Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
AMOUNT OF MAGIC IN FANTASY
Posts
Desertopa
775
Desertopa
View playlists
CloseThere is the approach a lot of games take of using magic technology as direct emulation of real world technology. This may have been fairly original when it was first used, but it's gotten pretty stale by now. What I'd be interested to see is a setting that uses magic to make a world that's unlike stuff the audience has already seen before, rather than using magic in a recreation of a world that's already familiar.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Unsurprisingly, building a 100% alien civilization with no analogy to the real world isn't very common in any medium, since it takes hours of encyclopaedic explanations just to get to the point where you can start telling the story. When it does happen, that often means that the explanation and discovery of the world is the story, and the entire "conflict" of the story is reader vs. understanding, not character vs. villain. And also unsurprisingly, it's even less common in video games, where the stories in 99% of games are given as much attention as the stories in pornos (by both the creators and the audience), and we have yet to really figure out how to make enjoyable gameplay for most types of conflicts that aren't villain-centric.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=Desertopa
But there's a world of difference between, say, Final Fantasy Tactics, where the methods of warfare and standards of living are pretty much the same as in our own world in medieval times, despite some fairly ubiquitous spellslingers mixed in, and a setting where the warfare is magic-based the way our world's warfare is munitions-based, the industries rely on magic, and magic is deeply imbedded in the social structure.
Pretty much the only game series which is analogous on that level is Pokemon, where the society is Pokemon-based to the degree that a fantasy setting could be magic-based. Except Pokemon takes it to a weirder extreme because Pokemon seem to be not just the means but also the end goal of most of their culture.
In conventional fantasy, the setting deviates from the world as we know it, but the audience already understands how. They know what typical medieval fantasy, or the typical JRPG era-confused fantasy, looks like. It's a setting to which magical elements have been added, but not a setting which has been transformed by the presence of magic.
I feel like that level of focus on an element is really more appropriate in other media (chiefly the more speculative SF books) unless, like Pokemon, it is the sole point of the game. I think it's notable that those games use the modern world as a setting, as well as offering only the barest strokes of character: it leaves the least need for explanation, so the audience only has to figure out things to do with the pokemon themselves, and don't need to concentrate on anything else. Trying to make a player juggle a complex plot PLUS a super unfamiliar setting PLUS new game mechanics is just setting yourself up for failure, because most people aren't going to be invested enough to climb over that wall of information just for the sake of your game.
I also kind of feel like focusing that much energy on worldbuilding is ultimately a little boring, but that may just be that I'm more interested in character arcs than the implications of having zappydoos as an option in combat and how that would have affected firearm development. If I'm interested in alt history, I'll check out alt history.* In a game, I'm more interested in how the characters on my side can use their own abilities to get rid of the zappydoos on the other side so I can get more interaction and/or XP so as to be better at ridding the world of enemy zappydoos. I don't care about the details of their influence on the larger world; I want them gone because they are blocking my characters from their goals. (Also a broader societal focus tends to be anathema to the very individualistic nature of RPGs in the first place.)
*Which is not to say an alt history game would be impossible, though again I feel like a written text would be a lot more capable of getting across the details in an appropriate way.
Desertopa
775
author=LockeZ
Unsurprisingly, building a 100% alien civilization with no analogy to the real world isn't very common in any medium, since it takes hours of encyclopaedic explanations just to get to the point where you can start telling the story.
I don't think this is really the case. You can reveal a novel setting gradually by immersion, where the audience has to piece things together from what they observe. The visual novel Sharin no Kuni, for instance, is set in an alt-history world where the plot hinges heavily on a legal system that's significantly different from anything we have in our own world, but the story is still strongly character-based, and carried off without a bunch of infodumping to bring the audience up to speed. If anything, infodumping would have spoiled the effect.
author=Sooz
I feel like that level of focus on an element is really more appropriate in other media (chiefly the more speculative SF books) unless, like Pokemon, it is the sole point of the game. I think it's notable that those games use the modern world as a setting, as well as offering only the barest strokes of character: it leaves the least need for explanation, so the audience only has to figure out things to do with the pokemon themselves, and don't need to concentrate on anything else. Trying to make a player juggle a complex plot PLUS a super unfamiliar setting PLUS new game mechanics is just setting yourself up for failure, because most people aren't going to be invested enough to climb over that wall of information just for the sake of your game.
I think a good use of worldbuilding ties into the plot, so the audience learns about one as they learn about the other. You don't have to overwhelm the audience with information, you give them what they need to know as they need it, and if the story is interesting they'll stick around for more.
That said, I wouldn't try to introduce a game with complex worldbuilding and story, and gameplay as unfamiliar as Pokemon's was when it was new, unless the gameplay revolved entirely around the elements of the plot, because that probably would be distracting. But if I have to pick one between novel story and novel gameplay, I'd pick novel story pretty much every time.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=Desertopa
I think a good use of worldbuilding ties into the plot, so the audience learns about one as they learn about the other. You don't have to overwhelm the audience with information, you give them what they need to know as they need it, and if the story is interesting they'll stick around for more.
Well, yeah, but if your world is significantly different from one the audience is familiar with- as any world with entrenched magic would be- then you're necessarily going to have to spend extra time explaining everything, simply because literally nobody who's not the creator will know what the hell is going on.
If I have a fascinating story about how the Zappydoo Guild is secretly trafficking Squeedilyspooches in order to control the Flibbygamot's choice of the next High Mugwump, I need to explain to the audience what all these proper nouns are and why the main character gives a shit. I also need to do this in such a way that it's obvious that this is all normal shit, and not go into, "Well, Bob, as you know, being the Squeedilyspooch expert, Squeedilyspooches are a powerful breed of..."
By contrast, if I say that the Merchant's Guild is dealing in black market spices to amass wealth to buy the choice of next Pope, most players know exactly what I just said, and I can take all that time and effort I spent on the worldbuilding details and instead spend it on plot or character development. (Or on making the gameplay not suck I guess? My usual strategy is to make Uni do that part. :V )
There's certainly subtle worldbuilding stuff one can do with an entrenched magic culture, but to show things on the level being discussed here, where it's made a major impact on all facets of society, would generally require levels of detail that are more appropriate for media other than videro gaems. (I could get behind, say, a wiki or a fictionalized history book, for example. That would be boss!)
Desertopa
775
If you deliberately make things opaque, which using a barrage of proper nouns which aren't indicative of their meaning is a great way to do, then you're going to have to spend a lot of time explaining stuff. But it's not that difficult to present the stuff in a way that makes sense in context.
To take a couple RMN games as examples, Manifest has a fairly typical fantasy RPG setting, with some particular worldbuilding elements which it explains at length because it doesn't do much to make them clear through context, especially when it's muddling the player up with a lot of nonindicative proper nouns. The Logomancer has a much more unconventional setting and premise, but it doesn't have to launch into any of the sort of extended explanations that Manifest does, because it presents the narrative in a way that makes it easy for the player to pick up the key points of what's going on.
I think that this kind of worldbuilding can be easier to pull off in detail when you're working in a text-intensive format, but personally, I wouldn't be interested in either a fictionalized history book or wiki unless it was tied into a narrative.
The third Star Ocean game (possibly the fourth as well, but I never played that one,) features an extensive encyclopedia system which provides background information about the characters, setting and technology, much more than could have been organically inserted into the game's narrative. And I mostly found it a pain, because there's so little to tie the information in to any part of the narrative that pretty much all of it ends up as fluff. The encyclopedia does practically nothing to shed light on why the characters act the way they do, why the events unfold the way they do, or why the setting demonstrates the qualities that the player sees, which they won't pick up from playing the game. Final Fantasy XII's bestiary did a better job shedding light on elements of the setting which the narrative might actually provoke some curiosity about, but I thought it was still a lot less engaging than setting information conveyed organically as part of the narrative.The End is a sci fi webcomic with extensive worldbuilding, which features a wiki to house setting information, but the wiki would have very little appeal without the comic to give it context, and the setting information conveyed through the comic is pretty much always more engaging than that which is conveyed through the wiki.
Also, I think that in some ways visual-heavy media like video games and comics have significant advantages over pure text media in conveying worldbuilding-heavy stories, because players can pick up cues from observation, whereas in pure text, events and appearances can only be shown in alternation. In a visual medium, if you say travelers are at risk of being attacked by zobs, you send some characters on a trip, and they're jumped by armed lizard people, the audience has immediately gained an understanding of what zobs are which would have been harder to convey in a pure text medium without interruption of the narrative.
To take a couple RMN games as examples, Manifest has a fairly typical fantasy RPG setting, with some particular worldbuilding elements which it explains at length because it doesn't do much to make them clear through context, especially when it's muddling the player up with a lot of nonindicative proper nouns. The Logomancer has a much more unconventional setting and premise, but it doesn't have to launch into any of the sort of extended explanations that Manifest does, because it presents the narrative in a way that makes it easy for the player to pick up the key points of what's going on.
author=Sooz
There's certainly subtle worldbuilding stuff one can do with an entrenched magic culture, but to show things on the level being discussed here, where it's made a major impact on all facets of society, would generally require levels of detail that are more appropriate for media other than videro gaems. (I could get behind, say, a wiki or a fictionalized history book, for example. That would be boss!)
I think that this kind of worldbuilding can be easier to pull off in detail when you're working in a text-intensive format, but personally, I wouldn't be interested in either a fictionalized history book or wiki unless it was tied into a narrative.
The third Star Ocean game (possibly the fourth as well, but I never played that one,) features an extensive encyclopedia system which provides background information about the characters, setting and technology, much more than could have been organically inserted into the game's narrative. And I mostly found it a pain, because there's so little to tie the information in to any part of the narrative that pretty much all of it ends up as fluff. The encyclopedia does practically nothing to shed light on why the characters act the way they do, why the events unfold the way they do, or why the setting demonstrates the qualities that the player sees, which they won't pick up from playing the game. Final Fantasy XII's bestiary did a better job shedding light on elements of the setting which the narrative might actually provoke some curiosity about, but I thought it was still a lot less engaging than setting information conveyed organically as part of the narrative.The End is a sci fi webcomic with extensive worldbuilding, which features a wiki to house setting information, but the wiki would have very little appeal without the comic to give it context, and the setting information conveyed through the comic is pretty much always more engaging than that which is conveyed through the wiki.
Also, I think that in some ways visual-heavy media like video games and comics have significant advantages over pure text media in conveying worldbuilding-heavy stories, because players can pick up cues from observation, whereas in pure text, events and appearances can only be shown in alternation. In a visual medium, if you say travelers are at risk of being attacked by zobs, you send some characters on a trip, and they're jumped by armed lizard people, the audience has immediately gained an understanding of what zobs are which would have been harder to convey in a pure text medium without interruption of the narrative.
I think the reverse is true, I think most ppl are really mages (that might have envy/wish they were melee classes) and only a few people are really pure warrior types.
The warrior is the hero. He is the one that protects the shy & girly withdrawn mages from being one-shotted by the boss.. It's like Fluttershy from MLP/Johnathon from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. "Everybody's a little bit shy and awkward, so everybody is kinda mage like" and thus it requires something else to rise above that.
So a warrior can actually withstand the challenges. I don't think most humans are like this. They are emotional, shy and whiny. And run away too easily. But they are good at healing, and dealing magic damage- but not anything physical, real or raw.
A few 'alpha males' (or females or whatever) have the raw special ability (not supernatural but maybe innately supernatural in a subtle way) to have a really good physical presence. There's also a few assassins that probably wished they were fighters/warriors but they are not - though I'd say ur common rogue is like a mage, pretty common. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
(I have the balls to admit I'm just a mage, or more like a Shaman)
The warrior is the hero. He is the one that protects the shy & girly withdrawn mages from being one-shotted by the boss.. It's like Fluttershy from MLP/Johnathon from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. "Everybody's a little bit shy and awkward, so everybody is kinda mage like" and thus it requires something else to rise above that.
So a warrior can actually withstand the challenges. I don't think most humans are like this. They are emotional, shy and whiny. And run away too easily. But they are good at healing, and dealing magic damage- but not anything physical, real or raw.
A few 'alpha males' (or females or whatever) have the raw special ability (not supernatural but maybe innately supernatural in a subtle way) to have a really good physical presence. There's also a few assassins that probably wished they were fighters/warriors but they are not - though I'd say ur common rogue is like a mage, pretty common. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
(I have the balls to admit I'm just a mage, or more like a Shaman)
LightningLord2
230
You're addressing the exact problem I mean - people want to include spellcasters in their games, but they generally refuse to explore the wizards beyond the squishy nerd throwing magic missiles and fireballs. There's numerous other types of magicians, several which prefer fighting head on. Examples (even if several of the supernatural feats aren't named 'magic', you could consider it that):
-Red Mages in Final Fantasy can do every type of magic and also be a powerhouse in close combat.
-In the Avatarverse, Earthbenders usually take their enemies head-on compared to the Firebenders attacking from a distance.
-Several classes in D&D such as the Warblade infuse their weapons with magic as their main fighting style.
--Additionally, Tenser's Transformation turns mages into physical powerhouses.
-Some magicians in Fairy Tail use magic to enhance their physical strikes or simply fight at close range. Erza is notable for employing the typical Sword & Board role (mostly).
-Marisa Kirisame has a mix between blasting enemies with huge lasers and running them over on her broom (or using her rear).
-The basic attacks in Psychonauts involve summoning psionic hands to punch things with.
-While Ki is different from Magic in it, some fighters in Dragonball Z have spells in their loadout to support their physical combat, mostly in the Buu Saga.
-Lastly, if you call magic 'superpowers', it suddenly becomes a whole lot more versatile.
Also, why should I care I can't take a fighter in melee if he's dead before I'm in his striking range?
-Red Mages in Final Fantasy can do every type of magic and also be a powerhouse in close combat.
-In the Avatarverse, Earthbenders usually take their enemies head-on compared to the Firebenders attacking from a distance.
-Several classes in D&D such as the Warblade infuse their weapons with magic as their main fighting style.
--Additionally, Tenser's Transformation turns mages into physical powerhouses.
-Some magicians in Fairy Tail use magic to enhance their physical strikes or simply fight at close range. Erza is notable for employing the typical Sword & Board role (mostly).
-Marisa Kirisame has a mix between blasting enemies with huge lasers and running them over on her broom (or using her rear).
-The basic attacks in Psychonauts involve summoning psionic hands to punch things with.
-While Ki is different from Magic in it, some fighters in Dragonball Z have spells in their loadout to support their physical combat, mostly in the Buu Saga.
-Lastly, if you call magic 'superpowers', it suddenly becomes a whole lot more versatile.
Also, why should I care I can't take a fighter in melee if he's dead before I'm in his striking range?
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
Well, shit, if we're going to just call superpowers magic and include DBZ in here, then we may as well throw out the entire discussion, because it's no longer about magic users vs fighters, but about people with extraordinary ability versus people with no extraordinary ability.
I mean, you ARE aware that most games have options for the fighter types beyond the basic attack, right?
You keep talking about "exploring" the magic, but all your examples p. much boil down to "this is why magic users would own everything forever and probably also get all the fly honies." I mean, if that's really the discussion you want to have, you do you, but that really belongs more in the "Community" section, as would similar discussions, such as whether digimon or pokemon would win in a fight.
The answer is, "Turn off the video games and go outside you goddam nerd!"
ETA: Also I'm not a magic user, if anything I'm a shittily statted bard or rogue. The only eldritch forces at my command are the ability to make pretty pictures happen where no pretty pictures were, and the ability to be a supreme pest.
I mean, you ARE aware that most games have options for the fighter types beyond the basic attack, right?
You keep talking about "exploring" the magic, but all your examples p. much boil down to "this is why magic users would own everything forever and probably also get all the fly honies." I mean, if that's really the discussion you want to have, you do you, but that really belongs more in the "Community" section, as would similar discussions, such as whether digimon or pokemon would win in a fight.
The answer is, "Turn off the video games and go outside you goddam nerd!"
ETA: Also I'm not a magic user, if anything I'm a shittily statted bard or rogue. The only eldritch forces at my command are the ability to make pretty pictures happen where no pretty pictures were, and the ability to be a supreme pest.
author=adorkable
I think the reverse is true, I think most ppl are really mages (that might have envy/wish they were melee classes) and only a few people are really pure warrior types.
The warrior is the hero. He is the one that protects the shy & girly withdrawn mages from being one-shotted by the boss.. It's like Fluttershy from MLP/Johnathon from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. "Everybody's a little bit shy and awkward, so everybody is kinda mage like" and thus it requires something else to rise above that.
So a warrior can actually withstand the challenges. I don't think most humans are like this. They are emotional, shy and whiny. And run away too easily. But they are good at healing, and dealing magic damage- but not anything physical, real or raw.
A few 'alpha males' (or females or whatever) have the raw special ability (not supernatural but maybe innately supernatural in a subtle way) to have a really good physical presence. There's also a few assassins that probably wished they were fighters/warriors but they are not - though I'd say ur common rogue is like a mage, pretty common. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
(I have the balls to admit I'm just a mage, or more like a Shaman)
I find this whole post really baffling. Mages are the weak cowardly everyman, and fighters are the "alpha male?" That's not only strange, but really problematic. Why is a mage a coward because s/he fights from a distance? S/he's still risking life and limb. You can have a boisterous self-absorbed mage, and a shy, reserved fighter. Why are you equating fighters with some Übermensch ideal?
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=unity
Why are you equating fighters with some Übermensch ideal?
The enculturated Jock vs. Nerd rivalry that only nerds still care about?
I mean shit if we're REALLY being honest, most of us wouldn't be any kind of RPG hero, we'd be the losers hanging around in a town with a single line of dialog.
author=Soozauthor=unityThe enculturated Jock vs. Nerd rivalry that only nerds still care about?
Why are you equating fighters with some Übermensch ideal?
I mean shit if we're REALLY being honest, most of us wouldn't be any kind of RPG hero, we'd be the losers hanging around in a town with a single line of dialog.
Yeah, I get that main characters are usually warriors. I'm plenty guilty of doing that myself. That fact doesn't need to define character types and their personalities totally, nor does it mean that mages in games need to be second-fiddles or cowards.
Magic would only 'own' everything if you were boring and designed your world that way. It's limitations are up to you, the creator, so if it's a case of magic being overpowered, that is your fault as the creator. Obviously.
There are tons of magic out there in books that have drawbacks - using up the life of the user, only being able to be cast during certain phases of the moon, requiring certain items in order to be cast and the like. If you make a game with magic that doesn't have drawbacks then that's your problem. Fix it.
For example, I have one game where elemental magic can only be used by Masters of the art. One character has the power of a Master but none of the control, so during battle she'll occasionally draw in too much power to deal with and create a shockwave that will hit both enemies and allies - so you have to keep a watch on her. As for enemies, they have enchanted pieces of armour (most enemies are guards that are part of an evil Lord Magician's army, so kitted out against attack from magic).
It's your world, create a way to protect your melee characters ffs.
_____________________
As a nerd I could give a damn about that stupidity. Frankly, I never play mage. I never play warrior either. I am assassin/rogue because moving before the enemy has a chance to attack and striking from afar is better. I RIP OUT YOUR STILL BEATING HEART BEFORE YOU HAVE TIME TO TRY CREEP ON ME, MAGE BOY!
Frankly, you can have shy warriors and confident mages. That post is such bullshite it makes me want to RIP OUT THE STILL-BEATING HEART OF ALL TRILBY-WEARERS!!!
I mean, what?
There are tons of magic out there in books that have drawbacks - using up the life of the user, only being able to be cast during certain phases of the moon, requiring certain items in order to be cast and the like. If you make a game with magic that doesn't have drawbacks then that's your problem. Fix it.
For example, I have one game where elemental magic can only be used by Masters of the art. One character has the power of a Master but none of the control, so during battle she'll occasionally draw in too much power to deal with and create a shockwave that will hit both enemies and allies - so you have to keep a watch on her. As for enemies, they have enchanted pieces of armour (most enemies are guards that are part of an evil Lord Magician's army, so kitted out against attack from magic).
It's your world, create a way to protect your melee characters ffs.
_____________________
As a nerd I could give a damn about that stupidity. Frankly, I never play mage. I never play warrior either. I am assassin/rogue because moving before the enemy has a chance to attack and striking from afar is better. I RIP OUT YOUR STILL BEATING HEART BEFORE YOU HAVE TIME TO TRY CREEP ON ME, MAGE BOY!
Frankly, you can have shy warriors and confident mages. That post is such bullshite it makes me want to RIP OUT THE STILL-BEATING HEART OF ALL TRILBY-WEARERS!!!
I mean, what?
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=Liberty
Frankly, I never play mage. I never play warrior either. I am assassin/rogue because moving before the enemy has a chance to attack and striking from afar is better. I RIP OUT YOUR STILL BEATING HEART BEFORE YOU HAVE TIME TO TRY CREEP ON ME, MAGE BOY!
ROGUE SUPREMACY!
Can't hit what you can't see! :D
author=guy
-Red Mages in Final Fantasy can do every type of magic and also be a powerhouse in close combat.
Correction; Red Mages are okay in close combat.
author=Liberty
Depends on the game. I believe there's at least one FF where they can be powerful-ass melee units.
It has to be one of the newer ones, or the non numbered ones, (the ones I've never played), because in I, III, V, and the Tactics era games, they're quickly outclassed by almost every single physical job in melee abilities.
Which one?
author=Feldschlacht IVauthor=LibertyIt has to be one of the newer ones, or the non numbered ones, (the ones I've never played), because in I, III, V, and the Tactics era games, they're quickly outclassed by almost every single physical job in melee abilities.
Depends on the game. I believe there's at least one FF where they can be powerful-ass melee units.
Which one?
Well, yeah, if you could have a red mage do the same kind of damage as a fighter, then why use fighters?
I can't remember? That's why I said 'one of them'. I just recall an LP I read where they tore the game open with a red mage. I'm thinking it was one of the early ones, actually.
Desertopa
775
author=Liberty
Magic would only 'own' everything if you were boring and designed your world that way. It's limitations are up to you, the creator, so if it's a case of magic being overpowered, that is your fault as the creator. Obviously.
There are tons of magic out there in books that have drawbacks - using up the life of the user, only being able to be cast during certain phases of the moon, requiring certain items in order to be cast and the like. If you make a game with magic that doesn't have drawbacks then that's your problem. Fix it.
For example, I have one game where elemental magic can only be used by Masters of the art. One character has the power of a Master but none of the control, so during battle she'll occasionally draw in too much power to deal with and create a shockwave that will hit both enemies and allies - so you have to keep a watch on her. As for enemies, they have enchanted pieces of armour (most enemies are guards that are part of an evil Lord Magician's army, so kitted out against attack from magic).
It's your world, create a way to protect your melee characters ffs.
_____________________
I think it's only "boring" to design the world that way if you attempt to make accommodations for other types of characters in gameplay, but do it badly. If you have both fighters and wizards in the game, but the wizards make the fighters look shitty, that's bad game design. But if you have a game where there are no "fighters," just various kinds of wizards, then it's not a flaw in the setting's magic design that it isn't balanced for parity with dudes swinging swords.
I'm not clear on what LightningLord2 is arguing at this point, but if I go ahead and self-servingly interpret it in terms of what I already agree with, I think the point is that while it's boring to make a game with wizards, rogues, fighters, etc., which is completely unbalanced and the wizards own everyone, there's a lot of potential for gameplay and story originality in a setting where rather than having fighters, rogues and such, the wizards are all balanced against other kinds of wizards.
