Saving the world never gets old?

Sure, a few of the newer games aren't as diverse in plots as some would want. However, sometimes we should take a look at the age if players the game is directed to. At the same time, we shouldn't be allowing kids to have fun destroying the world, it seems messed up, lol. But when you have the mature games, and the storyline is blatantly save the world in some shape-or-form, the repetitive nature of adventure games gets boring/stale. I don't think it's so much a bad thing because it's just some games are all about saving the world, even though they're usually the most populated. If you want a game with evil doings and other facets like that, then it's a trade-off. Either you go into destroying the world, and have less players to do so. -- because multiplayer is only active with games of big populace (saving the world) rather than less.

 

So, we shouldn't let the kids blow of up the world? Destroy it? You're saying only aim the right stuff at the right people? That's also a form of censorship. I can't agree with this logic. IT doesn't seem messed up - what seems messed up is denying them the right to kill the world and only being able to save it, being the good guy. There can't be good without evil, and there will never just be "Good" in the world because of human nature.

I play plenty of games where the goal is to kill, steal, plunder, and take. These could be single player games like DISHONORED or online games like Ubisoft's "SHADOWBANE" - there have been plenty attempts at it, but it draws an older crowd which is what I like.

 

I actually like the 'save the world' idea, as long as how it's gone about isn't always the same all the time. But, I digress, I don't like seeing the save the word scenario in every game just about ever. The sense of variety dwindles when that happens. There's also the saving the universe theme too, which is pretty much the same thing, just with a larger number of things for the hero/heroine to worry about.

 

I think you get to see, what causes a person to turn to the dark side and sometimes they want more and also turn more evil and the hero has to save the world from being destroyed. In Dragon age origns, you have to stop Loghain from turning people against the grey wardens and also stop him and Howe who does slave trade and persecutes people and get everyone to fight the blight which is more important. I reckon that, these sort of games are exciting and also you feel rewarded when it ends and that you saved lives and also is a good thing to do for the fantasy world.

 

I guess according to mmorpg successful elements, the more general the goal, the wider variety of people can relate to this "game" or "story". People like to think about bigger things than they are, whether or not it is reflective of what their ideal is IRL. I still wish someday I will become the chosen one. hueheuheuh

 

Haha, there's always the "saving" part. Be it saving the world, saving the town, saving the city, and all other else to save, hahaha!

To be frank, it does get old sometimes, and that's why I tend to go for a more casual game like Harvest Moon which doesn't necessarily give you the goal of "saving" something. I can't think of an RPG that your goal is not to save something, but a lot of them do have some plots of only saving a part of the world, even though it doesn't really matter, haha!

Truth to be told, sometimes the individual characters' stories are much more compelling than the main story itself, even if it's much shorter. Since the individual characters' stories are quite a part of the main story though, it's quite a paradox in itself then. Just like what Briggs above said, the journey is really what makes it fun after all. Most of the times when playing an RPG anyway, you do know that you will save the world in the end, hahahaha!

 

Well, to be fair, I think that is what led to the whole genre of ´survival ´ games... where you aren´t supposed to dominate and win the world.. just survive against all odds.

 

I agree. The same concept does get a tad boring. Why on earth does the earth need saving that much anyway?

 

I Agree. This is one of the best story for any action game and I am sure that this evergreen story in games will never get old.

Everyone wants to be a hero and save the world from zombies, alien attacks, terrorists and other serious issues.

 

That would be awesome. It's not likely to happen. The closest you are going to get is if you are in more of a sandbox MMO type game that lets you actually make changes to the world around you. There aren't many that fit this bill, unfortunately. It would be nice to be able to make the choice, though.

 

Well, everyone of us want to be a hero on some kind of story. And in the game, to be the hero is the only way to do that. But I also like the idea that they should have an option to save or destroy the world.

 

That theme is a bit played out. I was thinking recently about all of the evil groups in the Pokemon series and how after Team Rocket, all of the groups are involved in extremely world ending activities. I think a bit of the charm of Team Rocket is lost because they were just a normal crime group that was just trying to gain money and power. It would be refreshing to see lower stakes again in the next Pokemon game.

 

I think it's an overused trope, specially in Japanese games. Not that it's particularly bad, but I think it would be nice if there were more games about... DESTROYING the world! We almost never get to play the villain...

 

You know, I never really thought about it.

But saving the world DOES get stale. I never realized it until I saw this thread. But rpgs are meant to have a grand scale. So what COULD you use besides saving the world and/or girl?

 

Saving the world is usually the overarching theme. It really depends on how much importance you put on the main quest. I do agree with most of you though, that it is definitely overused.

RPGs are mostly about exploration and character building, so I don't pay much attention to the theme of my character being the "hero". I focus on talking to NPCs, doing side quests, learning about the game's world, shaping my character however I want and IF there's time, I may save the world just like the game wants me to.

 

I've always enjoyed RPG's where the stakes aren't that high. Having comparatively low risks isn't bad as long as you make the player care about the outcome. in a way, world shattering events are a lazy way of getting us to care; it takes gamemaking skill to make me sweat over whether or not Cooking Mama likes my cake.

 

Eh, I think I would rather save the world than destroy it. If the world was destroyed, how am I suppose to steal loot from bad guys and ancient buildings? Plus, I like traveling around the world and it would be boring to destroy it rather than explore.

 

I think it definitely does not. What else gives you that epic feeling of achievement, after you beat the final boss of an 200+ hour RPG?

 

I think that as long as they keep coming up with unique enough story-lines, I don't think I would ever bore of saving the world. I have played a few games where you're incredibly evil though, and those are really quite fun. I wish there was more games where you play the bad guy and try to win out in the end, now that would be an interesting twist!

 

I guess the whole "save the world" thing is trope? I don't think I'd get bored with it though, since it's not an inherently bad plot base. Though can you imagine a game where you're the villian? That YOU are the one destroying the world and that the "heros" are trying to stop. Or a game about a normal person trying to run from the destruction the villain and the hero cause when they battle. That would be cool.