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
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsCLEST'S PROFILE
Clest
0
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Pacing VS Character Development
author=Radnen
STOP TALKING ABOUT GAMES GOD DAMNIT.
When I meant "game" I meant RPG, as with what we all should use. Stop being so damn general in your posts, guys... Otherwise I'm sitting here thinking Pong has a story, and it clearly does not.
To save my own hide. I had earlier said: "games are defacto stories" I meant RPG's. :P
RPG's have interesting stories, and you'd better be a god damned good writer. RPG's aren't easy, they are indeed the hardest type of game to make, let alone write for. "Lore" is implicit in any RPG. I may not be an RPG master by a long shot, but I do know "lore" is heavily involved, and I do know that if you aren't a good writer (sorry for being blunt earlier), then get some editors who do know how to write and help you mold the story.
This thread was supposed to be about pacing vs character development. Not what constitutes a good RPG. But because lore and other things constitute character development, you are indeed slowing down the pace to explain things. This is where I'll let my argument stand.
Let's get back on track people.
Edit: Dang people post fast here... :/ Ghostman now has the right idea (as of top of page 4)... When earlier he did not.
I agree mostly. Just note that while games in a general sence don´t need a story, any game could have a story to some degree, deep or shallow. Chocobo Racing is a race game and has a story, same for a weird japanese racing game I got based on kits playing with radio controlled cars. But I get your point ;)
LokerZ: I like your first page a lot, but more than anything what got me interested is the setting and background. I come from a roleplaying game background and as such I like to imagine more on how would I live in the settings of stuff I play/watch/read than to just follow the characters per se.
So while I don´t like long narration pauses (at least not forced ones) in any media to convey setting and lore, I do love loads of optional content like in some novels where you have a separate secrtion with a therm glossary, maps, character name meanings, curiosities and such.
And to me RPGs have an edge on books, or better, they CAN have if well executed regarding exposure of lore and the setting since you have certain things already showing through graphics, you have sounds and you have the player moving more freely which can give them the option to just stick to main plot or wander around and see how life is on the setting, what happened in the past and other information.
Also as Radnen said, sometimes the lore is not seen directly by the player, but it was there making things work consistently, preventing weird contradictions and other issues. The rpgs usually praised by good story have some really well thought basis behind them.
After all that I just gotta say again what I said somewhere before: By that I´d probably be more up to western rpgs where you make your character and just "live" and "roleplay" as them. Unfortunely I´ve never seen a game like that which gave me a troue porpose and most of the time the lack of a solid plot left me uncertain of what I should do first. Also it didn´t feel like anyone knew me previously or that my character had a past or anyone I would care to do anything for anyway. So having characters and plot in an RPG give me that drive.
Pacing VS Character Development
Looking 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.
Pacing VS Character Development
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 ;)
Pacing VS Character Development
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.
Pacing VS Character Development
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.
Pacing VS Character Development
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.
Pacing VS Character Development
Radnen: I always thought of that and it seems like a good idea to me.
Jericho: I agree with you and you basically reinforced my point: simple villains are easier to deal with.
The point is that the more you develope a villain, the harder it is to keep him as an enemy to the player. Still it can be done with good execution.
Now my real problem is not when villain has for example, a motivation to be evil, but when this motivation actualy justifies his acts to the player, specially when it makes him closer to the player than the heroes.
Another good example: I love Magneto as a character, but to me he is an anti hero more than villain, always has been. He was just good but then ppl messed with him and his kind so he declared war on then, just fair in my view of justice. Then in a lot of videogames you play as the x men lead by the sissy pacifist Xavier, and not just Magnet is not a playable character, but I also spend the whole game in a crusade against him... this frustrates me, I feel like I am playing tottally against myself and I feel absolutely no point in the characters journey.
Sure that if the game is really great in other areas I can force myself to go ahead, but it is a big drawback in motivation for me.
Other than that, yeah, my example reflected that the player need reasons to hate the villain, but it lies in more than just the villain, it is in his acts, in what he destroys or what he can destroy.
I usually go with real life villain motivations for my villains: greed, fear, discrimination, fanatism, madness. But I avoid going for things like "guy hates the world cause he was abused as a kid".
Jericho: I agree with you and you basically reinforced my point: simple villains are easier to deal with.
The point is that the more you develope a villain, the harder it is to keep him as an enemy to the player. Still it can be done with good execution.
Now my real problem is not when villain has for example, a motivation to be evil, but when this motivation actualy justifies his acts to the player, specially when it makes him closer to the player than the heroes.
Another good example: I love Magneto as a character, but to me he is an anti hero more than villain, always has been. He was just good but then ppl messed with him and his kind so he declared war on then, just fair in my view of justice. Then in a lot of videogames you play as the x men lead by the sissy pacifist Xavier, and not just Magnet is not a playable character, but I also spend the whole game in a crusade against him... this frustrates me, I feel like I am playing tottally against myself and I feel absolutely no point in the characters journey.
Sure that if the game is really great in other areas I can force myself to go ahead, but it is a big drawback in motivation for me.
Other than that, yeah, my example reflected that the player need reasons to hate the villain, but it lies in more than just the villain, it is in his acts, in what he destroys or what he can destroy.
I usually go with real life villain motivations for my villains: greed, fear, discrimination, fanatism, madness. But I avoid going for things like "guy hates the world cause he was abused as a kid".
Pacing VS Character Development
Actually, don´t know about you, but if someone broke into my house, murdered my family and I only escaped by some miracle or curse, I wouldn´t give a damn about the guy´s motivation or whatever, I would just care for a conflict, in fact I´d only care for a conflict :P
And many sucessful games, including RPGs, were really good with just evil and plain villains: Secret of Mana, Phantasy Star IV, Zelda not to mention other genres where we have Megaman which in fact brings an interesting point:
In the original series we had dr.Willy, now how many lines does he have compared to Sigma on megaman X series? Not to mention Sigma was supposedly a good guy who was infected by a virus and bla bla bla. Willy is just evil. Now I find Sigma damn boring and wish he´d vanish from Megaman universe. Willy on the other hand is just an evil old man bent on domination and I love fighting him.
And many sucessful games, including RPGs, were really good with just evil and plain villains: Secret of Mana, Phantasy Star IV, Zelda not to mention other genres where we have Megaman which in fact brings an interesting point:
In the original series we had dr.Willy, now how many lines does he have compared to Sigma on megaman X series? Not to mention Sigma was supposedly a good guy who was infected by a virus and bla bla bla. Willy is just evil. Now I find Sigma damn boring and wish he´d vanish from Megaman universe. Willy on the other hand is just an evil old man bent on domination and I love fighting him.
Pixels
I see what you mean, I get annoyed when I love most of a design but it has some key details which differ froim what I would like and it bugs me like hell, happens all the time with mechs, most of the time an awesome mech has legs that bother me and it is worse than if it looked tottally crap cause then I wouldn´t even bother.
Your character strike me as very interesting actually :) My actual project has half-thing people in it and the culture mix is great too.
Anyway, talking mechs:
Made as a prize from a silly contest on a Transformers forum. The guy created the character and even provided artwork, I just made her into a sprite.
Your character strike me as very interesting actually :) My actual project has half-thing people in it and the culture mix is great too.
Anyway, talking mechs:
Made as a prize from a silly contest on a Transformers forum. The guy created the character and even provided artwork, I just made her into a sprite.
Pacing VS Character Development
author=LockeZauthor=ClestYou're really bad at this. Don't give any more writing advice, please. You have taken no actual fiction writing classes and have no idea what you're talking about.
Regarding villains, a key thing is to not develope them more than the heroes, and specially, don´t make them look good or their actions being justified to the player. Why? Simple: It is a game and unless you make players turn coat, they are stuck with the heroes fighting AGAINST the villain, and it is quite frustrating fighting a villain when you actually think he is right and you are wrong.
A lot of really good writers will tell you that in order for the struggle to capture the audience's interest, the villain needs to be the most interesting character in the story. Especially in a game, where the villain is guaranteed far, far less screen time than the heroes.
Actually, as you mentioned somehow, fictional writing for games differs, and in that regard, villains do have less screen time, for a reason: They are there to be defeated and hated. While in a passive form of enternment you can feel closer to the villain than the hero even when you know most times villains get the bad ending, you are not making an effort in the fight.
In a game, where you participate, you won´t want to fight for something contrary to your belief, furthermore, you won´t want to go against the character that you feel closest to.
I´s say the mistake on my part was not reinforce that it works like this for games, but not for other writing concepts.
I do believe villains need development in games but it depends greatly on how much story weights on said game and how this development goes, my key point on "how" is that whatever reason villain has to justify their actions has to always be inferior to his/her evil actions in terms of impact on the player to keep the desire to fight against said villain up on the player mind.
Of course, as I said previously, unless this said villain turns to be just an anti hero in disguise and player may align with him or even play as later on, but even so it is better to reveal the good intentions when the turn coat event happens and not before.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
