The Grand List of Console RPGs Cliches

[jokemaster]

I just found the funniest list ever, look for it here

My personal favorite is 55: You always fight a giant robot. Always.

[Chris]

My personal favorite is 55: You always fight a giant robot. Always.

Of course, that's one of the ones that isn't actually true.

[jokemaster]

Of course, that's one of the ones that isn't actually true.

Yeah, but it is like 80% of the time.

[MrHoatzin]

133: Last Rule of Politics

Kingdoms are good. Empires are evil.

[Farbror]

The worst part is that 80 % of it is all true. How can console RPG's be so popular, this list is a given proof that console RPGs haven't evolved more than rocks during the years. Everything has already been done, yet everyone loves console RPGs. Why? It's so crazy!

[Chris]

Well, there are a few things to take into account. This list really means Japanese console RPGs, and for the most part is referring to the Square-style ones. Also, if I remember correctly, all the rules relate to plot, not gameplay, so there's still room for innovation. Hell, adventure games haven't evolved at ALL in the last 10 years but those wackos over at Adventure Gamers still seem to like them.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Hell, adventure games haven't evolved at ALL in the last 10 years but those wackos over at Adventure Gamers still seem to like them.

Yeah, and I always seem to get my ass kicked over there whenever I bring up even the suggestion of progress or innovation.

[Chris]

Hence my migration to the Thumb...

[Farbror]

Yes, but still, everyone except us freaking hate adventure games! And there hasn't been much innovation on the gameplay side in console RPG's either! This is unfair! Why does everyone love console rpg's but hate adventure games? I Hate this world! I Hate it!

[Chris]

Yes, but still, everyone except us freaking hate adventure games! And there hasn't been much innovation on the gameplay side in console RPG's either! This is unfair! Why does everyone love console rpg's but hate adventure games? I Hate this world! I Hate it!

I guess because a lot of good console RPGs come out, but a lot of shit adventure games come out.

[jokemaster]

I guess because a lot of good console RPGs come out, but a lot of shit adventure games come out.

You've got a point, it's not exactly the era of such adventure games like DOTT or others in it's caliber, the last excellent adventure I played was Grim Fandango.

[Chris]

Yes. That said, it's worth noting that there are developers giving it their best shot--Revolution's third Broken Sword game was clearly a heartfelt offering, and I think Funcom knows what they're doing with Dreamfall. (For example.) But the genre isn't really swimming in hits at the moment.

[jokemaster]

Yes. That said, it's worth noting that there are developers giving it their best shot--Revolution's third Broken Sword game was clearly a heartfelt offering, and I think Funcom knows what they're doing with Dreamfall. (For example.) But the genre isn't really swimming in hits at the moment.

And therein lies the problem, there have been no adventure game bestsellers, so companies are afraid to make adventure games, especially groundbreaking ones that could turn into bestsellers. I'm telling you if someone made one adventure game that was a financial hit, companies would be begging developers to make adventure games. Kinda with what happened with GTA, before the PS2 it was just a game in the bargain bin, suddenly GTA3 is announced, starts getting hype, is rated M, is released, sells well, becomes controversal, sales multiply overnight, but until GTA3, nobody made games like that.

[Farbror]

So adventure games have just had bad luck?

I've been thinking, and I think it's just beacuse the ability to "get stuck" in adventure games that keep them from succes. Adventure is probably the only genre that contains so much puzzles that you can easily get stuck, and then there's no fun.

Of course it's very easy to get "stuck" in other games too, beacuse of difficulty, or hard Zelda-like puzzles (There's probably someone somewhere ) and such. But those are always relatively easy to overcome, or at least "design away" by the developers, by for example adding skirmish modes or similar. But in adventure games, if you get stuck, there's nothing to do, except for perhaps checking a walkthrough or try everything with everything or walk around and examine things or such. But that's not fun, if there's nothing else to do!

Of course, developers have been trying to avoid these problems, for example by adding subtle hints, like in Grim Fandango:

In that puzzle with the birds on the roof of Mannys office. If you talk to the clown, you can say "Bang!", the clowns ballon will pop, and a few nearby birds will get scared and fly off. Subtle hint.

The problem with that is that it only happens once and never again, so if I don't notice it the first time, it will all have gone to waste.

But I think these are the main weaknesses of adventure games. Someone over at Telltale games wrote a blog about it, I think... They've got some clever ideas about how to overcome such problems, like a game that "knows" when you're stuck and gives you hints...

[Chris]

The thing about games is that very few people actually complete games. Not just adventure games, but any kind of games. The problem is that if you only play half of a shooter, you've still got a decent experience out of it and you got some good gameplay. The replay value is still fairly decent (most likely) due to things like multiplayer. Same goes for strategy games. Platformers and RPGs (except for MMOs) don't have multiplayer but they're still at least somewhat gameplay oriented, especially platformers, and so they can still be enjoyed to a fairly high degree of their potential without being completed. Adventure games, on the other hand, do not leave great memories if the player does not complete them. They may leave ok memories, but it won't be particularly awesome. A long-ass game like Grim Fandango is great for the people who play it, but probably pretty forgettable for those who don't. Adventure games these days need to be pretty short and manageable, but the problem there is that people aren't willing to pay full price for a really short game, especially if there's no real replay value to speak of. The problem with that is that to actually make a good adventure game costs money. Broken Sword 3 is the type of game that I think could actually save adventure games, if not restore them to where they stood in the early-mid 90s. It was priced at standard retail PC pricing, but if it was cheaper it could have been billed as a game for serious gamers to pick up and play in addition to their stadard fare, sort of a side excursion. Of course what's left of hardcore adventure fans would buy it too. However, the game was really expensive to make, and The Adventure Company can't market for shit. The next game I see occupying the BS3 position is Dreamfall. I suspect that too will be a full-price game, because from what I've seen it looks it'll be a more costly game to produce than BS3, but perhaps Funcom and the other worldwide publishers will do a better job with the promotion.

Anyway, why am I talking about adventure games so much on Thumb?

[jokemaster]

The thing about games is that very few people actually complete games. Not just adventure games, but any kind of games. The problem is that if you only play half of a shooter, you've still got a decent experience out of it and you got some good gameplay. The replay value is still fairly decent (most likely) due to things like multiplayer. Same goes for strategy games. Platformers and RPGs (except for MMOs) don't have multiplayer but they're still at least somewhat gameplay oriented, especially platformers, and so they can still be enjoyed to a fairly high degree of their potential without being completed. Adventure games, on the other hand, do not leave great memories if the player does not complete them. They may leave ok memories, but it won't be particularly awesome. A long-ass game like Grim Fandango is great for the people who play it, but probably pretty forgettable for those who don't. Adventure games these days need to be pretty short and manageable, but the problem there is that people aren't willing to pay full price for a really short game, especially if there's no real replay value to speak of. The problem with that is that to actually make a good adventure game costs money. Broken Sword 3 is the type of game that I think could actually save adventure games, if not restore them to where they stood in the early-mid 90s. It was priced at standard retail PC pricing, but if it was cheaper it could have been billed as a game for serious gamers to pick up and play in addition to their stadard fare, sort of a side excursion. Of course what's left of hardcore adventure fans would buy it too. However, the game was really expensive to make, and The Adventure Company can't market for shit. The next game I see occupying the BS3 position is Dreamfall. I suspect that too will be a full-price game, because from what I've seen it looks it'll be a more costly game to produce than BS3, but perhaps Funcom and the other worldwide publishers will do a better job with the promotion.

Anyway, why am I talking about adventure games so much on Thumb?

Because you can't kill your roots.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Anyway, why am I talking about adventure games so much on Thumb?

Because the way you're going about it, you'd get your ass kicked in the adventure gaming community, like I had mine kicked.

[Farbror]

So it would help if you released smaller adventures for cheaper prices?

Hmmm, maybe, didn't Ron Gilbert or someone over at Telltale games have a similar idea? Maybe...

[Chris]

Because the way you're going about it, you'd get your ass kicked in the adventure gaming community, like I had mine kicked.

Sad but true...

[vimes]

The problem with that is that to actually make a good adventure game costs money.

I'm quite unaware of the money sides of creating video games so I'm asking this hnestly : does making an good adventure gme costs as much money as - or more than - any other good game from any other genre ? If so, why ?

[MrHoatzin]

I'm quite unaware of the money sides of creating video games so I'm asking this hnestly : does making an good adventure gme costs as much money as - or more than - any other good game from any other genre ? If so, why ?

A lot more assets are needed for an adventure game than for a regular game. An example of FPS asset recycling that Tim Schafer mentioned once: you're walking down the hallway in Half-Life, you hear gunshots, you run around the corner and you see a dead scientist with a headcrab and a guard crawling towards the first aid. He reaches up and passes away. A story was told with two meshes, some sound, and a corridor -- all of which are re-used all over the place.

Whereas in adventure games, for richness sake, most items you make are one-hit items, to appear only once and be used up.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Whereas in adventure games, for richness sake, most items you make are one-hit items, to appear only once and be used up.

Like every single 2D background, and that rubby ducky, for instance.

[Redwall]

That's more of the setting and technology than the genre. If there were a 3d adventure set in a military facility, they could reuse a lot of assets as well..

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Still might not sell, though:

I think that adventure game got real stupid in the early 90's and turned a lot of people off. I think that adventure games need to evolve. It's too bad that some of the other genres (FPS, etc) have not learned some of the important lessons from adventure games. I don't know why LucasArts canceled S&M, my guess is that it was just not going to make enough money. Most decisions come down to this. One of the problems with modern adventure games is that they can cost a lot of money to do in full 3D, and there is not the sales to back it up. But, the market would not accept a 2D game either, so adventure games get screwed.

- Ron Gilbert as interviewed by Rebell.at

[Chris]

That's more of the setting and technology than the genre. If there were a 3d adventure set in a military facility, they could reuse a lot of assets as well..

But would hanging around a drab military base for hours on end while you try and figure out puzzles actually be fun? In a FPS game, the gameplay distracts from repetitive locations, but in adventures it doesn't.