It seems that Fantasy already has a slew of pre-concieved notions. Things like swords, magic, humanoid races, and epic monster make up the regular gamut of Fantasy games. However, with Sci-Fi, there really aren't that many standards. Sure, when you think of sci-fi, an image of space ships and lasers comes into mind, but Sci-Fi isn't just THAT. The basic idea of Sci-Fi is that it is a fiction that contains futuristic or scietific elements. The basic idea of fantasy is a medieval europe filled with epic monsters and magic. Basically, the definition of Fantasy seems to be much more narrower than Sci-Fi.
Also, I feel the most enjoyable part of world building is coming up with coherent fiction.
<!--quoteo(post=1597661:date=Jan 11 2007, 04:07 PM:name=Crotalus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crotalus @ Jan 11 2007, 04:07 PM) [snapback]1597661[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The basic idea of fantasy is a medieval europe filled with epic monsters and magic. Basically, the definition of Fantasy seems to be much more narrower than Sci-Fi.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh, no.
Fantasy settings in video games may be narrow, but that doesn't mean Fantasy settings are as a whole.
Fantasy is defined by the inclusion of magic or supernatural forces and taken as 'true' within the context [i.e magic becomes possible in that world]. Science-Fiction is defined as the real world but set in a different context as made possible by scientific breakthrough(s).
But the point of the discussion is why fantasy tends to show up in video games alot. And it seems a large majority of US fasntasy "video games" happen to be based on medieval europe as a general setting. This tends to be different with the Japanese however. Sorry if I didn't make that clear earlier. It just seems that Fantasy games are generally easier to make, without upsetting everyone if it looks very similar to other fantasy games. On the other hand, Sci-Fi games seem to be boring if they follow any type of cliche?
Fantasy games are self-perpetuating. They started out making them for any number of reasons [expectations from games at the time, popular interest, ease of construction, whatever] and the genre became so well defined for games that you don't even need to think about what you're putting in, you can simply say "fantasy" and the publisher will know what you're talking about. It allows people to work independently [to some extent] as instead of saying "a light sail spaceship" to the modeller, you just say "a fantasy goblin" and they'll have a much better idea of what they need to do. It just requires less thought for the generic games, whereas sci-fi is much less defined [game-wise] and covers a broader range in its existing incarnations.
Why so many fantasies? It sells, and it's the most general catagory, 'fantasy' encompasses just about everything that is a non-futristic fiction. And are there as many fantasy games as it seems? Not really, it just dominates the RPG catagory fairly prevelently, where as, say WWII/historical/modern games are almost entirely focused in the FPS Genre, making it seem like there are tons of them as well in their own right.
<b>Last paragraph deals with the fantasy being used the most, the rest is just my opinion on what's already been covered. </b> As an avid RPG player I'd say that my most enjoyed RPG would be Planescape: Torment. The immersion and depth to planescape was phenominal, if you were to give it a setting it would no doubt be fantasy. It's not the setting that makes the game however, you can run an awesome RPG in any setting but it MUST have depth to it.
A nice comparison for this imo is Baldur's Gate II and it's expansion The Throne of Bhaal; bg2 had plenty of depth, every cool item had its own backstory and wherever you went there was something happening that fit perfectly into the theme of the whole world. ToB however starts off in a horribly undersized city with so much less of a story line. The most ridiculously powerful weapons are instantly available and have no story behind them, simply being labled a +5 club and the like, losing their epic value that they would have attained in the original game. I didn't get too far into it and instead replay bg2 as soon as i've forgotten the storyline.
RPGs are quite similar to novels in this respect, I found planescape to play out quite similar to a novel and it certainly had enough text for one. There are successful novels in every genre and in most cases they are dependent on how well they develop their characters or their world.
If you're going to make an RPG you're going to have to choose the setting you can conjure the most material on, whether its through past experience working with that genre or an incredible fascination with it.
As for the whole fantasy showing up the most thing, well I'd say it's just easier to fit into a vision. If you choose a post-apocalyptic or cyber-punk genre there are so many limitations on what you must have. Then there's the fact that its easier to fit some damage statistics onto a magical sword forged of adamantium than it is to stick them on a gun and then have another gun do a completely different damage. Rusty-knife to magical +5 knife of the pwnerer provides items for the whole game, whereas ak47 to m4a1 doesn't really provide much to work with.
Comments
Also, I feel the most enjoyable part of world building is coming up with coherent fiction.
Uh, no.
Fantasy settings in video games may be narrow, but that doesn't mean Fantasy settings are as a whole.
Why so many fantasies? It sells, and it's the most general catagory, 'fantasy' encompasses just about everything that is a non-futristic fiction. And are there as many fantasy games as it seems? Not really, it just dominates the RPG catagory fairly prevelently, where as, say WWII/historical/modern games are almost entirely focused in the FPS Genre, making it seem like there are tons of them as well in their own right.
</b>
As an avid RPG player I'd say that my most enjoyed RPG would be Planescape: Torment. The immersion and depth to planescape was phenominal, if you were to give it a setting it would no doubt be fantasy. It's not the setting that makes the game however, you can run an awesome RPG in any setting but it MUST have depth to it.
A nice comparison for this imo is Baldur's Gate II and it's expansion The Throne of Bhaal; bg2 had plenty of depth, every cool item had its own backstory and wherever you went there was something happening that fit perfectly into the theme of the whole world.
ToB however starts off in a horribly undersized city with so much less of a story line. The most ridiculously powerful weapons are instantly available and have no story behind them, simply being labled a +5 club and the like, losing their epic value that they would have attained in the original game. I didn't get too far into it and instead replay bg2 as soon as i've forgotten the storyline.
RPGs are quite similar to novels in this respect, I found planescape to play out quite similar to a novel and it certainly had enough text for one. There are successful novels in every genre and in most cases they are dependent on how well they develop their characters or their world.
If you're going to make an RPG you're going to have to choose the setting you can conjure the most material on, whether its through past experience working with that genre or an incredible fascination with it.
As for the whole fantasy showing up the most thing, well I'd say it's just easier to fit into a vision. If you choose a post-apocalyptic or cyber-punk genre there are so many limitations on what you must have. Then there's the fact that its easier to fit some damage statistics onto a magical sword forged of adamantium than it is to stick them on a gun and then have another gun do a completely different damage.
Rusty-knife to magical +5 knife of the pwnerer provides items for the whole game, whereas ak47 to m4a1 doesn't really provide much to work with.