Castle Paradox

[planethunter]

Every time I go to the gamelist or take a glance at the gaming industries latests software, and play the games themselves from start to finish, I've always found that the vast majority of games were intended with some form of conflict to be had.

Don't get me wrong on this, but conflict is a good theme to pick. The majority of all the best novels that spring to mind involve some sort of conflict, whether it's in the brawl or in the brain. Conflict helps the player/reader indentify with the character, and understand their point of view, etc, very effectively.

What i'm trying to say is this: surely there most be other mediums to achieve a good rpg besides conflict. I personally have only played FF3, for a brief period and found it rather enjoyable, tedious in some places but still enjoyable. But does such a successful francise like FF have the influencing power to alter the course of an entire genre, due to the whole "if it ain't broke, why fix it?" approach by the game industry.
Even the ohr engine itself encorperates most of the 'look' and 'style' of FF1.
Well from, the screenshots I saw of FF1 anyway.

I mean the case of no-story needed, pick up and play attitudes worked just fine in the early days of gaming, whilst most sprites were just 16x16, 4 color palette images and more than 4-8 frames of animation was acceptable. But with Cg animation causing you to glance twice to check if that maiden in distress was actually real and genuinely calling for your help, surely rpgs can expand more into the hyper-real and 4th dimensional ways of thinking, than locked in the forever realm of fantasy, constantly being the good guy, or the bad one for the sake of parady.

I am aware that most of the latest FF games are almost like a soap opera with all their essentially human and wanna-be human traits, and complex personalities. But it tires me to see doing practically the same thing, practically the same way, to achieve practically the same ending.
I have yet to see an ohr role playing game that fails to class as non-conflictal.
_________________
~PH

[TMC]

The reason you don't see RPG's without conflict is because the conflict IS the story. A story without a conflict would be so dreadfully boring everyone would rather play arfenhouse 1. That has a conflict. Kitty has taken control of arfenhouse, see?

If there's no conflict, the story doesn't exist.

The only sort of game without a conflict that is still fun to play would have to be pong or tetris etc.

However, feel free to be unconventional. try out some new sorts of conflicts.
_________________
"It is so great it is insanely great."

[Cube]

Can we make a RPG without conflict? I doubt it. When you get rid of conflict, there is no longer any reason to have battles. Without battles, you don't need gameplay. Without gameplay, it's not a game (That IS why gameplay has the word game in it you know. That's also why gameplay is the most important aspect of a game). Even every story has a conflict in it. EVERYTHING has conflict in it. Science, politics, math, and the laws of nature and laws of the universe. Conflict is everywhere, and it's impossible to get rid of.

Even Tetris has conflict. What are you fighting? Those blocks, and making them go into their proper place. That is a conflict. And that's what gives the game gameplay, thus making it a game. A game needs an objective, and it wouldn't be an objective if there wasn't any kind of opposition (Otherwise you'd win the game without trying, or everyone in the world would be rich and poverty wouldn't exist).

So I'm sure by now you know you need conflict. You can't write a decent novel or create a game without it.

And about that hyper realistic thing. Games would be very boring if they were like life, don't you think? Like, nobody wants to play the role of a polititian trying to negotiate with some other country (And I mean that in the most boring way possible). And most PC games get too carried away. It's because they ARE realistic that I don't like them. I appriciate it when people create something I've never seen before. Something that takes imagination. Copying life itself is the stupid way of making games. Einstein would agree with me (Once said knowledge isn't as important as imagination, and he's darn right). Inventions and technology wouldn't be around if genius' didn't have imaginations. And all the best games out there like Mario, Final Fantasy, Metroid, and Zelda wouldn't be there if the creators weren't smart and had imaginations (And as you can see, a lot of the most popular games were all created by the same person, Shigeru Miyamoto. Smart guy, he is). You can't make good games by knowing stuff (I mean, besides how games are actually produced). It's your imagination and your ability to construct that idea into a game that will determine if you're successful or not.

So, that's my take on the matter.

[Me]

In fact, name a game, any game, that does not involve conflict. Name a movie that does not invove some sort of conflict. Name a novel that doen't involve conflict. I was tempted to say "Harvest Moon" as a non-conflict-based game, but then I realized that HM is essentially you vs. the elements, the market, etc. The very nature of games is conflict. A game not based in conflict is typically known as a "really short walkaround demo," and no one likes those.
So, while the idea of coming up with a game based on something other than conflict is a very good idea, it couldn't hold up to conflict-based games.
However, your thread subject, "Unconventional RPGS," is a very good idea. We need more of those.
_________________
UP DOWN UP DOWN LEFT LEFT RIGHT RIGHT A B START

[Flamer]

i agree with cube...

what kinda of game has no conflict... even the worst of games has some kind of conflict somewhere in the game.
_________________
If we were a pack of dogs, IM would be a grand Hound, CN would be a very ficious little pitball, and Giz...well, it doesn't matter breed he is, he'd still be a bitch
(no offense to anyone that was mentioned)

[jabbercat]

teletubbys:the game has no conflickt.or so im told.
_________________
Moogle no longer owes prizes.

[Setu_Firestorm]

One of the things I found interesting about Breath of Fire III was that the whole conflict of the story didn't set in til about halfway through the game.

However, the only way I can see that you could have an RPG with no conflict is for it to either be a civil drama story or a "showing people's lives in this world here" kind of thing.

Both of these are good stories to get into just to break the monotony of traditional fantasy conflict, but, these kinds of stories would more be suited for movies or novels than games.
_________________


Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/georgerpowell
Newgrounds: http://setu-firestorm.newgrounds.com

[Shineyest]

actually ohr date in the 528 hour competition had no proper conflict

[Shaede]

Even nonviolent games have conflict.
The purpose of a game it solely to deal with the current conflict you are facing. Without the conflict, there is nothing.

You could create an OHR "game" without conflict.
It would have no story.
It would have no battles.
It would have no progress.
I just would be.
You'd walk around maps and do nothing. Fun. :p

[Shineyest]

yes that would be fun

[Aethereal]

Don't revive dead threads. :\

This is warning #1.
_________________

[Leonhart]

No conflicts? Where will the ROLE in role-playing games go?

[Gizmog1]

I don't know if replying to this is an offense, but, of course OHR Date had conflict. It wasn't conflict in a physical sense, but the conflict was that the player wanted one of the three girls to love him, and the conflict was overcoming whatever flaws the girl found in you, to make her do so. Conflict is necessary for a video game, because as with any game, there must be a condition for victory, and defeat. And, with victory and defeat, naturally, there is some conflict, something keeping you from easily attaining victory, and something that pushes you towards defeat. Even in Teletubbies Wonderland, I'm sure there must have been some terms of victory (Finding a lost Teletubby, recovering easter eggs, something like that, by which the only term of defeat to speak of would probably be the child's frustration to complete the objective.)