PDA

View Full Version : What's your beef? [A game genre ideas thread.]


Praadur
January 17th, 2008, 04:42 AM
(I apologise if this is in the wrong area, but since this is related to games I think it'd be okay if I posted this here. If it's not, please move it.)

I had found myself in a bit of a mental quagmire of ponderances earlier, mostly regarding game genres and how we might help refine and improve them. From that line of thought, this thread was borne.

The purpose behind this thread, and therefore the reason I created it, is to share objective views on what you (the reader of this topic) might consider to be a fundamental flaw with any given genre. Perhaps even something that used to be found in a particular genre of a game but has been strip-mined for more generalised mainstream releases today.

This wouldn't be a thread for, as an example, why RPGs should be linear or open-ended, as that's more of a subjective preference than anything else, but something that you believe is a failing. If you can, also provide a proposed solution to the problem, and your ideas surrounding it.

That way, this thread might become food for thought for anyone who's working on an open-source or indy game, it might just provide someone with an idea they like or even a solution to a problem that they've seen that they don't really have a solution to. This thread could also be used for that, for someone to posit a problem and then see if they can't provide a solution.

So here's my shot at this...

Action/Adventure

Problem: Exploration isn't exploration.

A lot of replay value in these games today has amounted to nothing more than finding tiny dots under rocks, much like the (generally hated) pixel-hunting of old in pure adventure games. So the only real way a player can cite themselves as an 'explorer' of any sort is to find all of these hidden dots and show off their list of finds. I'd say this this is more the work of--and only because I couldn't think of anything more suitable--a microbiologist than an intrepid pioneer of paths and pitfalls.

Proposed Solution: Reshape rewards into new areas.

To start out, there are good examples of how this could be done but these days they seem to have been forgotten. One such example is Beyond Good & Evil, and another is Skies of Arcadia (even though that's an RPG). They're a good start, but they're still pretty flat and they could be expanded upon. Come to think of it, a good basis to begin from might even be the original Knytt... but that was all exploration, rather than exploration being a part of another genre.

For example, a bunch of leaves could be obscuring a cave entrance, and beind it might be a network of caves which--if traversed correctly--lead to a monstrous cavern, lit by beautiful crystals, and with heiroglyphs painted upon its walls perhaps detailing one of the more optional-to-know elements of thegame's storyline.

A number of other things could also lead to such things, such as perhaps a seemingly impossible jump that most players might not make as they assume they wouldn't be able to do it, or even giving the level completely optional puzzles which open up new areas of the game, offering the players something new to see. It'd be grand for example if I were to solve a bunch of puzzles in an ancient temple that allowed me to access an ancient, underground arboretum... and there I might find an incredibly alien race but timid race of reptiles caring for their young. The PC could then write about this find in his notebook or such, journalling it with self-drawn images, his own recollection of the enconter andsoforth.

The latter example would be a much more entertaining reward at the end of the game than a list of 'pixel-hunted' for items, I'd think.

In fact, the game could even have a complete side-story contained within more hidden areas, which is detached from the main storyline but helps shed light on it. Akin to what Assassin's Creed did but with the World staying connected as one, isntead of being split in two.

I don't really know what to add to my explanation beyond that, but when I think of exploration, I tend to think of poking out the secret little corners of the World that no one has seen, seeking out the unseen, and treading on grounds that have rarely been tread on, haven't been tread on for centuries, or generally haven't been tread on at all by another explorer's feet. This would also provide a real sense of accomplishment for an explorer, as they would be able to say that they were there, and they saw that.

Just to finish up, I will note that (and don't beat me over the head for this!) World of Warcraft had something like this in it, but it was completely unintentional. I think that patching that element out of the game was the most foolish thing Blizzard did, when opposedly they could've worked it into their MMO as an official element of the game. For those who don't know what I'm talking about here, do a little looking up on 'wall-walking'. There were lots of things to see, cities that the players weren't meant to find, a town of merrily dancing trolls, a rather steampunk airfield... and so on.

So that'd be my beef with that genre. Now (if you like) it's your turn.

Tundro Walker
January 20th, 2008, 03:07 AM
Sure, I'll add to this...

My beef is with RPG's.

In the late 80's & early 90's in America, RPG's started getting out of the funk of just random violence & grinding to being more story/plot-driven. EG: Ultima 1-3 were just violent level grinding. But 4-7 put the stat-building in the back seat and focused more on adventuring, uncovering mysteries and tons of good story (IE: not just "go kill 5 foozles and report back to me for a reward" quests). More time was spent on furthering the plot then on buffing your characters so they could take on the next area.

But then console games from Japan (Nintendo, SNES, etc) got it into peoples' heads that an RPG is all about overly complicated stats and combat. It was back to 90% grinding and 10% plot follow-up. It really annoyed me, because then in America, the jump to MMORPG's has basically dumbed us down to that concept again...nothing but grinding, looking for better equipment, etc, without any real plot or story-driven sense of achievement.

The greatest RPG I remember playing (other than Ultima 6 & 7...good times) was System Shock 2. It was very story-based, and while there was a focus on stat-building, it was more for developing your character along different paths ... you were truly role-playing, since you were developing your character's role as your played, from gunning marine grunt to sci-ops cyber-mage. But, the stat-building was always back-seat to the plot. You were always more interested in exploring a new area, solving some puzzle, clearing the area of hostiles, or getting the hell out of dodge that you didn't really think much about "xp" while you were doing it. Occasionally you'd come across some upgrade terminals and upgrade yourself, then it was back to the plot. Very event-driven, very plot-driven ... and the stat portion was a nice part that enhanced the game rather than stealing the focus of the game.

Some would say Elder Scrolls Morrowind & Oblivion are the best RPG's as of late. I haven't played Oblivion, but I have played Morrowind (even created the Lilarcor mod for it). I found it to be a very well-crafted foundation for an RPG, but I didn't think it was a complete RPG. It had a decent stat foundation that let you evolve your character in a fashion of your choosing (from warrior to mage...but, with enough time you could advance in everything, which was both good and bad, since it let you experience everything, but also made it where there wasn't really a difference in character), it had tons of freedom, but it lacked events, story, and other things that would immerse you and make you care. You'd encounter folks that gave you "fetch" and "kill" quests, which were uninspired and boring. You'd explore the countryside, but just run across small, blaise' caves or ruins that didn't have anything deeper going on inside (no mysteries to uncover, no two-hour cave spelunking, no gate-ways to alternate worlds). The end result was a huge focus on hours of stat-building so you could finally go finish the game and be done with it. Yawn. Again, the foundation was there for a great game, but that's like having a cake with no icing. You can eat it, but it sure tastes better with icing.

As contrast, in Baldurs Gate II, there was always something more to it. You'd enter some tunnels that will take you to your next destination, and you think it'll just be a quick romp through them to the other side. Then suddenly you're pleasantly surprised to find yourself immersed in a side-quest in the tunnels that keeps you pleasantly entertained for two hours. When you're done, you had fun, and then you remember why you originally entered the tunnels...to get to the other side. What started out as a "routine" journey got side-tracked in a pleasantly surprising way.

Really wish more RPG's these days would focus on that instead of how complicated their stat/combat system is and how fancy their graphics are.

Games like TOME & NetHack show that a role-playing game doesn't need fancy graphics to be really good (although they, too, are a bit lacking in plot department). Diablo I & II showed us that the NetHack model can get scaled up with nice graphics (although it still turns into a grind-fest most of the time).

Games like Baldur's Gate series, System Shock II, Ultima 6 & 7 and Gothic 1,2,3 show that RPG's can have good graphics and have good plot, too, without having to spend hours grinding.

And then games like Dwarven Fortress and Majesty can show us that these concepts can get skewed with new ideas, where the characters become semi-autonomous ... we can manage them but can't control them.

I'd even go so far as to say the Thief games were role-playing, in the sense that, while not stat-oriented, they were plot-driven and deeply immersed you in a unique character role.

When I used to table-top with friends, we differentiated between good and bad game sessions via the phrases "ROLE playing" vs. "ROLL playing". This means that a good ROLE playing game will let you assume a role, and let you develop the character, but you'll do so while developing the plot. In contrast, a ROLL-playing game is just random combat and dice-rolling to grind through pointless stuff to build up your character without any goal being accomplished other than levelling up.

Seems a lot of game developers (especially in Japan and in MMORPG world) have it in their heads that RPG stands for ROLL-playing rather than ROLE-playing.

Vadi
January 20th, 2008, 12:09 PM
I'm not that "deep" of a gamer, so I really don't have anything wise to say in regards to the game plot and all.

But I would like to see some technologies like StreamMyGame be evolved more - what I mean is something like an online server which does all of the complex graphics rendering for you, and just sends you visual data + simple things that you can compute on your own video card. That way, you won't need to spend ridiculous money on the latest graphics card, but sign up for that service, and with a good internet connection, keep up with the latest advancements in 3d gaming :)

(think thin-client model)

Tundro Walker
January 20th, 2008, 06:34 PM
I'm not that "deep" of a gamer, so I really don't have anything wise to say in regards to the game plot and all.

But I would like to see some technologies like StreamMyGame be evolved more - what I mean is something like an online server which does all of the complex graphics rendering for you, and just sends you visual data + simple things that you can compute on your own video card. That way, you won't need to spend ridiculous money on the latest graphics card, but sign up for that service, and with a good internet connection, keep up with the latest advancements in 3d gaming :)

(think thin-client model)

From a consumer stand-point, this sounds ideal, but from a business stand-point, you'd sink a ton of money into monster servers to handle all the processing that could otherwise get off-loaded client-side. Since most game companies barely squeak by on profit as it is, and since they're in business to make money (and do so off games), I doubt they'd justify the huge expenditure.

If it wasn't for gaming, I don't think the personal computer would still be evolving at such a fast pace. Folks can do all the "regular" stuff they need to (surf net, email, office stuff, etc) on an old P3 or P4. Really, only reason to hop to a dual/quad core or such is for cutting-edge gaming or really intense music/graphics editing.

What I'd really like to see is someone invent a "motherboard" motherboard that let you plug several old P3 / P4 motherboards together to make an ad-hoc dual/quad core comp. You can RAID hard-drives these days, which makes all the old 50gb hd's floating around still worth while. But, it'd be nice to get more use out of the old CPU's and motherboards that are getting sold for $50 complete on craigslist. Sort of make your own "distributed computing" cluster, but have it run like one single computer.

EDIT:

Also, the cable companies, namely ATT I think, is trying to push for limited bandwidth for consumers, where you get X amount, and if you go over that amount, you get charged a premium for however much extra you use. With everyone watching youtube, downloading bit-torrents, etc, they want to make money off the huge volume of bandwidth everyone is getting "for free". So, playing an online game that had the server run a majority of the processing would still require an uber-cable line and some major bandwidth to talk to server/client. It might get dicey if they're able to start throttling the bandwidth like ComCast was doing. (It'll be interesting to see what precedence they set with the ComCast trial).

Vadi
January 20th, 2008, 07:13 PM
I don't believe gaming companies are just getting by. Computer video games are a multi-billion dollar industry that is very rapidly expanding. Indie gaming companies, probably, but not the rest.

About bandwidth though, well, I really don't know. Everyone wants to make more money.