DnD is a set of rules, it is not lore or names of powers. This game uses none of the rules of the dnd system, hence it is not a dnd game. It doesn't matter how much you want to imagine it is, it is not a dnd game, but keep living in that fantasy world in your head where it is.
Didn't see this before but it is plain wrong. The vast majority of the value in D&D as of today is definitely lore. There are 5 editions of D&D with different rules and many people don't even know what other editions than the ones they play look like, but everybody knows what the Tomb of Horror is, who Strahd is, who Acererak is, who Elminster is, who Drizzt is, what the Forgotten Realms are, what the Blood War is and I could go on for quite a while. D&D is mostly lore. 4th and 5th edition are quite different from Mentzer's boxes or AD&D, but the lore moves freely across editions and that's what keeps the D&D family together,
Maybe to you, but not to me. I know the rules of every edition up to 3.5, the lore, I can't remember any of it, it was completely forgettable. A good fantasy world, in my personal opinion, needs to have some narrative consistency to it and it needs to be in some way believable. Faerûn is anything but that, the world has no verisimilitude. Why do wizards forget spells after casting? They just do. There is no good in world explanation for this, it just is. Sure, in Jack Vance's book where the system was taken from, it makes sense in world, but in Faerûn? Nope.
Things just happen in DnD because they do, they don't follow any logical ordering that you can make sense of in world and as a result of that, you have a setting which is as wide as the ocean but as deep as a puddle, which fails miserably at holding my interest. The world has no depth.
Then I guess you're different from most D&D players. And try looking 4e and 5e. Rules are completely different from previous editions and yet they are still D&D. In 4e for example you don't forget spells, except daily ones, and actually NW is basically the 4e combat rule engine translated into a videogame. By the way there are many ways in which you can justify spells disappearing from the mind of wizards on casting or not being available even in Faerun. I'll give you an example I've seen: most of the spell is actually cast during memorization and only the final trigger is used when the spell is activated. In order to recast the spell the wizard has to re-cast the first the main part and that takes time (and a rested mind maybe). By the way if D&D is the main seller in RPG games it probably has some depth even if you don't see it.
Le-Shan: HR level 80 (main)
Born of Black Wind: SW Level 80
0
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
Then I guess you're different from most D&D players. And try looking 4e and 5e. Rules are completely different from previous editions and yet they are still D&D. In 4e for example you don't forget spells, except daily ones, and actually NW is basically the 4e combat rule engine translated into a videogame. By the way there are many ways in which you can justify spells disappearing from the mind of wizards on casting or not being available even in Faerun. I'll give you an example I've seen: most of the spell is actually cast during memorization and only the final trigger is used when the spell is activated. In order to recast the spell the wizard has to re-cast the first the main part and that takes time (and a rested mind maybe).
None of this is explained within the setting, it is essentially added on by the players in order to fix their world, which shows that it is the setting itself which has holes in it, since they need to be fixed. Also, it was a single example, I could give others, but that is aside from the point.
By the way if D&D is the main seller in RPG games it probably has some depth even if you don't see it.
Depth has no correlation to popularity, or if it does have any correlation, the correlation would probably be, "the less deep a game is the broader its audience." Call of Duty sells ~30m copies every single year, its an FPS, with 0 narrative depth. That IP alone is probably worth more than the entire of DnD. Minecraft has sold ~180 million copies. It has sold more individual copies of games, than the total sales of many entire IPs combined. Skyrim has also sold a massive number of copies and it is also a game with very little narrative depth. Games that actually have deep stories? At best, 1-2m sales, if they are lucky.
The truth of the matter is, most people don't want to play deep games. They want to play games where they don't need to think and they can just come home and bash keys for a bit, without needing to pay attention as a means to relieve the stress of the day and wind down a bit. And this is completely fine. There is nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't make these games deep and it doesn't make their stories particularly rich or meaningful and the same is true of DnD. Its popular, its mass market and the story quality is in no way comparable to the writing of a great author.
Also, minor note (since it bothers me when people do this), the G in RPG stands for game. No need to repeat it an additional time. "Role Playing Game game," makes no sense.
It may be different now, but playing D&D throughout the 80s, no one ran premade worlds. I was the closest that I know of, as my homebrew setting started off from thr Expert/Isle of Dread material, but quickly moved away to new areas I made myself.
"We have always been at war with Dread Vault" ~ Little Brother
It may be different now, but playing D&D throughout the 80s, no one ran premade worlds. I was the closest that I know of, as my homebrew setting started off from thr Expert/Isle of Dread material, but quickly moved away to new areas I made myself.
Back in the mid to late 80's, all my husbands content was original. He created an entire land called "Demon Island" and while it was infested with the book monsters (purple worms, orcs, goblins, etc.), he created several creatures that were very unique. The Crag Demon was not a real demon, but a flying reptile about the size of a small monkey. It inhabited the caves, was attracted to shiny metal, and could teleport through solid rock. The first time a party encountered the creature, the fighter drew his sword to attack (some cave creature, I forget) and the crag demon appeared from nowhere and just as quick vanished with his sword in mid swing. Players took note to wrap all weapons and blacken blades when entering caves.
1
gabrieldourdenMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,212Arc User
Then I guess you're different from most D&D players. And try looking 4e and 5e. Rules are completely different from previous editions and yet they are still D&D. In 4e for example you don't forget spells, except daily ones, and actually NW is basically the 4e combat rule engine translated into a videogame. By the way there are many ways in which you can justify spells disappearing from the mind of wizards on casting or not being available even in Faerun. I'll give you an example I've seen: most of the spell is actually cast during memorization and only the final trigger is used when the spell is activated. In order to recast the spell the wizard has to re-cast the first the main part and that takes time (and a rested mind maybe).
None of this is explained within the setting, it is essentially added on by the players in order to fix their world, which shows that it is the setting itself which has holes in it, since they need to be fixed. Also, it was a single example, I could give others, but that is aside from the point.
By the way if D&D is the main seller in RPG games it probably has some depth even if you don't see it.
Depth has no correlation to popularity, or if it does have any correlation, the correlation would probably be, "the less deep a game is the broader its audience." Call of Duty sells ~30m copies every single year, its an FPS, with 0 narrative depth. That IP alone is probably worth more than the entire of DnD. Minecraft has sold ~180 million copies. It has sold more individual copies of games, than the total sales of many entire IPs combined. Skyrim has also sold a massive number of copies and it is also a game with very little narrative depth. Games that actually have deep stories? At best, 1-2m sales, if they are lucky.
The truth of the matter is, most people don't want to play deep games. They want to play games where they don't need to think and they can just come home and bash keys for a bit, without needing to pay attention as a means to relieve the stress of the day and wind down a bit. And this is completely fine. There is nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't make these games deep and it doesn't make their stories particularly rich or meaningful and the same is true of DnD. Its popular, its mass market and the story quality is in no way comparable to the writing of a great author.
Also, minor note (since it bothers me when people do this), the G in RPG stands for game. No need to repeat it an additional time. "Role Playing Game game," makes no sense.
You're really lost. Have fun.
Le-Shan: HR level 80 (main)
Born of Black Wind: SW Level 80
Then I guess you're different from most D&D players. And try looking 4e and 5e. Rules are completely different from previous editions and yet they are still D&D. In 4e for example you don't forget spells, except daily ones, and actually NW is basically the 4e combat rule engine translated into a videogame. By the way there are many ways in which you can justify spells disappearing from the mind of wizards on casting or not being available even in Faerun. I'll give you an example I've seen: most of the spell is actually cast during memorization and only the final trigger is used when the spell is activated. In order to recast the spell the wizard has to re-cast the first the main part and that takes time (and a rested mind maybe).
None of this is explained within the setting, it is essentially added on by the players in order to fix their world, which shows that it is the setting itself which has holes in it, since they need to be fixed. Also, it was a single example, I could give others, but that is aside from the point.
By the way if D&D is the main seller in RPG games it probably has some depth even if you don't see it.
Depth has no correlation to popularity, or if it does have any correlation, the correlation would probably be, "the less deep a game is the broader its audience." Call of Duty sells ~30m copies every single year, its an FPS, with 0 narrative depth. That IP alone is probably worth more than the entire of DnD. Minecraft has sold ~180 million copies. It has sold more individual copies of games, than the total sales of many entire IPs combined. Skyrim has also sold a massive number of copies and it is also a game with very little narrative depth. Games that actually have deep stories? At best, 1-2m sales, if they are lucky.
The truth of the matter is, most people don't want to play deep games. They want to play games where they don't need to think and they can just come home and bash keys for a bit, without needing to pay attention as a means to relieve the stress of the day and wind down a bit. And this is completely fine. There is nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't make these games deep and it doesn't make their stories particularly rich or meaningful and the same is true of DnD. Its popular, its mass market and the story quality is in no way comparable to the writing of a great author.
Also, minor note (since it bothers me when people do this), the G in RPG stands for game. No need to repeat it an additional time. "Role Playing Game game," makes no sense.
the last of us: more than 18 mil copies Tomb Raider series: over 75 mil copies uncharted 3: 3.8 first day sales. was unable to find total for series. but this was preorder. uncharted 4: 15 mil horizon zero dawn 10 mil dying light 13 mil (it's a zombie game but it did have a very compelling story imo) mass effect series 15 mil ( way lower than I'd have expected for this franchise. tomb raider was great but not as great as mass effect imo. ) fallout 4 15 mil (I know you aren't fond of this franchise but it is story driven. I personally hated the ending of nearly all of their games... honestly your only choice is to use a nuke in the middle of an already ravaged wasteland? yuck. but it was highly story driven still)
there are others my take away from this is the playstation has a stronger base for story based games. most of these were exclusive to the playstation for a year or two or completely exclusive to ps4 other than mass effect and one of the tomb raider games that was xbox exclusive for like a month. (some of them weren't exclusive at all though)
there are a lot of indie based games that sell very few with story lines that are particular to pc probably and they probably do sell very few games comparatively.. but that doesn't mean it's true of all the genre.
I personally have both ps and xbox so I don't miss out on any of these somewhat rare releases. they are what I game for.
Post edited by thefiresidecat on
1
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
Then I guess you're different from most D&D players. And try looking 4e and 5e. Rules are completely different from previous editions and yet they are still D&D. In 4e for example you don't forget spells, except daily ones, and actually NW is basically the 4e combat rule engine translated into a videogame. By the way there are many ways in which you can justify spells disappearing from the mind of wizards on casting or not being available even in Faerun. I'll give you an example I've seen: most of the spell is actually cast during memorization and only the final trigger is used when the spell is activated. In order to recast the spell the wizard has to re-cast the first the main part and that takes time (and a rested mind maybe).
None of this is explained within the setting, it is essentially added on by the players in order to fix their world, which shows that it is the setting itself which has holes in it, since they need to be fixed. Also, it was a single example, I could give others, but that is aside from the point.
By the way if D&D is the main seller in RPG games it probably has some depth even if you don't see it.
Depth has no correlation to popularity, or if it does have any correlation, the correlation would probably be, "the less deep a game is the broader its audience." Call of Duty sells ~30m copies every single year, its an FPS, with 0 narrative depth. That IP alone is probably worth more than the entire of DnD. Minecraft has sold ~180 million copies. It has sold more individual copies of games, than the total sales of many entire IPs combined. Skyrim has also sold a massive number of copies and it is also a game with very little narrative depth. Games that actually have deep stories? At best, 1-2m sales, if they are lucky.
The truth of the matter is, most people don't want to play deep games. They want to play games where they don't need to think and they can just come home and bash keys for a bit, without needing to pay attention as a means to relieve the stress of the day and wind down a bit. And this is completely fine. There is nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't make these games deep and it doesn't make their stories particularly rich or meaningful and the same is true of DnD. Its popular, its mass market and the story quality is in no way comparable to the writing of a great author.
Also, minor note (since it bothers me when people do this), the G in RPG stands for game. No need to repeat it an additional time. "Role Playing Game game," makes no sense.
Then I guess you're different from most D&D players. And try looking 4e and 5e. Rules are completely different from previous editions and yet they are still D&D. In 4e for example you don't forget spells, except daily ones, and actually NW is basically the 4e combat rule engine translated into a videogame. By the way there are many ways in which you can justify spells disappearing from the mind of wizards on casting or not being available even in Faerun. I'll give you an example I've seen: most of the spell is actually cast during memorization and only the final trigger is used when the spell is activated. In order to recast the spell the wizard has to re-cast the first the main part and that takes time (and a rested mind maybe).
None of this is explained within the setting, it is essentially added on by the players in order to fix their world, which shows that it is the setting itself which has holes in it, since they need to be fixed. Also, it was a single example, I could give others, but that is aside from the point.
By the way if D&D is the main seller in RPG games it probably has some depth even if you don't see it.
Depth has no correlation to popularity, or if it does have any correlation, the correlation would probably be, "the less deep a game is the broader its audience." Call of Duty sells ~30m copies every single year, its an FPS, with 0 narrative depth. That IP alone is probably worth more than the entire of DnD. Minecraft has sold ~180 million copies. It has sold more individual copies of games, than the total sales of many entire IPs combined. Skyrim has also sold a massive number of copies and it is also a game with very little narrative depth. Games that actually have deep stories? At best, 1-2m sales, if they are lucky.
The truth of the matter is, most people don't want to play deep games. They want to play games where they don't need to think and they can just come home and bash keys for a bit, without needing to pay attention as a means to relieve the stress of the day and wind down a bit. And this is completely fine. There is nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't make these games deep and it doesn't make their stories particularly rich or meaningful and the same is true of DnD. Its popular, its mass market and the story quality is in no way comparable to the writing of a great author.
Also, minor note (since it bothers me when people do this), the G in RPG stands for game. No need to repeat it an additional time. "Role Playing Game game," makes no sense.
the last of us: more than 18 mil copies Tomb Raider series: over 75 mil copies uncharted 3: 3.8 first day sales. was unable to find total for series. but this was preorder. uncharted 4: 15 mil horizon zero dawn 10 mil dying light 13 mil (it's a zombie game but it did have a very compelling story imo) mass effect series 15 mil ( way lower than I'd have expected for this franchise. tomb raider was great but not as great as mass effect imo. ) fallout 4 15 mil (I know you aren't fond of this franchise but it is story driven. I personally hated the ending of nearly all of their games... honestly your only choice is to use a nuke in the middle of an already ravaged wasteland? yuck. but it was highly story driven still)
there are others my take away from this is the playstation has a stronger base for story based games. most of these were exclusive to the playstation for a year or two or completely exclusive to ps4 other than mass effect and one of the tomb raider games that was xbox exclusive for like a month. (some of them weren't exclusive at all though)
there are a lot of indie based games that sell very few with story lines that are particular to pc probably and they probably do sell very few games comparatively.. but that doesn't mean it's true of all the genre.
I personally have both ps and xbox so I don't miss out on any of these somewhat rare releases. they are what I game for.
I cannot comment on them, because they are PS4 games, so I will have to take your word for it but unless those games have meaningful choices you can make, I don't consider them strong in the story department. The early fallouts (1 and 2) were actually fairly good at world building, its the later ones (3 and 4) which in my opinion fail at it. Note, I was not saying that story driven games don't sell well (like the example of skyrim that I gave), just that most of the ones that do sell well are the ones with poor stories.
Then I guess you're different from most D&D players. And try looking 4e and 5e. Rules are completely different from previous editions and yet they are still D&D. In 4e for example you don't forget spells, except daily ones, and actually NW is basically the 4e combat rule engine translated into a videogame. By the way there are many ways in which you can justify spells disappearing from the mind of wizards on casting or not being available even in Faerun. I'll give you an example I've seen: most of the spell is actually cast during memorization and only the final trigger is used when the spell is activated. In order to recast the spell the wizard has to re-cast the first the main part and that takes time (and a rested mind maybe).
None of this is explained within the setting, it is essentially added on by the players in order to fix their world, which shows that it is the setting itself which has holes in it, since they need to be fixed. Also, it was a single example, I could give others, but that is aside from the point.
By the way if D&D is the main seller in RPG games it probably has some depth even if you don't see it.
Depth has no correlation to popularity, or if it does have any correlation, the correlation would probably be, "the less deep a game is the broader its audience." Call of Duty sells ~30m copies every single year, its an FPS, with 0 narrative depth. That IP alone is probably worth more than the entire of DnD. Minecraft has sold ~180 million copies. It has sold more individual copies of games, than the total sales of many entire IPs combined. Skyrim has also sold a massive number of copies and it is also a game with very little narrative depth. Games that actually have deep stories? At best, 1-2m sales, if they are lucky.
The truth of the matter is, most people don't want to play deep games. They want to play games where they don't need to think and they can just come home and bash keys for a bit, without needing to pay attention as a means to relieve the stress of the day and wind down a bit. And this is completely fine. There is nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't make these games deep and it doesn't make their stories particularly rich or meaningful and the same is true of DnD. Its popular, its mass market and the story quality is in no way comparable to the writing of a great author.
Also, minor note (since it bothers me when people do this), the G in RPG stands for game. No need to repeat it an additional time. "Role Playing Game game," makes no sense.
Then I guess you're different from most D&D players. And try looking 4e and 5e. Rules are completely different from previous editions and yet they are still D&D. In 4e for example you don't forget spells, except daily ones, and actually NW is basically the 4e combat rule engine translated into a videogame. By the way there are many ways in which you can justify spells disappearing from the mind of wizards on casting or not being available even in Faerun. I'll give you an example I've seen: most of the spell is actually cast during memorization and only the final trigger is used when the spell is activated. In order to recast the spell the wizard has to re-cast the first the main part and that takes time (and a rested mind maybe).
None of this is explained within the setting, it is essentially added on by the players in order to fix their world, which shows that it is the setting itself which has holes in it, since they need to be fixed. Also, it was a single example, I could give others, but that is aside from the point.
By the way if D&D is the main seller in RPG games it probably has some depth even if you don't see it.
Depth has no correlation to popularity, or if it does have any correlation, the correlation would probably be, "the less deep a game is the broader its audience." Call of Duty sells ~30m copies every single year, its an FPS, with 0 narrative depth. That IP alone is probably worth more than the entire of DnD. Minecraft has sold ~180 million copies. It has sold more individual copies of games, than the total sales of many entire IPs combined. Skyrim has also sold a massive number of copies and it is also a game with very little narrative depth. Games that actually have deep stories? At best, 1-2m sales, if they are lucky.
The truth of the matter is, most people don't want to play deep games. They want to play games where they don't need to think and they can just come home and bash keys for a bit, without needing to pay attention as a means to relieve the stress of the day and wind down a bit. And this is completely fine. There is nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't make these games deep and it doesn't make their stories particularly rich or meaningful and the same is true of DnD. Its popular, its mass market and the story quality is in no way comparable to the writing of a great author.
Also, minor note (since it bothers me when people do this), the G in RPG stands for game. No need to repeat it an additional time. "Role Playing Game game," makes no sense.
the last of us: more than 18 mil copies Tomb Raider series: over 75 mil copies uncharted 3: 3.8 first day sales. was unable to find total for series. but this was preorder. uncharted 4: 15 mil horizon zero dawn 10 mil dying light 13 mil (it's a zombie game but it did have a very compelling story imo) mass effect series 15 mil ( way lower than I'd have expected for this franchise. tomb raider was great but not as great as mass effect imo. ) fallout 4 15 mil (I know you aren't fond of this franchise but it is story driven. I personally hated the ending of nearly all of their games... honestly your only choice is to use a nuke in the middle of an already ravaged wasteland? yuck. but it was highly story driven still)
there are others my take away from this is the playstation has a stronger base for story based games. most of these were exclusive to the playstation for a year or two or completely exclusive to ps4 other than mass effect and one of the tomb raider games that was xbox exclusive for like a month. (some of them weren't exclusive at all though)
there are a lot of indie based games that sell very few with story lines that are particular to pc probably and they probably do sell very few games comparatively.. but that doesn't mean it's true of all the genre.
I personally have both ps and xbox so I don't miss out on any of these somewhat rare releases. they are what I game for.
I cannot comment on them, because they are PS4 games, so I will have to take your word for it but unless those games have meaningful choices you can make, I don't consider them strong in the story department. The early fallouts (1 and 2) were actually fairly good at world building, its the later ones (3 and 4) which in my opinion fail at it. Note, I was not saying that story driven games don't sell well (like the example of skyrim that I gave), just that most of the ones that do sell well are the ones with poor stories.
you can have a quality story that doesn't have strong choices that change the course of the game imo. my criteria is it something that drives you to complete the game for the "what happens next? feature. a poor story you just don't care. I still think TLO is the best story ever told in a video game. and there are a few choices that are meaningful in the outcome.
1
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
you can have a quality story that doesn't have strong choices that change the course of the game imo. my criteria is it something that drives you to complete the game for the "what happens next? feature. a poor story you just don't care. I still think TLO is the best story ever told in a video game. and there are a few choices that are meaningful in the outcome.
Well, at the end of the day, that is a matter of taste and not really something that can be argued about. 1 person likes 1 thing, 1 person likes another thing. I will definitely agree you can tell a good story without any meaningful choices (you don't make any choices in a book after all), but to me, if a game is story driven and features no meaningful choices, it may as well just be a book. The ability for the player to make impactful decisions inside the game is what divides a good book from a good story driven game (speaking from my opinion).
@thefiresidecat You stated above, "way lower than I'd have expected for this franchise." You also have to take into account a few other factors, dealing with the timeline. The game "Ultima Online" was released back in 1997 and people were shocked by December 1998, Ultima Online had reached 100,000 subscribers. Today's "online gaming" standards have increased exponentially. It would be unfair to compare Ultima Online sales, to the sales expected in current market.
Another key factor, is online games versus stand alone game. Online games require a lot more story, than a simple FPS like Call of Duty. To my understanding, Call of Duty was a stand alone with optional online play until more recently. I never played Call of Duty, but I am told by my nephew it is called PvP Arena Game. Anyone telling me apples outsold oranges last month, don't make the apples the same as the oranges.
I share your opinion, that games do need a massive original story. Attempting to compare something like, the 100 hours of story and mission content, in the original Guild Wars trilogy (that sold over 11 million by 2015 and continues to sell to this day) to something akin to Doom, Call of Duty, or Fortnite doesn't even begin to measure up. The target audience for those other games are a bunch of brutish media victims. My nephew continues to go wait in a line, to buy the next CoD game. The "real scam" is, the new game is just the old game, with a new title on the box.
I would not even bother trying to change anyone's opinion about what makes a great game, movie, or book. I know what I like and so do you.
0
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
@thefiresidecat You stated above, "way lower than I'd have expected for this franchise." You also have to take into account a few other factors, dealing with the timeline. The game "Ultima Online" was released back in 1997 and people were shocked by December 1998, Ultima Online had reached 100,000 subscribers. Today's "online gaming" standards have increased exponentially. It would be unfair to compare Ultima Online sales, to the sales expected in current market.
Another key factor, is online games versus stand alone game. Online games require a lot more story, than a simple FPS like Call of Duty. To my understanding, Call of Duty was a stand alone with optional online play until more recently. I never played Call of Duty, but I am told by my nephew it is called PvP Arena Game. Anyone telling me apples outsold oranges last month, don't make the apples the same as the oranges.
I share your opinion, that games do need a massive original story. Attempting to compare something like, the 100 hours of story and mission content, in the original Guild Wars trilogy (that sold over 11 million by 2015 and continues to sell to this day) to something akin to Doom, Call of Duty, or Fortnite doesn't even begin to measure up. The target audience for those other games are a bunch of brutish media victims. My nephew continues to go wait in a line, to buy the next CoD game. The "real scam" is, the new game is just the old game, with a new title on the box.
I would not even bother trying to change anyone's opinion about what makes a great game, movie, or book. I know what I like and so do you.
At no point did I say that developers should not try and make good story driven games, I just pointed out that popularity does not equate to deep story, when the poster I responded to implied that it did. "Millions of people like this therefor it must be deep," is not true. I stated that there is probably no correlation between popularity and depth, but that I suspected that if there is any correlation it was probably the reverse of that assertion, simply because a less deep game is accessible to more people. Another easy example of this is fast food. It sells in volumes far greater than any fine food, but nobody would argue that a meal prepared by Heston is worse than eating fast food, even though the fast food sells more.
I also explicitly stated, that its fine for people to like what they like and there is nothing wrong with liking a story without depth, just that I don't personally like shallow stories and don't like it when people try to pass off games that lack depth as games that have depth.
I vote for the title of this thread to be changed into "Gang up on Sharp about Exploits and not liking D&D settings".
Complete with strikethroughs, if possible to edit into the title.
Also, Sharpedgelord, you should know better than to diss D&D lore, all it does is paint a big fat bullseye on your back.
Sweet . *draw 3 darts* What are the rules ? What is the minimal distance to make my throws ? Do I get points if I hit the left buttock instead of the bullseye ? Must Sharp stay still or is he allowed to be a moving target, running left and right ? Can I throw knives and swords instead of darts ?
None of this is explained within the setting, it is essentially added on by the players in order to fix their world, which shows that it is the setting itself which has holes in it, since they need to be fixed. Also, it was a single example, I could give others, but that is aside from the point.
That's where I think you are failing. More than a set of rules, or a set of coherent lore, D&D is a potpourri (medley ?), roots and a stump, to let the DM and the players pick, use or imagine what they want to collectively create/live their own story. Nothing as an absolute to follow. The game tells you there are indians, there are cowboys, there are bows and guns, so you and your bunch of friends as kids can play cowboy vs indians. Does it matters if suddenly one of the kid add in the playgame the very incoherent aliens (in a normal "western" game) in their flying saucer and a megarobot 10m tall with deadly laser eyes, so suddenly cowboys and indians have to team up and fight together these new ennemies ? (it was a very bad movie by the way)
Although i am fond of very consistant and coherent imaginary worlds, what is the most important is to have fun.
Some people need a very strict and coherent framework, rules & lore/world, to have fun (you are, and I think i am also a bit in this category ^^), other wants to wander around or break the world internal rules to reinvent the universe (which is, by the way, what some writers do even in their own creation, like Aasimov who constantly tried to completely bend or overthrow his 3 laws ^^).
The sandbox standard. In my perspective, it's a "Lego" game : you build and shape your world, whatever adventure you are creating and getting in, it is at the same time the opposite of story telling games and the same thing : you are making your own stories inside. Even if you are only the builder of the most gigantic castle, or one of the participant to the reproduction of Notre Dame de Paris. Stories are not reduced to the "text" form. Architecture, painting, photo, etc, are telling stories. You were a builder and that's your imagination wanted to tell as a story which makes your Minecraft world/server what it is today, because there was absolutely no goal other than what your imagination could come up with, inside a "set of rules" limitation you probably would want to push to their limit (how tall can i build ? how deep can i dig ? how long can my railroad can be ?).
Skyrim has also sold a massive number of copies and it is also a game with very little narrative depth.
And yet, the in game lore is quite impressive in quantity [not so in quality :P] (especially if you take in account everything since arena or daggerfall). I remember my very first question in the "I need help" Ubisoft forum for Morrowind : "Do the constellations move with seasons, or only with the course of the night ?"
The truth of the matter is, most people don't want to play deep games. They want to play games where they don't need to think and they can just come home and bash keys for a bit, without needing to pay attention as a means to relieve the stress of the day and wind down a bit. And this is completely fine. There is nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't make these games deep and it doesn't make their stories particularly rich or meaningful and the same is true of DnD. Its popular, its mass market and the story quality is in no way comparable to the writing of a great author.
What is a great author ? Alexandre Dumas was a great author ? The very reason why there are so much dialogues in his books (Les Trois Mousquetaires for exemple) was because he was payed on the lines (dialogues = possibility of multiple short lines). Victor Hugo was a great author ? Notre-Dame de Paris was published quite right away in at least 5 different languages, and some where really badly translated.
Everyone, at the end, has his balls held by money...
After decades of brainless TV content (especially the last 2 ones with the ton of absurd and brainless reality shows given to us as the staging of mediocrity), it doesn't come as a suprise. And it's true, nothing wrong to mash some buttons on a vacuus game or in watching braindeadly a TV show.
The very problem is the market space for really deep and brilliant things, but it is more a society problem (which unfortunately tends year after year more and more to the idiocracy) than anything else.
As Alexandre Astier said "Let's not confuse trying to see something brilliant and having to rack your brain. We can not put all those who think in the camp of those who rack their brain, it is a very dangerous amalgam."
(Edit : i do think Sharp is in love with the pure idea of debating :P. Question Sharp : does it happen to you time to time to try to defend a position although you are even yourself of a different, or even opposite opinion ? :P)
1
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
That's where I think you are failing. More than a set of rules, or a set of coherent lore, D&D is a potpourri (medley ?), roots and a stump, to let the DM and the players pick, use or imagine what they want to collectively create/live their own story. Nothing as an absolute to follow. The game tells you there are indians, there are cowboys, there are bows and guns, so you and your bunch of friends as kids can play cowboy vs indians. Does it matters if suddenly one of the kid add in the playgame the very incoherent aliens (in a normal "western" game) in their flying saucer and a megarobot 10m tall with deadly laser eyes, so suddenly cowboys and indians have to team up and fight together these new ennemies ? (it was a very bad movie by the way)
Although i am fond of very consistant and coherent imaginary worlds, what is the most important is to have fun.
Some people need a very strict and coherent framework, rules & lore/world, to have fun (you are, and I think i am also a bit in this category ^^), other wants to wander around or break the world internal rules to reinvent the universe (which is, by the way, what some writers do even in their own creation, like Aasimov who constantly tried to completely bend or overthrow his 3 laws ^^).
So you admit then that the setting does not matter at all? The lore is not good. My initial argument was, the rules matter more than the world, because you can have fun with any world, abiding by the same set of rules. I would prefer a consistent setting, which is well explained and believable, than one which isn't. The rules are important because they give you a framwork by which you can play. Sure, you could disregard them and the person who, "wants to be a dragon" could be a dragon, but the point of rules is they form a common ground on which people agree to abide by. They are there to prevent disagreements and to provide a somewhat balanced level of play.
The sandbox standard. In my perspective, it's a "Lego" game : you build and shape your world, whatever adventure you are creating and getting in, it is at the same time the opposite of story telling games and the same thing : you are making your own stories inside. Even if you are only the builder of the most gigantic castle, or one of the participant to the reproduction of Notre Dame de Paris. Stories are not reduced to the "text" form. Architecture, painting, photo, etc, are telling stories. You were a builder and that's your imagination wanted to tell as a story which makes your Minecraft world/server what it is today, because there was absolutely no goal other than what your imagination could come up with, inside a "set of rules" limitation you probably would want to push to their limit (how tall can i build ? how deep can i dig ? how long can my railroad can be ?).
Skyrim has also sold a massive number of copies and it is also a game with very little narrative depth.
And yet, the in game lore is quite impressive in quantity [not so in quality :P] (especially if you take in account everything since arena or daggerfall). I remember my very first question in the "I need help" Ubisoft forum for Morrowind : "Do the constellations move with seasons, or only with the course of the night ?"
I wasn't trying to disparage any of these games, so I apologize if I came across that way. I was simply trying to provide examples of games which are exceptionally popular for a reason not related to story complexity. I actually really enjoy minecraft for example (although I don't play it much these days), but nobody who likes minecraft (myself included) will tell you that they play the game for the story.
In the case of the Elder scrolls, I actually think the earlier games did a fairly good job (daggerfell, morrowind in particular) at creating a believable world. I think its unfortunate what happened to the series after that.
(Edit : i do think Sharp is in love with the pure idea of debating :P. Question Sharp : does it happen to you time to time to try to defend a position although you are even yourself of a different, or even opposite opinion ? :P)
I do enjoy debating yes, I think there is nothing wrong with just arguing for the sake of arguing, so long as nobody is being nasty to each other it can in actual fact, be something very pleasant.
So you admit then that the setting does not matter at all? The lore is not good. My initial argument was, the rules matter more than the world, because you can have fun with any world, abiding by the same set of rules. I would prefer a consistent setting, which is well explained and believable, than one which isn't. The rules are important because they give you a framwork by which you can play. Sure, you could disregard them and the person who, "wants to be a dragon" could be a dragon, but the point of rules is they form a common ground on which people agree to abide by. They are there to prevent disagreements and to provide a somewhat balanced level of play.
No, i admit nothing :P. I wanted to say the set of rules doesn't matter more than the lore/story/coherence. I can play cowboys and indians incoherent stories with the D&D rules, or call of cthulhu ones, or Vampire masquerade ones, or just no rule at all/impredictible rules (one day one rule applies the other one it doesn't), as when i was a kid, only storytelling by a DM (my father) and Players (my brothers). I really don't care about what set of rules is implemented to settle the "mechanics" and decides what is a success, a failure, what is possible, impossible. What is important is how entertaining the living cowboys vs indians story goes ^^, even sometimes the "crazy incoherences" can make me mad :P (but as soon as you are getting mad about a story, doesn't it means somewhere you are loving it ? unless what you would be indifferent at worst/most ).
I actually really enjoy minecraft for example (although I don't play it much these days), but nobody who likes minecraft (myself included) will tell you that they play the game for the story.
I like how you have very creatively framed an exploit as an, "alternative method to beat content." Those players were not able to beat it legitimately and they never deserved their rewards, if anything they deserved a title labeling them as a cheater which couldn't be removed.
More like "this 5 rogues team was not able to beat ras nsi in a meta way" because they were trying to find a way to beat the boss without the, at this time, 3 or 4 support-1 or 2 huge dps meta when bascially, past one point, you weren't really needing the tank to tank or the healer to heal, just buff. I'm pretty sure that dudes like galactic underwear, in a standard meta-team, was absolutely completely able to burn ras nsi and far quickere than that long before this 5 rogues-run happenned.
They went kind of "full dps team" trying to figure out how to bypass the volontary lack of a meta-team. And i kind of love that : meta-BiS-team is boring as hell when you are not the first one to deal with the boss and everybody already knows how to defeat him. Brainstorming and finding an alternative strategy because you are out of the "standards" meta/BiS comes as equally satisfying as to be the first team to figure out how to legit beat this one boss on preview.
I don't think they do it more than once or maybe twice (obviously far less efficient than bringing in a meta-BiS [or close to] team I'm sure every of them were able to gather). Mostly it was just for the lol and the challenge. I don't really see that as an exploit, more kind of an "emergent gameplay" idea (which in a living game like a MMORPG tend to and should be rather quickly patched to no longer being possible, obviously to avoid exploit if there is any). Do rocket jumping, bunny hopping or strafe-jumping in Quake an exploit labelled as cheating in your opinion ?
You can clearly see them not really going all-in at the beginning and hear one of them developping in live the idea and trying to get the others to understand how such a trick may work. They failed multiple times to get it right at the beginning, then the 4 other players had the epiphany. The rest is history. And by the way quite a funny video of Neverwinter (though i miss the GU version, with accelerated timelaps and bennyhill music which make it even funnier :P )
G.U here.. Wasnt aware people called that 5 man rogue run we did an exploit, we apologize if courage breaker was broken, and we just used it as it was handed to us.. Personaly idc who says it was an exploit, i disagree. i think it was creative and fun and totaly legit. People have different opinions, and thank you for defending us None of the 5 rogues were banned for exploitation, and i streamed it for around 200 to 300 people. some devs were present aswell. and i uploaded to youtube. why werent we banned ? i demand to be banned for using CB on raznisi lmao. Anyways we did it twice, second time was 45 min faster, and the benny hill version is going back up!! i just wish i had my video and not needing tardlees.
i respect sharp and whoever else, but yah, i don't agree it was an exploit, and no amount of anyone trying convince me or breaking it down for me will change that. so don't : thanks.
Sweet . *draw 3 darts* What are the rules ? What is the minimal distance to make my throws ? Do I get points if I hit the left buttock instead of the bullseye ? Must Sharp stay still or is he allowed to be a moving target, running left and right ? Can I throw knives and swords instead of darts ?
the last of us: more than 18 mil copies Tomb Raider series: over 75 mil copies uncharted 3: 3.8 first day sales. was unable to find total for series. but this was preorder. uncharted 4: 15 mil horizon zero dawn 10 mil dying light 13 mil (it's a zombie game but it did have a very compelling story imo) mass effect series 15 mil ( way lower than I'd have expected for this franchise. tomb raider was great but not as great as mass effect imo. ) fallout 4 15 mil (I know you aren't fond of this franchise but it is story driven. I personally hated the ending of nearly all of their games... honestly your only choice is to use a nuke in the middle of an already ravaged wasteland? yuck. but it was highly story driven still)
there are others my take away from this is the playstation has a stronger base for story based games.
Unfair, Naughty Dog is carrying Playstation with its "not Indiana Jones" series and its "off brand The Walking Dead with dad simulator". :P
Though I'd argue Uncharted 4 was a bit weak with its story, since the whole "Drake has a brother" setup reeks of bad fanfic where he comes out of nowhere despite the previous games establishing Drake as an orphan. Still, the overall theme of Drake's personal struggle was good enough to make the adventure satisfying until the end.
but to me, if a game is story driven and features no meaningful choices, it may as well just be a book. The ability for the player to make impactful decisions inside the game is what divides a good book from a good story driven game (speaking from my opinion).
Actually, that's practically what Naughty Dog does: make playable movies. They aren't all the B List action movies like any CoDs past Modern Warfare 2, but not quite an auteur movie you'd see in any art house (though TLO was sorta approaching the auteur side).
Another key factor, is online games versus stand alone game. Online games require a lot more story, than a simple FPS like Call of Duty. To my understanding, Call of Duty was a stand alone with optional online play until more recently. I never played Call of Duty, but I am told by my nephew it is called PvP Arena Game. Anyone telling me apples outsold oranges last month, don't make the apples the same as the oranges.
Funny, there was a time when CoD wasn't your Micheal Bay rollercoaster, but actually more along the lines of Saving Private Ryan (CoD started as a game to kill off Medal of Honor, which was "Saving Private Ryan: The Game").
Until Modern Warfare 2 (or arguably CoD4), the main selling point of of the series was its singleplayer depicting battles in WWII and to get you interested in the history of those battles.
Nowadays, it's main selling point is a (questionably?) relaxed online paintball session with optional single player modes (and sometimes a fun zombies mode).
i respect sharp and whoever else, but yah, i don't agree it was an exploit, and no amount of anyone trying convince me or breaking it down for me will change that. so don't : thanks.
Peace
Hi GU. It was an amalgam i unfortunetaley made with the rest of the concomitant posts (which were speaking about the Traven Blackdagger exploit => pulling outside his room and make him fall in a pit) and some comments Sharp made about that. See the rest of the posts after that : nothing "wrong" or "exploit" from Sharp perspective about the 5 TR run. Sorry for that, i should maybe edit the post you quoted so people don't jump on my mistake and blame Sharp for something he didn't said (though i believe he is quite used to that xD), he even precised it was perferctly ok some posts after mine.
you can have a quality story that doesn't have strong choices that change the course of the game imo. my criteria is it something that drives you to complete the game for the "what happens next? feature. a poor story you just don't care. I still think TLO is the best story ever told in a video game. and there are a few choices that are meaningful in the outcome.
Well, at the end of the day, that is a matter of taste and not really something that can be argued about. 1 person likes 1 thing, 1 person likes another thing. I will definitely agree you can tell a good story without any meaningful choices (you don't make any choices in a book after all), but to me, if a game is story driven and features no meaningful choices, it may as well just be a book. The ability for the player to make impactful decisions inside the game is what divides a good book from a good story driven game (speaking from my opinion).
no matter if they give you choices that can make it a choose your own adventure or not, it's still a narrative being directed by the story teller. and in order to have continuity in further games they need to have some kind of definitive best ending in order to continue writing the game. it's all a play along novel no matter which illusion they give you as to how you get there. Imo if it could have been a decent book.. it was a success in the narrative. if it had been a book and all you get from it is whiz bang flash lots of shooting.. rescue a princess. the end.. then the story aspect was a failure.
1
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
you can have a quality story that doesn't have strong choices that change the course of the game imo. my criteria is it something that drives you to complete the game for the "what happens next? feature. a poor story you just don't care. I still think TLO is the best story ever told in a video game. and there are a few choices that are meaningful in the outcome.
Well, at the end of the day, that is a matter of taste and not really something that can be argued about. 1 person likes 1 thing, 1 person likes another thing. I will definitely agree you can tell a good story without any meaningful choices (you don't make any choices in a book after all), but to me, if a game is story driven and features no meaningful choices, it may as well just be a book. The ability for the player to make impactful decisions inside the game is what divides a good book from a good story driven game (speaking from my opinion).
no matter if they give you choices that can make it a choose your own adventure or not, it's still a narrative being directed by the story teller. and in order to have continuity in further games they need to have some kind of definitive best ending in order to continue writing the game. it's all a play along novel no matter which illusion they give you as to how you get there. Imo if it could have been a decent book.. it was a success in the narrative. if it had been a book and all you get from it is whiz bang flash lots of shooting.. rescue a princess. the end.. then the story aspect was a failure.
Actually, there are some PC story driven games which have multiple endings and sequels to them follow the continuity of all possible endings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln_plWALAoI Here is an example (note, I don't think the story in this game is very good, but the continuity was done very well).
Sharp, i feel like you are almost arguing with yourself about the DND rules and setting specific rules.
As you said yourself the dnd rules are a base frame work to be used in any setting, whether this be your own made up setting or any of the official settings that have been made over the years. If you are using your own settings than you can make up any reason you want to have Wizards lose those spells after they have cast them, or you could go the other way decide that rule doesn't fit and just ignore it. Just because you believe there is not a valid reason for that specific rule in a particular setting doesn't mean you have to use it or more to the point of the topic that the setting has no depth to it.
As for site specific examples though there are a bunch in some of the rule books including Faerun (found after a quick search for reference)
From Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide:
The Weave is an essential element of the universe, running through everything in unseen threads. Some creatures, objects, and locations have deep, intrinsic ties to the Weave and can perform extraordinary feats that come naturally to them (a beholder’s flight, a vampire’s charming gaze, a dragon’s breath weapon, and so forth). Creatures with the necessary talent and skill can also manipulate the Weave to perform magic by casting spells.
So, in Forgotten Realms, spells slots are some aspect of how the "Weave" is manipulated by characters or creatures with spellcasting ability. The details of how that exactly works is left to Mystra — the goddess of magic.
In the 5E Eberron material, but Keith Baker describes magic as being like a force of the universe where spellcasting is treated as a science (and slots are a consequence of the application of that science). In the post, Baker describes the possibility that magic missile was originally (in the fictitious history of the setting) a third-level spell but the application of research brought it down over time to a first level. This is less satisfying in the kenku mimic case, but... there it is.
In Dark Sun, magic draws from the lifeforce of living beings or of the planet itself.
Also the depth of a setting is not necessarily only influenced by one source. A lot of people think Faerun has a lot of depth to it since there has been X amount of DND source books + X amount of novels + x amount of published lore. If you only have read 2 novels and looked at 1 source book of course you will think there is less depth than someone who has read 50 novels, 20 source books and a 100 articles of lore.
@thefiresidecat You stated above, "way lower than I'd have expected for this franchise." You also have to take into account a few other factors, dealing with the timeline. The game "Ultima Online" was released back in 1997 and people were shocked by December 1998, Ultima Online had reached 100,000 subscribers. Today's "online gaming" standards have increased exponentially. It would be unfair to compare Ultima Online sales, to the sales expected in current market.
Another key factor, is online games versus stand alone game. Online games require a lot more story, than a simple FPS like Call of Duty. To my understanding, Call of Duty was a stand alone with optional online play until more recently. I never played Call of Duty, but I am told by my nephew it is called PvP Arena Game. Anyone telling me apples outsold oranges last month, don't make the apples the same as the oranges.
I share your opinion, that games do need a massive original story. Attempting to compare something like, the 100 hours of story and mission content, in the original Guild Wars trilogy (that sold over 11 million by 2015 and continues to sell to this day) to something akin to Doom, Call of Duty, or Fortnite doesn't even begin to measure up. The target audience for those other games are a bunch of brutish media victims. My nephew continues to go wait in a line, to buy the next CoD game. The "real scam" is, the new game is just the old game, with a new title on the box.
I would not even bother trying to change anyone's opinion about what makes a great game, movie, or book. I know what I like and so do you.
At no point did I say that developers should not try and make good story driven games, I just pointed out that popularity does not equate to deep story, when the poster I responded to implied that it did. "Millions of people like this therefor it must be deep," is not true. I stated that there is probably no correlation between popularity and depth, but that I suspected that if there is any correlation it was probably the reverse of that assertion, simply because a less deep game is accessible to more people. Another easy example of this is fast food. It sells in volumes far greater than any fine food, but nobody would argue that a meal prepared by Heston is worse than eating fast food, even though the fast food sells more.
I also explicitly stated, that its fine for people to like what they like and there is nothing wrong with liking a story without depth, just that I don't personally like shallow stories and don't like it when people try to pass off games that lack depth as games that have depth.
I wasn't sure how to respond or if I should at all. I don't want to burst your ego bubble but I do believe I was addressing another person (cat) who said, they didn't know why something happens the way it does. You seem to think I was attacking your opinion? I shared @thefiresidecat 's opinion about what makes for great games. It is all apples and oranges, and what "sells" along the timeline really don't make a difference.
There are people who eat, breathe, and live Star Trek and Star Wars. I hate science fiction. Others hate one of those and love the other. My husband loves his science fiction. We don't argue about what he likes and what I like. To me, the payoff in games is the plot and here is how I would have made Neverwinter: Avernus much better from the start.
To begin there is a major plot hole in the module already. When you travel to Avernus with Makos, why didn't we just start sending all those wounded and injured people (aka the survivors) back to Neverwinter? Why must we stay and risk lives for a building? Now to be 100% honest, I haven't played Avernus all the way through, but this plot hole is glaring right from the beginning.
First, I would have more dialog between your character and Makos. Without making it hip-deep in options, you simply start by asking him, what he is doing in Evernight. The last time we saw him was Chult, but we won't bring that up because some people might be playing it out of step. He would simply respond, "It seems I am somewhat an embarrassment to Lord Neverember these days. Having paid to construct a memorial to a villain the likes of me... well I am sure you can understand.". After that the player would decide;
1. You are still the same person I knew before and a good friend. 2. Your actions define you, you made your choice, the person I knew as Makos died.
Then as we get to the Vallenhause stronghold, we attempt to take 5 injured people back through the portal Makos provided. They immediately die upon arrival. Makos could then explain the people were "taken" by different means and only the few that came by way of his portal can journey to and from Avernus. The first quest should have been fighting off demons in the courtyard, and getting wizards from Neverwinter as support to create the barrier shield.
Until the magical bonds that tie the people to Avernus are broken they must remain safe inside the stronghold.
I will put away my pen for now, because I don't write stories for Neverwinter anymore. I loved doing it for them for free, it made me feel special and less like a liability.
Sweet . *draw 3 darts* What are the rules ? What is the minimal distance to make my throws ? Do I get points if I hit the left buttock instead of the bullseye ? Must Sharp stay still or is he allowed to be a moving target, running left and right ? Can I throw knives and swords instead of darts ?
the last of us: more than 18 mil copies Tomb Raider series: over 75 mil copies uncharted 3: 3.8 first day sales. was unable to find total for series. but this was preorder. uncharted 4: 15 mil horizon zero dawn 10 mil dying light 13 mil (it's a zombie game but it did have a very compelling story imo) mass effect series 15 mil ( way lower than I'd have expected for this franchise. tomb raider was great but not as great as mass effect imo. ) fallout 4 15 mil (I know you aren't fond of this franchise but it is story driven. I personally hated the ending of nearly all of their games... honestly your only choice is to use a nuke in the middle of an already ravaged wasteland? yuck. but it was highly story driven still)
there are others my take away from this is the playstation has a stronger base for story based games.
Unfair, Naughty Dog is carrying Playstation with its "not Indiana Jones" series and its "off brand The Walking Dead with dad simulator". :P
Though I'd argue Uncharted 4 was a bit weak with its story, since the whole "Drake has a brother" setup reeks of bad fanfic where he comes out of nowhere despite the previous games establishing Drake as an orphan. Still, the overall theme of Drake's personal struggle was good enough to make the adventure satisfying until the end.
but to me, if a game is story driven and features no meaningful choices, it may as well just be a book. The ability for the player to make impactful decisions inside the game is what divides a good book from a good story driven game (speaking from my opinion).
Actually, that's practically what Naughty Dog does: make playable movies. They aren't all the B List action movies like any CoDs past Modern Warfare 2, but not quite an auteur movie you'd see in any art house (though TLO was sorta approaching the auteur side).
Another key factor, is online games versus stand alone game. Online games require a lot more story, than a simple FPS like Call of Duty. To my understanding, Call of Duty was a stand alone with optional online play until more recently. I never played Call of Duty, but I am told by my nephew it is called PvP Arena Game. Anyone telling me apples outsold oranges last month, don't make the apples the same as the oranges.
Funny, there was a time when CoD wasn't your Micheal Bay rollercoaster, but actually more along the lines of Saving Private Ryan (CoD started as a game to kill off Medal of Honor, which was "Saving Private Ryan: The Game").
Until Modern Warfare 2 (or arguably CoD4), the main selling point of of the series was its singleplayer depicting battles in WWII and to get you interested in the history of those battles.
Nowadays, it's main selling point is a (questionably?) relaxed online paintball session with optional single player modes (and sometimes a fun zombies mode).
Uncharted was better than Indiana Jones any day of the week! (but seriously just because something is in the genre doesn't make it a cheap knock off. genres are just types are all murder mysteries cheap agatha christie knock offs? or all film noir sam spade knock offs? Tomb Raider is very much in the same genre as well. )
but I'd agree four was the worst of the lot. 4 was borderline downright bad. The ending was cringy as well. Since when would Elena get mad at him for treasure hunting? and since when would he actually stop doing it because she got bitchy about it? Why would they write off a successful series like that? it was all so muggle. settle down have babies and don't adventure anymore even though that's what both people did all the time and at every opportunity before that.
2 was the best. and 3 was good. Tlou was a few steps above them in a number of ways and is WAY better than walking dead. now if someone could just convince them to take on lost.....
Uncharted was better than Indiana Jones any day of the week! (but seriously just because something is in the genre doesn't make it a cheap knock off.
Well, you can't deny that Indiana Jones has a pretty big influence on Uncharted, from the globetrotting quests to the ... questionable archaeology that involves racing others, to the supernatural elements that get the villain killed because they're too greedy.
Hell, Naughty Dog got Indy himself, Harrison Ford , for a Japanese advertisement for Uncharted 3.
genres are just types are all murder mysteries cheap agatha christie knock offs?
Again, not exactly a knockoff, but you can't deny Agatha Christie's fame and influence on the genre.
To the point where her work will be referenced in things like a silly shoot 'em up franchise with a setup that sounds like a bad bar joke (a shrine maiden and witch walk into a land based on a mythology kitchen sink ... also known as the Touhou series).
but I'd agree four was the worst of the lot. 4 was borderline downright bad. The ending was cringy as well. Since when would Elena get mad at him for treasure hunting? and since when would he actually stop doing it because she got bitchy about it? Why would they write off a successful series like that? it was all so muggle. settle down have babies and don't adventure anymore even though that's what both people did all the time and at every opportunity before that.
Sloppy writing contrivances aside, the point of the story was the struggle between Drake's love for (illegal) adventuring (and dealing with the stupid situations it gets him in) versus balancing a stable life with his wife that doesn't see him fighting entire armies or unearthing supernatural monsters (you know, getting himself killed?). The conclusion is supposed to be how he pulls a Kirk and does both: he retires as a thief (hence the subtitle) but continues his adventuring life as the head of a (legal) company that salvages ancient artifacts.
.... Or maybe I'm thinking too hard about the story and it's just a cop out for Naughty Dog to fulfill whatever contract that Sony mandated them for a PS4 launch title.
Tlou was a few steps above them in a number of ways and is WAY better than walking dead. now if someone could just convince them to take on lost.....
Many zombie stories, when not going for a more simple "kill zombies" take, are supposed to be about what happens when civilization goes wrong, sorta Lord of the Flies like. Yes, there are actual monsters in the form of zombies, but they are usually contrasted with the atrocities that people commit in the name of survival, essentially a "who are the real monsters?" question.
you can see that I have spent way too much time at my school's film school, even though I'm supposed to be an business snake
@rjc9000 I'm bad at quoting so I'm not going to here because I'd just make it messy.
1. that is the point of saying Genre vs Rip off or cheap version. you can have grandfathers of a style that becomes it's own thing. do you really want to live in a world where you ONLY have agatha christie or Indiana jones with no more stories to tell than those two authors? All fantasy basically stems from Tolkien and lord knows I'd hate it if that was all we had under that umbrella! it doesn't make everything a cut rate version that comes after. Just new stories in the style. as far as uncharted goes.. imo drake wasn't indie. if anyone was indy it was sully (but as an old man ofc. if anything Drake is more like Mal from Firefly.
2. the whole basis for that story (uc4) doesn't fit with the rest of it and is a misogynic take on Elena. She's a Reporter that is going into WAR zones. BEFORE she meets Drake. Then she INSISTS on following him into very dangerous situations and becomes part of the dangerous situation herself. but then.. she gets a ring around her finger and wants him to stay home and care for the babies with her? does that ring true to you? This is a woman who would not want children. This is a women who has an addiction to adrenaline. you don't do what she was doing if it's not that way. her itch for adventure is going to be maybe stronger than his is. he's doing it for the treasure. she was doing it for the adrenaline. People like that don't usually stop til they're dead. they did it to kill the series and give it a pat happily ever after. but imo it would have been a slow death from the inside for those two. if they did have kids there would have been a lot of nannies with very little parental intervention ala Lara Crofts upbringing.
3. zombie stories are an off shoot of the apocalypse Genre. you don't need them for a apocalypse story. the zombies actually aren't a very important part of Tlou except for being the mcguffin that is responsible for the choice of one to save the many.. or not. the fact is they don't have the technology to actually use ellie to figure out the vaccine.
In general, I am not one for "zombie flicks" or the games. I do like a great scary movie. But this whole zombie genre is getting real repetitive and old. However if you like zombie pictures, the best one I watched recently was the Korean made "Train to Busan" (2016) I watched on NetFlix, hope you don't mind subtitles.
But the reason I posted here today, I asked my husband what he felt makes a great video game. He agreed the plot can make or break the game, but action and control is a must. He likes the more simple movies between quests. The reason he didn't care much for Mass Effect was the interactive dialog felt over used, and failed at making appropriate changes to the story. He also told me that he enjoyed the "Splinter Cell" series until the 4th game ruins the main character's ethics, by having him kill his boss. Apparently the way they made it, was poorly done as well. Again, this was his opinion, he is busy out of town on work, or I would just have him reply in this thread.
Comments
By the way if D&D is the main seller in RPG games it probably has some depth even if you don't see it.
Born of Black Wind: SW Level 80
The truth of the matter is, most people don't want to play deep games. They want to play games where they don't need to think and they can just come home and bash keys for a bit, without needing to pay attention as a means to relieve the stress of the day and wind down a bit. And this is completely fine. There is nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't make these games deep and it doesn't make their stories particularly rich or meaningful and the same is true of DnD. Its popular, its mass market and the story quality is in no way comparable to the writing of a great author.
Also, minor note (since it bothers me when people do this), the G in RPG stands for game. No need to repeat it an additional time. "Role Playing Game game," makes no sense.
Born of Black Wind: SW Level 80
Tomb Raider series: over 75 mil copies
uncharted 3: 3.8 first day sales. was unable to find total for series. but this was preorder.
uncharted 4: 15 mil
horizon zero dawn 10 mil
dying light 13 mil (it's a zombie game but it did have a very compelling story imo)
mass effect series 15 mil ( way lower than I'd have expected for this franchise. tomb raider was great but not as great as mass effect imo. )
fallout 4 15 mil (I know you aren't fond of this franchise but it is story driven. I personally hated the ending of nearly all of their games... honestly your only choice is to use a nuke in the middle of an already ravaged wasteland? yuck. but it was highly story driven still)
there are others my take away from this is the playstation has a stronger base for story based games. most of these were exclusive to the playstation for a year or two or completely exclusive to ps4 other than mass effect and one of the tomb raider games that was xbox exclusive for like a month. (some of them weren't exclusive at all though)
there are a lot of indie based games that sell very few with story lines that are particular to pc probably and they probably do sell very few games comparatively.. but that doesn't mean it's true of all the genre.
I personally have both ps and xbox so I don't miss out on any of these somewhat rare releases. they are what I game for.
How is that for a title?
Another key factor, is online games versus stand alone game. Online games require a lot more story, than a simple FPS like Call of Duty. To my understanding, Call of Duty was a stand alone with optional online play until more recently. I never played Call of Duty, but I am told by my nephew it is called PvP Arena Game. Anyone telling me apples outsold oranges last month, don't make the apples the same as the oranges.
I share your opinion, that games do need a massive original story. Attempting to compare something like, the 100 hours of story and mission content, in the original Guild Wars trilogy (that sold over 11 million by 2015 and continues to sell to this day) to something akin to Doom, Call of Duty, or Fortnite doesn't even begin to measure up. The target audience for those other games are a bunch of brutish media victims. My nephew continues to go wait in a line, to buy the next CoD game. The "real scam" is, the new game is just the old game, with a new title on the box.
I would not even bother trying to change anyone's opinion about what makes a great game, movie, or book. I know what I like and so do you.
I also explicitly stated, that its fine for people to like what they like and there is nothing wrong with liking a story without depth, just that I don't personally like shallow stories and don't like it when people try to pass off games that lack depth as games that have depth.
*draw 3 darts*
What are the rules ? What is the minimal distance to make my throws ? Do I get points if I hit the left buttock instead of the bullseye ? Must Sharp stay still or is he allowed to be a moving target, running left and right ? Can I throw knives and swords instead of darts ? That's where I think you are failing. More than a set of rules, or a set of coherent lore, D&D is a potpourri (medley ?), roots and a stump, to let the DM and the players pick, use or imagine what they want to collectively create/live their own story. Nothing as an absolute to follow.
The game tells you there are indians, there are cowboys, there are bows and guns, so you and your bunch of friends as kids can play cowboy vs indians.
Does it matters if suddenly one of the kid add in the playgame the very incoherent aliens (in a normal "western" game) in their flying saucer and a megarobot 10m tall with deadly laser eyes, so suddenly cowboys and indians have to team up and fight together these new ennemies ? (it was a very bad movie by the way)
Although i am fond of very consistant and coherent imaginary worlds, what is the most important is to have fun.
Some people need a very strict and coherent framework, rules & lore/world, to have fun (you are, and I think i am also a bit in this category ^^), other wants to wander around or break the world internal rules to reinvent the universe (which is, by the way, what some writers do even in their own creation, like Aasimov who constantly tried to completely bend or overthrow his 3 laws ^^). So true. See TV reality shows... The sandbox standard. In my perspective, it's a "Lego" game : you build and shape your world, whatever adventure you are creating and getting in, it is at the same time the opposite of story telling games and the same thing : you are making your own stories inside. Even if you are only the builder of the most gigantic castle, or one of the participant to the reproduction of Notre Dame de Paris.
Stories are not reduced to the "text" form.
Architecture, painting, photo, etc, are telling stories.
You were a builder and that's your imagination wanted to tell as a story which makes your Minecraft world/server what it is today, because there was absolutely no goal other than what your imagination could come up with, inside a "set of rules" limitation you probably would want to push to their limit (how tall can i build ? how deep can i dig ? how long can my railroad can be ?). And yet, the in game lore is quite impressive in quantity [not so in quality :P] (especially if you take in account everything since arena or daggerfall).
I remember my very first question in the "I need help" Ubisoft forum for Morrowind : "Do the constellations move with seasons, or only with the course of the night ?"
What is a great author ?
Alexandre Dumas was a great author ? The very reason why there are so much dialogues in his books (Les Trois Mousquetaires for exemple) was because he was payed on the lines (dialogues = possibility of multiple short lines).
Victor Hugo was a great author ? Notre-Dame de Paris was published quite right away in at least 5 different languages, and some where really badly translated.
Everyone, at the end, has his balls held by money...
After decades of brainless TV content (especially the last 2 ones with the ton of absurd and brainless reality shows given to us as the staging of mediocrity), it doesn't come as a suprise. And it's true, nothing wrong to mash some buttons on a vacuus game or in watching braindeadly a TV show.
The very problem is the market space for really deep and brilliant things, but it is more a society problem (which unfortunately tends year after year more and more to the idiocracy) than anything else.
As Alexandre Astier said "Let's not confuse trying to see something brilliant and having to rack your brain. We can not put all those who think in the camp of those who rack their brain, it is a very dangerous amalgam."
(Edit : i do think Sharp is in love with the pure idea of debating :P. Question Sharp : does it happen to you time to time to try to defend a position although you are even yourself of a different, or even opposite opinion ? :P)
In the case of the Elder scrolls, I actually think the earlier games did a fairly good job (daggerfell, morrowind in particular) at creating a believable world. I think its unfortunate what happened to the series after that. I do enjoy debating yes, I think there is nothing wrong with just arguing for the sake of arguing, so long as nobody is being nasty to each other it can in actual fact, be something very pleasant.
I wanted to say the set of rules doesn't matter more than the lore/story/coherence.
I can play cowboys and indians incoherent stories with the D&D rules, or call of cthulhu ones, or Vampire masquerade ones, or just no rule at all/impredictible rules (one day one rule applies the other one it doesn't), as when i was a kid, only storytelling by a DM (my father) and Players (my brothers). I really don't care about what set of rules is implemented to settle the "mechanics" and decides what is a success, a failure, what is possible, impossible. What is important is how entertaining the living cowboys vs indians story goes ^^, even sometimes the "crazy incoherences" can make me mad :P (but as soon as you are getting mad about a story, doesn't it means somewhere you are loving it ? unless what you would be indifferent at worst/most
Wasnt aware people called that 5 man rogue run we did an exploit, we apologize if courage breaker was broken, and we just used it as it was handed to us.. Personaly idc who says it was an exploit, i disagree. i think it was creative and fun and totaly legit. People have different opinions, and thank you for defending us
None of the 5 rogues were banned for exploitation, and i streamed it for around 200 to 300 people. some devs were present aswell.
and i uploaded to youtube. why werent we banned ? i demand to be banned for using CB on raznisi lmao.
Anyways we did it twice, second time was 45 min faster, and the benny hill version is going back up!! i just wish i had my video and not needing tardlees.
i respect sharp and whoever else, but yah, i don't agree it was an exploit, and no amount of anyone trying convince me or breaking it down for me will change that. so don't : thanks.
Peace
Though I'd argue Uncharted 4 was a bit weak with its story, since the whole "Drake has a brother" setup reeks of bad fanfic where he comes out of nowhere despite the previous games establishing Drake as an orphan. Still, the overall theme of Drake's personal struggle was good enough to make the adventure satisfying until the end. Actually, that's practically what Naughty Dog does: make playable movies. They aren't all the B List action movies like any CoDs past Modern Warfare 2, but not quite an auteur movie you'd see in any art house (though TLO was sorta approaching the auteur side). Funny, there was a time when CoD wasn't your Micheal Bay rollercoaster, but actually more along the lines of Saving Private Ryan (CoD started as a game to kill off Medal of Honor, which was "Saving Private Ryan: The Game").
Until Modern Warfare 2 (or arguably CoD4), the main selling point of of the series was its singleplayer depicting battles in WWII and to get you interested in the history of those battles.
Nowadays, it's main selling point is a (questionably?) relaxed online paintball session with optional single player modes (and sometimes a fun zombies mode).
See the rest of the posts after that : nothing "wrong" or "exploit" from Sharp perspective about the 5 TR run.
Sorry for that, i should maybe edit the post you quoted so people don't jump on my mistake and blame Sharp for something he didn't said (though i believe he is quite used to that xD), he even precised it was perferctly ok some posts after mine.
Here is an example (note, I don't think the story in this game is very good, but the continuity was done very well).
As you said yourself the dnd rules are a base frame work to be used in any setting, whether this be your own made up setting or any of the official settings that have been made over the years. If you are using your own settings than you can make up any reason you want to have Wizards lose those spells after they have cast them, or you could go the other way decide that rule doesn't fit and just ignore it. Just because you believe there is not a valid reason for that specific rule in a particular setting doesn't mean you have to use it or more to the point of the topic that the setting has no depth to it.
As for site specific examples though there are a bunch in some of the rule books including Faerun (found after a quick search for reference)
From Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide:
The Weave is an essential element of the universe, running through everything in unseen threads. Some creatures, objects, and locations have deep, intrinsic ties to the Weave and can perform extraordinary feats that come naturally to them (a beholder’s flight, a vampire’s charming gaze, a dragon’s breath weapon, and so forth). Creatures with the necessary talent and skill can also manipulate the Weave to perform magic by casting spells.
So, in Forgotten Realms, spells slots are some aspect of how the "Weave" is manipulated by characters or creatures with spellcasting ability. The details of how that exactly works is left to Mystra — the goddess of magic.
In the 5E Eberron material, but Keith Baker describes magic as being like a force of the universe where spellcasting is treated as a science (and slots are a consequence of the application of that science). In the post, Baker describes the possibility that magic missile was originally (in the fictitious history of the setting) a third-level spell but the application of research brought it down over time to a first level. This is less satisfying in the kenku mimic case, but... there it is.
In Dark Sun, magic draws from the lifeforce of living beings or of the planet itself.
Also the depth of a setting is not necessarily only influenced by one source. A lot of people think Faerun has a lot of depth to it since there has been X amount of DND source books + X amount of novels + x amount of published lore. If you only have read 2 novels and looked at 1 source book of course you will think there is less depth than someone who has read 50 novels, 20 source books and a 100 articles of lore.
There are people who eat, breathe, and live Star Trek and Star Wars. I hate science fiction. Others hate one of those and love the other. My husband loves his science fiction. We don't argue about what he likes and what I like. To me, the payoff in games is the plot and here is how I would have made Neverwinter: Avernus much better from the start.
First, I would have more dialog between your character and Makos. Without making it hip-deep in options, you simply start by asking him, what he is doing in Evernight. The last time we saw him was Chult, but we won't bring that up because some people might be playing it out of step. He would simply respond, "It seems I am somewhat an embarrassment to Lord Neverember these days. Having paid to construct a memorial to a villain the likes of me... well I am sure you can understand.". After that the player would decide;
1. You are still the same person I knew before and a good friend.
2. Your actions define you, you made your choice, the person I knew as Makos died.
Then as we get to the Vallenhause stronghold, we attempt to take 5 injured people back through the portal Makos provided. They immediately die upon arrival. Makos could then explain the people were "taken" by different means and only the few that came by way of his portal can journey to and from Avernus. The first quest should have been fighting off demons in the courtyard, and getting wizards from Neverwinter as support to create the barrier shield.
Until the magical bonds that tie the people to Avernus are broken they must remain safe inside the stronghold.
I will put away my pen for now, because I don't write stories for Neverwinter anymore. I loved doing it for them for free, it made me feel special and less like a liability.
Have fun!
but I'd agree four was the worst of the lot. 4 was borderline downright bad. The ending was cringy as well. Since when would Elena get mad at him for treasure hunting? and since when would he actually stop doing it because she got bitchy about it? Why would they write off a successful series like that? it was all so muggle. settle down have babies and don't adventure anymore even though that's what both people did all the time and at every opportunity before that.
2 was the best. and 3 was good. Tlou was a few steps above them in a number of ways and is WAY better than walking dead. now if someone could just convince them to take on lost.....
Hell, Naughty Dog got Indy himself, Harrison Ford , for a Japanese advertisement for Uncharted 3. Again, not exactly a knockoff, but you can't deny Agatha Christie's fame and influence on the genre.
To the point where her work will be referenced in things like a silly shoot 'em up franchise with a setup that sounds like a bad bar joke (a shrine maiden and witch walk into a land based on a mythology kitchen sink ... also known as the Touhou series). Sloppy writing contrivances aside, the point of the story was the struggle between Drake's love for (illegal) adventuring (and dealing with the stupid situations it gets him in) versus balancing a stable life with his wife that doesn't see him fighting entire armies or unearthing supernatural monsters (you know, getting himself killed?). The conclusion is supposed to be how he pulls a Kirk and does both: he retires as a thief (hence the subtitle) but continues his adventuring life as the head of a (legal) company that salvages ancient artifacts.
.... Or maybe I'm thinking too hard about the story and it's just a cop out for Naughty Dog to fulfill whatever contract that Sony mandated them for a PS4 launch title. Many zombie stories, when not going for a more simple "kill zombies" take, are supposed to be about what happens when civilization goes wrong, sorta Lord of the Flies like. Yes, there are actual monsters in the form of zombies, but they are usually contrasted with the atrocities that people commit in the name of survival, essentially a "who are the real monsters?" question.
you can see that I have spent way too much time at my school's film school, even though I'm supposed to be an business snake1. that is the point of saying Genre vs Rip off or cheap version. you can have grandfathers of a style that becomes it's own thing. do you really want to live in a world where you ONLY have agatha christie or Indiana jones with no more stories to tell than those two authors? All fantasy basically stems from Tolkien and lord knows I'd hate it if that was all we had under that umbrella! it doesn't make everything a cut rate version that comes after. Just new stories in the style. as far as uncharted goes.. imo drake wasn't indie. if anyone was indy it was sully (but as an old man ofc. if anything Drake is more like Mal from Firefly.
2. the whole basis for that story (uc4) doesn't fit with the rest of it and is a misogynic take on Elena. She's a Reporter that is going into WAR zones. BEFORE she meets Drake. Then she INSISTS on following him into very dangerous situations and becomes part of the dangerous situation herself. but then.. she gets a ring around her finger and wants him to stay home and care for the babies with her? does that ring true to you? This is a woman who would not want children. This is a women who has an addiction to adrenaline. you don't do what she was doing if it's not that way. her itch for adventure is going to be maybe stronger than his is. he's doing it for the treasure. she was doing it for the adrenaline. People like that don't usually stop til they're dead. they did it to kill the series and give it a pat happily ever after. but imo it would have been a slow death from the inside for those two. if they did have kids there would have been a lot of nannies with very little parental intervention ala Lara Crofts upbringing.
3. zombie stories are an off shoot of the apocalypse Genre. you don't need them for a apocalypse story. the zombies actually aren't a very important part of Tlou except for being the mcguffin that is responsible for the choice of one to save the many.. or not. the fact is they don't have the technology to actually use ellie to figure out the vaccine.
But the reason I posted here today, I asked my husband what he felt makes a great video game. He agreed the plot can make or break the game, but action and control is a must. He likes the more simple movies between quests. The reason he didn't care much for Mass Effect was the interactive dialog felt over used, and failed at making appropriate changes to the story. He also told me that he enjoyed the "Splinter Cell" series until the 4th game ruins the main character's ethics, by having him kill his boss. Apparently the way they made it, was poorly done as well. Again, this was his opinion, he is busy out of town on work, or I would just have him reply in this thread.
That was the Eighties for Fantasy.