Don't you sometimes feel that RPG genre is stupid?
- Thread starter Liquidlizard
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Here's a view on this that I like. http://www.vimeo.com/2719295Alex_P said:
Games probably don't all need to communicate anything really important but it would be good if what they communicated was deliberate. I like the way that Civilisation sort of lets you visualise how technology, culture and cities rose together. I like how Pac-Man is a sort of funny comment on gluttony. I can't really say that I like that Mass Effect is about shooting or interrogating everything that moves and hoarding wealth.
Final Fantasy 6 (or FFIII in the U.S.)in my opinion had cutscenes that were really worth the grinding that is present in the game, on the other hand Beyond the Beyond failed to really draw me into any part of the story because you were attacked every five seconds.
Games like Chrono Trigger made good use of the grind by making the enemies fun or just odd, being able to avoid some encounters also helped the overall game.
I think the grind is fine, but there needs to be a limit on how often one is attacked in a RPG...having wave after wave of random battles wears on anybody after a time, moderation goes a long way.
Games like Chrono Trigger made good use of the grind by making the enemies fun or just odd, being able to avoid some encounters also helped the overall game.
I think the grind is fine, but there needs to be a limit on how often one is attacked in a RPG...having wave after wave of random battles wears on anybody after a time, moderation goes a long way.
I love RPGs, they're definitely my favorite type of game genre. Grinding isn't fun most of the times, but I generally play RPGs that mix it up enough to avoid monotony.
I can honestly say I'm tired of J-RPG's at this point in my life. Not one goes by that doesn't have some arbitrary crafting system, a main protagonist that's Emo, and a narrative with too many underlying philosophies for it's own good.
That last ones that mattered to me were Shining Force I & II, Phantasy Star I, II, III, & IV, Chrono Trigger, and Final Fantasy VI. All in the 16-bit days... soon after that, they slowly took a downward turn for me.
W-RPG's barely fare any better these days. I'm particularly fond of a Character Creator as I much rather enjoy being someone of my own conception, but the ones that do have preset heroes that you MUST use, tend to have the most uninspired jack-holes for protagonists ever.
Fable II did it right to an extent, you shape yourself by your actions and can choose your own clothing. Mass Effect did it in a more engrossing way by giving you a preset last name and an actual voice. Since Shepard is basically a joint creation between the designers and you, it's much easier to deal with in imagining that it's you.
If more J-RPG's, and RPG's in general, would take this approach, I'd probably find more of them to give a shit about.
My favorite old 16-bit J-RPGs can slide because I discovered them at a younger age and didn't know any differently then. The casts of characters in those have always been interesting to me and easy to identify with. New games that do the same thing now just irritate me because I've seen it all done before and done BETTER before. But that's how things go in Japan apparently, success through repetition. But did the repetitiveness really have to go on for almost 25 years?
That last ones that mattered to me were Shining Force I & II, Phantasy Star I, II, III, & IV, Chrono Trigger, and Final Fantasy VI. All in the 16-bit days... soon after that, they slowly took a downward turn for me.
W-RPG's barely fare any better these days. I'm particularly fond of a Character Creator as I much rather enjoy being someone of my own conception, but the ones that do have preset heroes that you MUST use, tend to have the most uninspired jack-holes for protagonists ever.
Fable II did it right to an extent, you shape yourself by your actions and can choose your own clothing. Mass Effect did it in a more engrossing way by giving you a preset last name and an actual voice. Since Shepard is basically a joint creation between the designers and you, it's much easier to deal with in imagining that it's you.
If more J-RPG's, and RPG's in general, would take this approach, I'd probably find more of them to give a shit about.
My favorite old 16-bit J-RPGs can slide because I discovered them at a younger age and didn't know any differently then. The casts of characters in those have always been interesting to me and easy to identify with. New games that do the same thing now just irritate me because I've seen it all done before and done BETTER before. But that's how things go in Japan apparently, success through repetition. But did the repetitiveness really have to go on for almost 25 years?
Interesting.More Fun To Compute said:
On the one hand, he has a point. Although I disagree about movies and television being all that different from one another. The different there is the presentation device more than the media being all that different, if at all. Both use moving pictures and synchronized sound. What's different here?
On the other hand, the reason what a new medium gets ignore and the content tends to be an old medium is because new media have different strengths and often what works in one does not work in another.
So, the question here is what are video game's strengths? It has a strong visual element, so it tends to work well with external conflict. But maybe this is wandering way too far off-topic?
There is stuff out there explaining Marshal McLuhan better than I could. I'm not an expert. I think that he said that the main quality of games is that they are highly participatory and that the main quality of cinema is that it is low participation. He probably didn't take video games with HD 3d graphics and home theatre systems into account but the basic idea is probably still the same.the antithesis said:
I forgot a bit here:the antithesis said:
"And when a new medium comes along, they don't know what strengths it has, so they play to the strengths of a old medium for lack of a better idea of what to do."
For one, HD 3D graphics and surround sound home theaters do not matter. What had full 3D graphics gotten us anyway beside dodgy camera positioning that never seem to be pointing at what we need to? Never had that problem when playing Burgertime.More Fun To Compute said:
More interesting is the participation factor. I wonder what that does for us besides shrink the audience.
I'm serious. Part of the reason I gave up entirely on paper-and-dice RPGs is because I found it nearly impossible to find anyone who was willing to play. People are more content to sit back and the entertainment happen to them than to take an active role in it. And I don't mean just watching TV. I mean playing paper and dice RPGs. Just sitting back and letting the GM do everything for them.
I have no evidence besides anecdotal to back this up, but it seems that most people prefer passive entertainment. This may be why games that are essentially a movie with a few gameplay moments tacked on are as popular as they are today. It's all the interactivity most people care to have.
I certainly hope that's not how it is. Because if it is correct, then I'm wasting my time fiddling with games at all.
RPGs do have stupid and stagnant areas, and there's lots of room for improvement in the genre.
Repeated, stagnant narrative devices are way overused, like the young inexperienced hero who's destined to save the world *gasp* saving the damn world. Yawn. Can't anyone think of a narrative that doesn't involve the guy who's saving the damn world? Or variations on Orcs = bad = kill, goblins = evil = kill, undead = evil = kill. Way to kill any intrigue by making the bad guys blindingly obvious.
Then there's the way they handle challenge and interest in the gameplay; it often seems like most standard enemies in RPGs are nothing but chaff you can kill on autopilot for easy xp. Which is not much fun.
Repeated, stagnant narrative devices are way overused, like the young inexperienced hero who's destined to save the world *gasp* saving the damn world. Yawn. Can't anyone think of a narrative that doesn't involve the guy who's saving the damn world? Or variations on Orcs = bad = kill, goblins = evil = kill, undead = evil = kill. Way to kill any intrigue by making the bad guys blindingly obvious.
Then there's the way they handle challenge and interest in the gameplay; it often seems like most standard enemies in RPGs are nothing but chaff you can kill on autopilot for easy xp. Which is not much fun.
It's only my opinion that RPGs are boring; I don't claim that RPGs are objectively boring because that's bullshit. I personally despite turn-based combat and levelling up seemingly ad infinitum but there are gonna be other people who enjoy it, and I don't have a problem with that.ThePlasmatizer said:
If you personally enjoy RPGs then my ignorant rambling shouldn't get to you.
I think the perfect counterpoint to the OP's complain is the KOTOR series. You can just plow through those games without the needless level grind and still do just fine. However, if you really want to, you can just wander through old areas and fight some random critters on occasion. Sidequests are where you really earn the XP in that series. I still haven't played a good console RPG that managed to meld the storyline with the leveling up as well as KOTOR did. Actual tabletop D&D FTW though.
And Wii Sports is an exciting RPG with a compelling story, isn't it?More Fun To Compute said:
But, that observation does hold merit, unless the Wii is on a downhill slide as that fad is over, but that's a bit beyond our scope, here. Wii Sports works by having simple games that were easy to get into and understand. Can RPGs be like that?
I was only using Wii sports as an example of large numbers of people wanting to get involved with games and not just sit back and watch them. There are CRPGs that focus more on compelling gameplay than story telling even if just partly. There are also some really accessible CRPGs out there. You might need a pulse and an actual interest in playing them for more than half an hour, which limits their audience a little, but they are out there.the antithesis said: