungeons and Dragons and Tolkien were all they wanted, or else games like the Witcher and Banner Saga would never have succeeded. Yes, risk averse executives will always argue that what the market wants, is what the market has always wanted; and it won't change the fact that it's a circular argument.

You are quite welcome to make any game you want, have any kind of lore you want to have, that has always been the case, always will be, but if you want your obscurely lore'd game to be popular then you'll have to submit whatever you create to the exact same criticism 10 to 15 years down the line. 2027: "Oh God, I'm sooo bored of all these Witcher-inspired games, why can't someone do something original for a change".

ie: Your complaint is about the popularity of something, not the something itself. If you make something original for the sake of being original and it becomes popular then you're just back to square one. Your whole attitude only works if something is unpopular or undersaturated, causing you to forever spend your life howling at the moon about why can't originality be popular, because something becomes more and more unoriginal the more popular it gets, by default. Its not up to those with established series to be VASTLY original and by criticising established series for being unoriginal all you're doing is repeating that you don't like those series of games, year after year, on an endless loop.

"We shouldn't be original, because then everyone will copy us and we'll no longer be original." :lol:

You are free to encourage new designs and ideas, always have been, always will be, but I don't think you've ever worked out that simply attacking one thing doesn't automatically make everything original. If tomorrow everyone just stopped making the games you perceive to be unoriginal, the market would not immediately fill up with shiny new completely 'original' masterpieces... you'd probably find that people would just fuck off from the genre altogether because... just because someone likes whatever it is you don't like, it doesn't mean they'll automatically like what you replace it with...

"Don't criticize cliche settings, because developers might stop making them!" :lol:
 
Last edited:

Sykar

Arcane
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
11,297
Location
Turn right after Alpha Centauri
We live in the sad times where rpgs are made for the unwashed capitalistic masses.In the "golden" age of rpgs they were made by smart educated people with imagination (not much but they still had it),and they were made for their pears.Now they are made by unwashed hipster halfbreeds that think Egyptians were niggers and the greatest human accomplishment is social equality(because non of them have lived in socialistic state).Most rpgs and games in general lack any kind of real live logic let alone historically accurate social constructs.

Pears:
pears-can-assist-your-liver-999x576.jpg
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
Like Bioware, Obsidian, and Larian only represent a small minority of game developers. In fact, add Bethesda Softworks, Blizzard, and their European imitators into the list and it's basically the majority of the market, with only franchises like the Witcher and Banner Saga offering a vastly different approach.

So you think Tyranny had no originality in world building?

No, I liked their world building. Too bad the rest of the game is more or less shit. But a company does not get to call itself original simply because its side team put out one new setting, not when said company has made derivatives for almost the entirety of its existence.

Oh right, moving the goalposts now are we. I don't remember us talking about whether games were shit or not, I remember us talking about whether 'developers' are original or not. You used Obsidian as an example of a company with no originality. But, oh woe, their latest game does indeed fit your deranged criteria, but instead of using them as an example of someone trying to be original you just say it's a shit game, cos you're mr. motivation all over aren't you. You're not at all just another shill spewing pure bullshit for whatever micro-corner of the gaming world you're competing with. You're not at all disingenuous are you. 'Mr Incline' here thinks a single character action RPG that copied Skyrim to become popular is the worlds most original game while a party-based, turn-based game is "more or less shit". And you dare to poke your little :lol:'s at me...

Further, if something is set in a medieval, or swords generally, setting and it has magic'n'shit and calls itself fantasy then, no, it's not VASTLY DIFFERENT in approach, its doing the same shit with a slightly different lore structure.

And there are no-end of fantasy games that provide a slightly different lore structure. Always has been, always will be. You seem incapable of understanding that the D&D format is a popular format and it can remain popular even when provided in a bootleg format, and that just because you personally are bored by it does not mean those that have built a franchise on that playerbase suddenly need to adapt to your world view just because you don't dig that kind of thing.

This is simply false. The experience of playing through a setting like the Witcher franchise is significantly different. You cannot tell the Witcher story in a classic Dungeons and Dragons setting, because the social structures of those settings render the importance of lone monster hunters incoherent. When dragons, elves, orcs, undead, golems, etc. are a matter of course, the existence of monsters is trivial and insignificant. The main actors in Dungeons and Dragons settings - powerful wizards and clerics, secret organizations, gods, demons, dragons, and other races - are not designed to be confronted by an individual protagonist, but by equally powerful adventuring parties and organizations. Hence the narrative structure of CRPGs derived from Dungeons and Dragons is completely different from that of the Witcher, which is highly personal, more reminiscent of noir than high fantasy.

So no, I don't agree that all fantasy CRPG settings are just Dungeons and Dragons with a slightly different lore structure - only most of them, making it all the more obvious when a game comes along that isn't the same.

So you're saying here that Witcher is more original than D&D because it has a single pre-defined character. And that it only works because its single character? Oh really, so you'd prefer it if RPGs had more in common with Prince of Persia or Legend of Zelda or Skyrim than D&D, wow, glad we sorted that out. Gee, I guess this genre would be so much better if someone like you had the all-power of dictating what should and shouldn't be released...:lol:

You keep bleating on about ducks when you should be bleating on about chickens and eggs. The games which become popular are the games which people like. Developers will be people too, so they probably liked what is popular. Developers will want to make something they think will be popular. Elder Scrolls is about 25 years old, you're not going to change that situation. Bioware also has a heritage player-base, you're not going to change that situation. Same with Larian and blizzard. They all make the games they've always made, because they became popular for producing what people wanted to play.

I've said in the very first post which side of the chicken and egg debate I fall on, and repeating the question doesn't change my answer. The market didn't decide that Dungeons and Dragons and Tolkien were all they wanted, or else games like the Witcher and Banner Saga would never have succeeded. Yes, risk averse executives will always argue that what the market wants, is what the market has always wanted; and it won't change the fact that it's a circular argument.

And you still don't seem able to grasp that 'original' games do indeed exist, have always existed and are regularly made. And yet you still seem upset that the most popular ones are the ones using vaguely D&D-like hooks. You know, like how Witcher needed to copy skyrim for 'the people' to come rushing towards it... It's hilarious that you used the word derivative when talking about Obsidian's production history, because it shows you have absolutely no idea what it means. Derivative is indeed another term for 'being original'. Witcher is a derivative. You're asking for all games to be derivative buy putting so much pressure on originality. Have you ever heard of Undertale? That hugely popular original and derivative game that came out only a very short time ago? Funny how you don't mention that, but instead use a single pre-defined character action RPG as your 'big example' for your oh so well intended stream of horseshit. Don't tell me, you think Undertale is shit as well, hence you don't use it as an example, because 'originality' only exists for you if the game is made using northern european quasi-historical lore (which is as full of stereotypes as anything else)? :lol:

You are quite welcome to make any game you want, have any kind of lore you want to have, that has always been the case, always will be, but if you want your obscurely lore'd game to be popular then you'll have to submit whatever you create to the exact same criticism 10 to 15 years down the line. 2027: "Oh God, I'm sooo bored of all these Witcher-inspired games, why can't someone do something original for a change".

ie: Your complaint is about the popularity of something, not the something itself. If you make something original for the sake of being original and it becomes popular then you're just back to square one. Your whole attitude only works if something is unpopular or undersaturated, causing you to forever spend your life howling at the moon about why can't originality be popular, because something becomes more and more unoriginal the more popular it gets, by default. Its not up to those with established series to be VASTLY original and by criticising established series for being unoriginal all you're doing is repeating that you don't like those series of games, year after year, on an endless loop.

"We shouldn't be original, because then everyone will copy us and we'll no longer be original." :lol:

Well indeed, maybe you should grab yourself a time machine and go back in time and bribe Wizards of the Coast to stop letting people make video games based on their game so that the industry can be allowed to flood itself with 'original' 'RPGs'... :lol:

You are free to encourage new designs and ideas, always have been, always will be, but I don't think you've ever worked out that simply attacking one thing doesn't automatically make everything original. If tomorrow everyone just stopped making the games you perceive to be unoriginal, the market would not immediately fill up with shiny new completely 'original' masterpieces... you'd probably find that people would just fuck off from the genre altogether because... just because someone likes whatever it is you don't like, it doesn't mean they'll automatically like what you replace it with...

"Don't criticize cliche settings, because developers might stop making them!" :lol:

Fell free to criticise. But you're not criticising actual video games, you're criticising the whole general popular appreciation for the heritage and continued fandom for a certain type of game. According to you it doesn't matter if a game is shit or a masterpiece, if it relates to D&D in any small way (as determined solely by you) it is automatically shit because it's 'unoriginal', meanwhile, if someone does make an 'original' game, which many do, it's going to be getting zero support from you if its shit (as determined solely by you). So, sweetheart, the basis of your argument is bollocks, the things you use as examples are bollocks, you're motivation is likely nothing more than some bizarre expression of racism and your actual knowledge of your subject is as puerile and incompetent as your understanding of basic philosophical concepts.
 
Last edited:

fantadomat

Arcane
Edgy Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
37,087
Location
Bulgaria
We live in the sad times where rpgs are made for the unwashed capitalistic masses.In the "golden" age of rpgs they were made by smart educated people with imagination (not much but they still had it),and they were made for their pears.Now they are made by unwashed hipster halfbreeds that think Egyptians were niggers and the greatest human accomplishment is social equality(because non of them have lived in socialistic state).Most rpgs and games in general lack any kind of real live logic let alone historically accurate social constructs.

Pears:
pears-can-assist-your-liver-999x576.jpg
A lot of drinking of pear rakia have such effect ;) .
Alcoholic-fermentation.jpg
 

Freddie

Savant
Joined
Sep 14, 2016
Messages
717
Location
Mansion
This is simply false. The experience of playing through a setting like the Witcher franchise is significantly different. You cannot tell the Witcher story in a classic Dungeons and Dragons setting, because the social structures of those settings render the importance of lone monster hunters incoherent. When dragons, elves, orcs, undead, golems, etc. are a matter of course, the existence of monsters is trivial and insignificant. The main actors in Dungeons and Dragons settings - powerful wizards and clerics, secret organizations, gods, demons, dragons, and other races - are not designed to be confronted by an individual protagonist, but by equally powerful adventuring parties and organizations. Hence the narrative structure of CRPGs derived from Dungeons and Dragons is completely different from that of the Witcher, which is highly personal, more reminiscent of noir than high fantasy.

So no, I don't agree that all fantasy CRPG settings are just Dungeons and Dragons with a slightly different lore structure - only most of them, making it all the more obvious when a game comes along that isn't the same.
I'm not taking any sides here, but how I recall classic D&D PnP, was what I loaned from a friend back in the 80's and looking from Wikipedia it appeared to be 1983 revised edition. There were players book and DM's book. I don't recall if Elves were even playable race. I don't remember it that well, but I do remember it was very low key. I don't recall there came any sort of setting (world) with it, but there were examples how to create quests, very small campaigns for starters.

D&D wasn't that big of thing, had few games but player base was small, so I never bought it to myself. Few years later I found out about AD&D scene which was more active and that's where I really started. it was the late 80's and most of us had AD&D and AD&D 2nd. edition stuff mixed (1st. edition stuff was cheap second hand and there were conversion guidelines in 2nd. ed.). The thing was in the scene people whom came from different games, D&D, RuneQuest, which had it's own scene, but wasn't everyones cup of tea. Anyway for those groups that were played many years had stuff like official settings. Many were learned to create their own settings for game sessions. In a group where I started we didn't had but rulebooks, game world, settings were created from imagination and whatever people had, sometimes old D&D modules were used as influence.

The official campaign setting came in the picture if you wanted to get in better groups and getting to know players whom had played for a long time and Forgotten Realms was what was hot so to say, I think SSI's Pool of Radiance may had quite a bit to do with it. But for pnp, we got FR box set just that we could understand what others were talking about!

I was also running games as DM at the time and get to / had to know it. The first impression was, that it was huge. Political factions, all sort of interest groups, remarkable NPC's, they were all there. Very big world full of pretty much of everything, like you explained. A lot could be said about FR but what I recall from my first impressions while studying the factions and the map, that there were a lot of possibilities. Much of the issues like creating larger factions and their structure were solved. You could start campaigns from different parts of the realm and have very different tone. But I was also dismayed, it was like too well designed, too full. In the end it worked out just fine to the point.

I can't say for sure how we burned out of FR, maybe because everyone was playing it, including me in a different group. Maybe expectations, once players, or yourself as player get to know about Harpers, not that anyone ever get to meet them, DM's gives nods and you as player expect those nods. When you are running a game, you do the same. Political aspect, it's good for low to mid level, but then it's really hard to change anything. Do something like Blood Mages actually getting something done or Necromancer rising undead army from Myth Drannon and really starting to take over, and you got a lot more pieces you need to move too. I for one, as DM gave up before I even started really designing, no one has time for that. And funny enough, it was like silent agreement that nobody really expected to anything really change, no matter the group. So perhaps that's also why it started to feel stale.

We changed setting for Krynn, which didn't root in that well but it had its moments. Finally, I got back to old Grayhawk settings book I think I got as freebie when I bought something, but never really got into it. It was like going full circle close to D&D, very low key and from the surface it didn't looked that dramatic, but then because there weren't ton of premade stuff, you had freedom. Some groups actually went back to creating their own settings. For last year we played, there weren't many sessions, we were all getting older. Even though scenarios I played and run as DM I think were some of the best when we got back to basics, it just weren't that interesting any more.

As basic rule set, I don't actually see how you couldn't make pretty much anything with it, be that classic D&D or AD&D. Different campaign settings were different matter all together. In it's core, I don't really know, but it that picture in D&D revisions, where warrior is drawing his sword before red dragon, could be AD&D first edition barbarian, that might be workable scenario. And I think more TSR and players invested in boxed campaign sets, further it got from barbarian taking on dragon.
 

AwesomeButton

Proud owner of BG 3: Day of Swen's Tentacle
Patron
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
16,155
Location
At large
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath
I'll try giving a real example next time, of how worldbuilding can be approached better.
Here is an example non-cringe and non-chosen-one-cliche storyline.

Deliberately, I'm not setting out rules of magic, describing races or anything of the sort. My point is to present the barebones story, without the flavor that a properly built fantasy setting could bring to this story's details.

The player character serves as a Royal Council member and an advisor of a young and newly ascended king of a powerful feudal kingdom. What area the player character advises in could depend on the character's class/stats, etc.

Not long after the beginning of his reign, a power grab occurs in another kingdom, far away from yours, in a region which is highly fragmented politically, with numerous players trying to outmaneuver each other.

This power grab is carried out by an outside force, which disturbs the power equilibrium in the region by attacking one of the regional stronger players - a rich kingdom whose capital is among the largest cities in the known world. Its king however was weak, undecisive, though liked by the people.

The assailants have installed a new king after having taken the capital, and this has lead to a subsequent sweep among the lower nobility. Most of those loyal to the previous regime have lost their fiefs. A few nobles are still waging an uneven fight, one of them is under siege by the usurpers' forces, and the others have been isolated and blockaded. Their fall is considered a matter of time.

Two such loyalists, two brothers, the older of whom held a fortress before the takeover, arrive at your king's court and ask for asylum there, after they have been chasen away from their lands. They would have normally been sent away or granted some sinecure posting, but they happen to be distant cousins of the player's king's late mother.

This dynastic relation allows the two brothers a closer contact with the king than would normally be allowed. Over the course of months, despite the best efforts of the king's more experienced advisors, these distant cousins manage to instill in the young and impressionable king the idea of mounting a campaign to liberate their lands, raising his own claim for the overtaken kingdom.

And thus, under the official pretext that he is setting on a campaign against a common enemy of all the aforementioned powers, a barbaric horde in another distant land, your king begins an expedition which is to merely pass through the troubled kingdom we described.

What is his real goal however? Does he actually believe in the officially proclaimed purpose of the campaign, or is this a cynical guise for a more selfish motive? And how will the player aid him in securing the support of local allies in the region, reconnaisance, providing logistics for the army and numerous other tasks/quests? How far will the campaigning army even go from the beginning of spring before the onset of winter? Will the player aim to help the expedition or sabotage it, because he considers it to be doomed? If he will sabotage it, will he fall under suspicion, will he be discovered?

These questions can all be resolved in various ways by the player as he completes tasks given to him by various parties, sometimes seemingly "on the same side" of the war, other times ostensibly "opposed" - commonly known as "factions" in RPG circles.

Anyway, my point was not to lay out the gameplay but to give an overview of the story with as little connection to the "world" in which this story plays out as possible.

P.S. If the story seems vaguely familiar to you, that is because it's basically the story of the first Italian War in the late 15th c. And there is an innumerable amount of other storylines that can be directly lifted and/or amalgamised from historical sources. All it takes is for someone to read the right books, is what I am saying, and reading them is actually even fun.
 
Last edited:

Neanderthal

Arcane
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
3,626
Location
Granbretan
The Gargoyle war in U6 The False Prophet springs to mind here, two unique cultures but with many similarities, who the player must reconcile through exploring each and trying to make common ground. A real role reversal and a chance to flesh out a previous enemy species religion, language and history. Instead of just killing them in linear corridors, selling their crap, talking and repeat all over until bossfight.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom