Decline RPG Codex and the internal workings of RPG developers

[Roguey]

As compared to what? Ultima 7?

Underrail.

 

[Master]

Wtf are you smoking man. Since when does fucking Fallout have bad exploration? And why is this "reduction in quality" inevitable anyway?

Dont understand that about Underrail. Fallout exploration is bad as compared to Underrail(?). But Underrail is itself inspired by Fallout. So its not inevitable.

 

[Iznaliu]

thus should be spared from criticism

I don't think that; I'm just saying that much of the criticism is based on erroneous ideas of how game development works. In fact, this is making legitimate criticism seem bad.

 

[Roguey]

Wtf are you smoking man. Since when does fucking Fallout have bad exploration? And why is this "reduction in quality" inevitable anyway?

Dont understand that about Underrail. Fallout exploration is bad as compared to Underrail(?). But Underrail is itself inspired by Fallout. So its not inevitable.

I said combat and/or exploration, keyword being or.

 

[Master]

Combat or exploration... What? I dont understand but it doesnt matter. Fact is that Fallout has possibly the BEST exploration aspect so i dont see how will trying to be like Fallout lead (inevitably!) to reduction in the quality of exploration(or combat)... Sorry but you cant say stuff like that.

 

[Jaesun]

The problem with a complex combat system is that it will take resources away from other areas that could use that development time.

Fallout HAS a number of things where this is glaringly obvious.

However, the sum of it's whole parts, is however still to this day, and exceptional game. Even with it's flaws.

 

[Master]

No. Fallout had no flaws, not important ones anyway, and it shouldve been cloned to death. But the New Codex wants to find a reason for lack of clones so it must be - "inevitable reduction in quality would follow". Its just excusing the devs for not doing the obvious, like this whole topic is suggesting.

 

[Roguey]

Combat or exploration... What? I dont understand but it doesnt matter. Fact is that Fallout has possibly the BEST exploration aspect so i dont see how will trying to be like Fallout lead (inevitably!) to reduction in the quality of exploration(or combat)... Sorry but you cant say stuff like that.

Think about something like Morrowind or Daggerfall and what would have to be taken away if they focused more on scripted role playing.

(or how New Vegas was criticized for not being as fun to explore as Fallout 3)

(furthermore consider that while Fallout's areas are certainly fine to explore there aren't that many of them at all even though it had been in development for 3.5 years, and the reasons why it's lacking in areas compared to say, a contemporary game like Baldur's Gate which was just full of exploration and content)

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

No. Fallout had no flaws, not important ones anyway, and it shouldve been cloned to death. But the New Codex wants to find a reason for lack of clones so it must be - "inevitable reduction in quality would follow". Its just excusing the devs for not doing the obvious, like this whole topic is suggesting.

& replying to all the other fallout posts ITT.

Am I right in thinking Fallout was the first game to really utilise the 'isometric' viewpoint in RPGs, COMBINED with that viewpoint being in what would, at the time, have been the very pinnacle of AAA graphics; that difference being the jump from:

To:

(I apologise if I've used images from some 'upgraded' version, I've no idea, but the point that I'm trying to make should be evident regardless)

In that it was the game that first really showcased what we now, incorrectly or correctly refer to as "In an isometric style". And did it with the very best graphics and presentation of the day. And it wasn't some "dumb" game like Diablo or whatever. What were the BIG "isometric" games before Fallout? And by games I am only referring to RPGs, of course.

I'm tempted to suggest a "what if" scenario, such as what if Baldur's Gate had been released first, but that's kinda pointless and academic as the two games are quite different in sub-genre and general appeal, but I'm trying to think how to word it so that I suggest that someone's/an industry's "first" is ALWAYS held in higher regard to all that follows. Are we being a bit too generous to the content of Fallout (not WAY too generous, just a small bit, as in a sense of perspective) and forgetting that Fallout was ALSO one of the BIG graphics whore's games of it's day? And that it was also regarded so highly because it was a "first" in this regard?

Maybe not technically first, on an extreme of pedantry, but the first to be BIG, as in AAA first.

It also attracted people from a wide variety of genres, such as X-Com and Shooters, not just RPGers, whereas something like BG simply isn't in the same ballpark as any game with guns when it comes to game genres and what appeals to people on a shop shelf.

But yeah, lots of great content too, etc etc.

 

[Roguey]

Am I right in thinking Fallout was the first game to really utilise the 'isometric' viewpoint in RPGs, COMBINED with that viewpoint being in what would, at the time, have been the very pinnacle of AAA graphics; that difference being the jump from:

The Dark Sun games, Ultima 8, and that Albion furryshit looked a lot better than Darklands, though they still use pixels instead of 3D models.

 

[Master]

Combat or exploration... What? I dont understand but it doesnt matter. Fact is that Fallout has possibly the BEST exploration aspect so i dont see how will trying to be like Fallout lead (inevitably!) to reduction in the quality of exploration(or combat)... Sorry but you cant say stuff like that.

Think about something like Morrowind or Daggerfall and what would have to be taken away if they focused more on scripted role playing.

(or how New Vegas was criticized for not being as fun to explore as Fallout 3)

(furthermore consider that while Fallout's areas are certainly fine to explore there aren't that many of them at all even though it had been in development for 3.5 years, and the reasons why it's lacking in areas compared to say, a contemporary game like Baldur's Gate which was just full of exploration and content)

What would have to be taken away? It should just be done differently, namely like in Fallout which does both open world and "scripted roleplaying" equally good.

NV has a quest compass and thats why exploration sucks more or less the same as FO3. It has a lot of content like Baldurs Gate though. It seems you equate the amount of content with the quality of exploration; yet FO has better exploration than BG because it has a time limit and that "Tell me about" button which is what makes the difference.

Heres an idea. How about they take away the quest compass but add a tell me about button. So something is taken and something added. Whats the problem there?

 

[Janise]

I've noticed a disheartening trend that is significantly lowering the quality of discussion on this site. It is, namely, a perception that one knows about the internal workings of RPG developers despite have never worked in anything remotely similar to an RPG development environment. Every man and their dog's opinion is regarded as relevant simply since it supports the preconception that they hold, every little vaguely-rlated anecdote is dredged up and milked for all its worth. Some might say this: "The RPG Codex is host to a number of indie developers and coders; they ought to know about the development of RPGs. This is true, but developing an indie RPG is a very different experience from developing an AAA RPG, or even working at somewhere like Obsidian. The budget, amount of delegation, market requirements, and the factors that seperate the good RPGs from the bad are simply too different to serve as a useful comparison. But these people are hardly the most vocal about their opinions, as they are wise and know that producing a game, even if it is absolute shit, isn't easy. Those who are most vocal have never dipped their toes into the waters of game development, yet they insist they know everything about how RPGs are developed from analysing a few small shreds of evidence and making logical leaps that would make an Olympic long-jumper beam with envy. These people contribute no useful discussion; they are a scourge upon the Codex. They need to realise that there are those who will call out their bullshit and hunt them down for it.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...ns-would-you-want-to-know-more.75932/page-200

 

[Janise]

What kinda occurred to me yesterday is that the Underrail engine may be ageless (~15 years) if the codebase is decent. A niche developer could maybe live on it and make games that are vaaastly superiour to that garbage that fat dumbfuck recycles.
Though I think Stygs target audience and popularity comes from autistic crafting fans and larpers. So his games have to have those two particular ingredients. Which ruin gameplay...

Styg and Co could swap genres and the fluff and only produce content and balance patches

Of course, mostly clean unraped settings like far future postapoc underground worlds lend themselves for discovery, while other settings dont.

 

[Roguey]

NV has a quest compass and thats why exploration sucks more or less the same as FO3.

Nah.

It has a lot of content like Baldurs Gate though.

Yes, because everything was all set up to go. Not quite so easy when you're making everything from scratch.

It seems you equate the amount of content with the quality of exploration; yet FO has better exploration than BG because it has a time limit and that "Tell me about" button which is what makes the difference.

 

[Lhynn]

OP is a faggot.

 

[YES!]

Who cares how they are developed? All that matters is the end product. If the game is so easy a retarded baby can progress with ease when played on the default settings it was designed for retards and is a retarded game. If it has depth and complexity and challenge and all the good rpg stuff any rpg fan needs it is a good game made for rpg fans and developed well. That's all there is to know or care about.

 

[Master]

NV has a quest compass and thats why exploration sucks more or less the same as FO3.

Nah.

Well okay, it doesnt suck the same as FO3. A bit less.

It has a lot of content like Baldurs Gate though.

Yes, because everything was all set up to go. Not quite so easy when you're making everything from scratch.

Allright but thats not the point. If its not easy to cram lots of content when starting from scratch, then just dont? The game wont suffer for it, its just content, the amount doesnt matter if its shit or getting to it sucks.

Again its like you equate content and exploration. You say how FO was lacking in areas unlike BG and sure, FO1 had less stuff to explore, but the exploration itself was better. Exploration is not the content, its how and why you get to the content.

Its not a question of time constraints, how much stuff they can cram in, its a design principle.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

Eh, so what? I'm not a developer and I don't care how games are made. I just comment on what's there.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

I've noticed a disheartening trend that is significantly lowering the quality of discussion on this site. It is, namely, a perception that one knows about the internal workings of RPG developers despite have never worked in anything remotely similar to an RPG development environment. Every man and their dog's opinion is regarded as relevant simply since it supports the preconception that they hold, every little vaguely-rlated anecdote is dredged up and milked for all its worth. Some might say this: "The RPG Codex is host to a number of indie developers and coders; they ought to know about the development of RPGs. This is true, but developing an indie RPG is a very different experience from developing an AAA RPG, or even working at somewhere like Obsidian. The budget, amount of delegation, market requirements, and the factors that seperate the good RPGs from the bad are simply too different to serve as a useful comparison. But these people are hardly the most vocal about their opinions, as they are wise and know that producing a game, even if it is absolute shit, isn't easy. Those who are most vocal have never dipped their toes into the waters of game development, yet they insist they know everything about how RPGs are developed from analysing a few small shreds of evidence and making logical leaps that would make an Olympic long-jumper beam with envy. These people contribute no useful discussion; they are a scourge upon the Codex. They need to realise that there are those who will call out their bullshit and hunt them down for it.

Dude, AAA developers don't make good RPG because one the following reasons:

1. They don't know shit about good RPG mechanics;
2. Good RPG's don't sell, are difficult to make and expensive. Popmole shit like Betheseda games (since Oblivion) sell really well, are easy to make and cost consideravly less (the only thing they need to waste money on is marketing and advertisements).

Or 3, all the above.

Anyway, I would rate your post Participation Award but then I realised this the Codex and we so instead I rated shit.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

there seems to be this myth that more work put in=more quality.

what

 

[Razzoriel]

No one that didn't delve into professionally making games know the whole extent of what it is to publish and develop a game. This being said, it is not like they can't come up with interesting concepts, its just that they lack the ability to see the whole picture. There's a reason "armchair general" is a pejorative title.

 

[Iznaliu]

Dude, AAA developers don't make good RPG because one the following reasons:

I never said that AAA devs made good RPGs, only that there was no understanding of RPG development.

 

[epeli]

Let's make a list of those people that are our class enemy. Anyone's blaming the engine for whatever shortcomings is going on the list.

Engine doesn't automatically make a game worse or better (unless we're talking about unity<4, in which case it's shit), but it sure as hell tells you a lot about the developer's competency and aims. Unity projects have by far the highest change of being worthless amateur crap, while anyone writing an isometric game engine from scratch is guaranteed to be dedicated and a competent programmer.

What kinda occurred to me yesterday is that the Underrail engine may be ageless (~15 years) if the codebase is decent. A niche developer could maybe live on it and make games

I don't know about that. Underrail's Ouroboros engine might be the only "modern" sprite engine purpose-built for isometric 2D games and while it could be adequate for other game projects, it's still based on dead XNA technology. But more importantly, any popular general-purpose engine would certainly have immeasurably better support and probably more suitable tools.

 

[Janise]

Yeah, I meant aesthetics-wise. People would tolerate or even like the looks, unchanged from what they are now. Despite the glaring weaknesses. It has a certain qualitative charme to it. While Vogel has been releasing disgusting looking and playing garbage for years and years.

While ToEE style 3D is probably easier as PoE shows.

 

[Iznaliu]

(unless we're talking about unity<4, in which case it's shit),

I would like to see your reasoning.