RPG elements, are you for them or against them?

[not a zaar]

By "RPG elements" I mean things like shoehorning XP grinding and random looting into seemingly innapropriate genres and games, like sidescrollers (Castlevania), first person shooters (Team Fortress 2), action games (God of War), etc...

This hasn't really been a problem in the past, mostly it was used as a crutch by developers to add a simple progression system that wasn't dependent on player skill but rather perseverance or playtime. Lately though, it seems like a hot trend that's going out of control. Every multiplayer game now has to include level grinding and random upgrades, I believe it takes a good chunk of player skill out of the equation, and I don't like it. I think it needs to be toned down.

 

[aussiesniper]

I'm for them. RPG elements are not necessarily a bad thing, and they create a feeling of achievement when you unlock something new. If the new equipment can be kept in balance with base equipment (such as in TF2) then I'm all for them.

 

[Slash Dementia]

I like it. For FPS games I can see how it can be bad and I wouldn't want grind experience points in one of those.
I can see why in hack n' slash games like God of War, it's to boost your players skills. You get introduced to new areas in the game that require a new skill and having that skill in the beginning would probably make it way easier. (I haven't played God of War, but I'm using the title as an example.)
I think the same can be applied to side-scrollers.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

If it adds depth and strategy then it can be good. If it adds time sinks and locked content then I am not interested.

 

[Nutcase]

I like it. For FPS games I can see how it can be bad and I wouldn't want grind experience points in one of those.
I can see why in hack n' slash games like God of War, it's to boost your players skills. You get introduced to new areas in the game that require a new skill and having that skill in the beginning would probably make it way easier. (I haven't played God of War, but I'm using the title as an example.)
I think the same can be applied to side-scrollers.

The essential difference is not the genre, but single player and multi player. Sticking a grind into a competetive multiplayer game is as good as taking a giant shit on it.

 

[Voltano]

Call me old school, but I always thought an RPG was about taking the role of some (possible) fictional character in a (possible) fictional setting doing something. So by that definition, I think any video game is technically an 'RPG'.

Though since these are meant to be based around fictional characters, it would make sense that these fictional characters may have statistics that are different from the actual player. In a game of D&D, a fighter with muscles that make a wrestler look wimpy could be played by the frail kid in school.

I think the term 'RPG elements' is just a gimmick developers throw on the box or advertisements for their games to attract a larger crowd to the game, but so long as it doesn't detract from the fun of playing the game...Eh, I don't mind what they say.

 

[not a zaar]

Call me old school, but I always thought an RPG was about taking the role of some (possible) fictional character in a (possible) fictional setting doing something. So by that definition, I think any video game is technically an 'RPG'.

Though since these are meant to be based around fictional characters, it would make sense that these fictional characters may have statistics that are different from the actual player. In a game of D&D, a fighter with muscles that make a wrestler look wimpy could be played by the frail kid in school.

I think the term 'RPG elements' is just a gimmick developers throw on the box or advertisements for their games to attract a larger crowd to the game, but so long as it doesn't detract from the fun of playing the game...Eh, I don't mind what they say.

Okay yeah, that's if you take the term "role playing game" literally at face value, but we all know what it really means: fantastical settings and spreadsheet style character development fueled by random number generators.

 

[Cuniculus]

It's fun. I like to have a hard time killing something, but gaining experience, coming back and kicking the crap out of it the second time. That goes for anything really. I love Ratchet and Clank games, where your weapons gain experience, and level up. Makes me feel like I'm actually accomplishing something here.

 

[Voltano]

~Snip~

Okay yeah, that's if you take the term "role playing game" literally at face value, but we all know what it really means: fantastical settings and spreadsheet style character development fueled by random number generators.

And how is that different from a game that has 'RPG elements' on the box? The only difference I can think of is the spreadsheet is dumbed down or the process of playing the game is streamlined because of it being a video game.

 

[Bluesnow]

If its an RPG I'm all for it...

If its a random fps, or beat'm up,or racing, or I don't know... Tetris... They better keep the emo's, 1/2 ass'd plots, leveling up systems ect... out of my sight. While there have been some successful RPG additions to games... Most of the time I feel they were just added to extend the gameplay time. RPGs are my favorite game genre, don't get me wrong... but if I'm playing a non-rpg there's a good chance I just want to kill and button mash mindlessly till my brain melts to unwind; not have to think xD

 

[Yooz]

I was against them in GTA: SA.

 

[Jandau]

By "RPG elements" I mean things like shoehorning XP grinding and random looting into seemingly innapropriate genres and games, like sidescrollers (Castlevania), first person shooters (Team Fortress 2), action games (God of War), etc...

This hasn't really been a problem in the past, mostly it was used as a crutch by developers to add a simple progression system that wasn't dependent on player skill but rather perseverance or playtime. Lately though, it seems like a hot trend that's going out of control. Every multiplayer game now has to include level grinding and random upgrades, I believe it takes a good chunk of player skill out of the equation, and I don't like it. I think it needs to be toned down.

The problem with your post lies in your definition of "RPG elements" as XP grinding and random loot. Those ARE annoying and often have no business being there, but there are many more RPG elements that CAN improve a game. Asking if we approve of RPG elements and then push the negative ones up front really makes your titular question unfair.

FPS and Action games can benefit from a XP system that allows for unlocking or improving various skills and abilities. Most recently Prototype did this quite well, with little to no grinding, and XP was awarded for fun and challenging activities or exploration.

Likewise, while random loot is definately a crappy system that promotes grinding and relies on luck, an inventory system can enhance a game if done properly. Perhaps force the player to leave some things behind or allow for a wider variety of items and their applications (adventure game elements). Take System Shock 2 for instance, or even Dead Space.

Overall, I'm all for including RPG elements into other genres, as long as they enhance the gameplay and provide additional depth to the game, not if they add to the tedium.

 

[high_castle]

I have this love/hate relationship with RPGs in general. When done well (a la any title of Bioware's), I enjoy them thoroughly. When focused more on the grind of XP over story or customization of your look over character development, I find them annoying. And it's funny how the RPG elements that make it into most crossovers are always the ones I hate and never decent writing, influence on the characters around you, or the like.

That being said, I think some titles can do well with a leveling system. I'll argue that most games with the ability to unlock new abilities as you go along borrows the concept from RPGs. And that works well. You want to finish the game feeling like an unstoppable force of nature, but if you're that same force of nature at the very beginning, why did you have to go through all the side quests and missions? Why didn't you just take on the Big Bad at the outset? Gaining new skills and powers and growing stronger as you progress works well in many action games. And the best ones do it by checkpoints instead of XP, which works better if it's not an RPG in my mind.

 

[BolognaBaloney]

I was against them in GTA: SA.

Really? I loved that about SA, it made it more immersive for me.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I like it.
It's good to be rewarded (even if it's eventually) in the game with abilities that are relevant in the game itself. It's a lot more satisfying than being rewarded with achivementrophies or cutscenes.

Example: One of my all time favorites San Andreas had quite a few rpg elements that gave you improvements with weapons and vehicles. I thought that was really cool, especially when you get rewarded with something like dual wield or the attack chopper(when it came to the schools). Then with GTA4, all you were ever rewarded with were achivementrophies and money, both were pretty useless in the game.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

I love when other genres take some of the good elements from RPGs, like character customization or XP and a talent or skill point system (like Prototype, for a recent example).