Thanks for your thoughts, Bekkler.
Before we get down to it, I agree: I think Desktops should be a good idea to target. That means, we're not limited anymore.
Though, there we hit another problem: No matter how much we want it, RPG is kinda complex, which may not be a practical solution for a "beginner game" in the first place...
Alfador and I talked this over via PM, and I wondered how such a system can be replicated in various engines, such as Blender, Lua programming, etc. that can still deliver quality nonetheless. Sure, there are more convenient systems than Blender, but
even with 2D sprites, creating and managing a complex inventory-based system such as an RPG becomes tedious (although Alfador would say that maintaining a list alleviates that problem, but the creation is still pretty tedious). That, and maintaining enough characters (let's say, a minimum of 5) with all their animations, especially along-side enemies and world-assets, production can easily get bogged down without getting anything done. (Think of how RPG Maker games, despite having the engine handed to them on a platter, take so much time to complete...) That, and it's usually story-heavy too, which needs to integrate well with gameplay without hitting the audience with a wall of text.
I'm not against RPG because I don't like it. I'm against RPG because we
can't make one with our current resources, unless we find a better solution of the
How. Which is why we need a mini-game first, a sort of a "prequel" to a grander RPG that might follow once our mini-game is successful.
In that regard, creating a small game with multiple stages, even if it's in 3D, is actually pretty easy (though it takes plenty of effort). We can make use of gimmicky low-poly cartoonish models, and not rely on full-quality stuff, but
still pack a punch with gameplay. Our demo is basically a
pitch to the gaming industry that our next efforts will be worth a shot. So in that regard, story isn't the priority here; it's gameplay.
If we can't make a simple game, how con we even make a full-fledged RPG? Ever?
Though your idea about "what's Chrono like" reminds me: There's a good reason I keep bringing up
Ragnarok Battle Offline. The game was created, not by the original IP holders, but by an independent group called "French Bread". It was based on its RPG counterpart called Ragnarok Online (both
Version One and
Version Two). To be honest, the developers had no intention of making a sequel or successor to RO; if people wanted to play RO, they could play he original. Instead, they re-imagined the original game and thought differently -- and without even relying on the story, since Battle Offline has no narrations -- and despite their decisions they
still managed to cleverly have the same RO feel. And even better: they one-up'd the original RO. And compared to the high-maintenance of RO servers, Battle Offline was actually pretty straightforward and simple to create.
So what is to say we
have to stick to RPG? Why do we drown ourselves in Anxiety of Influence, and restrain ourselves from creating something even better?
But like I said before, we don't have to go strict "RPG or No-RPG"; we just need to
change our perception of what's an RPG. Throw our previous experiences out the window, and think creatively for once. We can have the elements of an RPG without actually having an RPG, or we could have an RPG without it being a "Contemporary" RPG (the latter which creates problems). An example (just an example, mind you; just an example!!) would be a First Person SHooter, but camera at the back to make it RESEMBLE an RPG. Little things like that make a world of difference.
