RPG vs. Adventure Game

Started by winkio, July 23, 2011, 01:17:18 am

Previous topic - Next topic

winkio

Yeah, I know it's just semantics, but these two definitions overlap a lot.  In a roleplaying game, you play as a hero or heroes as they grow and interact with the environment around them.  In an adventure game, you play as a hero or heroes as they explore the environment around them.  I'm finding it hard to think of a game that only falls into one category and not the other.

On a related note, why are genres so well established?  There are so many FPS games that are so similar, so many platformers that are similar, so many RPGs that are so similar.  In the free flowing world of game development, I would expect more blurred boundaries, new genres, and clever ideas.

Vell

That's because at the moment, video gaming creation has hit a low point. Nobody's innovating because the cost of creatin a console game is so high, and because gamers expect everything to look nice. Games of old had more leeway because the development time wasn't that big (you could make one, or two major games a year for an IP) and they weren't too expensive to make, so getting back your money for your investment and more was easy to do. Therefore, there was no incentive to "Cash Cow" a franchise. There was more allowance for creativity, innovation, and ingenuity.

Now a major release will be in development for MONTHS, or even YEARS before it's even ANNOUNCED. And after that, it's still plenty of time before it gets finished and then released. And the costs of developing is skyrocketing. Even relatively. Creating the brilliant 3D models for a Final Fantasy game costs a lot of money, and comes with a lot of invested time. A skilled spriter can make the equivalent of a character's representation in a world in... a few hours, tops. For a 3D model, it'd take days or maybe weeks. And then there's environments to go on as well.

With all that HAS to go into it, there's not room in the budget to be very creative. Also, the major names are corporations. They can't have the mindset of 'release a game that's new and interesting' because... that's a risky business maneuver. That's why all the newer, gamer-made design studios are getting recognition. They have the smallish-business freedom to make something that they'd enjoy, without having to worry so much about how it'd sell. And they get monetary support by Nintendo or something, who doesn't have to put in man hours, and if the game they make sells well they get a deal.

Then there's also the economy and if the economy is even affecting how our entertainment is made, it's kind of bad. Yeah.

That's my 2 cents.

Blizzard

Ulta totally spoke my mind. But I think it's not that much related to the topic. o.o;
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

Vell

Spoiler: ShowHide
 I would expect more blurred boundaries, new genres, and clever ideas.


I was mainly responding to that. I think I forgot to mention it explicitly(woops) but my basic point was that companies literally cannot AFFORD to blur the boundaries, think up new genre, and come up with clever ideas. The main reason being that it's a risk, and risks are unwise financial decisions.

Blizzard

Yeah. It's ironic, because the big companies have enough money to risk things. But they never do, they only do the safe stuff.
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

Vell

It makes sense from a business perspective.

It's just that the business perspective = a result that sees us gamers not getting good output from them.

Which is another thing - those new studios which are made by people who grew up gamers wanting to make games - they have the drive and initiative to innovate, and plenty of them are getting signed by major companies... So, I think(hope) in a few years we'll start seeing more innovation. It may not be innovation of the type we desire(we being RPG players) because the "Golden Age" of our genre has come and gone.

Nonetheless, new ideas and things may start coming from them... assuming Corporate Meddling doesn't interfere drastically, which would, y'know, pretty much suck.

Blizzard

I agree, I am just saying that they can actually afford a risk every once in a while.
If they don't do anything innovative anytime soon, the game industry will stale even more. Sony was (maybe still is) facing bankruptcy because of the PS3 after all. ._.
Anyway, let's stop going so much offtopic. xD
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

Vell

They can afford it, yeah, but they won't. :/ Business, etc.

And I dunno, how're we off topic anyway?

winkio

Yeah, this thread is about the current state of the video game industry and how unimaginative it is, so nothing so far has been off topic.

I was thinking about Nintendo recently trying to figure out why they've been doing so many odd things.  They brush off core gamers like they don't even matter, oblivious to the fact that they drive a large portion of the current video game market.  They always are developing new hardware, and give less attention to their software.  For example, Halo released four games in the time that Zelda released 2 and Mario released 3.  They take their time with games and spread them out instead of releasing one sequel after another after another.  On the other hand, they are always developing new hardware, from touchscreens, to motion controls, to 3D screens, to a controller with a large display.

It seems at first like they are just doing it for the hell of it, because they want to and they can.  Microsoft and Sony are doing what some people call the 'smart' thing by cashing in as much as possible on popular franchises such as call of duty, Halo, Gears of War, etc.  This is obviously the best short term strategy.

So I realized all of this and thought maybe Nintendo doesn't care about the short term, and instead is looking at the long term.  In the long term, core gamers eventually fall out of love with the popular games, because they have seen too many of them before.  They grow up, they think they are too old to play the same old mindless games with a bunch of little kids, they get tired, plain and simple.  Gamers that reach that point drop out of the market.  Sure, they will be replaced by a new generation of gamer, but the old one is now gone, and will never come back.

If, however, you are always mixing it up, appealing to different audiences, and always expanding the interactions with gamers, they will not tire out.  It is possible to keep those gamers as customers for life.  Thus while losing very few gamers and gaining many new gamers from a new generation, you can build a much larger and broader consumer network and get games integrated across society.  I think this is what Nintendo is going for.  They want to expand the realm of video games beyond teenagers and young adult males and include everybody.  They want games to evolve from time wasters to an advanced art form that everyone can appreciate.

Now, I'm just speculating here, so don't take it too seriously.  Still, I wouldn't be surprised if I started to see some big changes in video game culture over the next 10 years.

Vell

Yup, I agree with you full heartedly, Wink. I like Nintendo's strategy. They innovate, all the time. They give 3rd Party developers a lot of things that MAKE them try something new. And thus we get gems like scribblenauts.

My one friend is a stereotypical gamer, who likes the Xbox and PS3 over Nintendo because 'nintendo's systems innovate but they suck and Microsoft and Sony will just do it better in a year or two'

I hate that mindset.

Blizzard

Oh, I thought it was about genre crossing, my bad. ._.;

I have to agree on everything said here. Nintendo was always one step ahead in the way of thinking of other companies. Sadly right now the trend are popular games. But eventually people will get tired of it. Older people will tell kids "Aw, you're playing Call of Duty 14? So lame, dude. I used to play Call of Duty 6 when I was your age. God, what an awful game that was when I think about it now. And I see they never improved anything else besides graphics. You're a total kid, dude."
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

Vell

We need a Devil's Advocate up in here.

Spaceman McConaughey

<devilsadvocate>
Listen, I have to disagree with all of you, and I must argue why:

The unimaginative state of the gaming industry is what keeps the money flowing in, and I feel it needs to stay that way.
Honestly, why change something proven to work? You'd have to be insane. Geeze, people.
</devilsadvocate>

I feel filthy now. >.<

Vell

Well, it's just a common... I'll take this to a new thread rather than derail here.