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)
PACING VS CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT
Posts
Jericho
52
Jericho
View playlists
CloseAnakin Skywalker is not interesting because George Lucas was 100% behind him. Unlike Darth Vader. Also, Anakin was a villian for about thirty minutes and played by a wooden actor. And also none of the prequels made any fucking sense at all.
Even in the original trilogy, Vader's feelings and motivations are explored, culminating in the excellent scene at the end of Return of the Jedi. Furthermore, Spock EUUEgugh
Even in the original trilogy, Vader's feelings and motivations are explored, culminating in the excellent scene at the end of Return of the Jedi. Furthermore, Spock EUUEgugh
Radnen
1806
A "person" antagonist must be diametrically opposed to the ideals the protagonist stands up for. In that regard it doesn't matter how much "face time" the villain gets, the more the better. A good villain is someone who has justifiable intentions that are diametrically opposed to the player. If they are all so similar then there's no villain there.
Philosophy 101:
Do not speak of villains in terms of good vs. evil. Villains are not evil. There has been no single villain ever at any point in human history; nor in any book I've ever read that stood up for "evil" intentions. "Evilness" and "goodness" are constructs of society that engineer a binary reference scale we call "morality", it's no different than race or gender. You may use them as categorical terms, but not as a means to an end. This is due in large part to the notion that evilness and goodness change depending on who you are (the reference point or perspective on the matter).
Philosophy 101:
Do not speak of villains in terms of good vs. evil. Villains are not evil. There has been no single villain ever at any point in human history; nor in any book I've ever read that stood up for "evil" intentions. "Evilness" and "goodness" are constructs of society that engineer a binary reference scale we call "morality", it's no different than race or gender. You may use them as categorical terms, but not as a means to an end. This is due in large part to the notion that evilness and goodness change depending on who you are (the reference point or perspective on the matter).
Clest
0
LockeZ: Now I think we understand each other.
And I agree that moral conflict can be done right, however I believe there is a balance and itmust, even if very little, weight more to the side your audience would find right.
Sure that right differs from people´s views, I agree with Magneto, but some sissy people agree with Xavier.
Also your hero turns in main villain is somewhat what I had for my project: the guy leads a rescue team to secure a bunch of scientists and their prototype from a base taken over by terrorists. Turns out that the final part of his order was to kill the scientists and just steal the prototype after using them to get rid of the terrorists. But I dunno about going that route...
Shinan: I do think it must be careful to show stuff that the characters can´t see to the player and been always against that, but replayiong Xenogears made me change my mind a bit. I think one of the exceptions you mentioned is when the villains talk about something which player characters will never undrstand fully, but the player should.
In my current project, one of the heroes is captured very early and convinced to become a villain, however since she only fights you near the end, I take her as viewpoint to villains HQ chat.
Radnen: I agree that evilness relkates more to things that threaten or harm you in anyway, meaning, it will be evil to you or those you care about. Also in most occasions harming someone who did nothing against someone else might be evilness in many cultures.
And that is the point where if you do have to work towards the goal of defeating someone, it is way easier if whatever reason they have is smaller to you than the "evilness" they comit in your view. Otherwise why not just switch to their side? Or simply sit neutral and let things happen. I think works better for branching games where you are not stuck.
And I agree that moral conflict can be done right, however I believe there is a balance and itmust, even if very little, weight more to the side your audience would find right.
Sure that right differs from people´s views, I agree with Magneto, but some sissy people agree with Xavier.
Also your hero turns in main villain is somewhat what I had for my project: the guy leads a rescue team to secure a bunch of scientists and their prototype from a base taken over by terrorists. Turns out that the final part of his order was to kill the scientists and just steal the prototype after using them to get rid of the terrorists. But I dunno about going that route...
Shinan: I do think it must be careful to show stuff that the characters can´t see to the player and been always against that, but replayiong Xenogears made me change my mind a bit. I think one of the exceptions you mentioned is when the villains talk about something which player characters will never undrstand fully, but the player should.
In my current project, one of the heroes is captured very early and convinced to become a villain, however since she only fights you near the end, I take her as viewpoint to villains HQ chat.
Radnen: I agree that evilness relkates more to things that threaten or harm you in anyway, meaning, it will be evil to you or those you care about. Also in most occasions harming someone who did nothing against someone else might be evilness in many cultures.
And that is the point where if you do have to work towards the goal of defeating someone, it is way easier if whatever reason they have is smaller to you than the "evilness" they comit in your view. Otherwise why not just switch to their side? Or simply sit neutral and let things happen. I think works better for branching games where you are not stuck.
author=Radnen
A "person" antagonist must be diametrically opposed to the ideals the protagonist stands up for. In that regard it doesn't matter how much "face time" the villain gets, the more the better. A good villain is someone who has justifiable intentions that are diametrically opposed to the player. If they are all so similar then there's no villain there.
Philosophy 101:
Do not speak of villains in terms of good vs. evil. Villains are not evil. There has been no single villain ever at any point in human history; nor in any book I've ever read that stood up for "evil" intentions. "Evilness" and "goodness" are constructs of society that engineer a binary reference scale we call "morality", it's no different than race or gender. You may use them as categorical terms, but not as a means to an end. This is due in large part to the notion that evilness and goodness change depending on who you are (the reference point or perspective on the matter).
To pull out the Philosophy 101 card when we're talking about game villains and/or character development in a 20 or less hour home-made game is somewhat ridiculous.This is about games. I don't play games with very interestingly complex villain/hero relationships, and that's probably because you don't require complex villain/hero relationships to establish an interesting game or plot. Mario and Bowser have more charm than most villains or heroes in games, and their relationship is based off of extremely simple terms.
Obviously "kick-the-puppy" villains are unwanted, but good games don't require complex villains. Stick them to books, movies, comics, manga, etc. But games don't need them. Games need gameplay.
Nightblade
2723
]A "person" antagonist must be diametrically
Obviously "kick-the-puppy" villains are unwanted, but good games don't require complex villains. Stick them to books, movies, comics, manga, etc. But games don't need them. Games need gameplay.
Mario and Bowser works well because it was a non story driven game. All you really need to know in Mario is that Bower kidnaps peach for laughs or something and it's up to an mildey obese plumber to save her.
It's a pretty narrow minded perception to think that games don't benefit from being well written. Mind you, there are places for games like Mario and Devil May Cry; but that doesn't necessarily mean that you toss a well written script in the garbage because "GAMEZ ARE FUR PLAYIN, IF I WANTED TO REED ILL GO TO SKOOL".
What would Soul Reaver be without Kain? What would FF6 be without Kefka? There's plenty of room for story in all types of games. Be it a side scroller or an traditional RPG. It's not necessary, but there's most definitely a place for it.
Radnen
1806
author=The_Ghostman
To pull out the Philosophy 101 card when we're talking about game villains and/or character development in a 20 or less hour home-made game is somewhat ridiculous.This is about games. I don't play games with very interestingly complex villain/hero relationships, and that's probably because you don't require complex villain/hero relationships to establish an interesting game or plot. Mario and Bowser have more charm than most villains or heroes in games, and their relationship is based off of extremely simple terms.
Hey you are absolutely right, but this is a forum, I just want some discussion. Not all games here are made in 20 hours. Some other topic here I made says that quite a few of you guys here took years on some projects. But time is irrelevant, I just want to see more than the usual "good vs. evil" type of story arcs. They get old fast. Especially for games that do take more than 20 hours. Because let's face it, a simple game deserves a simple story, but not all games here are/were simple.
I think RPG's of almost any kind kind beg for "novelistic" stories and ideas (when it comes to the characters). The "game" part however throws a wrench into the mix by introducing "gameplay", which must be interesting. This is why traditional good and evil tropes are used, it makes it really easy to gauge progress and define the tone. But really it just benefits simple writers who read too much Tolkein. :P
Clest
0
author=Radnenauthor=The_GhostmanTo me RPGs are about setting, this is the thing most other forms of media lose in comparison. Plot to me has a distinct role to serve as a "world tour guide" indicating the most interesting touristic spots from the game world and giving me a tourist schedule so I don´t just wander around not knowing what to see first - main reason why I don´t like games that just let you do whatever you want.
Hey you are absolutely right, but this is a forum, I just want some discussion. Not all games here are made in 20 hours. Some other topic here I made says that quite a few of you guys here took years on some projects. But time is irrelevant, I just want to see more than the usual "good vs. evil" type of story arcs. They get old fast. Especially for games that do take more than 20 hours. Because let's face it, a simple game deserves a simple story, but not all games here are/were simple.
I think RPG's of almost any kind kind beg for "novelistic" stories and ideas (when it comes to the characters). The "game" part however throws a wrench into the mix by introducing "gameplay", which must be interesting. This is why traditional good and evil tropes are used, it makes it really easy to gauge progress and define the tone. But really it just benefits simple writers who read too much Tolkein. :P
That said, I don´t mind simple good vs evil plots as long as that ties well and helps in showing the setting. However I must say that a good plot do help more with that than a simple one, yet, as you said yourself evil and good are subject to view, so even if this is plain good vs evil you might have different evil deeds with diferent results and a hero with some less usual honor code.
In my case I got many heroes, but the main girl is a scientist. She doesn´t cara for ppls lives individually, only for science, discovery and progress. She wouldn´t risk her life to save an innocent stranger but she would die or kill for her research without question.
Sure player might not agree to that, but thats why I got more heroes with different views.
author=Nightblade]A "person" antagonist must be diametricallyMario and Bowser works well because it was a non story driven game. All you really need to know in Mario is that Bower kidnaps peach for laughs or something and it's up to an mildey obese plumber to save her.
Obviously "kick-the-puppy" villains are unwanted, but good games don't require complex villains. Stick them to books, movies, comics, manga, etc. But games don't need them. Games need gameplay.
It's a pretty narrow minded perception to think that games don't benefit from being well written. Mind you, there are places for games like Mario and Devil May Cry; but that doesn't necessarily mean that you toss a well written script in the garbage because "GAMEZ ARE FUR PLAYIN, IF I WANTED TO REED ILL GO TO SKOOL".
What would Soul Reaver be without Kain? What would FF6 be without Kefka? There's plenty of room for story in all types of games. Be it a side scroller or an traditional RPG. It's not necessary, but there's most definitely a place for it.
Games don't benefit from complex villains. Games benefit from good gameplay. Stories benefit from strong character development and complex villain/hero relationships. There is nothing narrow about it. A game with redundant or boring gameplay may benefit from good story - Chrono Trigger comes to mind (I would not enjoy Chrono Trigger had it not been for its story, but that is only because it is repetitive), and as for an RPG that is so fun it doesn't even need a story - Secret of Mana comes to mind. So to NEED a good story, it is because you lack good gameplay. To NEED good gameplay, it is because you lack a good story. But as you said, it's not necessary. Clearly there is no real disagreement.
author=Radnen
Hey you are absolutely right
Thank you, I know.
Nightblade
2723
Games don't benefit from complex villains.
Why not? How is there no benefit? Explain.
Stories benefit from strong character development and complex villain/hero relationships.
Games can tell stories. Some games meld stories and gameplay seamlessly with one another. Go play Half Life 2.
There is nothing narrow about it. A game with redundant or boring gameplay may benefit from good story -
Chrono Trigger comes to mind (I would not enjoy Chrono Trigger had it not been for its story, but that is only because it is repetitive), and as for an RPG that is so fun it doesn't even need a story - Secret of Mana comes to mind. So to NEED a good story, it is because you lack good gameplay.
...What part of this makes even a tiny bit of sense? There is absolutely nothing to lose by being strong in both areas. Of course it's not necessary; but it sure as hell is nice when a game has both a strong story and is fun to play.
To NEED good gameplay, it is because you lack a good story. But as you said, it's not necessary. Clearly there is no real disagreement.
...Am I tired or something? What the hell is this?
I'm sorry, but if you're trying to explain something here; you're doing a very poor job of it.
Radnen
1806
author=NightbladeGames don't benefit from complex villains.Why not? How is there no benefit? Explain.
I think he separated game from story and then started treating them... As mutually exclusive counterparts? Bad idea. Games are defacto stories.
eplipswich
2728
author=The_Ghostman
So to NEED a good story, it is because you lack good gameplay. To NEED good gameplay, it is because you lack a good story.
I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense at all. Who says a game with a good story will not have good gameplay? Likewise, does that mean a game with good gameplay will have a bad story?
Sure, games don't require complex villains, but if complex villains exist, it's of course all for the better. Majority of games are either great in gameplay or great in story, but there are definitely games that have both good gameplay and story, and those kind of games are what are truly great because it's the best of both worlds. And besides, we're talking about RPGs here. Gameplay is still the no. 1 prospect in RPGs, but if it is combined with great story, wouldn't it be all for the better? Just so you now, complex villains are part of character development, which is important in contributing to story.
If your game lack gameplay, of course you would improve the gameplay. It's kind of nonsensical if you say your game lacks gameplay, oh so you go for good story instead...Likewise for vice versa...
Jericho
52
You say that games don't benefit from complex villians, but stories do. The thing is, I would argue that most people, including myself, consider the writing as a significant factor when deciding whether or not an RPG is enjoyable. It is, after all, the stalest genre when it comes to gameplay. I would also say that, considering the length of most RPGs, a good story is imperative. You cannot keep the player playing if he does not care about what is going on.
This is saying gameplay can be thrown out the window, though. I am curious to what happens in Alter Aila Genesis, but cannot bring myself to play it anymore.
Saying that games do not need good writing to entertain is one thing. I disagree with regards to the RPG genre, but hey. The idea that they cannot benefit from it all is erroneous and assumes that the player is a half-dead neanderthal.
Also, am I correct that you are saying that a good story can make up for good gameplay, and yet games do not benefit from competent writing? Doesn't this mean that games do, in fact, benefit from good storytelling?
This is saying gameplay can be thrown out the window, though. I am curious to what happens in Alter Aila Genesis, but cannot bring myself to play it anymore.
Saying that games do not need good writing to entertain is one thing. I disagree with regards to the RPG genre, but hey. The idea that they cannot benefit from it all is erroneous and assumes that the player is a half-dead neanderthal.
Also, am I correct that you are saying that a good story can make up for good gameplay, and yet games do not benefit from competent writing? Doesn't this mean that games do, in fact, benefit from good storytelling?
Radnen
1806
author=Jericho
You cannot keep the player playing if he does not care about what is going on.
Kind of an assumption there... In ARPG's the game could just be fun. As in, what keeps people playing is just killing and blowing shit up.
I think LORE is a great keyword to throw into the mix. Lore begs exploration and defines complexity in a game world. Good games have fantastic lore.
Clest
0
What exactly do you mean by lore in this case Radnen? Just curious to see if I got it right.
Anyway, still people ignore the single thing that RPGs do better than ny genre: exploration and setting development.
Thats where gameplay and story clashes most of the time, sure that if you don´t mind story or if you are used to split game play and story in diferent corners of your mind you won´t care, but at least to me it is a bother specially with simple things which could easily be solved.
But that is off topic.
The point is that setting should be the foundation of the story and gameplay in a way, with both growing from there and both doing their jobs in a rpg, both jobs just serving the setting an exploration premise as subordinates:
Story serves to guide the player and present the setting giving them a schedule to follow when travelling so they don´t feel overwhelmed by a large world where they can go anywhere. It also serves to give player a main drive and porpose.
Gameplay serves to give the player a direct link and means to interact with the setting rather than just walking and reading. They can fight, do chore, uncover mysteries and all other things they would usually just watch or red the characters do in another media.
Anyway, still people ignore the single thing that RPGs do better than ny genre: exploration and setting development.
Thats where gameplay and story clashes most of the time, sure that if you don´t mind story or if you are used to split game play and story in diferent corners of your mind you won´t care, but at least to me it is a bother specially with simple things which could easily be solved.
But that is off topic.
The point is that setting should be the foundation of the story and gameplay in a way, with both growing from there and both doing their jobs in a rpg, both jobs just serving the setting an exploration premise as subordinates:
Story serves to guide the player and present the setting giving them a schedule to follow when travelling so they don´t feel overwhelmed by a large world where they can go anywhere. It also serves to give player a main drive and porpose.
Gameplay serves to give the player a direct link and means to interact with the setting rather than just walking and reading. They can fight, do chore, uncover mysteries and all other things they would usually just watch or red the characters do in another media.
Radnen
1806
author=Clest
What exactly do you mean by lore in this case Radnen?
...point is that setting should be the foundation of the story and gameplay in a way...
That. Making a setting, but with a history. Making enemies, players, NPC's. Local traditions in villages, peoples occupations, and other small-story elements all contribute to lore. Any small conversation - watercooler news in the game world - locations on a world map, creatures in forests or dungeons, a dungeons' layout. The history of a tower/castle/manor. These contribute to lore as well.
Lore is the driving point, not just setting. What's a setting without a history? Without some characteristics? Lore is what that's about. My game is heavy on lore - almost everything needs definition. Why do people dress a certain way? What does the local festival/holiday represent? Who is in charge of the town? How's his personality? These are things I put in my game so that the main story isn't the only thing driving the exploration.
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
author=DarkenloreZzzZZzZZzz
Clest
0
author=Radnenauthor=ClestThat. Making a setting, but with a history. Making enemies, players, NPC's. Local traditions in villages, peoples occupations, and other small-story elements all contribute to lore. Any small conversation - watercooler news in the game world - locations on a world map, creatures in forests or dungeons, a dungeons' layout. The history of a tower/castle/manor. These contribute to lore as well.
What exactly do you mean by lore in this case Radnen?
...point is that setting should be the foundation of the story and gameplay in a way...
Lore is the driving point, not just setting. What's a setting without a history? Without some characteristics? Lore is what that's about. My game is heavy on lore - almost everything needs definition. Why do people dress a certain way? What does the local festival/holiday represent? Who is in charge of the town? How's his personality? These are things I put in my game so that the main story isn't the only thing driving the exploration.
Okay, so what I meant by setting has what you meant by lore incorporated, when I said setting it included all you mentioned.
And I am rather insane about both anyway... I have more trouble trying not to reason every detail than to actually create explanations. It is automatic to me. Actually, it is not bad to reason or explain everything as long as we don´t convey everything forcebly to the player.
But ye yeah, I like to have a large past, history, geographic details, nature, science and everything as detailed as possible.
Looking forward to your game a lot after that ;)
Radnen
1806
author=LockeZauthor=DarkenloreZzzZZzZZzz
Lore is not boring? If your game has an enemy - of whatever kind - you have some lore there. Honestly, how can you make an interesting or good RPG without lore? Lore defines the story. Kefka for example has a heavy lore as a mage turned psychopath, it makes him the psychotic badass that he is.
Darken
3952
Focus on lore is generally restricted to those crazy political historical RPGs like suikoden where it requires the audience to be heavily invested in the story in the first place to really appreciate. Even in RPGs I don't think many people give a shit about lore. I like the idea of background story elements kept simple and subtle. Look at the characters rather than their super powers.
