RPG Settings
Comprox
*chortle*Canada Join Date: 2002-01-23 Member: 7Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver, Subnautica Developer, Subnautica Playtester, Pistachionauts
*chortle*Canada Join Date: 2002-01-23 Member: 7Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver, Subnautica Developer, Subnautica Playtester, Pistachionauts
The following is by KungFuDiscoMonkey, but I am posting it so I can make the poll:
First off, before reading the rest of this, vote what your favorite
setting is out of the choices above. Then post why that is your
favorite.
In preperation for working on my own 2D game I've been studying a lot
of past adventure/rpg games and noticed that so many of them seem to
use a fantasy setting. The wikipedia article on Computer role-playing
games ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_role-playing_game" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_role-playing_game</a> )
pointed it out nicely.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->role-playing games, most CRPGs are set in a fictional high
fantasy world. Whereas the tabletop games have since diversified, few
CRPGs feature elements from space opera, post-apocalyptic, alien and
other science fiction themes. Almost none take place in historical or
modern settings. Several notable exceptions to this trend are Arcanum
(steampunk), Bloodlines ("gothic punk"), Starflight (science fiction),
Darklands (a blend of medieval German history and legend), and Fallout
(post-apocalyptic).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The second part of my question is why do you think so many games
choose a fantasy setting also do you think more games really do choose
a fantasy setting or does it just seem that way.
First off, before reading the rest of this, vote what your favorite
setting is out of the choices above. Then post why that is your
favorite.
In preperation for working on my own 2D game I've been studying a lot
of past adventure/rpg games and noticed that so many of them seem to
use a fantasy setting. The wikipedia article on Computer role-playing
games ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_role-playing_game" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_role-playing_game</a> )
pointed it out nicely.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->role-playing games, most CRPGs are set in a fictional high
fantasy world. Whereas the tabletop games have since diversified, few
CRPGs feature elements from space opera, post-apocalyptic, alien and
other science fiction themes. Almost none take place in historical or
modern settings. Several notable exceptions to this trend are Arcanum
(steampunk), Bloodlines ("gothic punk"), Starflight (science fiction),
Darklands (a blend of medieval German history and legend), and Fallout
(post-apocalyptic).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The second part of my question is why do you think so many games
choose a fantasy setting also do you think more games really do choose
a fantasy setting or does it just seem that way.
Comments
And I'd say the choose the fantasy setting because fantasy sells.
I really think TOO MANY RPGs choose a fantasy setting, and frankly, it's becoming ****ing annoying. They tend to reuse old storylines way too freaking much, and it's becoming RIDICULOUSLY cliched.
The very first MMORPG I ever subscribed to was Earth and Beyond, which was very much like combining Star Trek and Wing Commander. You are the captain of your own ship, and you upgrade your avatar not through the appearance of your character, but by the weapons, electronics, engines, sensors, etc... of the ship. Strangely enough, this game was the first attempt at making an MMORPG by Westwood, who are famous for their Command and Conquer RTS titles. The most memorable thing about the game was the immersion into it's own background and story it provided, which was much more than something like WoW.
Another VERY notable RPG was the Fallout series. The storyline is set in the future, where most of mankind has been bombed to the stone age. There are also a few Safety Vaults where the rich could live in until the radiation outside abated. The first two games are semi-related and play out as a traditional RPG. The third one, Fallout tactics, is decidedly different because it focuses on tactical team based combat. The most amazing thing about this RPG series is the atmosphere. This is what a real RPG is supposed to feel like, it provided a very rich and deep story. Every element had some kind of explanation, it was up to the player to uncover the truth behind it. The game pulled you in to find out what had happened in the past. Sure, the combat is fun, but the real enjoyment comes from the storytelling.
At this point, a Fallout 3 is supposedly being created by Bethesda, the same guys who made the Elderscrolls series.
<!--coloro:#990000--><span style="color:#990000"><!--/coloro-->EDIT: Are there actually any historical RPGs? I would like an example of a few if anyone knows any good ones.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
I answered space opera though, which is the genre which I think has the most potential coolness =p
I'm a big fan of cyberpunk too, where would that fall? post-apoc?
So who chose the 'Other?' and what is that genre?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The genre I chose (and thus selected Other for) was buttes.
The genre I chose (and thus selected Other for) was buttes.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's that?
Why fantasy is chosen is probably the same reason there are so many fairy tales for youngins. I don't know what this reason is, but it would appear to be some underlying aspect to the way the populace thinks.
I would rank oblivion as one of the best games I have played ever. But notice how much of the imagery, atmosphere and music is like lord of the rings?
Which leaves me thinking; If a formula works, why break it?
Half life <b>2</b>
Quake <b>4</b>
Doom <b>3</b>
Mario must have a <b>jillion</b> titles to his name.
The sims <b>2</b>
In games, repetition is good. In my experience (and research!) Gamers know what they like and want to come back to it. Breaking new ground (farcry, darwinia) is really difficult for game designers, even though farcry is a well established construct, the new character, setting and method of play are hugely different to doom 3.
Is there a general lack of creativity in the game design industry? why do I go on and on with every post?
Is that the big guns tag skill picture?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Probably a variant.
I don't remember where I heard this, but I remember someone once saying that fantasy games are easier to make because everyone already has an idea in their head about fantasy. You put them in a fantasy world, and they already know that there will be swords, magic, and monsters. They're ready to go. But with other genres, you have to explain more things.
Thats not saying that you shouldn't use non-fantasy genres, it just means you have to work harder to establish the world.
I'd also place Fallout in this category, but let's not get into that.
The conclusion I have arrived at after a lot of discussions with GMs, players and researchers is that by deciding on a background, you decide on a certain 'language' for your experience. There are certain things that can be expressed with a fantasy background, that won't work in a historical setting, and vice-versa. Of course, there's bleedover and concious mixing of both languages - but that requires your audience to be somewhat fluent in each, which obviously reduces its size.
Considering this and the current risk-averse atmosphere in the gaming industry, it follows that the development of new titles will mostly happen within languages (settings) that have already been proven as well established in the audience. This does not indicate that the audience wouldn't also understand different approaches, it merely means that nobody has looked around hard enough yet.
I say this mostly because I've been on a <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3303233883842480929" target="_blank">Thief</a> kick lately. Thief has what is probably the best use of setting in any video game. Gothic, Steampunk and the Victorian era (Thief has elements from all of these) are criminally underutilized and would be great settings for an RPG. Hell, even Thief's <a href="http://twoday.tuwien.ac.at/static/gd2006/images/Thief3%20-%20the%20city.jpg" target="_blank">"The City"</a> is screaming for the RPG treatment.
Of course, if that's too hard, you could always do buttes. You can never go wrong with buttes.
That said I'd say Bloodlines and KOTOR are tied for my favorite settings. The World of Darkness is wicked, and hey, you can't go wrong with Star Wars.
For those who are wondering about historical games, check out Microprose's back catalogue. Darklands, Sword of the Samurai, Pirates!... though Darklands is the only one out of those that's more pure blooded RPG.
Something that tends to work well is to take fantasy concepts and put them in a different setting. That's what Star Wars did anyway (knights and princesses, but it's in space.)
People know immediately what to expect when they say 'Fantasy' so the developers don't have to do a lot of creative legwork.
As far as my tastes go I <b>love</b> space opera. I don't care for spaceships and all that guff though, I mean sci-fi life! Phantasy Star Online is my all time favourite RPG.
I don't mind Fantasy as long as it's new fantasy. For example, Zelda series has it's own setting with no dwarves or standard dragons; it's a mishmash of oddities like the goron, zora and the Hyrulians (who in all the games seem not to be considered elves or anything but rather just humans of noble blood).
As long as they bring some creativity and something worth exploring it's all good... after all if you know you're just going to run into elves, dwarves and all the stereotypical crud when you adventure are you really seeing anything new at all?
nuff said <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
I voted other. I would say I don't actually have a favorite category; the setting of the game is hugely insignificant compared to how good the game actually is. This is why Baldur's Gate 2, Planescape: Torment, Temple of Elemental Evil, Oblivion, and other fantasy RPGs can be so awesome even with the generic D&D/LotR setting, and games like Arcanum or Bloodlines can be awesome despite not adhering to a commonly used or well defined setting. There are plenty of bad games that use established genres and plenty of good games that don't, and vice versa. I would have had just as much fun playing Arcanum if it was set in the future or in Middle Earth, because it was a well written, <b>immersive</b> game. That's what's important to me, not the setting.
That said I'd say Bloodlines and KOTOR are tied for my favorite settings. The World of Darkness is wicked, and hey, you can't go wrong with Star Wars.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny you should use that word, because setting and the implementation thereof is one of the biggest contributors to immersion. These games are trying to take you to another world after all, and if that other world isn't interesting or coherent, you won't be very immersed in it. You can't separate setting from the rest of a story and expect it to work very well.
I highly doubt that you would've enjoyed Arcanum very much if it had been set in middle earth, since the plot would be nonsensical and devoid of meaning without the progress vs nostalgia thing that the game had going on. Planescape, if you haven't noticed, is <i>far</i> from the typical D&D setting. Torment made great use of it, creating an atmosphere and allowing for a story that just isn't possible in Forgotten Realms and whatever the other boring D&D settings are called. Oblivion would be nothing without the groundwork that the previous Elder Scrolls games laid, but even then, it's significantly more generic than its predecessors and suffers for it. If it weren't for the huge gameplay enhancements made in Oblivion, Morrowind, with its unique landscapes (ash deserts, giant mushrooms, giant enemy crab house) and original creature designs would be the better game by far. Bloodlines wouldn't really be the same without the practical, no bullish style of the WoD (see Jack's speech in the tutorial). I could go on and on.
Funny you should use that word, because setting and the implementation thereof is one of the biggest contributors to immersion. These games are trying to take you to another world after all, and if that other world isn't interesting or coherent, you won't be very immersed in it. You can't separate setting from the rest of a story and expect it to work very well.
I highly doubt that you would've enjoyed Arcanum very much if it had been set in middle earth, since the plot would be nonsensical and devoid of meaning without the progress vs nostalgia thing that the game had going on. Planescape, if you haven't noticed, is <i>far</i> from the typical D&D setting. Torment made great use of it, creating an atmosphere and allowing for a story that just isn't possible in Forgotten Realms and whatever the other boring D&D settings are called. Oblivion would be nothing without the groundwork that the previous Elder Scrolls games laid, but even then, it's significantly more generic than its predecessors and suffers for it. If it weren't for the huge gameplay enhancements made in Oblivion, Morrowind, with its unique landscapes (ash deserts, giant mushrooms, giant enemy crab house) and original creature designs would be the better game by far. Bloodlines wouldn't really be the same without the practical, no bullish style of the WoD (see Jack's speech in the tutorial). I could go on and on.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b><u>WARNING LONG POST AHEAD. TL;DR VERSION AT BOTTOM</b></u>
No, I mean Arcanum would have been good no matter where it was set because the developers were awesome. They went on to make Temple of Elemental Evil and Vampire: The Masquerade, both of which were awesome and both of which had NOTHING AT ALL to do with Arcanum's setting. It's reasonable to assume that had Arcanum been in a different setting it would still have been just as good.
Planescape isn't the typical D&D setting; what I meant was that it's ripped completely from D&D, since Planescape is a D&D setting itself. It's not all swords and sorcery and stuff but it's still an established world and all that.
Oblivion was my first Elder Scrolls game and I enjoyed it. Perhaps it would be nothing without those that came before it; I prefer to think that's not true. If nothing could ever be good without an extensive groundwork, well, we'd never get anything good at all.
Bloodlines could easily be translated into another setting and still retain its awesomeness. In fact, it basically was, before it was even made. Deus Ex and System Shock 2 are both Bloodlines-esque and are both in entirely different settings. They are still, though, as revered or more revered than Vampire, because their gameplay and design are awesome.
I'm not saying the setting's not important, I'm just saying that whether or not it's a good game shouldn't depend on the setting. It should depend on the writing, the characters, and the degree to which the player feels attached to his character and the world. You can do that in a generic D&D-Tolkien-ripoff setting, you can do it in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, you can do it in the far future among the stars, and you can do it in a modern world populated with monsters. The only people who play D&D for the swords and dragons are Tolkien nerds, the only people who play World of Darkness for the vampires are the emo-y goth people, and the only people who play Shadowrun because they like neocyberpunk are, uh, nerds or something. The common thread between these settings are not their originality or lack thereof; it's the cohesiveness and polish of their worlds, their lore, and the way their rules interact with their setting.
Just because the setting is an integral part of a game doesn't mean it's what makes the game good. Obviously, you have an entirely different game if you take the steampunk out of Arcanum or the vampires out of WoD. The thing is, though, it's still good. That's because there's something to all these things that transcends the setting, that uses as more than just a wellspring of content. Bad RPGs take their setting, be it swords and magic or lasers and spaceships, and use that to determine everything about the game. They make the whole point of playing simply to live out the preset stereotypes and preconceived notions that we all have about fantasy or sci-fi or whatever. Good RPGs incorporate their setting into something more, so that the only discernable difference between two games isn't whether they have elves or space elves.
That's why I think the setting ought not to determine everything about a game. If you take all your cues from your setting, the game's going to be devoid of any character apart from what you can derive from where it's based. If you stick to Tolkien and do nothing more, you'll have elves, orcs, chainmail, axes, and kingdoms. Choose sci-fi, and you get space elves, space orks, ablative armor, laser guns, and space stations. Set it in a postapocalyptic world, and you get mutated people, very mutated people, armor made of scraps, sawed off shotguns, and burnt-out shells of cities. You can change the setting all you want; your game's still just going to be a "fill in the blanks," the blanks being your settings and characters and your filler being whatever we've already seen a million times in a million RPGs in a million settings.
If you make the effort to craft a real game, a real story, with real motivation and real characters and real game mechanics, your setting will actually matter, and it will matter no matter what setting you chose. You can't just swap out bows for laser guns; you have an intricately crafted world. And that's what makes a good RPG.
tl;dr If you let the setting dictate the game, you'll just get a rehash of what has come before, many times. If you make a good game regardless of the setting, then the world will actually matter, instead of being a source of orcs, or mutants, or space aliens.
Your post as a whole.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When did anybody say they were comparing the quality of games based on their settings? This is a thread about comparing settings <i>to other settings</i>. All judgements can be made without the burden of any other context. If Troika were to reform tomorrow and start work on a new RPG, would you rather it be set in Forgotten Realms or Planescape? That is the question posed by the OP.
But if you want to discuss the importance of setting (even though you say you don't, it's exactly what you're doing), that's ok too.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Bloodlines could easily be translated into another setting and still retain its awesomeness. In fact, it basically was, before it was even made. Deus Ex and System Shock 2 are both Bloodlines-esque and are both in entirely different settings. They are still, though, as revered or more revered than Vampire, because their gameplay and design are awesome.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. This is a very bad example. System Shock 2 is a semi linear corridor shooter, Bloodlines is a hub based RPG. They play so completely differently that it's ridiculous; the <i>only</i> linking thread between the two is a conceptually similar RPG stat system. But even that is pretty weak, since they are so different in implementation.
Deus Ex is a more valid comparison, but it doesn't really help your argument. What would Bloodlines be if it were evaluated purely as an attempt to recreate the Deus Ex model of gameplay? A miserable failure, of course. The environments in Bloodlines are nowhere near as open, complete, interactive or consistent as those of Deus Ex, and the puzzles with 2 or 3 possible solutions are a very poor substitute for Deus Ex's "problems."
Bloodlines differentiates itself from Deus Ex and makes up for its deficiencies by fully utilizing its setting. Feeding on humans, whether in combat or out, is a pretty major part of the gameplay, and it comes directly from the setting. The humanity and masquerade systems, the ineffectiveness of guns, the almost ridiculous resiliency of the player character, all of these come with being a vampire in the world of darkness. And that's the effect it had on gameplay. As somebody who has played Bloodlines, you should know that aftermath of the prince's manipulations is the high point of the story. Well, manipulative Ventrue princes are a signature feature of the WoD. The writers took a familiar part of the setting, and with the magic of creativity, managed to do something very original and effective with it. Another good example would be anything and everything to do with Malkavians.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just because the setting is an integral part of a game doesn't mean it's what makes the game good. Obviously, you have an entirely different game if you take the steampunk out of Arcanum or the vampires out of WoD.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stop right there. Do you realize what you're saying? Taking that logic and putting it in a different but similar context, one might say that Master of Sudoku is what NS could have been, if only they had changed the setting from space to a piece of paper: It's no longer SciFi, so the aliens will have to go. First person shooters are inherently 3D, but paper can only support 2 dimensions, so I guess we'll have to drop the FPS portion of the game. One can only sketch a single frame at a time on paper, so assuming our game doesn't star The Flash, <i>real time</i> strategy wouldn't be very practical. And what's with this assuming that the player can draw space marines? I bet they can't even do stick figures right; they'd probably just write down numbers or something.
Whoa! It's like they're the <i>exact same game</i>! How did I do that?
If a story driven game is truly well made, the setting (or any other element of story) will be inseparable from the gameplay. Whether the setting was made to fit the gameplay or the gameplay was made to fit the setting makes little difference in this regard. Arcanum with the steampunk setting removed would be a broken husk of a game. They'd have to completely rewrite the story, redo all of the art and make significant changes to the gameplay (the technological side of the skill tree wouldn't really work in Middle Earth, for example). It probably wouldn't be worth salvaging at that point.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The thing is, though, it's still good. That's because there's something to all these things that transcends the setting, that uses as more than just a wellspring of content. Bad RPGs take their setting, be it swords and magic or lasers and spaceships, and use that to determine everything about the game. They make the whole point of playing simply to live out the preset stereotypes and preconceived notions that we all have about fantasy or sci-fi or whatever. Good RPGs incorporate their setting into something more, so that the only discernable difference between two games isn't whether they have elves or space elves.
That's why I think the setting ought not to determine everything about a game. If you take all your cues from your setting, the game's going to be devoid of any character apart from what you can derive from where it's based. If you stick to Tolkien and do nothing more, you'll have elves, orcs, chainmail, axes, and kingdoms. Choose sci-fi, and you get space elves, space orks, ablative armor, laser guns, and space stations. Set it in a postapocalyptic world, and you get mutated people, very mutated people, armor made of scraps, sawed off shotguns, and burnt-out shells of cities. You can change the setting all you want; your game's still just going to be a "fill in the blanks," the blanks being your settings and characters and your filler being whatever we've already seen a million times in a million RPGs in a million settings.
If you make the effort to craft a real game, a real story, with real motivation and real characters and real game mechanics, your setting will actually matter, and it will matter no matter what setting you chose. You can't just swap out bows for laser guns; you have an intricately crafted world. And that's what makes a good RPG.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Games at their core are combinations of various ideas. Ideas like "Jump on enemies to defeat them." or "Stay in the shadows to avoid being seen." Ideas like these are combined and implemented to varying degrees of success to make the games we play. One might think that good ideas are enough to make a good game, but they'd be wrong. The above examples are <i>great</i> ideas, but you'd have a pretty hard time combining them into a good game. To be truly great, a game needs to have a variety of good ideas that <i>fit well together</i> and implement them correctly. If you were to take every good idea you had and combine them into one game, you would end up with an incoherent mess. It's good to have some sort of common balance to check all your ideas against, so you can easily say "Yes! This would work perfectly!" Or "This is a good idea, but not for this game." I'm of the opinion that setting is one of the better ways to do this.
You don't have to take my word for it, though. Take a look at this <a href="http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/pstrevisitedavellone1.php" target="_blank">interview with Chris Avellone</a>.
Particularly:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->GB: What was your initial reaction when you first heard that Black Isle Studios would be developing an RPG based in the Planescape campaign setting? Did you immediately realize the potential such a unique setting could have?
Chris: A little confused, we weren't too familiar with the setting. Once we learned what the premise was, though, we were pretty excited - it seemed to be a very non-generic fantasy world, and it seemed cool to play around with. We weren’t sure how to translate some of the ideas into a game system, so we just chose a direction and went in it. Also, the setting allowed us (and encouraged us) to take departures from D&D, so we were able to play around with character advancement, immortality, special powers, and a whole range of races and characters you probably would be hard-pressed to see in other games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Avellone agrees with me. When designing Torment, his team used the planescape setting as the starting point for their ideas and went from there. If he had been a member of the Tycho school of game development, that quote would be be worded more like this:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Chris: A little confused, we weren't too familiar with the setting. Once we learned what the premise was, though, we were pretty excited - it seemed to be a very non-generic fantasy world, and it seemed cool to play around with. We weren’t sure how to translate some of our ideas into the setting, so we just chose a direction and went in it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Torment followed your formula for bad game design pretty exactly. Worst game ever mirite?
I was going to say something about Oblivion, but it's getting late and I think I've gone way over my word quota for the day. Maybe tomorrow.
tl;dr - buttes lol