Is the High Fantasy genre played out...

Is the High Fantasy genre played out? Have all the archaic terms and tropes become now too familiar by oversaturation and lost their power?

In contemporary fantasy? Yeah maybe. But go back and read Tolkien all over again and you'll find that his shit is as good as ever, "tropes" and all.

We need to reinvent it.
Watch out for my book.

Just step out of medival Europe for once

Yes, because it's become so agressively commercialized the "high" elements of high fantasy aren't actually high, they're vulgarities, shopworn tropes that are assembled into comfortable shapes for worn-out and unathletic minds to slouch into.

Yes and it's been that way for decades. It's Dungeons & Dragons fault for systematizing it and laying it bare. And videogames have been fucking its corpse.

Just write a Wuxia/Xianxia novel instead

Since there have only been a handful of absolutely fantastic entries into the genre, I would say that we are due for a good one soon. It's the commercial, "teen fantasy" shit that has made the genre an over-saturated dumpster fire. Martin (for all the spergouts he causes here) actually pumped life and interest into the High Fantasy genre, which will eventually cause a ripple effect, or die. I think it's obvious that there is widespread appeal for fantasy still, with it being a legitimized category now over the last decade or so.

>WAHHH VIDEOGAMES!

It's been played out for a while now. Thing is, people who read primarily genre fiction do so because they really like the set-pieces and structure. They're okay with it being generic - in fact, they delight in it - because the parts that are generic are the parts they really want to read more of. That doesn't mean the genre will never evolve, just that it is bound to change very slowly.

Yes, but as previously posted above: all it takes is some change of scenery to freshen it up.
Change the basis of your setting from Medieval Europe to literally anywhere else with rich mythos and folklore.
A nice underutilized setting is dynastic China, as it has an entirely different set of magic and monster rules that would spice up things from the usual goblins and elves.
Honestly anywhere with a well established rich spiritual and feudal history will hold up a fantasy narrative pretty well

Specifically, the Medieval British Archipelago. Witcher is successful despite being only slightly different.

>D&D
>Video games

Witcher builds on what Tolkien was afraid of doing. What Shrek joked about.
The Western Folklore Canon.

First of all, yes. Secondly, you yourself mentioned video games. Are you retarded?

I mentioned it, the other poster didn't. He didn't distinguish himself as a new poster. My point still stands.

I didn't even know you had a point. Was it just to complain about video games?

>Since there have only been a handful of absolutely fantastic entries into the genre

Such as?

Well, I know Veeky Forums will sperg, but I really enjoyed ASOIAF.

It's not that vidya is inherently bad. It's that the concepts that make for a good game are very different than the concepts that make for a good story, but many contemporary authors don't realize this because their primary exposure to the genre is video games.
Pic related.

>It's that the concepts that make for a good game are very different than the concepts that make for a good story
That doesn't make any fucking sense, you sound retarded.

>being this butthurt about a medium that you actually think they can't tell good stories

There's a reason there are no good video game movies. Good game design is entirely lost when you adapt the game into a linear story. If you want specific examples:
1. Fantasy games typically have a very generic standard fantasy setting. Having all the usual humans/elves/orcs adds a sense of familiarity and increases the number of choices for building a character. In a book or movie, having a generic fantasy setting with generic fantasy races usually just comes off as lazy and unoriginal.
2. Fantasy games, RPGs in particular, usually combine an overarching story with a bunch of irrelevant sidequests. While these can be engaging as a player, in a book or movie this just makes everything feel bloated.
3. Fantasy games typically have a lot of combat and a lot of magic because this leads to flashy and exciting games. In a book or movie, excessive magic is more likely to introduce glaring plot holes or weaken suspension of disbelief, and combat is much less necessary.
4. Fantasy games lend themselves to the idea of a lone hero (or at least a small party) going on quests and adventures, interacting some with NPCs but mostly keeping to themselves. While this can be made to work in a book or movie, it's overly restrictive to think that that's the only way a story can be told.
There are games that have both good gameplay and good storytelling, but never at the same time. At best, you can alternate between the two using cutscenes or more subtle methods.

>There's a reason there are no good video game movies.
Usually because the transition doesn't keep in mind that the end product is a FILM, not that the story is "bad".
>Good game design is entirely lost when you adapt the game into a linear story.
kek holy shit, what?
>There are games that have both good gameplay and good storytelling, but never at the same time
wew lad, that is so retarded and wrong that I'm convinced you are a brainlet.

This is all pseudo nonsense, you realize that right?

>Actually believing this

desu i thought Martin's got series was low fantasy, there arent very many magical beings or artifacts save for maybe melisandra, the warlocks (though they seem to be more a covenant of trick magicians and anway have no serious influence outside of their city) and any of the wargs. The majority of the focus is on human warriors and noblemen.

>desu i thought Martin's got series was low fantasy
It isn't and you don't seem to understand what constitutes "low fantasy". Martin's work is literally classified as high fantasy.

>not that the story is "bad".
I didn't claim it was.
>kek holy shit, what?
Good gameplay and good storytelling are different things. You can have an engaging game that makes no effort to tell a story, or an engaging story (like a movie) that has no gameplay elements at all. Do you really disagree with that?
>wew lad, that is so retarded and wrong that I'm convinced you are a brainlet.
Give me a single example of simultaneous good gameplay and good storytelling.
Give me a single example of simultaneous good gameplay and good storytelling.

>there arent very many magical beings or artifacts save for maybe melisandra, the warlocks (though they seem to be more a covenant of trick magicians and anway have no serious influence outside of their city) and any of the wargs
And the giants, and the Others, and the Children of the Forest, and the dragons, and Thoros of Myr, and Mirri Maz Duur, and the alchemists, and...

>I didn't claim it was.
Yes, you did. Scroll up.
>Good gameplay and good storytelling are different things.
Right, but it's goofy to assume you can't have both for some reason, just because you need to make this argument.
>You can have an engaging game that makes no effort to tell a story, or an engaging story (like a movie) that has no gameplay elements at all. Do you really disagree with that?
No...but again, you act like it HAS to be either/or, that's not even remotely true.
>Give me a single example of simultaneous good gameplay and good storytelling.
...which is subjective to me, and even if I couldn't give you an example, that doesn't mean a game can't have both. I don't know who told you otherwise, but the premise doesn't even make much sense. It seems weird to just assume that a game can't have good gameplay and story as if that's some sort of axiom. You just want that to be true to compare two mediums (that function in differently) and then say goofy as fuck shit like "video games can't tell good stories".

You can see why I called you a brainlet now?

the books also have a lot more magic than the show

No, it's just that no one has surpassed Tolkien and they're all derivative with no artistic value.

ALL of them are derivative and hold no artistic value? Jesus Christ, you sound boring.

Am I wrong? If so, why?

Why are you wrong that "literally everything after Tolkien is derivative and holds NO artistic value at all"? Really, faggot?

I'm not seeing any argument or evidence that I'm wrong.

>Yes, you did. Scroll up.
No, I didn't.
>and then say goofy as fuck shit like "video games can't tell good stories".
I didn't say this either.
Since you appear to be having serious trouble understanding my posts, I'll try rephrasing things. Video games can have good stories. Video games can have engaging gameplay. However, in order to have both they need to switch back and forth between the two. Things that are fun as gameplay elements, like grinding for XP, chasing down sidequests, managing an inventory, and fighting boss monsters, are not the kind of things that are interesting when presented as part of a book, movie, or other non-interactive medium. When games that feature these elements also feature a good story, the story is presented as separate entity, You engage with the story, in the form of cutscenes or NPC dialogue or whatever, then you go out and fight enemies and complete quests or whatever, and then you engage with the story some more, and so on. This is the recipe of just about every video and tabletop game in existence, except for those that make no attempt at having a story in the first place. It is so ubiquitous that I doubt the existence of a game that has an engaging story WITHOUT some kind of back-and-forth alternation between good gameplay and good story.

Because it's not a real argument you idiot. It's tantamount to saying "there are no good books after (insert author here", it's not something to entertain, it's silly.

>I didn't say this either
Let me quote you here: and :

>It's that the concepts that make for a good game are very different than the concepts that make for a good story
>There are games that have both good gameplay and good storytelling, but never at the same time
^I'm saying these are inherently retarded positions to hold.
>Video games can have good stories. Video games can have engaging gameplay. However, in order to have both they need to switch back and forth between the two.
No, I don't agree with this as an absolute and there are plenty of subjective examples of games I both enjoy for good storytelling and gameplay. The fact alone that I can make those calls, doesn't help your argument.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you've yet to provide any evidence that disproves my belief, even after I've asked you.

Yes.

...evidence for what? That people like and enjoy anything after Tolkien? This is retarded, if at least one person thinks any high fantasy fiction has value, it has artistic value to that reader. It's just a stupid generalization from brainlets. This board is full of absolutist brainlets.

>When games that feature these elements also feature a good story, the story is presented as separate entity
You keep trying to make this point...it's a weird semantic argument that doesn't make much sense. Mediums tell stories in different ways. You're getting gameplay mechanics confused with gamePLAY, then conflating them all into your comparison.

It's not my concern what people like. I'm concerned with artistic merit, which is independent from the taste of the reader.

>It's not my concern what people like. I'm concerned with artistic merit
Are you actually retarded or baiting me? Artistic merit is subjective, brainlet.
>inb4 he reveals himself to be an objectivist fedora tipper

>It is so ubiquitous that I doubt the existence of a game that has an engaging story WITHOUT some kind of back-and-forth alternation between good gameplay and good story.
This honestly doesn't make much sense...

>Artistic merit is objective
This meme again.

>Let me quote you here
So when I said "There are games that have [...] good storytelling", you decided to interpret this as "video games can't tell good stories?
>there are plenty of subjective examples of games I both enjoy for good storytelling and gameplay
Good for you; there are games I enjoy for both reasons, too. That doesn't contradict what I said, but I'm getting kind of tired of rephrasing it over and over again, so please just reread my posts until you understand my claims.

>Mediums tell stories in different ways.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. When people see good video games and try to copy that exact style in books or movies it fails, and that's what's responsible for a lot of the bad D&D-inspired and vidya-inspired fantasy novels.

>you decided to interpret this as "video games can't tell good stories?
You entire implication was that firstly, video games tell inferior stories as a principle and that they can EITHER tell a decent story or do decent gameplay.
>That doesn't contradict what I said
It does when your claims are specifically about games being able to do "one or the other"...
>so please just reread my posts until you understand my claims.
Buddy, it's not that I don't understand them, it's that I find them juvenile. If your chief point was that games can't tell both a good story and have good gameplay, then that's retarded. If it's that video games just flat out can't execute good stories, that's equally retarded.

Then maybe you should start with that point instead of moving your own goalposts when you get btfo with how stupid you come off?

>You entire implication was that firstly, video games tell inferior stories as a principle and that they can EITHER tell a decent story or do decent gameplay.
No.
>If your chief point was that games can't tell both a good story and have good gameplay, then that's retarded. If it's that video games just flat out can't execute good stories, that's equally retarded.
But my point isn't either of those things.
>correcting people's straw-man versions of my claims = moving the goalposts
>other people attacking straw-men = getting btfo
Really makes you think.

>But my point isn't either of those things.
See: and you said, quote: "There are games that have both good gameplay and good storytelling, but never at the same time"
>never at the same time
>same time
>same time
>same time
Why you are being disingenuous is beyond me.
>correcting people's straw-man versions of my claims
Oh fucking kill yourself already, your claims are just goofy. Accept that and move on.

"At the same time" is not the same thing as "in the same game".

I've directly quoted you three times now where you have actually said that a game can only do one or the other...

It should have never been a genre to begin with. Virtually nothing after Tolkien is worth reading because it all misses the point. As far as I'm concerned LotR etc is its own work, fully independent of anything afterward.

What? Of the two posts you linked, one doesn't say anything either way, while the other explicitly says a game can do both.

No, i guess i don't. my understanding of low fantasy is based on the idea that magic has no or little impact on the world, where there could be magic present but it wasn't readily seen or available, and didn't take magical beings into account like (although I'll always regard the alchemists as mad scientists.)
I've only read up to the third book, but you're right,there was very little magic present beyond the myths and legends.

to be honest post-Tolkien fantasy is mostly derivative shit
it's even worst than romance

this
i'm ok with Veeky Forums and /v/ related fantasy tho

It's not even that it's derivative that's the problem. You could argue that Lord of the Rings in derivative in some sense. But fantasy after Tolkien just mimics him without utilizing it to communicate anything meaningful. Post-Tolkien fantasy is about the fantasy world, rather than using the fantasy world to communicate something about the real world.

I agree. Tolkien's fantasy is based on the rich interplay between morality and nature, which when combined with existing European folk tales and myths created its own world. Later fantasy authors basically took what Tolkien grew and roughly tried to graft it onto their own stories, which is why they aren't as good.

>>There are games that have both good gameplay and good storytelling, but never at the same time

Then you just don't read enough, because there is plenty of fantasy that have underlying subtextual messages about the world you live in. You can't just blanket generalize an entire genre.

Might want to learn how to read, buddy

>I want an entire genre to disappear because Tolkien already wrote a series so that's it, pack it in. Nobody is allowed to do it better or as good.

ASoIaF is the absolute antithesis to high fantasy.

Refer to

I've considered writing something about a holy order going to locate and destroy a necromancer which is causing them trouble but I'm not sure what the setting should be. Medieval seems too cliche for this.

>Give me a single example of simultaneous good gameplay and good storytelling.

half-life
literally no cut-scenes

No it isn't though, it's literally classified as high fantasy.

Again, I don't know if you are genuinely being obtuse or baiting me, but here are your exact words:
>There are games that have both good gameplay and good storytelling, but never at the same time

>There are games that have both good gameplay and good storytelling, but never at the same time
>There are games that have both good gameplay and good storytelling, but never at the same time
>at the same time
>at the SAME time
>AT THE
>SAME
>TIME
Jesus Christ, just end yourself.

>Nobody is allowed to do it better or as good.
Let me know when someone manages that. LOTR was published over 60 years ago and so far, nothing.

Well then, I guess that's just empirical proof that it can't be done! I can't think of literally ANY high fantasy with the same depth!

>you just don't read enough
life is too short for this drivel

(((((TIPSSSSS)))))

>half-life
>high fantasy
????

>Give me a single example of simultaneous good gameplay and good storytelling.

L.A. Noire, Red Dead Redemption, Dark Souls, Portal, The Last of Us, Shadow of the Colossus, Undertale, Journey, Fallout: NV, Spec Ops: The Line, I could go on.

I imagine that if you have a gripe with any of these it'll be related to your usage of the word "simultaneous." If so, define it.

moving the goalpost

i tried, seriously
if i want something so bad it's good, i prefer space romance
or even fanfiction
fantasy is a creative dead end

Yea. Thou must findeth new tropes and mounteth them anew in the Realms of Men.

not reading the OP

>I can't think of literally ANY high fantasy with the same depth!
If it exists then go ahead and tell me what it is. I'm eagerly waiting.

Dare you enter my Magical Realm™?

even lotr is as tedious as the fucking bible desu

>fantasy is a creative dead end
lol you keep telling yourself that, brainlet.

>give me an author and a series that I can just go "NUH UH!" and dismiss
It's so transparent.

>not reading your own messages

In other words, you can't name anything.

In other words, everyone can see the game you're playing faggot.

I feel like authors get caught up in the world tapestry they're trying to weave, and forget to put stories in it. I get really tired when I've read about the umpteenfth system of magic and how it uses super crystals to turbo the aether into the nether of a demi god's furnace from Chernabog's left ear drum.

you must be 18 to post here

TEEHEE GOOD ONE!

>thinking the thread is me and one other guy

Go ahead and post some fantasy works you think are comparable or superior to Tolkien. I won't even respond to your post. I don't think you can, but if such a thing exists I would genuinely like to know.

you seem upset?

Malazan turned all the previous notions of high fantasy on their heads. Erikson is unmatched in world-building, storytelling, and fleshed-out characterization

>world-building
cringe

this so much