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
Clest
0
Clest
View playlists
CloseLooking at the characters rather than superpowers is a point of lore. Characters do have story, an origin, they were born, had a past prior to the game and they have yet feelings and thoughts regarding present events and people and dreams or plans for the future.
In my game there are no supers, your characters never become godlike, they are never the only ones capable of doing what they do, they are just common people who decided to do what they do and stand out for their decisions and who they are.
As for being boring, thats where I think lore should be placed cautiously to the player view and articulated in a way where only the key factors are mandatory to know and everything else is optional, be it through NPCs, books, scriptures, computer banks etc.
The rest is what is there but the player don´t see.
Befopre my last replay of Xenogears I took the time to red Xenogears Pèrfect works, it is interesting how during development, everything in the game was planned according to the setting and how would it be if such a world with such people existed for real. Each enemy, gear, place, chronology... all detailed and well thought.
The game just shows those things and it all just fits, the book just serves to show the line of thought put into things.
In my game there are no supers, your characters never become godlike, they are never the only ones capable of doing what they do, they are just common people who decided to do what they do and stand out for their decisions and who they are.
As for being boring, thats where I think lore should be placed cautiously to the player view and articulated in a way where only the key factors are mandatory to know and everything else is optional, be it through NPCs, books, scriptures, computer banks etc.
The rest is what is there but the player don´t see.
Befopre my last replay of Xenogears I took the time to red Xenogears Pèrfect works, it is interesting how during development, everything in the game was planned according to the setting and how would it be if such a world with such people existed for real. Each enemy, gear, place, chronology... all detailed and well thought.
The game just shows those things and it all just fits, the book just serves to show the line of thought put into things.
eplipswich
2728
author=Radnenauthor=LockeZLore 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.author=DarkenloreZzzZZzZZzz
Whether or not lore can be interesting depends on how lore is handled. Too much lore is definitely not the way to go if it is handled badly. Lore can either make or break your game. Also, games don't need a whole load of lore to be fun and intriguing.
Radnen
1806
author=eplipswich
Too much lore is definitely not the way to go if it is handled badly. Lore can either make or break your game. Also, games don't need a whole load of lore to be fun and intriguing.
Fun, no. Intriguing yes.
Good lore is indeed written by a good writer. We are all good writers here, I presume? I mean, if all we use are RTP's or other peoples resources because we make story driven games then we should all be good writers. If not why the heck even make an RPG in RM?
Ergo, lore should always make your game, rather than break it. If you think you can't handle lore then get an education and come back. That's what I say.
author=Nightblade
Why not? How is there no benefit? Explain.
You're offended because games do not need good villains. Let me open the view. Some games may "benefit" from "well-developed" villains. A truly fun game does not need this. Let's move on.
author=Nightblade
Games can tell stories. Some games meld stories and gameplay seamlessly with one another. Go play Half Life 2.
Some games tell good stories. Fun games don't need them. And no thanks, I'll pass on Half Life 2.
author=Nightblade
...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.
You're confused. Nobody said anything or hinted at any sort of "loss". You're confusing "Games don't need a good story to be fun" with "games suck if they have good story." Obviously I enjoy both, but this is about necessity, and I could not care less if Mario's parents were murdered by Koopa Troopas and Mario inherited his fire ball ability from the burning flower of (insert-made-up-name-to-sound-cool-here).
author=Nightblade
...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.
Yes, you're tired and confused, and not doing a good job of reading. It's very direct and bluntly stated, let me try to explain it in even blunter terms. Because I say "games don't need good stories or complex characters", you immediately assume (and take offense to the notion) that I mean "GOOD STORIES SUCK". No.
author=eplipswichauthor=The_GhostmanI'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?
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.
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...
Don't be sorry. Nobody says or said a game with a good story will not have good gameplay. Nothing confusing about it.
I believe this was made clear, but I suppose I need to explain it more directly to you. If a game lacks fun gameplay, it NEEDS story, it does not HAVE story. And vice versa.
author=Jericho
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?
Clearly there is no actual disagreement. RPGs are among some of the most boring games in terms of gameplay, at least in my humble opinion, and that is why they are often saturated in story, almost to the point of whining in some cases. This goes back to the idea that bad gameplay needs good story, and bad story needs good gameplay. Meaning, a "not fun" game benefits from good writing. This simple idea is being ridiculously mistaken for meaning something else.
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=RadnenWhy would you even consider that as a possibility, much less presume it as truth? I've never written anything decent in my life. I'm a software designer who attempts to put stories in my games because I think games should have stories. I can occasionally cobble together something halfway decent because I was an English minor, but I'm certainly never going to write a NY Times bestseller. No one here is.
We are all good writers here, I presume?
And regarding lore, I think most of us can agree that Tolkien-esque writing does not appeal to very many readers these days. If you're not familiar with Tolkien's works, in Lord of the Rings he wrote twenty pages of setting and lore for every page of action. In later works he got rid of the action entirely and basically just wrote entire volumes describing the history, religion, magic, and setting of Middle Earth, with books that literally had no characters or dialogue or events whatsoever. They read like history textbooks, but of a fictional world.
There's an acceptable middle ground somewhere between The Silmarillion and Contra 3. I can see the point of wanting to create a certain atmosphere and to explain what's going on, but you don't want to make the action take a back seat. Most people will not pay attention to a story where nothing happens for very long. They like things to move forward.
author=LockeZauthor=RadnenI've never written anything decent in my life.
We are all good writers here, I presume?
Interesting.
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=The_Ghostmanauthor=LockeZInteresting.author=RadnenI've never written anything decent in my life.
We are all good writers here, I presume?
I make no attempt to hide it.
Nightblade
2723
You're offended because games do not need good villains. Let me open the view. Some games may "benefit" from "well-developed" villains. A truly fun game does not need this. Let's move on.
"I'm offended"? Cute.
Your words:
Games don't benefit from complex villains.
You never stated games don't NEED complex villains, you said they don't BENEFIT from them. Christ, you can't even get your own bullshit straight. But that's okay, keep changing your viewpoint to (poorly) deflect retorts. "Let's continue".
author=Nightblade
Games can tell stories. Some games meld stories and gameplay seamlessly with one another. Go play Half Life 2.
Some games tell good stories. Fun games don't need them. And no thanks, I'll pass on Half Life 2.
Again, you implied quite simply that games don't benefit from these things. WELL GUYS, I GUESS ALL THOSE RPGS YOUVE ENJOYED DONT BENEFIT FROM A GOOD STORY OR CHARACTERS.
Then there's this: what about those adventure games people seem to like so much? Monkey Island, Phoenix Wright, and so fourth. I'm pretty certain those are games that stand on story, character interaction and puzzle solving.
You're confused. Nobody said anything or hinted at any sort of "loss". You're confusing "Games don't need a good story to be fun" with "games suck if they have good story." Obviously I enjoy both, but this is about necessity, and I could not care less if Mario's parents were murdered by Koopa Troopas and Mario inherited his fire ball ability from the burning flower of (insert-made-up-name-to-sound-cool-here).
This is the sound of you missing the point entirely. It's also the sound of you not grasping the meaning of your own words.
Yes, you're tired and confused, and not doing a good job of reading. It's very direct and bluntly stated, let me try to explain it in even blunter terms. Because I say "games don't need good stories or complex characters", you immediately assume (and take offense to the notion) that I mean "GOOD STORIES SUCK". No.
... I think you're the one who actually needs sleep this time. Seriously.
I think if I read any more of this, I'll suffer from a spontaneous brain hemorrhage.
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=The_Ghostmanauthor=LockeZProve it.
I can occasionally cobble together something halfway decent
Here's the first page of my totally awesome to the max novel, Steam, Magic, and Rock 'n Roll.
In the grim, post-apocalyptic world of Discordia, there are three dangerous powers upon which the extreme society is founded. These powers are steam, magic, and rock.
Steam is the force which powers the most extreme technology. With the power of the steam engine, machinists build their diverse and impossible inventions, ranging from clockwork guns and mechanoswords to rocket motorcycles and giant robots.
Magic is an arcane mystery which not even the greatest wizards fully understand; this makes it unpredictable and dangerous beyond the other powers, or so the warlocks would have you believe. The misuse of magic is responsible for the arrival of the demons which tore the world apart; it is also what defeated them.
Rock is an art which captures the heart and soul of extremeness, the very essence of all that is over the top. Those truly skilled in rocking out are able to do much more than merely inspire the multitudes, as the most extreme rock music, when played by the most hardcore and badass rockers, is capable of leveling cities.
Invariably, these three powers collide, causing devastating wars as their champions vie for power. But at times, two of them will unite in unlikely ways, resulting in fantastic and unbelievable hybrids which cause unparalleled fear in the few who live to tell about them. Rarest of all is the combination of steam, magic and rock in one place - and so to find a single individual who is a master of all three is unheard of.
This unheard of master of the three powers is Graive Wruin, and he has no limits.
A lesser man would have formulated an escape plan before planting a 30 kilonether ether-bomb on a moving train full of technopirates and setting the timer for only two minutes. Graive Wruin was not a lesser man; he was an outrageously dangerous man. The only escape plan he needed was to destroy everything in sight until he reached the door, and then destroy the door.
These pirates, thieves of the desert who traveled by locomotive from town to town and stole all forms of valuable technology, were a scourge that few had the audacity to stand up to. Graive Wruin, though, had an excess of audacity; he was a veritable fountain of it. The prototype motor drive they had stolen was worth a small fortune to the company founded by the late inventor who created it, and everything else on the train was about to be blown to smithereens. It would probably be more profitable to loot the train rather than detonate it, but Graive was not just interested in profits. He was interested in kicking ass and causing giant explosions.
Wielding his crystalline, skull-headed wizard's staff in one hand, he sent a bolt of lightning through his assailants, causing them to fly back. Throwing back his cloak, he revealed his other hand, which was made not of flesh and bone but of gears and rods. He clenched his metal fist and fired bullets from his knuckles at a battle cybot approaching him from behind, shredding it. He darted through a door and reached the final cabin. The back of the train, where he would make his perfectly timed exit, was in sight.
Only one technopirate remained blocking the final door. The leader, whose name Graive did not care enough to learn, carried a massive laser scythe which he swung around himself at unnatural speeds, recklessly slicing through the cargo and walls of the train. Graive looked back at the ether-bomb. 37 seconds left. He rushed forward, parrying the pirate's laser weapon with his crystal staff. This pillager was good, but not nearly good enough. You have to take it to the limit, beyond, and back again to even stand a chance against Graive Wruin. And this fool wasn't even close to the limit. Not even a little bit.
Graive kicked the technopirate captain in the chest and used the momentum to do a backflip onto the top of a stack of steel crates. It was time to end this. As he gripped his staff with his metal hand, a transformation took place in the wizardly weapon. Out of pure ether, mist coalesced around the bottom half of the staff, forming a flat triangular surface. Five laser beams shot from the top of the staff to the center of the flat area, forming thin strands along its length. Suddenly, the shape of the transformed weapon was clear: the staff had become an etheric, crystalline, laser-powered electric guitar. As the doomed technopirate reeled back in horror, Graive glared down at him one final time, then played a totally sweet chord that pierced the air for miles. The windows shattered, the door was blown off its hinge, the metal crates collapsed into a heap of junk as he jumped off of them, and the leader of the technopirate crew was impaled through the heart by the sound waves. He was dead before he hit the ground.
The broken steel door was lying on the deck on the outside of the back door. With no time left to locate and fire up his steam-powered hoverboard, which was probably still in the train somewhere, Graive decided to go with a dangerous and totally extreme improvisation. He blasted the bent door with a torrent of frost magic, coating one side of it with ice. Flipping the door over so that the ice was on the bottom, he leaped onto it and slid off the back of the train onto the desert tracks. Riding the frozen door, Graive slid along the train tracks behind the pirate vessel and performed a nolly 360 kickflip into a fakey faceplant as he watched the train explode in a glorious ball of blue energy.
author=Nightblade
"I'm offended"? Cute.
Yes? And thank you.
author=Nightblade
You never stated games don't NEED complex villains, you said they don't BENEFIT from them. Christ, you can't even get your own bullshit straight. But that's okay, keep changing your viewpoint to (poorly) deflect retorts. "Let's continue".
You're offended and on a rampage. The view had been widened to cover the term "benefit" since the lingering on this word is your entire castle of a point. Games, depending on the scenario, may benefit from a well-developed or complex villain. They don't need them. Many games would actually NOT benefit from them.
author=Nightblade
Again, you implied quite simply that games don't benefit from these things. WELL GUYS, I GUESS ALL THOSE RPGS YOUVE ENJOYED DONT BENEFIT FROM A GOOD STORY OR CHARACTERS.
I implied nothing. I said (fun) games don't benefit from complex villains. Which RPGs have I enjoyed? RPGs need good stories and good characters for the simple fact that they are not fun without them. If you read my entire post, you'd know that. Turn off caps lock please, it's less than a half-inch away from the other keys.
author=Nightblade
Then there's this: what about those adventure games people seem to like so much? Monkey Island, Phoenix Wright, and so fourth. I'm pretty certain those are games that stand on story, character interaction and puzzle solving.
If you read my entire post, you'd realize that games that are not gameplay-deep require good story-writing. If we're going to get word-specific here, I said (fun) games do not benefit from "complex" villains. Story is always fine, but not ALWAYS necessary.
author=Nightblade
This is the sound of you missing the point entirely. It's also the sound of you not grasping the meaning of your own words.
"Benefit"? I love when people use an entire argument based off a single term. Most of the games I enjoy do not "benefit" from complex villains. Not even all RPGs need them.
author=Nightblade
... I think you're the one who actually needs sleep this time. Seriously.
You asked if you were tired, and I said yes. You were, and you still haven't rested.
author=Nightblade
I think if I read any more of this, I'll suffer from a spontaneous brain hemorrhage.
You should read entire posts rather than single words before you have an E-panic attack. And get some sleep.
Nightblade
2723
You're offended and on a rampage. The view had been widened to cover the term "benefit" since the lingering on this word is your entire castle of a point. Games, depending on the scenario, may benefit from a well-developed or complex villain. They don't need them.
Which is completely different from what you initially stated. Again. I wonder how many times someone has to tell you this before you can understand?
...And Rampage? You think this is a rampage?
Which RPGs have I enjoyed? RPGs need good stories and good characters for the simple fact that they are not fun without them. If you read my entire post, you'd know that. Turn off caps lock please, it's less than a half-inch away from the other keys.
If you read my entire post, you'd realize that games that are not gameplay-deep require good story-writing. The entire meaning of my original idea was that a FUN game does not need or possibly even benefit from story. If Mario had any story, I couldn't care less about it.
Yet another narrow minded viewpoint from the gentleman with the unfortunate avatar. There are RPGs with very barebones story that people enjoy for numerous reasons. A game can stand on either leg, or both.
"Benefit"? I love when people use an entire argument based off a single term. Most of the games I enjoy do not "benefit" from good stories or in-depth character development. RPGs need them.
You entire post(s) are riddled with contradictions, and you whine when someone tells you how stupid you are.
You should read entire posts rather than single words. And get some sleep.
Maybe you should try proof reading your posts.
LockeZ Stuff
Don't be goaded into a meaningless tangent by him. Whether or not you can write has no relevance.
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
Don't be goaded into a meaningless tangent by him. Whether or not you can write has no relevance.
I realize the two of you are having some sort of inexplicable butthurtparty, but I was enjoying my half of this discussion so far, personally. Besides, getting goaded a little is fun. I even got to post my shittymazing writing from 2009. (No comment on it? Come on -- it is fantastically awful. You must have some opinion.)
author=Nightblade
Which is completely different from what you initially stated. Again. I wonder how many times someone has to tell you this before you can understand?
...And Rampage? You think this is a rampage?
How is saying "Games may benefit from a complex villain" not a different idea than "Games do not benefit from complex villains"? I think you're still confused.
author=Nightblade
Yet another narrow minded viewpoint from the gentleman with the unfortunate avatar. There are RPGs with very barebones story that people enjoy for numerous reasons. A game can stand on either leg, or both.
So. You're basing my entire reputation off of the use of the term "benefit" as well as chiding me with insults for a difference of opinion without as much as an explanation as to the reason for said statements, and yet I am narrow-minded. I'm literally surprised you find that narrow-minded or confusing. I believe this has revealed itself to be a troublesome difference of opinion, over which you're quite upset, clearly.
author=Nightblade
You entire post(s) are riddled with contradictions, and you whine when someone tells you how stupid you are.
What contradiction? I corrected "benefit" to cover what it truly does. Now you're rambling without explaining anything and simply condemning anything out which I put, in addition to insults. That is whining.
author=Nightblade
Maybe you should try proof reading your posts.
You should try reading my posts.
author=Nightblade
Don't be goaded into a meaningless tangent by him. Whether or not you can write has no relevance.
You are basing my entire reputation off of the use of the term "benefit". Totally open-minded.
Anyway
author=LockeZDon't be goaded into a meaningless tangent by him. Whether or not you can write has no relevance.I realize the two of you are having some sort of inexplicable butthurtparty, but I was enjoying my half of this discussion so far, personally. Besides, getting goaded a little is fun. I even got to post my shittymazing writing from 2009. (No comment on it? Come on -- it is fantastically awful. You must have some opinion.)
It's explicable, and it is also "butthurtparty" but clearly only NightBlade was invited, since he's the only one who is getting somewhat upset at this entire conundrum of an E-argument.
Anyway, you said this was the first page of an actual "novel"? It is very interesting and creative, but although I'm not expert on writing, I certainly think this could be written more tactfully, as in with better assembly.
Nightblade
2723
author=Solitayre
I suggest you two take your catfight to PM, it's derailing the thread.
How is saying "Games may benefit from a complex villain" not a different idea than "Games do not benefit from complex villains"? I think you're still confused.
There is really little else that can be said that explains just what is wrong with this guy. Don't worry.
author=Solitayre
I suggest you two take your catfight to PM, it's derailing the thread.
Explaining myself gets me into so much trouble!
author=Nightblade
There is really little else that can be said that explains just what is wrong with this guy. Don't worry.
It'd be nice if you explained your arguments rather than throw insults and ad hominem to reflect dominance in a debate. It doesn't help that you're confused.
Anyway, back to the thread's origin -
A fun game does not need character development, or deep story, or any of that drivel which RPGs need so unfortunately. If you're going to try to insert character development to your game's story, it must happen, obviously, after events which would explain said "development". For example, let's say you have RPG archetype 'Beautiful Silent Swordsman who keeps to himself." The events which would lead to his "development" (Which would mostly be more talkative and open and revealing about his past) would probably include simply being with the party throughout the game.
As for simple and dynamic development, Lucas in Mother 3 went from being the world's biggest crybaby to its savior after the traumatic events which developed him into said hero.
Jericho
52
I don't disagree with your argument now that you have explained it further, ghostman. I think much of the disagreement came from your initial post with paragraphs like this
where a contradiction is made almost immediately.
That said
I don't really understand your most recent post. Characters develop because of catalysts? Well, yeah.
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
where a contradiction is made almost immediately.
That said
I don't really understand your most recent post. Characters develop because of catalysts? Well, yeah.
