YOUR GAME SUCKS

author=Dark Gaia link=topic=3818.msg77469#msg77469 date=1243584728
I make epic RPGs to tell a story. Unfortunately, to tell an "epic" story in a game, the only way it can be done is through the epic RPG style, after all, a dungeon crawler for example couldn't tell a Lord Of The Rings esque fantasy story.

Got anything to back that up?

There are so many freeware/indie gaming sites all over the web. If something does not appeal to you on here or on other RPGM

If you're making a game to tell a GOOD epic story you shouldn't even be making a game in the first place. The moment gameplay takes backseat to story, you're essentially just making a bad movie, even as a professional game designer.

I'm not saying that vidya gaems are a bad way to tell a story, but making a game simply for the purpose of making an 'epic story' sounds silly.

I agree with Griever. Sometimes there are situations where a novel or movie could simply not have the same effect that you hope to achieve with the game. My philosophy is that I try to make the story influenced by the player. I want my players to become the characters and help shape the story. Only a game can do that.

But it also needs good gameplay to back it up, because if it plays like a dog, you don't care what the story is.

I think an "epic" RPG with RPG Maker is possible, but it's certainly not something that is very common. I myself RM as a casual thing so I just don't have the time to constantly work on a 20 hour epic, so instead I'm releasing my epic project episodically.

If you design your cutscenes well, then they won't be boring. Just because it's a game doesn't mean it has to be 100% interactive.

author=Darken link=topic=3818.msg78653#msg78653 date=1244212259
All I'm saying that if you intend to make an epic full blown story for a video game, it's generally considered that it's the only reason you're making the game in the first place. At this point we can assume that you're not taking the medium seriously enough to consider taking advantage of the interactivity and mesh it with your story.

This is a really generalized statement. It's like your saying a good story and good gameplay are mutually exclusive. How do you know how much the creator is taking advantage of the interactivity? And don't forget that different genres tell stories in different ways. RPGs are prone to non-interactive cutscenes because they're so much more story focused than games like Super Metroid and Half Life. You can complain about boring cutscenes all you want, but how they're designed depends on a number of different things, and an uncaring audience can nullify all of them.

I guess what I'm trying to say is there's more to games than interactivity when it comes to storytelling.

author=halibabica link=topic=3818.msg78659#msg78659 date=1244216228
If you design your cutscenes well, then they won't be boring. Just because it's a game doesn't mean it has to be 100% interactive.

Way to take my asshole remark to Dark Gaia's games too seriously.

author=kentona link=topic=3818.msg78660#msg78660 date=1244216597
Interactivity is the one true strength video games have over nearly any other storytelling medium.

If you were going to drop that, then might as well use <insert other medium here>.

Interactive storytelling is incredibly hard to pull off, though.

Please tell me where in my post I said that interactivity should be dropped altogether. Of course it's important to a game! I was saying it's not as important to cutscenes as it is to the rest of the game itself. And I think I'd better give my definition of cutscene so we're all talking about the same thing, here:

For me, a cutscene is any part of the game where dialogue or story development interrupts the action. They can be anything from a short dialogue between two characters to a massive event, but they halt the meat of the gameplay and give the player words to read (or watch/listen to).

author=Scribble link=topic=3818.msg78673#msg78673 date=1244223077
This is the problem. They SHOULD be mutually exclusive. Because you're creating a game, not a novel or a film. 'Gameplay' IS the game, and should not be separated from the story!

Uh...that isn't what mutually exclusive means. It means you can have one or other, but not both. What you're saying here is that the two should be integrated, which is the opposite of mutually exclusive. So, yes, I agree with you!

author=Scribble link=topic=3818.msg78673#msg78673 date=1244223077
But the cutscenes *don't* have to be non-interactive! It's just that developers tend not to think enough/follow lazy patterns.

A few Western RPGs, like Planescape Torment and Fallout, do the 'interactive cutscene' right (And the former is pretty linear). I don't get why people don't strive towards those games, because they are clearly superior to watching cutscenes =P

No, they don't have to be, but making cutscenes ineractive is difficult, especially depending on the kind of game you're trying to create. For example, take Resident Evil 4's approach to cutscenes: the more hostile encounters of the game require the player to pay close attention so as not to miss button presses that move them out of harm's way. That works to make it interactive, but a cutscene of this variety would feel out of place in a different kind of story. Even RE4 didn't have this in all their cutscenes; only the ones that needed it.

It seems the problem is that, as a game, actions need to be required of the player. But, in most cutscenes, the flow of events carries itself without any input from the player, thus lending them to non-interactivity. A fairly simple way around this is to give the player options of things to say/do in a cutscene that affect the flow of it, but that can get complicated when multiple forks are used.

I don't think cutscenes need interactivity as badly as some people here are saying they do. Yeah, it helps, but it's not integral to the experience of the game. There are other ways of making cutscenes bearable so the game is still fun, such as keeping them short. And you can't just drop them altogether unless you're using a genre that doesn't call for them.

author=Scribble link=topic=3818.msg78673#msg78673 date=1244223077
Saying that there is more to games than interactivity is like saying that there is more to books than words, or more to films than a camera.

You mean there isn't? Because there is definitely way more to all of those things than what you're saying.

Solution: http://www.rpgmaker.net/articles/115/

Don't RPG make harder, RPG make smarter. ;)

I guess I just want to say that to make good games, you have to study game design, and know how to insert fun into a ludology. It doesn't happen by trying to think about what you like in a game and then trying to do it. To do it lucidly, you have to understand the process. The problem is that very few of us actually have the time, talent, and resources to devote to the study and then expression of this on an amateur basis. I want to make games, I like making games, and I KNOW I am getting better at it as I get older and wiser about game design, but the older I get the less time I have to devote to my rpgmakersmanship. :-X

Charm (aside from affectation and occasional nostalgia) rarely happens by accident.