Don't you sometimes feel that RPG genre is stupid?

[EnglishMuffin]

Rpg's are stupid if they are MMO's, made by the japanese, or made by betheseda.

 

[hagaya]

A genre stereotype.

There's a good RPG, and a bad RPG. The genre is extremely large. There's Fantasy or Sci-fi, Action or Turn Based, There's complex and simple, there's MMO/Local MP or single player, there's story-driven and combat-driven. I could go on, but I'm taking up space. My point is just that you could give a more specific point of "RPG," but keeping it to the entire genre is too broad a subject.

 

[Alex_P]

I think one of the main reasons is because they're based on paper and dice RPGs.

Many of the problems that afflict video-game RPGs also afflict paper-and-dice games, too.

Surely you've sometimes encountered quite a few of the following examples of video-game RPG stupidity in the pen-and-paper sphere as well:
- faux-medieval societies that don't seem medieval at all
- "sci-fi" societies that somehow end up identical to those faux-medieval societies
- lackluster, poorly developed NPCs
- cookie-cutter enemies
- game rules that focus almost exclusively on weapons, levels, and loot
- simplistic absolutist morality
- game worlds that rapidly lose coherence when you go off the expected path
- boring and repetitive combat gameplay that focuses more no making a "build" once and doing the same thing every time than on on-the-fly tactical thinking
- nonsensical bean-counting economics which transform every hero into a penny-pinching hobo with a big fancy magic sword
- tons of time wasted on pointless trivialities like buying rope, fighting enemies you absolutely know you'll defeat, and talking to shopkeepers
- storytelling that consistently runs away from difficult themes or nuanced choices

-- Alex

 

[midpipps]

I still love the turn based RPG's that is my favorite I feel like in turn based I can develop strategies and actually use all those spells I have gained. Action RPG's are the ones that seem the most boring and repetetive to me like final fantasy crisis core loved the game but the only reason I ever used my materia was to equip to a weapon for added effects otherwise either never had time to use a spell or would use a spell and it would miss cause the enemy moved.

Give me good old turn based where I can strategize and pick my spells carefully and actually get use out of all the tricks I have learned Persona 3 brings out the best of this and also gave me reason to keep trying different personas so that I could level them up to create new and better persona.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

It all depends on what you like. Grinding isn't interesting to me. Most RPGs are fun for a while and then just stop being fun. But that's just me. If you want to play RPGs, then that's fine with me. It's all defined on what you find interesting.

 

[Laurefinde]

I am a roleplayer. I roleplay in real life, write roleplay and game roleplay. (Yeah, I am a nerd and yes I do have a real life too!) To roleplay effectively I need other people to interact with. I find MMORPGs are more worthy to be roleplaying games if I have a good group of roleplaying friends to play with. In this situation you actually get back what you give out to other roleplayers. So for roleplaying, and I am sure many would disagree, I choose MMORPGs.

 

[Vern]

Speaking as a person who spent two hours exploring the shoreline in Oblivion today jumping after deer and breaking their backs with my fists, and finding nirn roots, and thoroughly enjoying it I must say: RPGs are what you make of them. It's best when they allow you to do things outside the main quest line and allow you freedom. If they do that, and you still think it's boring because you can't think up anything fun to do aside from the main quest, then it's your fault.

 

[Skeleon]

Depends on what you're playing.
I wouldn't call the usual WoW-playstyle an RPG, for example, because it is basically a glorified Diablo 2.
Too many so-called RPGs are about nothing but combat and gaining levels.
RPGs need to tell a story in which you are actively participating, not just hitting a couple of goblins over the head whenever the game puts them in front of you.
Think of Pen&Paper RPGs, those aren't primarily about the combat but about interaction with, well, pretty much anything the DM can think of.
There are a few good ones out there (Gothic 1+2, Arx Fatalis, Deus Ex and Spellforce if you're okay with crossovers, Lands of Lore 1 (ancient!) and probably others I haven't played), but most follow the same formula.
So, to answer your opening post:
Yes, many games that are sold as RPGs are dumb and simple, but that mostly stems from them not being real RPGs to begin with.

 

[veloper]

Speaking as a person who spent two hours exploring the shoreline in Oblivion today jumping after deer and breaking their backs with my fists, and finding nirn roots, and thoroughly enjoying it I must say: RPGs are what you make of them. It's best when they allow you to do things outside the main quest line and allow you freedom. If they do that, and you still think it's boring because you can't think up anything fun to do aside from the main quest, then it's your fault.

Their only fault would be picking up bad games like Oblivion.

Playing make belief by yourself and without any feedback from the game, is understandably not everyone's cup of tea.

If they played other FP/RPG hybrids like Deus Ex or VTM:Bloodlines instead, they might get a better impression of the genre.

 

[Bradfucius]

It seems like in an RPG you're always too weak to do anything. You start off as a piece of crap and then you grind until you are strong to go beat a boss into the next area, where all the new baddies at higher standards will kick your ass, making you comparatively a piece of crap once more. So grind until you're strong enough to kill the next boss and repeat. That's boring. Storylines for me aren't a very selling strong point. To me, if I want a really cool narrative plotline, I'm going to read a book. But even if you wanted to feel like an awesome epic story, there's always Half Life.

 

[Liquidlizard]

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.

As I happened to write a B.A. paper on this topic, I definitely agree with you that game medium is still searching and exploring its way of storytelling, because for now it just "borrowing". I'm sure that the current methods will remain, because you can't get away from them far, because traditional textual and 20th century movie narration is something very fundamental. But I do hope that there will be more exploration in the question of how to make you "play the story or live it" instead of pausing to watch it or read it and then go back to your dungeon.

 

[sokka14]

there's a hell of a lot more to a good RPG than:
-grind
-cutscene allowing you a new place to grind
-grind
etc
and this isn't exclusive to the RPG genre.

i for one don't give a crap about non-linear stories, to me an RPG is effectively an interactive novel.

also:

If you were to ask me what genre I feel is stagnating most, I'd probably pick the FPS - it's the same thing every single time, and it got old a long while ago.

 

[Deacon Cole]

Many of the problems that afflict video-game RPGs also afflict paper-and-dice games, too.

Oh, I could spend days on what's wrong with paper and dice RPGs. For most, the problem is social more than anything. This is because many who play RPGs are, to put it bluntly, socially retarded. This is not an insurmountable problem, but it often leads to a game group forming with a poor group dynamic and steps to change are rarely taken. If we take the Tuckman Stages of Group Formation, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forming-storming-norming-performing] many RPG groups never get past stage 2- "Storming" where conflicts come up and differences are resolved. Generally these differences are not resolved, only covered up.

These are broad generalizations, naturally and they were probably more true in the 80's than today, but there may still be some truth to it. Thing is, I used to think that this could be fixed with the right set of game rules, but I was very stupid. No set of game rules nor even a completely different shared activity can fix what are purely social issues. I'm sure there are stamp collectors out there with similar problems. Conversely, no set of game rules, no matter how bad can ruin a healthy and sound social grouping. There are probably groups out there who have a blast playing Spawn of Fashan or even F.A.T.A.L. because the terrible, terrible rules can be easily adjusted or discarded while playing.

I'm getting way off topic here, but much of my concerns apply to all games, not just RPGs and not just video games. I have posted these before, but I'll do so again. Two pieces i turn to and am still trying to get a handle on are Flow in Games by Jenova Chen [http://www.jenovachen.com/flowingames/thesis.htm] and Seductive Interfaces by Tim Skelly [http://www.designhappy.com/sedint/MSIMCentry1.htm]

Chen is a game designer who's work includes flOw and Flower. His thesis basically takes Mihály Csíkszentmihályi's concept of Flow [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)] and applies it to games, balancing player's skill with the challenge the game offers. Too little challenge and the player becomes bored. To much and they become frustrated and discouraged.

Skelly was also a game designer in the 80's designing games such as Star Castle, Rip-Off, Armor Attack, and Reactor. His thesis is not game-specific but relates to all software, giving pointers on how to make any program engaging to use. There are many parallels in Skelly's and Chen's theses.

One interesting, specific point in Skelly's piece is that he notes that in order to feel like we have an effect on the world around us (or in the software we're using or game we're playing), people traditionally "destroy something, mark something, control something, talk to something, create something, or, in the American culture, buy some more stuff." "If you can?t make something, the next best thing is to buy something," he says.

I can't help but think of this when looking at RPGs. The paper and dice variety have dozens of books that you can buy. part of this is just good business sense for the publisher, but I wonder if it's a bad sign for the activity in general. Is the act of purchasing more books and other paraphernalia the main or only satisfying activity for many roleplayers? Even in-game, like you had said, one of the main activities is managing your gold pieces and using it to buy equipment or just frivolous items because shopping feels good and it's easier and more satisfying that actually doing something.

I think that last sentence cuts to the heart of it. The problem with games in general is that many of them have low-level engagement because higher level engagement is more difficult. This leads to unsatisfactory games. I'm not trying to be Chicken Little here so much as looking at what the problem is and figuring out a solution. I don't necessarily have one and even if I did, I'm not a game developer, so anything I have would get beyond scribbles on cocktail napkins. But, it is interesting food for thought and hopefully some actual developers might happen upon this stuff and take note.

 

[Deacon Cole]

I'm sure that the current methods will remain, because you can't get away from them far, because traditional textual and 20th century movie narration is something very fundamental.

I'm not sure if I would call them fundamental. They keep being used because it's an easy way to do it, but I don't think they're necessary in the slightest. I really liked the original Legend of Zelda on the NES and it lacked most of that, in the game at least. You could read the manual to learn the story but the story didn't really matter and you didn't have to read it to play the game. I later tried Legend of Zelda: A Link To the Past on the SNES and it was not as good. Sure, it had snazzier graphics and extra weapons and such, but it also had this convoluted storyline and the talking-to-people mechanic that is in many RPGs, which is one of the worst and most time-wasting activities that has ever been put in a game.

So, I doubt if these things are fundamental. They're expected, I guess, but that's not the same thing. But several developers, especially independent ones have been experimenting with retro game designs with some success, see: Braid.

I don't have all the answers, but what the experimental fringe is doing is not just making games in an old-school aesthetic but also going back to older game design implementations which relied less on cinematics and more on just gameplay, allowing the players to decide what it all means. I think this is a step in the right direction and hopefully some good design principles can come out of it that can then be applied to the higher-end fully 3D titles and some truly rewarding games can get made.

 

[Grampy_bone]

I am a raging RPG addict, yet I will freely admit the genre as a whole tends to get rather stagnant and stale, constantly trudging out the same old conventions and mechanics, recycling similar plots, characters, and themes over and over gain.

What amazes me though is how much RPG players ***** and complain whenever a game tries to change any of the above. Really, it has to be the most unpleasable fanbase ever. I feel sorry for anyone who decides to develop RPGs. They have their work cut out for them.

For me often the allure of RPGs is the gameplay and mechanics. I like a good plot but at this point very few games ever really surprise me. I enjoy seeing my character(s) get more powerful and turning a difficult game into an easy one. There is something of an art to this; sure in most games you can just level grind to uberness and then waltz through the game, but that takes too long. Achieving powerful characters in the least amount of time, in the most efficient ways possible; that is what I enjoy in an RPG.

 

[ArcadianTrance]

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.

As a Golden Sun fan this post insults me deeply.

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.

Thank you really, it's so refreshing to see some one on this forum who understands just how great turnbased combat can be.

 

[Alex_P]

I think that last sentence cuts to the heart of it. The problem with games in general is that many of them have low-level engagement because higher level engagement is more difficult. This leads to unsatisfactory games.

Exactly!

And, woefully, a lot of the techniques that create low-level engagement make it harder to achieve high-level engagement, creating a vicious cycle of lazy game design. Certainly penny-pinching in RPGs is a great example.

-- Alex

 

[MiracleOfSound]

There appears to be a letter 'J' missing from the title of this thread.

 

[VariableGear]

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.

I completely agree. Games are still in their infancy, and that means developers are still struggling to learn how to present narrative to players in interactive and fluid ways, but that doesn't mean that we should be satisfied with what middling attempts have already been revealed.

RPGs strike me as doubly bad because they try to present the player with a world that they can actively participate in, while they actually have a very minimal influence on the progression of all major events.