Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

Recommended Posts

You just reminded me of how much I liked Morrowind. Such a good game in my opinion. I don't think I played more than an hour or two of the main plot and I still loved the game. The editor was great too and there were tons of mods/plugins out there. The only thing I didn't really like in it was how combat worked. Non linear RPGs are definitely my favorite type of game though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 321
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Gothic 3 and Oblivion are FPS with RPG elements? Hello?

You can boil them down to this yes. I don’t think they are, I was using an extream. But take the story and the interaction out ( the rpg elements) and you are left with a hack and slash, and fps with swords

 

Bad RPGs like Dungeon Siege are just endless hack and slash, but good RPGs are not. Good RPGs give you alternate ways to level than killing. Good RPGs give you alternate methods of playing, such as stealth and speechcraft, so you can talk your way out of trouble.

 

So do some good rpfps', Deus ex, thief splinter cell all offer multiple ways to complete tasks.

 

No FPS story will ever be any good in the way RPG or adventure game stories can be, it's a contradiction in terms. AS I said a plot wich consists of a sries of maps in which you run around killing and destroying cannot be good.

 

Why? Take the npc interaction and the story out of an rpg and you get a big map and lots of things to kill.

 

If it doesn't consist of that then is ceases to be a shooter and becomes and action/adventure game.

 

Which was my point, fps are becoming action adventure. They need to, on the one hand you get the Serious Sam games which some people enjoy to just blow stuff up, then the doom3 kind which adds a little plot as an excuse to shoot things. Then there is the dues ex, the Max Payne, Pariah, which add a plot and story but at the core are still point a gun and shoot games. But they have a plot a story and adventure to improve it.

 

You CAN take the plot out of RPGs, and that's the very direction they're headed in. You just have a living landscape with guilds and NPCs to interact with. You basically just live there among the people having general adventures instead of having some arch boss to defeat. The better AI get, the more fun this experience will be. Many people played Morrowind without doing the central plot. Gothic is more plotcentric though, or at least 1 and 2 were.

 

But that isn’t taking the story out. it is only removing the main plot I agree, But more stories (plots?) are created by the npc's, the “I lost my child can you help?” quest is a story. The endless go here kill that fetch this quests are just the same as a go to level what ever and massacre the npc's missions in an fps.

The better the ai gets in an rpg the more stories are created in a believable way I agree.

 

But there is no reason why the stories that explain in an fps (or action adventure if you will) why you have to go to point A and kill who ever, cant be as good as the story in an rpg where you are told to go to point A and kill someone or rescue someone or make a pot or what ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But a little more about SIN2

pczone

Get this: Ritual is currently dabbling with a feature that'll allow player actions and choices made during an episode to actually affect and influence future episodes to come. Ritual creative director Robert Atkins says of this feature in PC Gamer's article that "Right now it's a concept we're going to implement, but we don't know to what level yet. We figure the fans are going to help us out" so it's obviously still being played around with but it's certainly intriguing.

 

Ritual will be able to track decisions and choices made by players and the potential effects and influence on future episodes will be measured at a community level. If you'd rather shove a cactus up your bunghole than get involved with such episode alterations, well Ritual is being wise enough to give players the option to steer clear if desired.

 

JUST ADD SOURCE

Valve Software's Steam is a perfect partner to Ritual's grand plan to release SiN Episodes in episodic form, but connections between the two developers for the 'title' extend a little further: SiN Episodes is being powered by a tweaked version of Valve's Source technology.

 

PC Gamer's article reveals a little on these tweaks, with Ritual fiddling with AI, body location damage, object handling (there's talk here of creating cover by being able to more precisely position objects in the world) and introducing a feature that's tagged with the semi-flashy moniker 'context look'.

 

'Context Look' is a context-sensitive system that's attached to NPC interaction, which should not only make such interaction more dynamic but also more fluid and ultimately more realistic. An explanation given of the way it'll work is that non-player characters in the game world will be aware of, and able to track, where John Blade is looking and will react accordingly with dialogue. So presumably something like: "Hey my face is up here"; followed by: "Now you're staring".

Link to post
Share on other sites
You can boil them down to this yes. I don’t think they are, I was using an extreme
. Well don't do it agian

 

So do some good rpfps', Deus ex, thief splinter cell all offer multiple ways to complete tasks.

None of these are FPS games, you mostly don't even have to kill anyone.

Take the npc interaction and the story out of an rpg and you get a big map and lots of things to kill.

Take the tomato out of a tomato sandwich and it's just two slices of bread. Take the story and npc interaction out of an RPG and it's no longer an RPG. :rolleyes: Your point is?

But that isn’t taking the story out. it is only removing the main plot I agree, But more stories (plots?) are created by the npc's, the “I lost my child can you help?” quest is a story. The endless go here kill that fetch this quests are just the same as a go to level what ever and massacre the npc's missions in an fps.

Only bad, lazy RPGs force you into that sort of thing though, while it's the only purpose a shooter has.

 

 

But there is no reason why the stories that explain in an fps (or action adventure if you will) why you have to go to point A and kill who ever, cant be as good as the story in an rpg where you are told to go to point A and kill someone or rescue someone or make a pot or what ever.

Yes, shooters could be that good, but they would have to change so much that they'd become a new genre. Your basic doom/call of duty type shooter can never be any good no matter what story they think up.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to post
Share on other sites
.  Well don't do it agian

 

What? Its perfectly true, as pointed out by your tomato comment

 

None of these are FPS games, you mostly don't even have to kill anyone.

Deus ex, you talk to people and have stats but 90% of the game you shoot people

Thief. Yes you can ghost the whole thing but guess what you have weapons, you can go though the whole thing killing people

Splinter cell, granted its not first person and you can ghost large parts, but the game comes with more gun modes than doom3

 

How are they not fps They certainly play like them.

 

Take the tomato out of a tomato sandwich and it's just two slices of bread.  Take the story and npc interaction out of an RPG and it's no longer an RPG.  :rolleyes:  Your point is?

 

The point was fairly clear, and you made the point for me. Without the story which a few post up you argued didn’t matter + npc interaction you don’t have an RPG, you have a hack and slash much like serious sam. Put a good story in and you have an RPG, put a good story in an fps and you have a much better game.

 

Just because it has levels where you kill people doesn’t mean it can’t have a good story. Oblivion and morrowind are 90% killing things, doing it to boost a stat doesn’t take away from the fact that you are just farming points to be strong enough to kill something else down the road.

 

Only bad, lazy  RPGs force you into that sort of thing though, while it's the only purpose a shooter has.

So Morrowind was bad. Everquest(Ill grant you), quildwars, wow, bauldurs gate, planescape? There missions were all variations on the go here kill or go here deliver go here collect, go here find/meet someone, go here wait for the weather to change. You claim

You CAN take the plot out of RPGs,
but it this/these main plots that deviate from the FedEx type quest and made Baldurs etal what they were.

 

For call of duty and doom3 you are correct on the purpose, but triebs 3 farcry(to an extent) Halflife2, NOLF 1 and 2, Pariah and so on your wrong. The plot here directed the missions aims, there were reasons given for the actions taken, alot more than go here fetch which was morrowinds main reason outside of the main quest.

 

Yes, shooters could be that good, but they would have to change so much that they'd become a new genre. Your basic doom/call of duty type shooter can never be any good no matter what story they think up.

 

An fps that has a good story is no longer an fps because it has a good story a stats system and you can talk to people in it?

 

I would argue that Call of Duty is a good game. Not for its story or particularly for its characters though the interaction does give it a certain charm. But it is good for its recreation of the period however over the top it tries to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Splinter cell, granted its not first person and you can ghost large parts, but the game comes with more gun modes than doom3

THe difference between a shooter and a non-shooter is that you have a choice of whether to kill or not. It doesn't matgter how many weapon slots you have if you're not forced to use them.

 

 

The point was fairly clear, and you made the point for me. Without the story which a few post up you argued didn’t matter + npc interaction you don’t have an RPG, you have a hack and slash much like serious sam. Put a good story in and you have an RPG, put a good story in an fps and you have a much better game.

I see, so as long as the story gives you a very good reason for running through levels shooting everything that moves, it's suddenly good gameplay?

I don't even need a story or save the world plot to enjoy an RPG, they're so tedious and have been done so many times it's painful. The gameplay in a good RPG stands on its own.

 

Just because it has levels where you kill people doesn’t mean it can’t have a good story. Oblivion and morrowind are 90% killing things, doing it to boost a stat doesn’t take away from the fact that you are just farming points to be strong enough to kill something else down the road.

Morrowind was a weak game, overall it failed to deliver, but I'm hoping Oblivion will be much better. Certainly the AI is looking 100 times better and there's a far better stealth system.

So Morrowind was bad

Yes.

Everquest

In the early days was great for the novelty value, and multiplayer games stand on thir own as it's the interaction with other people that makes the game what it is, not the game itself.

quildwars

See above. Multiplayer games can be really lazxy becasue the players more or less make their own fun together.

bauldurs gate

You'd be surpised how much you can play of Baldur's gate without killing. You can sneak a lot of it, you can decline quests to kill, you can take peaceful alternates, you can talk your way out of fights.. Obviously thre are main bosses that have to be killed, but for example, there are five dragons in SoA and you're only forced to kill one of them.

planescape

PS:T is probably the most dialogue intensve game ever made. In no way could you call it mindless hack and slash.

 

 

For call of duty and doom3 you are correct on the purpose, but triebs 3 farcry(to an extent) Halflife2, NOLF 1 and 2, Pariah and so on your wrong. The plot here directed the missions aims, there were reasons given for the actions taken, alot more than go here fetch which was morrowinds main reason outside of the main quest.

I didn't claim that all RPGs were good games. I didn't like Morrowind and could write a full page complaining about it. You genuinely consider that hackneyed old si-fi plot in HL2 as a good one? lol.

An fps that has a good story is no longer an fps because it has a good story a stats system and you can talk to people in it?

IT depends just how much dialogue, story and other things are in there and how much shooting there is. There has to be a certain high amount of shooting going on for it to qualify as a shooter, and not some adventure/RPG hybrid.

 

I would argue that Call of Duty is a good game. Not for its story or particularly for its characters though the interaction does give it a certain charm. But it is good for its recreation of the period however over the top it tries to be.

CoD is a movie in game form. It's all I despise about games. It's barely interactive, just enough to qualify as a game. Interactivity is the most important feature of games and should be played up as much as possible, not muted as is the current trend, particularly among the shooter/action genre.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to post
Share on other sites
CoD is a movie in game form. It's all I despise about games. It's barely interactive, just enough to qualify as a game. Interactivity is the most important feature of games and should be played up as much as possible, not muted as is the current trend, particularly among the shooter/action genre.

 

I second Oddity's opinion on this matter. CoD's single player element was utterly abysmal, (besides the eye candy) without any shred of integrity or realism. My particular beef was with the enemy AI, which played more like Serious Sam (without any of the latter's fun); rushing over walls and running blindly towards their doom. It really did feel like I was in a hollywood movie.

 

It seems to be the trend now in game development to 'dumb' down the amount of things a player is able to do within a game besides point and click to shoot down hordes of stupid enemies. Games now focus more on graphics and eye candy than storyline or player interactivity. We're no longer designing games for 'MIT Graduates' as the saying goes. Dev's no longer seem to want to entertain us players with a decent plot, or with proper player interactivity. I long for the game that truly allows players to influence the plot and shape their own story within a game. I'm not talking about Deus Ex 2, where you could simply choose a different mission at the end of the game to unlock some retarded CG sequence; yeah thats real interaction with the plot right there :rolleyes:

 

I want to feel that every decision I make within an open-ended game really affects the world and the story my charcter undertakes. That is True interaction; which is why I look forward to Oblivion myself. Whilst it won't be the ultimate gameplay experience, at least the Bethesda Dev's seem to do know what they're doing, and are taking a step in the right direction.

Edited by SplaTtzZ
Link to post
Share on other sites
THe difference between a shooter and a non-shooter is that you have a choice of whether to kill or not. It doesn't matgter how many weapon slots you have if you're not forced to use them.

 

That is basicly claiming its not a shooter because you dont want it to be. You can run through huge chunks of doom3 without shooting

 

 

I see, so as long as the story gives you a very good reason for running through levels shooting everything that moves, it's suddenly good gameplay?

 

There is a very big differance between story and gamplay. a shooter can have very good gameplay. Hl2 (of which I didnt think its plot was any better than doom3's btw) a shallow as it was had some great gamplay ideas. The physics puzzels while contrived were a good idea. The interaction with the environment made the game stand out. The good reason to go throgh the levels can be just as valid as the reason to godeliver chop up or negotiate as any rpg.

 

I don't even need a story or save the world  plot to enjoy an RPG, they're so tedious and have been done so many times it's painful. The gameplay in a good RPG stands on its own.

 

That is a fair enough point

 

Morrowind was a weak game, overall it failed to deliver, but I'm hoping Oblivion will be much better. Certainly the AI is looking 100 times better and there's a far better stealth system.

From what I gether radient ai is day night cyles and built in npc to npc conversations, with context conversation (somthing morrowind could do but was never used outside of mods). It should look good but I cant see how this will improve the quests. It may make the environment more imersive though

 

 

You'd be surpised how much you can play of Baldur's gate without killing. You can sneak a lot of it, you can decline quests to kill, you can take peaceful alternates, you can talk your way out of fights.. Obviously thre are main bosses that have to be killed, but for example, there are five dragons in SoA and you're  only forced to kill one of them.

 

True, it certainly eveolved from B1, but then again the start dungeon, the sewers, the asylum, the castle, the druid grove, the elven forest, the underwater city, most of the game you still had to hack your way through. Infact if you didnt you got very little reward for doing anything as hacking was the primary means of expericance.

PS:T is probably the most dialogue  intensve game ever made. In no way could you call it mindless hack and slash.

Exeedingly dialogy intensive, but still a very unsatifying game imho, but still the expericnce was gained mostly, you guessed it, from killing things.

 

I didn't claim that all RPGs were good games. I didn't like Morrowind and could write a full page complaining about it. You genuinely consider that hackneyed old si-fi plot in HL2 as a good one? lol.

Nope I did write a long critique over at steam powered about the plot holes and pantomime characters

 

IT depends just how much dialogue,  story and other things are in there and how much shooting there is. There has to be a certain high amount of shooting going on for it to qualify as a shooter, and not some adventure/RPG hybrid.

 

So would you agree that for the FPs to grow that they need to become more action adventure?

 

 

 

CoD is a movie in game form. It's all I despise about games. It's barely interactive, just enough to qualify as a game. Interactivity is the most important feature of games and should be played up as much as possible, not muted as is the current trend, particularly among the shooter/action genre.

 

Ill agree to an extent. But I think COD worked, and sold well, because it did what it set out to do. However much you dislike it COD was a movie where you got to shoot the guns. A serious sam with a ww2 setting that was imersive if you let it be. If the ai had been better and the characters more interactive, but more importantly it didnt have predetermined paths (I hate being on railes as it were), it could have been a much better game. I have some hope COD2 will remedy this, then again it is on the x360 as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That is basicly claiming its not a shooter because you dont want it to be. You can run through huge chunks of doom3 without shooting

You can, but it's a tedious waste of time, as there is nothing else to do.

In Thief, even though you have weapon slots, you don't have to use them - BUT - while you aren't using them there is plenty of other gameplay there - in fact, the other gameplay is far superior to using the weapons. The weapons are a fallback for lazy unimaginative players who are stuck in a shooter mindset.

 

There is a very big differance between story and gamplay. a shooter can have very good gameplay. Hl2 (of which I didnt think its plot was any better than doom3's btw) a shallow as it was had some great gamplay ideas. The physics puzzels while contrived were a good idea. The interaction with the environment made the game stand out. The good reason to go throgh the levels can be just as valid as the reason to godeliver chop up or negotiate as any rpg.

That's where we differ. I simply don't like shooter/action gameplay of any type no matter what plot there is, and you do. There's no point arguing about that.

 

 

 

So would you agree that for the FPs to grow that they need to become more action adventure?

Yes, but then at some point during the evolution they cease to be shooters, and become something else. That's the point I'm making. Maybe this new type of game might be worth playing, we'll see.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to post
Share on other sites
You can, but it's a tedious waste of time, as there is nothing else to do.

  In Thief, even though you have weapon slots, you don't have to use them - BUT -  while you aren't using them there is plenty of other gameplay there - in fact, the other gameplay is far superior to using the weapons. The weapons are a fallback for lazy unimaginative players who are stuck in a shooter mindset.

 

 

That's where we differ. I simply don't like shooter/action gameplay of any type no matter what plot there is, and you do. There's no point arguing about that.

 

 

Yes, but then at some point during the evolution they cease to be shooters, and become something else. That's the point I'm making. Maybe this new type of game might be worth playing, we'll see.

 

Fair enough.

 

In that vein have you an opinion on Fear? It seems, to me, to be a mix of shooter, action adventure and a movie, as its set in a 24 hour time frame iirc

 

Then there is the games Im looking forward to Alan wake, horror action adventure and Bioshock, which I cant find much on at all.

 

Ill get oblivion for the mod tools but I cant see it being more than fedex missions with pretty ai and graphics. All the elder scrolls games have been like that after all. Ive never played a gothic game so I cant really comment on 3 but the screens look nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even when there is combat in RPGs, it's just so much more interesting and versatile that in shooters. I've played BG2 through as just about every type of class, and you get a diffrent experience every time since you have to use different methods and tactics for every fight.

It''s far superior to the first person target shooting.

 

I haven't heard of Fear at all, I've reached the point where I don't even bother to try the demo of these types of games, they are so relentlessly mediocre, tedious and derivative.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to post
Share on other sites

One game you may enjoy is Fahrenheit, by quantic dream

 

http://www.fahrenheitgame.com/index.php?lg=us

 

Its a 3d adventure game more than an rpg but it does look interesting.

 

What is you take on adventure games by the way? By their nature they are much more linier than rpg's but share the interactivity and generaly have well rounded plots

Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks interesting, though it's impossible to tell before playing it. They're obviously trying to make it sound as good as possible.

I liked Mafia, which had shooting (third person) but it had a great story, so I'm not against any game with a gun in it.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to post
Share on other sites
That looks interesting, though it's impossible to tell before playing it. They're obviously trying to make it sound as good as possible.

I liked Mafia, which had shooting (third person) but it had a great story, so I'm not against any game with a gun in it.

 

Now there is a game we canagree on. A great game and the story was very well executed.

 

I hope illusion do another story driven game, Hidden and dengerous 1 and 2 are good rts/tactical shooters but mafia is a much better game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think abolishing copyright would help too much. The problem isn't that the creator's of the content have no imagination, its the consumers that are the problem. If the producers could cut loose an artist, and still get a return on their investment they would be happy. However, nobody can make a living doing that because most people would rather pick at their athlete's foot than watch a movie, read a book, or play a game that isn't exactly what you hate.

 

The problem always has been and always will be that most people just don't get all that involved in sophisticated content. In fact, they don't LIKE sophisticated content. I know that its an elitist thing to say, but the more I see of life it seems all the more true. Its not a matter of intelligence, many of them are very bright.

 

It requires more effort and involvement than they feel like applying. Its kind of like me and wine. I don't drink much, so I think all wine tastes the same. If I drank more I'd probably start to appreciate certain wines... but I just don't feel like spending all that time drinking wine. Most people are the same way about content in games, movies, and literature. They already enjoy the ones they like, and they don't need anything beyond the hollywood hack to get the sense of entertainment they want. (Just like me and wine... yeah its bitter tasting and got me drunk... yay).

 

In conclusion, sophisticated taste is a disease resulting from prolonged exposure to a type of stimulous and desensitization to its typical attributes. Finer qualities of the same stimulous are required the more you are exposed, until you wind up whining on message boards because nothing is good enough to give you a fix. We need a clinic. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true. I used to love heavy metal/thrash music as a teenager, then I started to get into classical music through playing the guitar. Now I have an appreciation of the pinnacle of music, the stuff I used to like, and almost all popular music, sounds like pointless noise to me.

THe problem is that there is no great ancient storehouse of fantastic games out there to discover, we just have to make do with what falls of the production line next.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think abolishing copyright would help too much.  The problem isn't that the creator's of the content have no imagination, its the consumers that are the problem.  If the producers could cut loose an artist, and still get a return on their investment they would be happy.  However, nobody can make a living doing that because most people would rather pick at their athlete's foot than watch a movie, read a book, or play a game that isn't exactly what you hate.

 

It is both consumers and publishers that are the problem, not so much artists per se. Most big movies/games/music/TV shows these days are put together by large commitees pandering to focus groups, not artists. Copyright was invented a few centuries ago to give publishers a total monopoly over the production of printed works, thereby enabling them to determine what content was produced, and to milk every last cent out of it. It never had anything to do with protecting artists rights, then, as now, the artists themselves were paid a pathetic pittance by the publishers for their works. Before copyright was invented, composers like Bach wrote music for specific purposes under the commision of a church or wealthy aristocrat. They made a lot more money out of it than most modern musicians and composers do, as their profits now go mainly to publishing companies coffers.

 

Consumers are resposible for perpetuating this by shelling out their cash for the most hyped-up mega special effects hollywood blockbuster instead of indie films made by actual artists, or buying crappy computer games that are basically the same as all of their other ones instead of trying different things.

 

 

Abolishing copyright puts artists back in the spotlight, rather than commitee driven repetitions of tired old formulae. Artists that make something worthwhile will recieve enough donations to continue their craft and make a living, even if they don't get rich off it... The quality of things will improve dramatically.

 

 

 

That's true. I used to love heavy metal/thrash music as a teenager, then I started to get into classical music through playing the guitar. Now I have an appreciation of the pinnacle of music, the stuff I used to like, and almost all popular music, sounds like pointless noise to me.

 

 

Interesting... I grew up on classical music, but I always like the more bombastic composers like Wagner, Holst, Prokofiev, and when I started playing guitar and discovered progressive death metal, it was like I had found the music I had wanted to hear all along... To me classical music was quickly replaced by death metal as the pinnacle of music for me, and while I still like a lot of it, just as much sounds derivative and boring - most classical composers ripped each others ideas off so much that lots of classical music sounds pretty much the same to me. Movie soundtracks are almost completely interchangeable these days, apart from John Williams, there are not many film composers that are worth listening to...

 

I guess I am an officionado of a sophisticated, elitist form of heavy music with interesting, complex mathematical structures, odd tempo changes, and wierd time signatures, not the boring verse/chorus/verse/chorus/solo/chorus/chorus crap that most people listen to these days...

 

 

Anyone else like old-school point and click graphic adventures, like Beneath A Steel Sky, The Dig, Universe, Monkey Island, Dark Seed? Those were my favourite games when I was a teenager, and I wish more people made them, or incorparated more elements of adventure into other game types. I prefer games with lots of puzzle solving to lots of shooting... Bring back puzzles (but not jumping puzzles, I hate those)!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Before copyright was invented, composers like Bach wrote music for specific purposes under the commision of a church or wealthy aristocrat. They made a lot more money out of it than most modern musicians and composers do, as their profits now go mainly to publishing companies coffers.

Most of the greatest composers in antiquity died poor. They made no more than a living wage. Any musician/band you've heard of these days are fucking rolling in it even though they've less talent than my left bollock, so I'd say the system works.

These great men had musical talent you see, and they wrote a lot of music for no other purpose than the love of writing it, or for educational purposes.

 

I think recorded music should be given away for free and artists should make their money from concerts only. Listening to a recording of music is like looking at a photograph of a painting. Anyone who's been to a live performace of music will recognise that fact.

Artists should record a gig and release it on the internet for free, as a lure to get people to come to their concerts if they like it. The heavily manufactured recording formula that's pervaded for the last 50 years is on it's last legs I hope.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a ridiculous generalisation. Bach had rich patrons, and was famous in his time (although considered out of fashion and old fashioned by the time of his death).

 

Beethoven might have been deaf, but he was famous and rich at the time of his death. Schubert was surrounded by female fans most of his life, and died of syphillis (so not exactly a good death...). People like Paganini were essentially pop stars of their day, whilst Wagner was being lavished upon by the crazy German Prince chap in his fantasy castles.

 

Mozart is the most obvious example of dying in complete poverty. And that's less to do with his music than his mis-management of his own finances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OF course some of them made decent money, but none of them were rich by the equivilent standards of todays music 'artists'. The point is you don't need any talent to make large amounts of money with the current system, so its much better for the 'artists' than letting them try to claw their way to the top on their own. The reason all famous composers are so great, is because you only got to be famous if you had talent.

That rule doesn't apply any more. A publisher can sell any performer and make them rich.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to post
Share on other sites
That rule doesn't apply any more. A publisher can sell any performer and make them rich.

 

You can see this quite well with the castingshows. I watched the selection of one of them and there were people thrown out with talten because they didn't fit the image. The rather took low quality people which fit the image which is the stereotypical boy/girlgroup look.

 

Funny thing is that most of this groups look and sound the same. There is no individual characteristic that you could use to distinguish them. 99% of them you could swap with each other and nobody would really notice it.

Gerhard

Link to post
Share on other sites
  To me classical music was quickly replaced by death metal as the pinnacle of music for me, and while I still like a lot of it, just as much sounds derivative and boring - most classical composers ripped each others ideas off so much that lots of classical music sounds pretty much the same to me. 

 

Whereas, for instance, every death metal track is 100% original and unique?

 

All music is "derivative" of other works in its genre, and any genre you do not like or are unfamiliar with will sound pretty homogeneous. Music is just like software - it evolves and builds on previous ideas, rather than inventing something completely new at each step.

 

Movie soundtracks are almost completely interchangeable these days, apart from John Williams, there are not many film composers that are worth listening to...

 

That depends on your taste. I enjoy listening to Hans Zimmer's soundtracks, while Howard Shore's LoTR work was superb.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whereas, for instance, every death metal track is 100% original and unique?

 

All music is "derivative" of other works in its genre, and any genre you do not like or are unfamiliar with will sound pretty homogeneous. Music is just like software - it evolves and builds on previous ideas, rather than inventing something completely new at each step.

That depends on your taste. I enjoy listening to Hans Zimmer's soundtracks, while Howard Shore's LoTR work was superb.

 

Building on the old to make somthing new and better (sometimes) A bit like genetics really.

Everything is an evolution of past ideas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...