Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="athos" data-source="post: 6213208" data-attributes="member: 32605">No.&nbsp; Dragonlance was not the beginning of the end.&nbsp; It was a new world based on books that a lot of people liked and gave players a chance to either play their hero, or to play a character and do things a bit different and see if they could get the same outcome of saving the world.The G1-3 and D1-3 series were out before Dragonlance iirc and they took players through a series of connected dungeons where players fought giants and later the drow that were leading them.&nbsp; They were no more or less &quot;rail-roading&quot; than the DL series.As for the idea that there are no new ideas in gaming; I would suggest that there are very few &quot;new&quot; ideas anywhere.&nbsp; Almost everything has been done or thought of if you study history.&nbsp; The greeks came up with the idea that there are only a limited number of actual plot types, I think it was 32 different plots, and that any story would fall into one of them.&nbsp; The fact that fantasy writers and game developers aren't able to come up with &quot;new&quot; stuff is pretty silly, they are at least as creative as movie writers, which means that they use what is out there as their inspiration.The one thing that the article kind of gets correct is that when people that love the game are replaced by people that love money, the game suffers.&nbsp; Where the original TSR guys were replaced by businessmen, I think there can be made an argument that the passion and creativity inherent in the original AD&amp;D was not able to be recreated by the business &quot;formulas&quot; that came later.&nbsp; This had nothing to do with dragonlance though.Not sure why this guy chose dragonlance to beat up on.&nbsp; Guess critics are like that, if they can't do something special, they pick on someone that can and did do something special.&nbsp; Dragonlance sales and long lifespan speak for themselves.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="athos, post: 6213208, member: 32605"] No. Dragonlance was not the beginning of the end. It was a new world based on books that a lot of people liked and gave players a chance to either play their hero, or to play a character and do things a bit different and see if they could get the same outcome of saving the world. The G1-3 and D1-3 series were out before Dragonlance iirc and they took players through a series of connected dungeons where players fought giants and later the drow that were leading them. They were no more or less "rail-roading" than the DL series. As for the idea that there are no new ideas in gaming; I would suggest that there are very few "new" ideas anywhere. Almost everything has been done or thought of if you study history. The greeks came up with the idea that there are only a limited number of actual plot types, I think it was 32 different plots, and that any story would fall into one of them. The fact that fantasy writers and game developers aren't able to come up with "new" stuff is pretty silly, they are at least as creative as movie writers, which means that they use what is out there as their inspiration. The one thing that the article kind of gets correct is that when people that love the game are replaced by people that love money, the game suffers. Where the original TSR guys were replaced by businessmen, I think there can be made an argument that the passion and creativity inherent in the original AD&D was not able to be recreated by the business "formulas" that came later. This had nothing to do with dragonlance though. Not sure why this guy chose dragonlance to beat up on. Guess critics are like that, if they can't do something special, they pick on someone that can and did do something special. Dragonlance sales and long lifespan speak for themselves. [/QUOTE]

Verification