Are RPG's too easy?

[CritialGaming]

I just read an article about the recent remake of Dragon Quest 7 on the 3DS, in which the author was annoyed at how long it takes to save the game. Apparently you must deal with eight dialog boxes to complete your saving, which may only take 30 seconds, but adds up when you consider how many times you would save in a 40+ hours RPG. That number is probably higher on a mobile RPG due to the excessive start and stop players experience on the go.

It got me thinking though. Sure it would suck to have to backtrack through any amount of time because you died in the game. But in further reflection, I honestly can't think of the last time I was defeated in an RPG game.

RPG's and JRPG's in particular always lend themselves to grinding and with patience you can literally make the game trivial. It's a feature that I love about them and readily take advantage of. Outside of super bosses designed to be hard for ultimate players, though even these often have exploits, has there really ever been a challenging RPG?

For the sake of argument, let's keep the Dark Souls series out of the discussion and focus on more traditional RPG's. Can any of you think of a single RPG that actually presented a challenging threat?

Hell even Dark Souls players have to artifically limit themselves in soul level 1 runs to keep the challenge up.

Maybe the RPG genre in general is more about the story and the adventure, than providing any actual challenge. As a result, why do these games still limit themselves to having save points? Why don't more of them simply autosave after everything? This would surely be helpful to RPG's on handheld devices as any number of things could come up that would force the player to stop playing the game. This would prevent them from possibly having to replay large sections of the game because of battery issues, or real world distractions.

I'm curious to what you guys think? Have you played any RPG's that were truly difficult? Or is the casual difficulty simply a part of the genre?

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

The toughest I've played have been the Disgaea games. The easiest, by comparison, would be Ni no Kuni. Or the Pokemon games.

 

[Saelune]

Well, there is Fire Emblem. Especially if you dont want anyone to die. (Without using casual mode).

And while you say to exclude Dark Souls, adding challenge doesnt mean there isnt challenge. My first play through of Dark Souls 1 was way harder than my 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. But so was Pokemon.

 

[Pseudonym]

No, it's an RPG. I'm there for the RP, not to get slowed down by the shitty gameplay. Exceptions are possible.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

I just read an article about the recent remake of Dragon Quest 7 on the 3DS, in which the author was annoyed at how long it takes to save the game. Apparently you must deal with eight dialog boxes to complete your saving, which may only take 30 seconds, but adds up when you consider how many times you would save in a 40+ hours RPG. That number is probably higher on a mobile RPG due to the excessive start and stop players experience on the go.

It got me thinking though. Sure it would suck to have to backtrack through any amount of time because you died in the game. But in further reflection, I honestly can't think of the last time I was defeated in an RPG game.

RPG's and JRPG's in particular always lend themselves to grinding and with patience you can literally make the game trivial. It's a feature that I love about them and readily take advantage of. Outside of super bosses designed to be hard for ultimate players, though even these often have exploits, has there really ever been a challenging RPG?

For the sake of argument, let's keep the Dark Souls series out of the discussion and focus on more traditional RPG's. Can any of you think of a single RPG that actually presented a challenging threat?

Hell even Dark Souls players have to artifically limit themselves in soul level 1 runs to keep the challenge up.

Maybe the RPG genre in general is more about the story and the adventure, than providing any actual challenge. As a result, why do these games still limit themselves to having save points? Why don't more of them simply autosave after everything? This would surely be helpful to RPG's on handheld devices as any number of things could come up that would force the player to stop playing the game. This would prevent them from possibly having to replay large sections of the game because of battery issues, or real world distractions.

I'm curious to what you guys think? Have you played any RPG's that were truly difficult? Or is the casual difficulty simply a part of the genre?

Jagged Alliance/Jagged Alliance 2
AD&D Pools of Darkness
Wizardry: Bane of the Cosmic Force and Crusaders of the Dark Savant.

Yea, can't take the "RPG's are easy as a genre" stance after those.]

If you're looking to get defeated in an RPG, just make the wrong turn in the opening area of Wizardry 7 and witness yourself getting curbstomped by a Ratkin encounter (who aren't even boss enemies).

 

[CritialGaming]

The toughest I've played have been the Disgaea games. The easiest, by comparison, would be Ni no Kuni. Or the Pokemon games.

Well, there is Fire Emblem. Especially if you dont want anyone to die. (Without using casual mode).

And while you say to exclude Dark Souls, adding challenge doesnt mean there isnt challenge. My first play through of Dark Souls 1 was way harder than my 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. But so was Pokemon.

Both of you guys mention strategy RPG's. I must admit I've never played those games, mostly because I never liked the feel of them. I tried the latest Fire Emblem and I hated it, because battles are long and feel more drawn out than they need to be. Plus the initial challenge and difficulty of them feels cheap by introducing extra groups of bad guys you couldn't possibly prepare for on your first attempts at the battle. It is terrible design, and all the story elements just fall flat to me.

 

[Saelune]

The toughest I've played have been the Disgaea games. The easiest, by comparison, would be Ni no Kuni. Or the Pokemon games.

Well, there is Fire Emblem. Especially if you dont want anyone to die. (Without using casual mode).

And while you say to exclude Dark Souls, adding challenge doesnt mean there isnt challenge. My first play through of Dark Souls 1 was way harder than my 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. But so was Pokemon.

Both of you guys mention strategy RPG's. I must admit I've never played those games, mostly because I never liked the feel of them. I tried the latest Fire Emblem and I hated it, because battles are long and feel more drawn out than they need to be. Plus the initial challenge and difficulty of them feels cheap by introducing extra groups of bad guys you couldn't possibly prepare for on your first attempts at the battle. It is terrible design, and all the story elements just fall flat to me.

Well, what do you want from a "difficult traditional" RPG? Cause thats...going to just be a tactical strategy game. Or a grindfest.

 

[CritialGaming]

Well, what do you want from a "difficult traditional" RPG? Cause thats...going to just be a tactical strategy game. Or a grindfest.

No I'm not saying anything really negative about them. I just never considered them because I personally don't like the style.

I mean I love the level grind in games. I actively work to eliminate the challenge in your Final Fantasy-likes. I just find it interesting that they haven't found other ways to incorporate a level-negating challenge in RPG's yet.

Look at a game like World of Warcraft for example. You can be geared out the ass, and still die to a boss because you failed at the mechanics of the boss itself. It isn't just a numbers game, it's almost like a puzzle. The boss is the puzzle and you must do these things, at these moments, in order to solve that puzzle.

Yet I can't think of a single player RPG to ever have those elements to them. You overlevel and the boss is no problem. Simple. Easy. Right?

 

[sageoftruth]

I've certainly heard of some, like Wizardry. If you're mind isn't sharp and you make a bad judgment, you're screwed, and even then I'm not sure if it's balanced enough to be fair. Then there's the navigation. It's a first-person dungeon crawler without a map or a minimap, meaning you have to draw every map yourself in order to have any idea where you're going. Late in the game, there are doors that ask you questions. If you answer correctly, the exit becomes available, but if you guess wrong, it disappears. The only way to find out if you guessed right is by finding the exit. Otherwise, look forward to wandering through a dungeon after an exit that no longer exists.

Sounded way too hardcore for me to ever want to play it.

 

[Saelune]

Well, what do you want from a "difficult traditional" RPG? Cause thats...going to just be a tactical strategy game. Or a grindfest.

No I'm not saying anything really negative about them. I just never considered them because I personally don't like the style.

I mean I love the level grind in games. I actively work to eliminate the challenge in your Final Fantasy-likes. I just find it interesting that they haven't found other ways to incorporate a level-negating challenge in RPG's yet.

Look at a game like World of Warcraft for example. You can be geared out the ass, and still die to a boss because you failed at the mechanics of the boss itself. It isn't just a numbers game, it's almost like a puzzle. The boss is the puzzle and you must do these things, at these moments, in order to solve that puzzle.

Yet I can't think of a single player RPG to ever have those elements to them. You overlevel and the boss is no problem. Simple. Easy. Right?

Maybe cause when you do, its easy. Pokemon is more than just level, since there is type advantage/disadvantage. I usually beat the Elite Four 10-20 levels lower than most of them, cause I just rely on type advantage. Ofcourse, I can try to go against it, or find alternate ways to get advantage (like when I used a Miltank with scrappy to defeat the ghost gym in SoulSilver) but Pokemon is a far deeper RPG than given credit for. Its easy cause the game is set up that way, but competitive is so...competitive because its so deep. The AI just doesnt take advantage of it the way real people can/do.

 

[MysticSlayer]

I found Dragon Age: Origins to be really challenging even on Easy. Then again, my patience for getting killed in an RPG is significantly lower than in an action game, so maybe it wasn't so hard as trying my patience. Actually, I'm pretty sure I did die far fewer times than what it felt like. The balance in that game was also shit, and since I did the Deep Roads early...

Personally, I don't mind RPGs being easier than other genres. In other genres, the enjoyment is often in overcoming difficult gameplay scenarios from combat to puzzles to navigation. In an RPG, the enjoyment is in exploring the world and following the story. It also doesn't help that most RPGs have horrible gameplay compared to other genres, are terribly bloated with excess fluff, and could serve as an entry level class on repetition and monotony. Why would I want to endure any more than is necessary for a single run?

That said, some games like Mass Effect 2 & 3, Dragon Age II, and most of the Tales games are good enough that I actually enjoyed the more challenging sections. It helps that none of them were overloaded with difficulty to the point of damaging the enjoyment of the world and story.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

RPGs are like any other game genre. Some games exist to immerse you in a world and do that at the expense of any sort of serious challenge. In short, if you're playing a Bethesda or modern BioWare RPG for the crippling difficulty, you're more than likely doing it wrong. I'd have to concur with @MysticSlayer, however, and say that Dragon Age: Origins felt like a return to early BioWare form, where sticking to AD&D's rules as closely as possible created an experience that wildly varies between being picturesque and horribly punishing.

It was all down to tactics and party member placement. Fail on both counts, and chances were you'd set yourself up for failure.

In my experience, though, I've found that the narrative pull is so strong that any sort of difficulty in JRPGs is usually a temporary illusion. Shit, Lavos beat the crap out of me five times in Chrono Trigger, back on the SNES, but only because I hadn't worked out a decent attack pattern yet.

That works for all games, honestly. The SoulsBorne games are considered to be punishingly hard - but they're not if you can pay attention and can resist the urge to spam attacks. Doom 2016's bosses can beat the crap out of you, at least until you memorize their attack patterns. Deus Ex: Mankind Divided can be fairly punishing if you've hobbled yourself by poorly enabling Augmentations, or by approaching a run in a way that's not in keeping with your character's specs. Do your job, however, and plan things out correctly, and your approach of choice becomes perfectly viable.

Shit, consider pen-and-paper roleplay campaigns. I'm a story-oriented DM and tend to shore up players who are having trouble surviving on the basic level, whereas another DM can choose to beat his friends' characters against the anvil of defeat, at the promise of exceptional rewards or a faster XP point progression.

Difficulty is like any other metric. It can be observed and altered.

 

[CritialGaming]

I've actually grown tired of multiple difficulty levels in games. It used to be understandable back in the 8-16 bit days, but now it just seems lazy. Often the differences boil down to bullet sponging enemies, player ammo limits, player health penalties, etc. which are essentially just cfg toggle switches. For these types of games there needs to be more dynamic AI.

For RPGs the focus is more to do with the journey itself rather than any individual challenge along the way. Besides, real challenges should come from within the game's design. Imagine a quest that's simply retrieving a rare item from a treacherous mountain. It may not be required, but it would provide a natural progression of difficulty within the same design that presented much easier challenges earlier on.

As for saving, it's tough to argue against the Souls formula, because it automatically scribes every significant thing you do, right down to adding an item to your consumable slot. It also works equally well whether on console or PC. It's a superfluous system that keeps you invested in your actions, whereas even the time-tested and trusty quick save mechanic can make a play session feel more like a disjointed experiment by contrast. It might not be optimal for other game types like more story-focused RPGs, but it does work well within that formula.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

The Megami Tensei series is notoriously difficult, even if you grind. In the later games, especially, bad party composition or a single reckless decision will get you instantly killed. A lot of people cite Nocturne as being really difficult, though I "only" died about 7 times in my first run through (although hard mode is much, much harder), but SMT 1 and 2 can be pretty awful and SMT IV can be pretty tough in places.

The rest of the series is a cakewalk but Final Fantasy 2 is pretty hard, though it can be made easier by battering the fuck out of your own party because of the funny levelling system, I guess. I hear the PSP and GBA versions soften the difficulty somewhat though?

Others have already mentioned Wizardry which was a huge influence on JRPG combat systems. Definitely not easy. Wizardry IV is by far the hardest game I have ever played, including bullet hells, intentionally aggravating platfrom hell romhacks and I Wanna Be The Guy type shit.

Etrian Odyseey is kinda like the Japanese moe version of Wizardry and is also quite tough, though it can be circumvented with grinding IIRC (been a while since I've played them).

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Not sure. The biggest problems I have with RPGs is they're boring as shit and always start about as fast paced as a dead turtle. And a really lazy dead turtle at that.

Legend of Grimrock, Divinity Original Sin, Dragon Age: Ordo Malleus, Wasteland 2...just boring. Boring as Great Aunt Nanner's story about the Winston Country Bridge refurbishing project that found a family a squirrels in a rafters.

So easy? I guess. Not like I ever get excited to death by them.

 

[Kerg3927]

Dragon Age II gets a lot of criticism, and it certainly has its flaws, but I thought it had the most challenging (and some of the most fun) boss fights in the entire Bioware game series (on Nightmare difficulty anyway). For some bosses, after wiping a bunch of times, I had to actually spend time studying the fights, developing tactics, optimizing gear, before wiping some more to get the tactics down and finally beating them. The toughest of these were in the DLC. Baron Arlange and Corypheus in DA2 were Dark Souls-worthy, every bit as hard as say Ornstein and Smough, IMO.

DAO was somewhat challenging in the early going, until you got the tactics system down and got a good healer and tank developed. But then it became faceroll easy in the second half of the game, even on Nightmare. It's a great game, but it wasn't balanced very well.

 

[Bad Jim]

Hell even Dark Souls players have to artificially limit themselves in soul level 1 runs to keep the challenge up.

This is because there are no difficulty settings, and if you only have one difficulty you have to make it reasonable for a new player. Even when a game offers super-high difficulty settings, some players will feel the need to artificially limit themselves to make it even harder. Nethack is by no means easy to beat, but there are various 'conducts', optional challenges to make it even harder.

Actually, yes, Nethack and other Rogulikes. They are hard. Try them, you might like them. Nethack is free, so you've got no excuse. ARPGs like Diablo 2 (not 3) also offer some semblance of challenge, and have mods that make them harder.

 

[FalloutJack]

Nobody ever called an Atlus RPG easy, so I'm thinking NO on this.

 

[CritialGaming]

Hell even Dark Souls players have to artificially limit themselves in soul level 1 runs to keep the challenge up.

This is because there are no difficulty settings, and if you only have one difficulty you have to make it reasonable for a new player. Even when a game offers super-high difficulty settings, some players will feel the need to artificially limit themselves to make it even harder. Nethack is by no means easy to beat, but there are various 'conducts', optional challenges to make it even harder.

Actually, yes, Nethack and other Rogulikes. They are hard. Try them, you might like them. Nethack is free, so you've got no excuse. ARPGs like Diablo 2 (not 3) also offer some semblance of challenge, and have mods that make them harder.

I was under the impression that Dark Souls didn't give a fuck about you or your new player bullshit. This is the game, get gud or get out? Though I suppose if you get too good, you gotta make it harder or something like that. I wonder though....Are people looking to actually have more of a challenge in DS because they want it? Or because they love the game so much that they simply want a fresh way of playing the game to get more life out of something they really like? \

And on that note? What makes people enjoy the hardest challenge possible. Other people have pointed out that difficulty in gaming is usually artificial and really only is hard because of the math.

Easy: The math is in the players favor. Typically enemies have lower numbers than the player.

Normal: The math is fairly even with only small sections of numbers going either way. Both enemies and player are balanced between intake and output thus provide the player the advantage of skill to over come.

Hard: The math is heavily against the player. The player is forced to perform to near perfection in order to defeat foes.

What makes these forms of challenge feel pointless to me, is that nothing is added or taken away except math. I hate to keep going back to World of Warcraft, but one thing I've always liked it the difference in monster function between difficulties. Bosses on Heroic(hard) will do completely different things than they do on Normal. While the math is still there, the player is also given extra gameplay to try and overcome, thus making the challenges feel more valuable.

 

[Saelune]

Hell even Dark Souls players have to artificially limit themselves in soul level 1 runs to keep the challenge up.

This is because there are no difficulty settings, and if you only have one difficulty you have to make it reasonable for a new player. Even when a game offers super-high difficulty settings, some players will feel the need to artificially limit themselves to make it even harder. Nethack is by no means easy to beat, but there are various 'conducts', optional challenges to make it even harder.

Actually, yes, Nethack and other Rogulikes. They are hard. Try them, you might like them. Nethack is free, so you've got no excuse. ARPGs like Diablo 2 (not 3) also offer some semblance of challenge, and have mods that make them harder.

I was under the impression that Dark Souls didn't give a fuck about you or your new player bullshit. This is the game, get gud or get out? Though I suppose if you get too good, you gotta make it harder or something like that. I wonder though....Are people looking to actually have more of a challenge in DS because they want it? Or because they love the game so much that they simply want a fresh way of playing the game to get more life out of something they really like? \

And on that note? What makes people enjoy the hardest challenge possible. Other people have pointed out that difficulty in gaming is usually artificial and really only is hard because of the math.

Easy: The math is in the players favor. Typically enemies have lower numbers than the player.

Normal: The math is fairly even with only small sections of numbers going either way. Both enemies and player are balanced between intake and output thus provide the player the advantage of skill to over come.

Hard: The math is heavily against the player. The player is forced to perform to near perfection in order to defeat foes.

What makes these forms of challenge feel pointless to me, is that nothing is added or taken away except math. I hate to keep going back to World of Warcraft, but one thing I've always liked it the difference in monster function between difficulties. Bosses on Heroic(hard) will do completely different things than they do on Normal. While the math is still there, the player is also given extra gameplay to try and overcome, thus making the challenges feel more valuable.

There are different ways for a game to be challenging though too. The different Souls games are all hard for different reasons. I like Bloodborne the most because I find it doesnt burden you with the "difficulty" imposed on games like Demon's Souls, and Dark Souls 2, which add things like HP reduction. In Bloodborne I dont worry about running out of enemies, soul memory, or my life bar shrinking, so I feel more free and confident to face enemies and bosses, and I enjoyed the game more for it. Even Dark Souls 1 had humanity which made me more cautious than Id like. Id rather all the BS be removed and the game focus on making challenging bosses and enemies, but not make recovering from loss the challenge. That dying doesnt make you reload actually makes the Souls games technically way easier, similar to Pokemon. If you lose in Pokemon, you get sent to the Pokemon Center. Less money, but as long as you defeated something, you are stronger, even in defeat.

Really, as I write this, I come to the conclusion that "Game Over" is a terrible thing.