Where did all the RPGs go?

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by shadowhound: I think it makes more sense from a business point of view to produce games that can be completed in approx 60 straight hours. If a prospective customer is playing one game for months on end then they are less likely to purchase a new game.

Precisely. Making people happy isn't what corporate salesmanship is about. It's about making people want to spend money. This may involve making people happy at times (customer satisfaction makes for a 'loyal' consumer base), but the bottom line is that a game publisher needs to keep their clientelle hungry for more... not unsatisfied as such, but rather: unsated.

[ 09-28-2004, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

[Stormymystic]

I agree as well, I see a game in the stores, I read the box, I check out info n it, and everything says it is a great RPG, but when I get it home, there is not much to do except click on a monster. the best RPG I have owned honestly would have to be Arcanum, now most peoplr will probably disagree, but this game requires alot of stratagey, and it is limited to what your character can do, and it really does base its attacks on the DnD ground rules. I miss that game, but my kids lost the play disk to it while back, and have not bought a new one yet. the only thing about Arcanum I did not like, is that it had to much narative play in it, but I guess it is alright because you do get alot of character interaction [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Micah Foehammer]

One of the absolute best true role playing games to come in recent years was Planescape:Torment and it BARELY sold enough to make a profit, and far less than needed to make a profit. The lack of sales certainly wasn't the result of bad reviews as the game was critically praised by reviewers and gamers alike, yet sales still suffered. Perhaps it was just too far afield of the "mainstream" RPG.

[Stratos]

Neverwinter Nights is best played online, Rokc, so if you have the ability to do so, you should give it a shot.

[Attalus]

I loved Planescape: Torment, but I couldn't even talk Piestrider into playing it, when it was already loaded. He says it is too dark, depressing, etc. I admit that the idea of playing a huge, scarred man with no name put me off for a while, too. I suspect that it is too dark for the mainstream gamer, and that is why it sold, poorly. I also understand that while the BG series was a huge hit, and Icewind Dale I rode on their coattails, IWD II was a flop, and caused the demise of Black Isle and Interplay. Neverwinter Nights, on the other hand, was a huge success, as were its expansion packs. KotOR was a success, too, and both those games are being redone by Obsidian, which has many of the people that worked on PS:T working for them. KotOR II is going to come out this winter, NWNII in 2006.

[Nightwing]

I do miss the old RPGs. Wasteland is still one of my favs. as well as the fallouts. The industry does seem to be syclical so here's to hoping for a new sycle. I don't play on line games, are they worth the time? Someone did pick up Jagged alliance 3 so that is great news.

[Luvian]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: quote: Originally posted by shadowhound: I think it makes more sense from a business point of view to produce games that can be completed in approx 60 straight hours. If a prospective customer is playing one game for months on end then they are less likely to purchase a new game.

Precisely. Making people happy isn't what corporate salesmanship is about. It's about making people want to spend money. This may involve making people happy at times (customer satisfaction makes for a 'loyal' consumer base), but the bottom line is that a game publisher needs to keep their clientelle hungry for more... not unsatisfied as such, but rather: unsated. [/QUOTE]Well... in our current PC Gaming market, they NEED to make us happy. We have seen too many failed games.

Take a look at Lionheart, Temple of elemental Evil...

There was a time when I bought every PC rpg games that came out, the day they came out, no questions asked. But now I rarely buy one. The PC roleplaying gaming market lost my money. I didn't buy those two games, I didn't buy lots of other.

I'm not the only one like that. And I think more people are wising up. Especially with how easy it is to get information now.

They might have been able to get away with this 20 years ago when the internet wasn't so pupolar. People might only have realised a game is a sham 4 months later in a magazine review, if they ever found out, but now we know the truth the day the game come out, if not sooner...

[Luvian]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: I pretty much agree with all of the points you guys have raised. BUT How financially successful have most of the 'good' CRPG's mentioned so far (the Fallouts, the Baldur's Gates etc) been in comparison to more action-oriented games such as Diablo, DOOM or Tomb Raider? When a game developer wants to release their product, they usually have to convince a corporate funding committee that their title will make a substantial profit. Just making a little return from selling to a hard-core target market (such as role playing enthusiasts) isn't good enough for most large promoters when they could be making mega-bucks by selling some generic action title to the masses. Role Playing Games are usually enjoyed by reasonably intelligent (though often quite geeky, heh heh) people. Tapping into the 'mass market' does not involve selling to such small, select groups as 'intelligent people', you need to water your product down enough so that the multitudinous throngs of consumer morons, (that vast, swelling ocean of cash just waiting to be had by the corporate exec with the schmooz to dive in and bathe in its filth! ) will find it attractive. Most 'good' CRPGs (such as the BG series) have turned a profit, certainly, but did they turn enough of a profit to convince multimedia execs that they are a worthwhile investment? Not really... Electronic gaming is not the cottage industry it used to be, nowadays there is simply too much money invested in a game for any major publisher to risk going with anything too 'revolutionary' or 'complicated'. It's tacky, soulless, greedy, hand-wringing, plastic, 'safe', inoffensive, bland, tasteless, corporate capitalism in action. And I hate it as much as you guys do. Such is the plight of any person with artistic spirit that lives among a mindless plebeian multitude

You just explained why games are failing and why we are getting dissatisfied. You should remplace the "BUT" with "because". [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Games are a form of art. I'm pretty sure Picasso didn't have a marketter looking over his shoulder and telling him what to paint...

"Safe" game might become avarage games, and that's changing for worse, but it's always the original games that ever become the big success.

[Rokc Cadarn]

Originally posted by Rokc Cadarn:
"Financially, it makes more sense for developers to concentrate on the rest of the gameplay..."

Originally posted by silencer:
"This is only true if a company wishes to retain customers for a long period of time; something almost rare in today's world."

-----
Are you telling me that game developers don't care about long-term customers? Look at companies like id, Blizzard, and Bioware. I don't care what they release, it's a going to be a hit because of their following. Gamers are fanatically loyal to their brands. Sure, not every company is going to make it no matter how good their games are (nobodies denying that the industry is cutthroat), but if a developer is planning on lasting very long it better have a strong fan base.

-----
Originally posted by silencer:
"Another reason is development time. Besides creating the engine, which can take years, content can take another few years. This may or may not be something worthwhile for a company to pursue, depending on company priorities. Creating a simple but fun game which lasts two or three years, compared to creating a more complex game which lasts longer, can often outweigh the compared. Development time is minimized, it's less of a gamble, and gains high but short-term profits.
With more complexity comes more well, complexity. More artists (in a broad scope), more programmers (though 100 sure is, ehm, quite off the scale ), more designers, more producers, more funds. It is more of a risk."

-----
I think you missed my point. I know that development time is one of the factors that determines development costs, but when it comes to crpgs its the technology that should be sacrificed -- not the gameplay. I'm not saying that great looking games don't have a place too, just that rpgs require more depth than other genres. Developers aren't creating rpgs anymore, they're creating action games with some rpg elements. Don't try to tell me that there isn't an audience for true rpgs, either. Recently we've been ignored, but we're still here. Waiting.

By the way, if you think I was exaggerating about the size of development teams these day, think again. The new Medal of Honor, for instance, has an 85 person team just for the single player mission and a 45 person team for multiplayer. That doesn't even include EA's independent sound division and the hundreds of play testers who are also working on it. I know that's the extreme end, but if everyone else wants to stay on the bleeding edge of technology they'll be there soon enough.

Edited - Sorry, can't figure out how to make the quotes look right. :]

[ 09-28-2004, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Rokc Cadarn ]

[/)eathKiller]

most MMORPGs end up developing their own system of communication that involve the tools, but some small groups on those MMORPGs DO actually role play. I was on a role playing Linkshell on FFXI but for some reason the leader and his girl friend only wanted to role play alone >_>;...