Don't you sometimes feel that RPG genre is stupid?
- Thread starter Liquidlizard
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ah Mass Effect... 15 hours of fantastic gameplay... 30 hours of boring crap.Alex_P said:
and Fallout 3... sure there's no grind, but the main story has a shit tastic ending, you fight the same 3 Raiders, 2 Super Mutants and 5 types of Wasteland Wildlife and wander the same copy pasted Sewers, Building Interiors and Bleak Wasteland for 30+ hours. Is that REALLY better than grind?
Well, honestly I think part of the fun of RPGs is to see your characters progress from humble beginnings into an uber-force, so I don't mind fairly slow beginnings as long as they are done well.
Truthfully I think right now gaming itself is stagnating, like anything it goes through cycles of creativity followed by long cycles of derivitive crud based on the last cycle of creativity. Notice for example how Yahtzee points out that almost every major game is a sequel? Well that is because we're nearing the tail end of producers squeezing every last bit out of the last round of fairly original properties. We'll see a cycle of some decent new stuff coming out in a year or three, and then they will spend 5-6 years squeezing it, towards the tail end of it we'll be getting sick again.
Grinding isn't bad, cut scenes aren't bad, but when some producer comes up, collects a handfull of developers and says "hey I have this money I want to invest, I want you to make me one of those fantasy RPGs that people buy, make sure it has grinding and cut scenes and stuff, here is a couple million. I expect the game out next year so I can at least double my money". The result is derivitive crud, even if a fairly good team of coders did it for a paycheck.
Action RPGs aren't exempt, when Diablo (and more importantly Diablo II) succeeded everyone with a few bucks to invest and some contacts in the game design industry decided to try and cash in on the general idea, and the result was a horrendous mess.
Arguably action games are even worse though. Generally speaking you only have a handfull of engines (some of which work together). Unreal (Unreal 3 is current I think), GRAW (I think Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter II is the current one), and Havok Physix. People buy those engines, tweak and reskin them, and then release the product as a new game.
Your typical FPS or 3PS isn't just similar to others, it's probably actually the same exact game with differant artwork and a few tweaks.
Now there ARE exceptions of course, but really we're in a stagnant cycle, and pretty much every genere is getting hammered equally. This ranges from bad RPGs, to bad Action RPGs, to bad action games, all the way accross the spectrum. There are more turds than diamonds despite all the hype, though in a few years I expect that to change for a little while at least.
Truthfully I think right now gaming itself is stagnating, like anything it goes through cycles of creativity followed by long cycles of derivitive crud based on the last cycle of creativity. Notice for example how Yahtzee points out that almost every major game is a sequel? Well that is because we're nearing the tail end of producers squeezing every last bit out of the last round of fairly original properties. We'll see a cycle of some decent new stuff coming out in a year or three, and then they will spend 5-6 years squeezing it, towards the tail end of it we'll be getting sick again.
Grinding isn't bad, cut scenes aren't bad, but when some producer comes up, collects a handfull of developers and says "hey I have this money I want to invest, I want you to make me one of those fantasy RPGs that people buy, make sure it has grinding and cut scenes and stuff, here is a couple million. I expect the game out next year so I can at least double my money". The result is derivitive crud, even if a fairly good team of coders did it for a paycheck.
Action RPGs aren't exempt, when Diablo (and more importantly Diablo II) succeeded everyone with a few bucks to invest and some contacts in the game design industry decided to try and cash in on the general idea, and the result was a horrendous mess.
Arguably action games are even worse though. Generally speaking you only have a handfull of engines (some of which work together). Unreal (Unreal 3 is current I think), GRAW (I think Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter II is the current one), and Havok Physix. People buy those engines, tweak and reskin them, and then release the product as a new game.
Your typical FPS or 3PS isn't just similar to others, it's probably actually the same exact game with differant artwork and a few tweaks.
Now there ARE exceptions of course, but really we're in a stagnant cycle, and pretty much every genere is getting hammered equally. This ranges from bad RPGs, to bad Action RPGs, to bad action games, all the way accross the spectrum. There are more turds than diamonds despite all the hype, though in a few years I expect that to change for a little while at least.
Depends.
You can boil a lot of games down to Grind > Scripted Event > Grind.
Example: GoW: Kill some Locust > Scripted Event > Kill some Locust
If you mean: "Do you think said system is lacking fun." Maybe, but that's not something inherant to "RPGs" but more "bad games" for me personally, in fact, even a mediocre RPG usually has more to entertain away from the beaten path most games force you down
You can boil a lot of games down to Grind > Scripted Event > Grind.
Example: GoW: Kill some Locust > Scripted Event > Kill some Locust
If you mean: "Do you think said system is lacking fun." Maybe, but that's not something inherant to "RPGs" but more "bad games" for me personally, in fact, even a mediocre RPG usually has more to entertain away from the beaten path most games force you down
I think one of the core problems of the RPG genre is that video-game RPGs still have a hard time figuring out how to be more than a rip-off of D&D. Most of the games that do rip off D&D feel stilted, because the rules they're using were never designed for a video game. Most of the games that try not to rip off D&D as much feel underdeveloped because they haven't really come up with a good replacement for it yet. Moreover, most of these games are still ripping off D&D's style and basic pattern of play (parties, encounters, levels, loot).
-- Alex
-- Alex
I had to spend six hours installing the damn thing, too.PedroSteckecilo said:
The game's installer didn't work because its DRM crapware didn't like my disk drive. I ended up having to extract all of the game files by hand. This took several tries because the documentation on Bioware's forums was actually rather vague on how you're actually supposed to lay them out on the hard drive.
But the game was still fun. Mindless, repetitive fun. (The best part is how your character actually whips out a gun when you say intimidating I'm-about-to-shoot you things. Made me very happy because RPGs have an annoying tendency to repeatedly slap you down for choosing aggressive dialogue.)
-- Alex
I agree that it's actually unfair to treat jRPGs ar especially stagnant, because really their early RPGs were with more content than western ones (which somehow seems strange, but apparently people then believed that due to technical limitations they should bring in just hack n'slashing aspect of table RPGs.). However in later tendencies western RPGs adopted the idea of "freedom" and "non-linearity" and attempted to realize it somehow, unlike their Japanese counterparts. Therefore, jRPGs probably should be regarded nowadays as completely concrete and specific genre.
I feel that the entire RPG genre is stupid. There's very little I find exciting about repetitive grinding, turn-based combat and oceans of stats I care very little about.
Mind you, Earthbound isn't bad.
Mind you, Earthbound isn't bad.
As a Golden Sun fan this post insults me deeply.FightThePower said:
I think grinding is the wrong word to describe all rpg's as, it's negative and it's a word that makes it sound repetitive, which mmorpg's are guilty of more often than solo rpg's, but if you're enjoying the gameplay, enjoying the battles and enjoying the experience and loot gained from battling it's not a grind and just becomes enjoyable levelling.
Oceans of stats I don't care for either and when people make perfect stat builds I feel it kind of detracts from the experience because then you need the patience of a saint and it really does become a grind.
Turn-based combat is one of my favourite forms of combat ever, the hybrid turn based combat types we've been getting a lot now imo don't work and make combat clumsy and messy. The joy of turn based is making strategic decisions and not rushing through the combat. It makes battles a lot tougher because it's possible to win real time battles quickly and sloppily but with turn based it's a lot more demanding and punishing because you're restricted.
I don't think that RPGs provide an optimal storytelling environment. Doling out story as a reward for grinding and completing uninteresting battles doesn't appeal to me. Story is something that should be built through every encounter and every conversation the player has.
You can only influence the story as much as the designers allow. This normally is done through branching paths, which limit the amount of control users have in creating their own stories.Flying Dagger said:
It sounds like you're describing more of an MMORPG than an RPG. While the genres are similar, and some might even say they fall under the same umbrella of game, they're not the same. The goal for game developers in an MMO rpg is literally to keep you playing the game for as long as they possibly can so that you'll continue to make them money. They do this through addition after addition of new endless grind content. If they keep that carrot on the end of the stick you'll keep playing and lining their pockets. What you've just described in a nutshell is the Everquest/World of Warcraft formula.Liquidlizard said:
Now, RPGs on the other hand, have more to do with story telling, character development, and gameplay mechanics than the former. They're an almost entirely different class of game, and if you ever find a single player rpg that requires endless amounts of grinding, then you're playing a terrible RPG and its time to find a new one.
My problem with RPGs is.....
I enjoy when they have a central story and I feel like I'm part of that world.
An example is that I felt immersed in Morrowind, but I didn't in Oblivion. When you're spending days and even months playing a game, and doing tons of side quests, it always seems like the main story is lost.
Morrowind seemed to keep me immersed by showing how the central story affected the world... In Oblivion it just felt like "well the world is ending but no one really cares"
I get so sidetracked that I forget what I'm even playing for sometimes.
The stories in both Morrowind and Oblivion were good, but by the time I finished them... I didn't feel a high sense of accomplishment.... no big ending scene... and I could just wander out and continue doing whatever side quests I wanted.. the game never actually ends.
I don't normally touch JRPGs though.
I love how RPGs like Mass Effect can make me feel as if I'm that character, and involved in something big. Without TOO many side quests to get me off track.... and it can be finished without spending half your life playing it.
I enjoy when they have a central story and I feel like I'm part of that world.
An example is that I felt immersed in Morrowind, but I didn't in Oblivion. When you're spending days and even months playing a game, and doing tons of side quests, it always seems like the main story is lost.
Morrowind seemed to keep me immersed by showing how the central story affected the world... In Oblivion it just felt like "well the world is ending but no one really cares"
I get so sidetracked that I forget what I'm even playing for sometimes.
The stories in both Morrowind and Oblivion were good, but by the time I finished them... I didn't feel a high sense of accomplishment.... no big ending scene... and I could just wander out and continue doing whatever side quests I wanted.. the game never actually ends.
I don't normally touch JRPGs though.
I love how RPGs like Mass Effect can make me feel as if I'm that character, and involved in something big. Without TOO many side quests to get me off track.... and it can be finished without spending half your life playing it.
All the time.
Exactly what's wrong with them and why I'm still so attracted to the genre anyway baffles me. I mean, I don't like sports games. So I don't play them. Problem solved. Why, then, can't I leave RPGs alone? And why am I constantly disappointed by them?
I think one of the main reasons is because they're based on paper and dice RPGs. Your character has abilities that are improved by gaining experience. On the surface, this is a good thing for a game and adds to the play time, which publishers like to announce on the back of the box. "Over 80 hours of play time!" They just fail to mention that you'll be fantasizing about slitting your wrists for every second of those eighty hours. I think it may be time to stop with the improvable character abilities since that's the source of most of the grinding anyway.
Another thing is the story. For a lot of them, especially Japanese RPGs, the story just plain sucks. But I think it may be deeper than that. Braid's Jonathan Blow at the 2008 Montreal Games Summit gave a lecture about games and storytelling [http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2008/11/braids_blow_how_to_make_games.php] (his blog on it is here [http://braid-game.com/news/?p=385]). His basic point is that you can't. Not using the same traditional storytelling methods, at any rate.
Robert McKee in his book on screenwriting states that to use voiceover narration or an opening crawl is not properly using the medium of motion pictures to tell stories. i will say that to use cinematic cutscenes in games is similarly not using the medium properly. You aren't playing a game at that point, you're watching a movie. Even some games like, say, Half Life which allow the player to run around the room as what is essentially a cutscene play out is just the same god damned thing, no matter how they try to hide it. This is not telling story in a game. This is tacking a story on to the detriment of the entire experience.
The topic of storytelling in games is a difficult one as it is still relatively new or at least just starting to gain some sophistication. But what would help make RPGs not be so disappointing is if playing the game tells a story. The kind of stories that could only occur in a games. Whatever that may be.
Exactly what's wrong with them and why I'm still so attracted to the genre anyway baffles me. I mean, I don't like sports games. So I don't play them. Problem solved. Why, then, can't I leave RPGs alone? And why am I constantly disappointed by them?
I think one of the main reasons is because they're based on paper and dice RPGs. Your character has abilities that are improved by gaining experience. On the surface, this is a good thing for a game and adds to the play time, which publishers like to announce on the back of the box. "Over 80 hours of play time!" They just fail to mention that you'll be fantasizing about slitting your wrists for every second of those eighty hours. I think it may be time to stop with the improvable character abilities since that's the source of most of the grinding anyway.
Another thing is the story. For a lot of them, especially Japanese RPGs, the story just plain sucks. But I think it may be deeper than that. Braid's Jonathan Blow at the 2008 Montreal Games Summit gave a lecture about games and storytelling [http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2008/11/braids_blow_how_to_make_games.php] (his blog on it is here [http://braid-game.com/news/?p=385]). His basic point is that you can't. Not using the same traditional storytelling methods, at any rate.
Robert McKee in his book on screenwriting states that to use voiceover narration or an opening crawl is not properly using the medium of motion pictures to tell stories. i will say that to use cinematic cutscenes in games is similarly not using the medium properly. You aren't playing a game at that point, you're watching a movie. Even some games like, say, Half Life which allow the player to run around the room as what is essentially a cutscene play out is just the same god damned thing, no matter how they try to hide it. This is not telling story in a game. This is tacking a story on to the detriment of the entire experience.
The topic of storytelling in games is a difficult one as it is still relatively new or at least just starting to gain some sophistication. But what would help make RPGs not be so disappointing is if playing the game tells a story. The kind of stories that could only occur in a games. Whatever that may be.
The basic game definition of RPG is that you are playing the role of someone else. I know this can be applied to many games that are not labeled "RPG" but normally your character in those games are faceless and or speechless or even not a "person" at all.
There is a big difference between RPG, MMORPG, and JRPG, however the acronym RPG can occasionally be used to reference them all. Personally, I feel that this is the best genre of gaming (of course I think it is often better when mixed with other genres) however, every genre has its crappy games. Personally I feel that most RPGs that come out today are pretty good, as opposed to the FPS genre. For example, Fallout 3 is a mix between FPS and RPG and there is really no need for any "grinding" to level up.
I find that quite often the grind problem is more often in MMORPGs than regular RPGs. Regular RPGs have more flexibility in how to induce a leveling system (if one at all).
I find that quite often the grind problem is more often in MMORPGs than regular RPGs. Regular RPGs have more flexibility in how to induce a leveling system (if one at all).