I would be just happy, if rpg doesn't have Main bad trying to end the world, destroy it or otherwise turn it literal hell.
This is mainly problem with jrpgs, but some western rpgs, like mass effect is guilty of this as well.
jammu on
0
Options
Alfred J. Kwakis it because you were insultedwhen I insulted your hair?Registered Userregular
Another thing:
Upgrades in a good RPG should be meaningful, if they're present at all.
You should actually feel progressively more powerful, not simply able to carry on playing in the same way.
I'm basically saying Blizzard make bad RPGs.
You mean you didn't feel more powerful killing Illidan over, say, Naj'entus?
I'm not saying you're inherently wrong, you should feel more powerful, but I don't why that makes Blizzard in particular bad.
I've found it funny that when I was watching my brother play WoW:WotLK the other day, he was in Northrend still fighting Murlocks in the 70s level range.
Alfred J. Kwak on
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Of course the thread will end. The will be an inevitable escalation of hostility between silly geese of different flocks and then a cardboard goose will swoop in, make a snarky remark about the collective dumbness of the thread, and then the thread will get locked. It's inevitable. The only unknown is when, not if.
Another thing:
Upgrades in a good RPG should be meaningful, if they're present at all.
You should actually feel progressively more powerful, not simply able to carry on playing in the same way.
I'm basically saying Blizzard make bad RPGs.
You mean you didn't feel more powerful killing Illidan over, say, Naj'entus?
I'm not saying you're inherently wrong, you should feel more powerful, but I don't why that makes Blizzard in particular bad.
Never played WoW. I'm looking at the Diablos.
All the upgrades in those allow you to do is go on clicking to kill things with the same number of clicks instead of a greater number.
The balance they pride themselves on actively prevents the player from ever getting ahead of the curve. It's disempowering, and bad design.
If I can make a generalization (which may or may not have already been said), my feeling is that if you're a young person with too much time and not enough money, you want your games to have a lot of fat, to keep you busy for longer on the same dime. At least, this was the case with me. When I was younger, I loved games where I could take tens of hours to explore every nook and cranny. Now that I'm older and I have more money than time, I want my games to get right to the good bits.
DiscoZombie on
0
Options
Alfred J. Kwakis it because you were insultedwhen I insulted your hair?Registered Userregular
edited January 2010
I don't see how we can't have both.
Alfred J. Kwak on
0
Options
DunxcoShould get a suitNever skips breakfastRegistered Userregular
Quite so. I have no issue with, one the one-hand, having an RPG as streamlined as Mass Effect 2 (shush, I'm going on what people have said because I don't get my copy for another 10 hours), while we also have fantastic games like Fallout 3 where you can dick around in a huge world and hit the level cap without batting an eyelid at the main storyline. There's room for both in the market.
-- Full regen after battle and/or removal of "potion" type items. This allows the developer to design every fight as a challenge without worrying about how much HP/MP the player has or if they have enough potions. This is all well and good but it requires a well tuned difficulty curve and it makes certain pacing mechanics impossible. For instance... some dumb grunts at the gates to the dungeon but much more powerful ones deep down inside. Devastating spells that require a whole lot of MP, etc. This is entirely dependent on the game.
-- Linear dungeons. How many turn based RPGs have great dungeon design? I think of things like Lufia 2 or SMRPG and other games with action RPG elements. I don't think of Final Fantasy games. . . especially the random battle ones where I'd end up going the wrong way or doing something wrong and being irritated at the return trip. Straight-line dungeons won't bother me in FF13, but they would in many action RPGs. Again, it depends on the game.
-- Loot. DA's loot system is AWFUL! There's way too much useless bullshit. Less is definitely better here. ME2 has the right idea for weapons but not so much armor. Half my squad is armored and the other half is barely wearing anything! I also appreciate Persona 4's (and many other games) system of selling random loot drops to some sort of blacksmith type character to make you stuff. It solves the dumb question of why a giant rat had a magic sword on him and makes it so you aren't cluttering your inventory with tons of loot and wondering what you have to drop.
-- Small towns and being dropped right on the mission. I like it... but it has its downsides. Many of the locations you visit in ME2 are supposed to be HUGE, but they end up feeling tiny. If a game does opt for large cities, it better have guards/information booths of some kind with very well thought out directions for everything the player could possibly be looking for.
-- If it's a game with stats like 'strength', 'dex', etc, then in the interest of streamlining things you do not need 29 different stats. Dex is fine, we don't need agi or whatever other ambiguous crap you can think up. There needs to be clear descriptions of all of them in a very obvious spot too. Yeah, I'm looking at you LUCK stat!
Much as I love me some fallout, I would rather have more of the Oblivion where if I can't put a dent in Sir Evil von Silly Goose you mother in her silly goose's armor, I can run away and dodge his fireballs of silly goosing and drop a pillar on his head.
It's funny you should choose those 2 games as your examples, because the good people at Black Isle were some of the only ones who were dedicated to giving you alternate playstyles including, yes, running away, whereas Oblivion had very little options other than hitting things with weapons (or arrows) and magic.
If I can make a generalization (which may or may not have already been said), my feeling is that if you're a young person with too much time and not enough money, you want your games to have a lot of fat, to keep you busy for longer on the same dime. At least, this was the case with me. When I was younger, I loved games where I could take tens of hours to explore every nook and cranny. Now that I'm older and I have more money than time, I want my games to get right to the good bits.
Oh dear god yes.
Even though I currently have more time than money (huzzah economic downturn!), advertising how incredibly long it takes to play an RPG is one way to get me not to buy it.
For example, I debated picking up a copy of Persona 3:FES for cheap until I read the back cover where, in giant letters, they tout how the main game takes 70 hours and the bonus content adds another 30 hours.
It's not like the game forces you to play it in one sitting
Because I play RPG games primarily for the story.
When I see an RPG tout how long it takes to play, that screams "We've padded out 15-20 hours worth of story with another 50+ hours of random battles and grinding stupid shit".
-- Full regen after battle and/or removal of "potion" type items. This allows the developer to design every fight as a challenge without worrying about how much HP/MP the player has or if they have enough potions. This is all well and good but it requires a well tuned difficulty curve and it makes certain pacing mechanics impossible. For instance... some dumb grunts at the gates to the dungeon but much more powerful ones deep down inside. Devastating spells that require a whole lot of MP, etc. This is entirely dependent on the game.
-- Linear dungeons. How many turn based RPGs have great dungeon design? I think of things like Lufia 2 or SMRPG and other games with action RPG elements. I don't think of Final Fantasy games. . . especially the random battle ones where I'd end up going the wrong way or doing something wrong and being irritated at the return trip. Straight-line dungeons won't bother me in FF13, but they would in many action RPGs. Again, it depends on the game.
-- Loot. DA's loot system is AWFUL! There's way too much useless bullshit. Less is definitely better here. ME2 has the right idea for weapons but not so much armor. Half my squad is armored and the other half is barely wearing anything! I also appreciate Persona 4's (and many other games) system of selling random loot drops to some sort of blacksmith type character to make you stuff. It solves the dumb question of why a giant rat had a magic sword on him and makes it so you aren't cluttering your inventory with tons of loot and wondering what you have to drop.
-- Small towns and being dropped right on the mission. I like it... but it has its downsides. Many of the locations you visit in ME2 are supposed to be HUGE, but they end up feeling tiny. If a game does opt for large cities, it better have guards/information booths of some kind with very well thought out directions for everything the player could possibly be looking for.
-- If it's a game with stats like 'strength', 'dex', etc, then in the interest of streamlining things you do not need 29 different stats. Dex is fine, we don't need agi or whatever other ambiguous crap you can think up. There needs to be clear descriptions of all of them in a very obvious spot too. Yeah, I'm looking at you LUCK stat!
ME2 loot and armor is an embarrassment, a stain on the otherwise game. It doesn't even have loot. You receive updates at precise times, and everyone gets the exact same things. ME1 had a better loot system, and thats saying something, since it's loot was ABYSMAL.
-- Full regen after battle and/or removal of "potion" type items. This allows the developer to design every fight as a challenge without worrying about how much HP/MP the player has or if they have enough potions. This is all well and good but it requires a well tuned difficulty curve and it makes certain pacing mechanics impossible. For instance... some dumb grunts at the gates to the dungeon but much more powerful ones deep down inside. Devastating spells that require a whole lot of MP, etc. This is entirely dependent on the game.
-- Linear dungeons. How many turn based RPGs have great dungeon design? I think of things like Lufia 2 or SMRPG and other games with action RPG elements. I don't think of Final Fantasy games. . . especially the random battle ones where I'd end up going the wrong way or doing something wrong and being irritated at the return trip. Straight-line dungeons won't bother me in FF13, but they would in many action RPGs. Again, it depends on the game.
-- Loot. DA's loot system is AWFUL! There's way too much useless bullshit. Less is definitely better here. ME2 has the right idea for weapons but not so much armor. Half my squad is armored and the other half is barely wearing anything! I also appreciate Persona 4's (and many other games) system of selling random loot drops to some sort of blacksmith type character to make you stuff. It solves the dumb question of why a giant rat had a magic sword on him and makes it so you aren't cluttering your inventory with tons of loot and wondering what you have to drop.
-- Small towns and being dropped right on the mission. I like it... but it has its downsides. Many of the locations you visit in ME2 are supposed to be HUGE, but they end up feeling tiny. If a game does opt for large cities, it better have guards/information booths of some kind with very well thought out directions for everything the player could possibly be looking for.
-- If it's a game with stats like 'strength', 'dex', etc, then in the interest of streamlining things you do not need 29 different stats. Dex is fine, we don't need agi or whatever other ambiguous crap you can think up. There needs to be clear descriptions of all of them in a very obvious spot too. Yeah, I'm looking at you LUCK stat!
ME2 loot and armor is an embarrassment, a stain on the otherwise game. It doesn't even have loot. You receive updates at precise times, and everyone gets the exact same things. ME1 had a better loot system, and thats saying something, since it's loot was ABYSMAL.
It has loot in the same way Doom had loot.
you are a silly goose
A complicated loot system is fine if it actually adds an interesting gameplay dimension. ME1's didn't, it just handed the player a list of 37 shotguns and said "now, laboriously throw them all in the trash one by one!"
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
Alfred J. Kwakis it because you were insultedwhen I insulted your hair?Registered Userregular
-- Small towns and being dropped right on the mission. I like it... but it has its downsides. Many of the locations you visit in ME2 are supposed to be HUGE, but they end up feeling tiny.
I was afraid this would happen. The one thing I really do not like about Bioware's new approach to RPG design* is how they strip every location in their games to it's bare bones and that's it. I was uncomfortably aware of this in both ME and DA - small populated areas that host the essentials (shops, quest givers, story NPCs), and dungeons with absolutely linear design. Citadel station was still quite good, because it was such a cool place, although I wish you could have left the ambassador district to explore the city beneath (and in ME2 it's supposedly even less open). Denerim, the capitol in DA, was just disappointing through and through. If that's what streamlining RPGs amounts to, no thanks.
*judgement reserved for ME2, as my copy hasn't arrived yet
I hate length arguments. Whether they be complaining an action game is too short or an RPG too long.
Persona 3-4 is structured to fit its very lengthy game time (took me a few months to finish myself). By comparison 'The Answer', the bonus afterword to P3, is less than half the length but mostly pointless.
edit: whoops, thread went fast that was replying a few posts up.
-- Small towns and being dropped right on the mission. I like it... but it has its downsides. Many of the locations you visit in ME2 are supposed to be HUGE, but they end up feeling tiny.
I was afraid this would happen. The one thing I really do not like about Bioware's new approach to RPG design* is how they strip every location in their games to it's bare bones and that's it. I was uncomfortably aware of this in both ME and DA - small populated areas that host the essentials (shops, quest givers, story NPCs), and dungeons with absolutely linear design. Citadel station was still quite good, because it was such a cool place, although I wish you could have left the ambassador district to explore the city beneath (and ME2 the it's supposedly even less open). Denerim, the capitol in DA, was just disappointing through and through. If that's what streamlining RPGs amounts too, no thanks.
*judgement reserved for ME2, as my copy hasn't arrived yet
I was fine with the citadel in ME1, but man is it disappointing in ME2.
very minor spoiler:
The entire presidium is limited just to the human embassy! ArrgH! :x
Ultrachrist on
0
Options
Alfred J. Kwakis it because you were insultedwhen I insulted your hair?Registered Userregular
I was fine with the citadel in ME1, but man is it disappointing in ME2.
very minor spoiler:
The entire presidium is limited just to the human embassy! ArrgH! :x
well, in fairness, the citadel isn't really a major part of the game in ME2. You only go there to deal with a couple specific things and then it's back to the cool bits of the galaxy, so the citadel being small didn't bother me that much.
Omega I thought was really well done and big enough to be immersive.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
As someone who is making an RPG for XBox Live Indie Games, this thread interests me to no end.
What I'm currently planning to include:
Fast turn-based DQ-style battles
Full regen of HP at end of battle. Partial restoration of MP based on performance (high combos + quick wins = more MP restored)
Multi-character unity skills
Frequent LVing up
Easy to understand upgrade system (with each LV, you are given a choice between two options that vary depending on the character & LV)
Simple equipment system
World map
Mostly linear
Random encounters, but after defeating X encounters in a single area, you gain a reputation and you can automatically scare enemies away
RD, I would buy your game based on your inclusion list alone. Even if the graphics looked like they were drawn by a 3 year old with a crayon who didn't know how to stay inside the lines. (Yoshi's Island SNES and DS were both fun games, fwiw).
More games need multi-character unity type skills. Combo abilities is something more games need to take advantage of, and I don't just mean timing or commanding your dudes to make up their own combos, like one guy casts a paralysis spell, and someone else uses a skill that does more damage to enemies who are paralyzed. The "chaser" abilities in a game like Etrian Odyssey come close, but I'm talking more like Chrono Trigger/Cross. Something that spruces up the combat beyond just mash the attack button as your character's turn come up, or press down then mash the X button to cast your magic spell.
Probably not much of an issue, but why not just ask the player if he wants to fight against a random encounter or run before a switching to the combat screen occurs (and call him silly names when he runs)?
If there was one thing I enjoyed about Cross Edge, it was the random battle system. Running across the world map there was an icon that would gradually go from blue to red - when it reached deep red, you were forced into a battle. This kind of gave you a sense of knowing when to expect a fight, so you could prepare ahead of time.
However, you could also press the R1 button at any time to initiate a random battle. This was a great way for people who wanted to grind out to meet certain goals, grind out XP or farm loot.
I like RD's idea of after a certain amount of battles, enemies avoid you out of fear; but I'd also like to be able to trigger battles whenever I want to by pressing a button. There should also be "forced" battles in a dungeon-type area that occur if you happen to fall into a trap or an ambush.
-- Full regen after battle and/or removal of "potion" type items. This allows the developer to design every fight as a challenge without worrying about how much HP/MP the player has or if they have enough potions. This is all well and good but it requires a well tuned difficulty curve and it makes certain pacing mechanics impossible. For instance... some dumb grunts at the gates to the dungeon but much more powerful ones deep down inside. Devastating spells that require a whole lot of MP, etc. This is entirely dependent on the game.
I love games that do this, because every battle is challenging and I can pull out all of the stops without worrying about needing the MP later.
-- Linear dungeons. How many turn based RPGs have great dungeon design? I think of things like Lufia 2 or SMRPG and other games with action RPG elements. I don't think of Final Fantasy games. . . especially the random battle ones where I'd end up going the wrong way or doing something wrong and being irritated at the return trip. Straight-line dungeons won't bother me in FF13, but they would in many action RPGs. Again, it depends on the game.
How about, instead of annoying long hallways with tons of random battles that lead to dead ends, exploration is always rewarded? And not with crappy amounts of money or a potion to add to your 500 others, but real stuff. Dungeons are usually just designed poorly, and it's not because they lack linearity.
-- Loot. DA's loot system is AWFUL! There's way too much useless bullshit. Less is definitely better here. ME2 has the right idea for weapons but not so much armor. Half my squad is armored and the other half is barely wearing anything! I also appreciate Persona 4's (and many other games) system of selling random loot drops to some sort of blacksmith type character to make you stuff. It solves the dumb question of why a giant rat had a magic sword on him and makes it so you aren't cluttering your inventory with tons of loot and wondering what you have to drop.
I agree and disagree - I appreciate when I don't need to throw away 40 bent copper swords for every 1 nice one I get, but when I only have 2-3 weapons to use throughout the game I get tired of it. I like obtaining new loot, I just hate separating the wheat from the chaff.
Allow me to voice my disdain for the "full regen after battles" crutch that is going into games lately. I've yet to play a game that carried this feature which also had the "OH MY GOD I HAD TO PULL OUT ALL THE STOPS IN THAT FIGHT" feeling to justify it.
All it does is lower the value of items, equipment preparation and careful strategy. If you know that your health and mana will be restored to full, all status effects cured and everyone that was killed will be revived at the end of a fight, then that fight turns into a big wank-fest where you're free to blow your load free of any possible reprocussions.
Allow me to voice my disdain for the "full regen after battles" crutch that is going into games lately. I've yet to play a game that carried this feature which also had the "OH MY GOD I HAD TO PULL OUT ALL THE STOPS IN THAT FIGHT" feeling to justify it.
All it does is lower the value of items, equipment preparation and careful strategy. If you know that your health and mana will be restored to full, all status effects cured and everyone that was killed will be revived at the end of a fight, then that fight turns into a big wank-fest where you're free to blow your load free of any possible reprocussions.
Dragon Age had several times when I felt that I had to pull out all the stops to win battles.
-- Small towns and being dropped right on the mission. I like it... but it has its downsides. Many of the locations you visit in ME2 are supposed to be HUGE, but they end up feeling tiny.
I was afraid this would happen. The one thing I really do not like about Bioware's new approach to RPG design* is how they strip every location in their games to it's bare bones and that's it. I was uncomfortably aware of this in both ME and DA - small populated areas that host the essentials (shops, quest givers, story NPCs), and dungeons with absolutely linear design. Citadel station was still quite good, because it was such a cool place, although I wish you could have left the ambassador district to explore the city beneath (and in ME2 it's supposedly even less open). Denerim, the capitol in DA, was just disappointing through and through. If that's what streamlining RPGs amounts to, no thanks.
*judgement reserved for ME2, as my copy hasn't arrived yet
At least Denerim implied that there's more to the city than you visit. You just don't have any reason to visit, where regular folks live.
Rest of the places felt more like 1 cow villages, where npc:s seen were only people actually living there (i.e. really few.)
Actually I felt same with Mass effect 1. Citadel felt big enough with hints of vast places elsewhere and non-citadel places felt mostly empty.
My ideal rpg setting would be Huge city. Fantasy/modern/scifi it doesn't matter. It should have thousands of npc:s just wandering around. Enough people to rival dead risings zombie hordes and to make it feel a real city.
I play RPGs because I like RPG gameplay. More battles, more leveling up, more areas to enter, that's what's fun!
To me, without a compelling plot (or at least a compelling setting), the rest of what most RPG's have to offer really isn't that compelling.
Playing Inventory Tetris or Leveling Up Excel or Pointless Padding Random Battle No. 23,745 are the annoyances that interrupt the story and setting I'm experiencing and hopefully enjoying. A game that touts how they've added double-digit hours of that in order to make those annoyances last even longer isn't a game I'm going to get excited about playing.
It's good that there are games designed for people who feel the exact opposite way, and if those are the games that you enjoy I'm not surprised you find the stories those games have to pretend to have are mediocre at best.
I think it's another example of how "RPG" is so vague a genre label as to be pretty meaningless. I grew up with pen and paper RPGs (yes, I'm that old) and have always thought of the genre as a form of interactive or collaborative storytelling. Folks who I'm assuming grew up with console RPGs obviously have a much different take on the genre.
You know what I would love to see again? Enemies running from you when you clearly outclass them. Automatically winning fights when you severely outclass them.
This was pulled off in 1994, why have we never seen this again?
I play RPGs because I like RPG gameplay. More battles, more leveling up, more areas to enter, that's what's fun!
Story and plot are the only thing that seperates an RPG from the rest of the genres out there, and this in itself is becoming murky at best due to all the genre-blending going on lately.
I don't mind a little chocolate in my peanut butter, but you absolutely have to have the peanut butter center in order to make a Reese's Cup. If you add so much more chocolate you only have room for a little peanut butter, or remove the peanut butter entirely, then you don't have a Reese's Cup anymore. Ya dig?
You know what I would love to see again? Enemies running from you when you clearly outclass them. Automatically winning fights when you severely outclass them.
This was pulled off in 1994, why have we never seen this again?
Because it's only useful if you've already made a horrible design decision.
I know game designers are obsessed with "streamlining" everything to make it smoother, funner, more easy to grasp, more accessible etc but just like Harvey Smith explains, sinple isn't always the best solution. Both Deus Ex 1 and 2 had identical swimming upgrades but with only one difference. Deus Ex 1 had 2 of them, while Deus Ex 2 had only one "streamlined" version. That proved to be bad because it took away from the immersion. The complex skill system adds to the fun!
Another example is the regenerating HP. Game designer gurus will all write long dissertations how regenerating HP is more efficient than dying and reloading, but it takes away from immersion again. Not every game is like Mario, some should be complex on purpose.
Renegen on
---Yeah
0
Options
WearingglassesOf the friendly neighborhood varietyRegistered Userregular
You know what I would love to see again? Enemies running from you when you clearly outclass them. Automatically winning fights when you severely outclass them.
This was pulled off in 1994, why have we never seen this again?
Suikoden I and II had something similar to this. Instead of the command 'Run Away', you get the command 'Let Go'. Automatic win when you outlevel the enemies.
They also had the command 'Bribe', which lets you run away from powerful enemies at the cost of money, which I found interesting, but never used it that much.
Full healing after battles is good because all you really accomplish by not including it is forcing the player to carry around a bunch of consumables. Is a game better if I don't heal and have to carry around 50+ hi-potions, or if I do heal and I don't have to worry about that?
There are some games where survival or infiltration oriented themes make managing inventory part of the challenge; if you have to ration your medpacs or ammo or whatever by design, that's one thing. If there's effectively no limit on a resource, there's no reason to force the player to gather it; you can just assume they have it and get on with the game.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
For example, I debated picking up a copy of Persona 3:FES for cheap until I read the back cover where, in giant letters, they tout how the main game takes 70 hours and the bonus content adds another 30 hours.
No, thanks.
A bit off-topic, but time actually passes in Persona 3. It takes place over almost a year, so it makes sense for the game to take a long time. The pacing is also pretty good in my opinion.
This is not to say I don't agree with you that a lot of RPGs could definitely do with some shortening, but I think Persona 3 is one of those rare cases where the story (and the amount of content) justify the length. If you can handle an anime setting and jRPG conventions, I highly recommend it.
Oh, and you don't need to bother with the bonus content.
Posts
This is mainly problem with jrpgs, but some western rpgs, like mass effect is guilty of this as well.
I've found it funny that when I was watching my brother play WoW:WotLK the other day, he was in Northrend still fighting Murlocks in the 70s level range.
Of course the thread will end. The will be an inevitable escalation of hostility between silly geese of different flocks and then a cardboard goose will swoop in, make a snarky remark about the collective dumbness of the thread, and then the thread will get locked. It's inevitable. The only unknown is when, not if.
Never played WoW. I'm looking at the Diablos.
All the upgrades in those allow you to do is go on clicking to kill things with the same number of clicks instead of a greater number.
The balance they pride themselves on actively prevents the player from ever getting ahead of the curve. It's disempowering, and bad design.
Quite so. I have no issue with, one the one-hand, having an RPG as streamlined as Mass Effect 2 (shush, I'm going on what people have said because I don't get my copy for another 10 hours), while we also have fantastic games like Fallout 3 where you can dick around in a huge world and hit the level cap without batting an eyelid at the main storyline. There's room for both in the market.
-- Full regen after battle and/or removal of "potion" type items. This allows the developer to design every fight as a challenge without worrying about how much HP/MP the player has or if they have enough potions. This is all well and good but it requires a well tuned difficulty curve and it makes certain pacing mechanics impossible. For instance... some dumb grunts at the gates to the dungeon but much more powerful ones deep down inside. Devastating spells that require a whole lot of MP, etc. This is entirely dependent on the game.
-- Linear dungeons. How many turn based RPGs have great dungeon design? I think of things like Lufia 2 or SMRPG and other games with action RPG elements. I don't think of Final Fantasy games. . . especially the random battle ones where I'd end up going the wrong way or doing something wrong and being irritated at the return trip. Straight-line dungeons won't bother me in FF13, but they would in many action RPGs. Again, it depends on the game.
-- Loot. DA's loot system is AWFUL! There's way too much useless bullshit. Less is definitely better here. ME2 has the right idea for weapons but not so much armor. Half my squad is armored and the other half is barely wearing anything! I also appreciate Persona 4's (and many other games) system of selling random loot drops to some sort of blacksmith type character to make you stuff. It solves the dumb question of why a giant rat had a magic sword on him and makes it so you aren't cluttering your inventory with tons of loot and wondering what you have to drop.
-- Small towns and being dropped right on the mission. I like it... but it has its downsides. Many of the locations you visit in ME2 are supposed to be HUGE, but they end up feeling tiny. If a game does opt for large cities, it better have guards/information booths of some kind with very well thought out directions for everything the player could possibly be looking for.
-- If it's a game with stats like 'strength', 'dex', etc, then in the interest of streamlining things you do not need 29 different stats. Dex is fine, we don't need agi or whatever other ambiguous crap you can think up. There needs to be clear descriptions of all of them in a very obvious spot too. Yeah, I'm looking at you LUCK stat!
It's funny you should choose those 2 games as your examples, because the good people at Black Isle were some of the only ones who were dedicated to giving you alternate playstyles including, yes, running away, whereas Oblivion had very little options other than hitting things with weapons (or arrows) and magic.
Oh dear god yes.
Even though I currently have more time than money (huzzah economic downturn!), advertising how incredibly long it takes to play an RPG is one way to get me not to buy it.
For example, I debated picking up a copy of Persona 3:FES for cheap until I read the back cover where, in giant letters, they tout how the main game takes 70 hours and the bonus content adds another 30 hours.
No, thanks.
It's not like the game forces you to play it in one sitting
Because I play RPG games primarily for the story.
When I see an RPG tout how long it takes to play, that screams "We've padded out 15-20 hours worth of story with another 50+ hours of random battles and grinding stupid shit".
They're mediocre at best.
I play RPGs because I like RPG gameplay. More battles, more leveling up, more areas to enter, that's what's fun!
ME2 loot and armor is an embarrassment, a stain on the otherwise game. It doesn't even have loot. You receive updates at precise times, and everyone gets the exact same things. ME1 had a better loot system, and thats saying something, since it's loot was ABYSMAL.
It has loot in the same way Doom had loot.
At least with more hours you get more content, and that means more for your $. I dont see what the down side is.
Which is why Dragon Age is such an amazing game, and why I'm ultimately against 'streamlining'
you are a silly goose
A complicated loot system is fine if it actually adds an interesting gameplay dimension. ME1's didn't, it just handed the player a list of 37 shotguns and said "now, laboriously throw them all in the trash one by one!"
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I was afraid this would happen. The one thing I really do not like about Bioware's new approach to RPG design* is how they strip every location in their games to it's bare bones and that's it. I was uncomfortably aware of this in both ME and DA - small populated areas that host the essentials (shops, quest givers, story NPCs), and dungeons with absolutely linear design. Citadel station was still quite good, because it was such a cool place, although I wish you could have left the ambassador district to explore the city beneath (and in ME2 it's supposedly even less open). Denerim, the capitol in DA, was just disappointing through and through. If that's what streamlining RPGs amounts to, no thanks.
*judgement reserved for ME2, as my copy hasn't arrived yet
Persona 3-4 is structured to fit its very lengthy game time (took me a few months to finish myself). By comparison 'The Answer', the bonus afterword to P3, is less than half the length but mostly pointless.
edit: whoops, thread went fast that was replying a few posts up.
I was fine with the citadel in ME1, but man is it disappointing in ME2.
very minor spoiler:
well, in fairness, the citadel isn't really a major part of the game in ME2. You only go there to deal with a couple specific things and then it's back to the cool bits of the galaxy, so the citadel being small didn't bother me that much.
Omega I thought was really well done and big enough to be immersive.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
What I'm currently planning to include:
Fast turn-based DQ-style battles
Full regen of HP at end of battle. Partial restoration of MP based on performance (high combos + quick wins = more MP restored)
Multi-character unity skills
Frequent LVing up
Easy to understand upgrade system (with each LV, you are given a choice between two options that vary depending on the character & LV)
Simple equipment system
World map
Mostly linear
Random encounters, but after defeating X encounters in a single area, you gain a reputation and you can automatically scare enemies away
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
More games need multi-character unity type skills. Combo abilities is something more games need to take advantage of, and I don't just mean timing or commanding your dudes to make up their own combos, like one guy casts a paralysis spell, and someone else uses a skill that does more damage to enemies who are paralyzed. The "chaser" abilities in a game like Etrian Odyssey come close, but I'm talking more like Chrono Trigger/Cross. Something that spruces up the combat beyond just mash the attack button as your character's turn come up, or press down then mash the X button to cast your magic spell.
Steam: TheArcadeBear
I take it there's a new hub in ME2 then? Well, hopefully I get to check out the game soon enough to see it myself.
@RainbowDespair
Probably not much of an issue, but why not just ask the player if he wants to fight against a random encounter or run before a switching to the combat screen occurs (and call him silly names when he runs)?
However, you could also press the R1 button at any time to initiate a random battle. This was a great way for people who wanted to grind out to meet certain goals, grind out XP or farm loot.
I like RD's idea of after a certain amount of battles, enemies avoid you out of fear; but I'd also like to be able to trigger battles whenever I want to by pressing a button. There should also be "forced" battles in a dungeon-type area that occur if you happen to fall into a trap or an ambush.
I love games that do this, because every battle is challenging and I can pull out all of the stops without worrying about needing the MP later.
How about, instead of annoying long hallways with tons of random battles that lead to dead ends, exploration is always rewarded? And not with crappy amounts of money or a potion to add to your 500 others, but real stuff. Dungeons are usually just designed poorly, and it's not because they lack linearity.
I agree and disagree - I appreciate when I don't need to throw away 40 bent copper swords for every 1 nice one I get, but when I only have 2-3 weapons to use throughout the game I get tired of it. I like obtaining new loot, I just hate separating the wheat from the chaff.
All it does is lower the value of items, equipment preparation and careful strategy. If you know that your health and mana will be restored to full, all status effects cured and everyone that was killed will be revived at the end of a fight, then that fight turns into a big wank-fest where you're free to blow your load free of any possible reprocussions.
Dragon Age had several times when I felt that I had to pull out all the stops to win battles.
At least Denerim implied that there's more to the city than you visit. You just don't have any reason to visit, where regular folks live.
Rest of the places felt more like 1 cow villages, where npc:s seen were only people actually living there (i.e. really few.)
Actually I felt same with Mass effect 1. Citadel felt big enough with hints of vast places elsewhere and non-citadel places felt mostly empty.
My ideal rpg setting would be Huge city. Fantasy/modern/scifi it doesn't matter. It should have thousands of npc:s just wandering around. Enough people to rival dead risings zombie hordes and to make it feel a real city.
To me, without a compelling plot (or at least a compelling setting), the rest of what most RPG's have to offer really isn't that compelling.
Playing Inventory Tetris or Leveling Up Excel or Pointless Padding Random Battle No. 23,745 are the annoyances that interrupt the story and setting I'm experiencing and hopefully enjoying. A game that touts how they've added double-digit hours of that in order to make those annoyances last even longer isn't a game I'm going to get excited about playing.
It's good that there are games designed for people who feel the exact opposite way, and if those are the games that you enjoy I'm not surprised you find the stories those games have to pretend to have are mediocre at best.
I think it's another example of how "RPG" is so vague a genre label as to be pretty meaningless. I grew up with pen and paper RPGs (yes, I'm that old) and have always thought of the genre as a form of interactive or collaborative storytelling. Folks who I'm assuming grew up with console RPGs obviously have a much different take on the genre.
This was pulled off in 1994, why have we never seen this again?
Steam: TheArcadeBear
Story and plot are the only thing that seperates an RPG from the rest of the genres out there, and this in itself is becoming murky at best due to all the genre-blending going on lately.
I don't mind a little chocolate in my peanut butter, but you absolutely have to have the peanut butter center in order to make a Reese's Cup. If you add so much more chocolate you only have room for a little peanut butter, or remove the peanut butter entirely, then you don't have a Reese's Cup anymore. Ya dig?
Because it's only useful if you've already made a horrible design decision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGIdYl2oN74
I know game designers are obsessed with "streamlining" everything to make it smoother, funner, more easy to grasp, more accessible etc but just like Harvey Smith explains, sinple isn't always the best solution. Both Deus Ex 1 and 2 had identical swimming upgrades but with only one difference. Deus Ex 1 had 2 of them, while Deus Ex 2 had only one "streamlined" version. That proved to be bad because it took away from the immersion. The complex skill system adds to the fun!
Another example is the regenerating HP. Game designer gurus will all write long dissertations how regenerating HP is more efficient than dying and reloading, but it takes away from immersion again. Not every game is like Mario, some should be complex on purpose.
Suikoden I and II had something similar to this. Instead of the command 'Run Away', you get the command 'Let Go'. Automatic win when you outlevel the enemies.
They also had the command 'Bribe', which lets you run away from powerful enemies at the cost of money, which I found interesting, but never used it that much.
There are some games where survival or infiltration oriented themes make managing inventory part of the challenge; if you have to ration your medpacs or ammo or whatever by design, that's one thing. If there's effectively no limit on a resource, there's no reason to force the player to gather it; you can just assume they have it and get on with the game.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget