"Why don't more games have this?!"

[Drake the Dragonheart]

I wish more games would let you max out.

The return of Big Head mode, shrink mode, and other crazy cheats like those seen in Turok and Goldeneye. I was glad to see it return in Arkham Knight, albeit not as pronounced.

I had a hockey game that let you play in a mile wide stadium, with a puck that was bigger than the players themselves!

 

[Marik2]

In Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, when you first load it up, 'Start New game' is at the top of the menu screen, and highlighted by default. Once you have a save, 'Continue game' appears on the menu, but it is underneath Start New, with the latter still highlighted first. This is bad. All games with a front-end menu that includes a save-sensitive 'continue/load game' option should have it appear right at the top, and highlighted ready to go. We select 'continue' hundreds of times during a playthrough. We only select 'new' once. Also in-game pause screens should have the 'retry' option extremely close to the initial highlighted option. You want to absolutely minimise frustration time for players when they mess up in game. having to memorise a long winded menu navigation to restart is poor game design.

This. This. This. This.
[HEADING=2]THIS![/HEADING]

It's so obvious and basic. I don't understand how developers keep making this mistake!

Here's one of mine.

Zelda: Majora's Mask - I know the 3-day cycle time limitation is contentious amongst some players but take the time aspect out and you notice that almost every NPC in the game has a predefined schedule that they follow (until input by Link changes their schedule). More games should have this, it makes things feel more realistic, AI in games has improved substantially since the year 2000 but Majora's Mask remains impressive to me because of how they programmed each NPC to follow a daily schedule.

I also can't think of many other games that has a 'Groundhog Day' repeating cycle system. Apart from Majora's Mask and The Sexy Brutale.

Majora's Mask was so fantastic because of the scheduling. I don't understand why more games haven't explored the Groundhog's Day concept. I'd love to see what could be done with more modern tech!

Grimgrimoire has the groundhog concept, but it keeps it strictly in the plot, not the gameplay.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Grimgrimoire has the groundhog concept, but it keeps it strictly in the plot, not the gameplay.

Yes, I remember someone mentioning that in the thread I made requesting Groundhog's Day games. I'll have to get around to playing it some day.

 

[ErrrorWayz]

Vampire the Masquerade has a class (well type of vampire) that is inherently mad and has entirely different (not always negative) conversation options.

MSG V has emergent play that blows my mind - you can block tanks on roads with your horse and sneak up and C4 them.

I always thought the narrator in Bastion was hugely overrated, to be needlessly negative

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Except the way the way the Souls system works, you can change playstyles mid-game without completely derailing yourself.

Are you..shitting me? Oh no, you must be right. Clearly the reason I've gone from a 50-hour playthrough to 15-hours playthroughs of DS1 isn't because I improved my playstyle and got better at the game. Clearly it's just because used the same tactics and weapons every time (I didn't).

The whole point of Dark Souls is that it's a short game (it is, you beat every boss in a 15-20 hour run if you're even remotely competent at the game) so that you can try out multiple playstyles. The same way Chrono Trigger was short so players would go back for the multiple endings.

Also, Role-Playing Game. The whole point is to play it your way. If the game starts telling you how to play it, it is no longer a proper RPG. And mores to the point, Bayonetta (which I have not played BTW, and have no desire to play) is not an RPG. Constantly changing up the gameplay work in a pure Action game like Bayonetta or Call of Duty, but in an RPG its the worst thing you could do.

Souls barely has playstyles, you either dodge/block then attack (or the lame magic). The only differences is how fast the weapons swing, using a katana or hammer is the same; just dodge and attack, it's just that the hammer will have slower more damaging attacks vs the quicker less damaging attacks of the katana. Bloodborne is the best Souls game because it strips out everything the doesn't work like shields; the shield is the real villain of the Souls series [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC3OuLU5XCw&t=1756]. Pick any 2 weapons in Monster Hunter and those are far more varied playstyles than the entire Souls' arsenal of weapons because every Monster Hunter weapon has different mechanics to it. Even Bayonetta has more playstyles than a Souls game, you can put on ice skates and freeze your enemies for example. And, Souls isn't an RPG, what makes a game an RPG is all about what you can do outside of combat and Souls is basically all combat. Ubisoft: The Game (FarCry, Watch Dogs, etc.) have more playstyles than a Souls game, I guess those are RPGs then.

 

[TheFinish]

Grimgrimoire has the groundhog concept, but it keeps it strictly in the plot, not the gameplay.

Yes, I remember someone mentioning that in the thread I made requesting Groundhog's Day games. I'll have to get around to playing it some day.

Also Sexy Brutale. Same Groundhog Day shenanigans, excellent music, cute designs, and gripping story. I recommend 100%.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I feel like more RPGs should give you ways to respec your character. Realistically, chances are I don't have the time to replay a 60 hour game to see what the mage is like and the chances are even slimmer that I'd want to.

 

[MirkoC]

A lot of games have it, from Fallout 3, New Vegas, Fallout 4, GTA 3 and higher.
As it may be for me, but I prefer to play in silence
I do not know if I would like to see something like that in PoE. PoE is a quiet game, you do not need to be very focused.
Well, unless you're playing orbs and trading currency, then yes.
I think it's not a great idea to introduce it in fantasy games.
You could improve the sound when buying orbs
A day comes when a man thinks of something wonderful and priceless. Maybe he would like to have a family, maybe I like helping the needy and is very tolerant. equality is good.
PoE Orbs are cheap
PoE Currency can be bought
Exalted orb is the currency foundation
It is worth to buy every Orb in PoE and make you character and hero https://odealo.com/games/path-of-exile

 

[maninahat]

In the original Xenoclash, but sadly less so in the sequel, there is an emphasis on making each enemy character and NPC distinct and unique. It's fun bumping into certain characters you recognise, like that moron who makes armour of cookwear, or the rat faced asshole you like to kick whilst they're down. I guess its helps that they look completely crazy too:

Why can't non-fighting games have a "no generic character" policy?

 

[NerfedFalcon]

Why can't non-fighting games have a "no generic character" policy?

Ever played Okami? I know it's not entirely appropriate, since the demons you fight all have similar character models, but all the human NPCs are unique. That's a pretty good start.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Why can't non-fighting games have a "no generic character" policy?

Ever played Okami? I know it's not entirely appropriate, since the demons you fight all have similar character models, but all the human NPCs are unique. That's a pretty good start.

If I recall correctly, every character in Splinter Cell: Double Agent had a unique face. Not sure why the devs felt the need to go through the trouble, but it was a nice touch, each and every enemy being a singular individual and not just one of a thousand faceless/masked clones.

 

[Squilookle]

Some more for sandbox games:

In Mafia: City of Lost Heaven, every single mission in the game can, once completed, be replayed from a mission select screen. This was back in 2002, the same year as Vice City. For some reason, sandboxes believe they're too good for this mission replayability thing. Wrong. If you dont think your missions are good enough to be selectable from a screen, then why should I ever bother replaying them? If the Mafia series, Opertion Flashpoint, Driver 2 and even bloody Driver 3 can do it, you can too.

In Mount and Blade, different factions fight over the game world much like in GTA 2, Mercenaries and Just Cause. Unlike all the other games, however, Mount and Blade allows for actual consequences to the fighting. Factions besiege other factions' castles and if taken, will gain ownership of them, with the borders between the factions changing accordingly. Best of all, all this stuff happens whether you are there or not. Get caught in a sidequest somewhere for a while and then look at the map and the whole political landscape may have changed. In a post- Mount and Blade world- any sandbox with competing factions needs to have this dynamic territory shifting mechanic. Skirmishes should have consequences.

[sub]The way the faction areas look at the beginning of the game. They do not stay like this for long.[/sub]​

 

[Aerosteam]

Except the way the way the Souls system works, you can change playstyles mid-game without completely derailing yourself.

Are you..shitting me? Oh no, you must be right. Clearly the reason I've gone from a 50-hour playthrough to 15-hours playthroughs of DS1 isn't because I improved my playstyle and got better at the game. Clearly it's just because used the same tactics and weapons every time (I didn't).

The whole point of Dark Souls is that it's a short game (it is, you beat every boss in a 15-20 hour run if you're even remotely competent at the game) so that you can try out multiple playstyles. The same way Chrono Trigger was short so players would go back for the multiple endings.

Also, Role-Playing Game. The whole point is to play it your way. If the game starts telling you how to play it, it is no longer a proper RPG. And mores to the point, Bayonetta (which I have not played BTW, and have no desire to play) is not an RPG. Constantly changing up the gameplay work in a pure Action game like Bayonetta or Call of Duty, but in an RPG its the worst thing you could do.

Souls barely has playstyles, you either dodge/block then attack (or the lame magic). The only differences is how fast the weapons swing, using a katana or hammer is the same; just dodge and attack, it's just that the hammer will have slower more damaging attacks vs the quicker less damaging attacks of the katana. Bloodborne is the best Souls game because it strips out everything the doesn't work like shields; the shield is the real villain of the Souls series [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC3OuLU5XCw&t=1756]. Pick any 2 weapons in Monster Hunter and those are far more varied playstyles than the entire Souls' arsenal of weapons because every Monster Hunter weapon has different mechanics to it. Even Bayonetta has more playstyles than a Souls game, you can put on ice skates and freeze your enemies for example. And, Souls isn't an RPG, what makes a game an RPG is all about what you can do outside of combat and Souls is basically all combat. Ubisoft: The Game (FarCry, Watch Dogs, etc.) have more playstyles than a Souls game, I guess those are RPGs then.

Spoiler: What next

https://levelskip.com/rpgs/good-rpg

Pretty sure DS has more than one of those tenets. Your resident lambasting of the Souls series is beyond rational. You constantly compare it to other games that aren't even in the same genre like they're supposed to be played the same way. If it was as awful as you say then people certainly wouldn't still be discussing it far more than most of the other topically irrelevant games you've routinely mentioned.

I know MH has a lot of depth, as well as tighter i-frames than Souls, but the play styles comment in general is also ludicrous. Even considering the controls alone DS [http://darksouls.wikidot.com/controls] is far more nuanced than Bayonetta [http://bayonetta.wikia.com/wiki/Controls]. Furthermore a game that doesn't force you to play a certain way in and of itself is indicative of it having more play styles. Their viability or lack thereof is again only one in a long list of reasons the Souls games are still discussed more as well. As far as I'm concerned it ties into the fact that DS is different. You're one of the few that don't like it. Yet instead of leaving it at that you continue to not only drag the dead horse out of the barn to beat it some more, but parade it up and down the streets like you're hoping to impress any passerby unfortunate enough to witness it.

 

[gsilver]

the ability to use your own music in the games. A music folder or something that the game could pull from, so you could listen to your own playlist. This would be especially nice in games where the radio playlist is limited(looking at you Fallout 3/New Vegas) and you end up hearing the same songs over and over again.

I kinda remember this being a big thing on the original Xbox. I wonder why it went away.

That being said, I game on PC, and I often run Itunes in the background, turn the in-game music off, sound effects low, dialog normal, and go.
When I play Dark Souls, it almost feels wrong to *not* be listening to Led Zeppelin...

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Spoiler: What next

https://levelskip.com/rpgs/good-rpg

Pretty sure DS has more than one of those tenets. Your resident lambasting of the Souls series is beyond rational. You constantly compare it to other games that aren't even in the same genre like they're supposed to be played the same way. If it was as awful as you say then people certainly wouldn't still be discussing it far more than most of the other topically irrelevant games you've routinely mentioned.

I know MH has a lot of depth, as well as tighter i-frames than Souls, but the play styles comment in general is also ludicrous. Even considering the controls alone DS [http://darksouls.wikidot.com/controls] is far more nuanced than Bayonetta [http://bayonetta.wikia.com/wiki/Controls]. Furthermore a game that doesn't force you to play a certain way in and of itself is indicative of it having more play styles. Their viability or lack thereof is again only one in a long list of reasons the Souls games are still discussed more as well. As far as I'm concerned it ties into the fact that DS is different. You're one of the few that don't like it. Yet instead of leaving it at that you continue to not only drag the dead horse out of the barn to beat it some more, but parade it up and down the streets like you're hoping to impress any passerby unfortunate enough to witness it.

Firstly, I don't hate the Souls games, I find them average to slightly above average games. Any good combat game throws enemies at the player that forces them to change up their strategy and the Souls games do not have that. Does it matter if I use a game like Nioh (a Souls-like) to compare to a Souls game or a Bayonetta or even an Uncharted? Good enemy design will force the player into utilizing all the game's mechanics regardless of the type of combat; slow, faster, melee, shooting, stealth games even. Souls does a lot things wrong with regards to combat and its RPG elements. What's the point of the parry/riposte in Souls when 1) it's just plain better to just block because the reward of risking it for a parry just isn't worth it and 2) you have to look up a FAQ just to see what enemies can be parried. Bloodborne greatly fixes almost all of that by making just about every enemy (besides the really big bosses) susceptible to visceral attacks plus there's no shield so that visceral attacks are encouraged and much more worth it. Hbomberguy's Bloodborne is Genius video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC3OuLU5XCw&feature=youtu.be&t=953] brings up lots of great points about what Bloodborne does right that Souls does bad even though his main point about the "right" and "wrong" way to play is basically impossible to prove considering fun is subjective. His "play conditioning" section makes a lot of sense regardless if you think his core argument is flawed (which it is).

With regards to what makes an RPG an RPG, I find that the following Escapist podcast [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escapist-podcast/5431-035-What-Defines-An-RPG-More-Mass-Effect] starting at the 8:00 mark pretty much echoes what I consider an RPG to be, it's all about player agency and the world responding to your actions. One guy even says JRPGs aren't RPGs because they really aren't. Here's a direct quote from said podcast (at 15:35) "We've gotten so used to RPGs being the RPG elements and not being RPGs anymore". So many elements that people feel are essential to RPGs aren't essential at all like leveling, inventory management, etc. At least in the video game medium, RPGs have lost their essence mainly because making a real video game RPG is hard to do while numbers/stats/leveling/combat/etc are easy. There's a great podcast called Film Reroll [http://www.filmreroll.com/] where they playthrough movies and basically "reroll" them by seeing how things change based on how the characters are role-played and of course the actual dice rolls too. They are one-shots basically with no character advancement or leveling, are you going to argue that they aren't playing an RPG because there's no leveling? My friends and I just last week did our own reroll on Jurassic Park.

Sure, Souls along with the majority of video game RPGs have some (usually a very minimal amount) of agency and consequences to your actions, but that is hardly the primary element of those games. It would be like classifying Mirror's Edge as a shooter because it has some shooting. Mirror's Edge is as much of a shooter as Dark Souls is an RPG.

 

[SSLeo]

know the game "Grand Chase" ? i like their battle system in where you can dodge the enemies skill by just using a skill hope this works in other games too

 

[sXeth]

With regards to what makes an RPG an RPG, I find that the following Escapist podcast [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escapist-podcast/5431-035-What-Defines-An-RPG-More-Mass-Effect] starting at the 8:00 mark pretty much echoes what I consider an RPG to be, it's all about player agency and the world responding to your actions. One guy even says JRPGs aren't RPGs because they really aren't. Here's a direct quote from said podcast (at 15:35) "We've gotten so used to RPGs being the RPG elements and not being RPGs anymore". So many elements that people feel are essential to RPGs aren't essential at all like leveling, inventory management, etc. At least in the video game medium, RPGs have lost their essence mainly because making a real video game RPG is hard to do while numbers/stats/leveling/combat/etc are easy. There's a great podcast called Film Reroll [http://www.filmreroll.com/] where they playthrough movies and basically "reroll" them by seeing how things change based on how the characters are role-played and of course the actual dice rolls too. They are one-shots basically with no character advancement or leveling, are you going to argue that they aren't playing an RPG because there's no leveling? My friends and I just last week did our own reroll on Jurassic Park.

Sure, Souls along with the majority of video game RPGs have some (usually a very minimal amount) of agency and consequences to your actions, but that is hardly the primary element of those games. It would be like classifying Mirror's Edge as a shooter because it has some shooting. Mirror's Edge is as much of a shooter as Dark Souls is an RPG.

I mean, yeah in the ideal world they're borrowing RPG from tabletop D&D and the like. Until we get AI's that can function as the DM for the game though, and dynamically redo everything to respond, that ideals a bit off (though probably closer then we'd think).

Hence stuff kind of splits up where its priorities lay. Some would pursue that sort of responsive world idea to (Very) limited success, but most of the videogame implementations were fixed narratives that followed some of the ideas you'd find in tabletop games (Skill checks and heavy storytelling focus.). The genre staple across both these tended to be that you created and evolved your character on a mechanical and characterization basis (as much as would work within the storyline), the same way you leveled your tabletop character.

JRPG's for the most part have well veered off those initial principles for preset characters and very little general freedom in how they progress mechanically or otherwise. The shift was pretty abrupt really, Final Fantasy 1 is your own personal Warriors of Light, Final Fantasy 2 immediately becomes someone elses characters.

The western style varies a bit. But there's certainly a case for Dark Souls or Skyrim, Whereas the Witcher for instance, is a fantasy action-adventure game with a few borrowed mechanics. Your DArk Sousl character can progress mechanically and in a general characterization in a varity of ways (Be it the straight playthrough or becoming a gravelord and invading other worlds), Skyrim offers a similar path for your character, while always the Dragonborn, might be a Dark Brotherhood Assassin or aaclaimed Imperial General (or both, which is stupid and coutnerintuitive to any sense of characterization). Geralt will always be Geralt. Defined Geralt with his defined Geralt priorities, relationships and quirks. Bethesda actually also provides us with their own unique example of the pseudo-RPG in Fallout 4. You create the character and control the mechanics, but the voice-acting left them with one character. No matter your best efforts, you're always playing the slightly sarcastic do-gooder guy/girl chasing after their son.

 

[Aerosteam]

Spoiler

Spoiler: What next

https://levelskip.com/rpgs/good-rpg

Pretty sure DS has more than one of those tenets. Your resident lambasting of the Souls series is beyond rational. You constantly compare it to other games that aren't even in the same genre like they're supposed to be played the same way. If it was as awful as you say then people certainly wouldn't still be discussing it far more than most of the other topically irrelevant games you've routinely mentioned.

I know MH has a lot of depth, as well as tighter i-frames than Souls, but the play styles comment in general is also ludicrous. Even considering the controls alone DS [http://darksouls.wikidot.com/controls] is far more nuanced than Bayonetta [http://bayonetta.wikia.com/wiki/Controls]. Furthermore a game that doesn't force you to play a certain way in and of itself is indicative of it having more play styles. Their viability or lack thereof is again only one in a long list of reasons the Souls games are still discussed more as well. As far as I'm concerned it ties into the fact that DS is different. You're one of the few that don't like it. Yet instead of leaving it at that you continue to not only drag the dead horse out of the barn to beat it some more, but parade it up and down the streets like you're hoping to impress any passerby unfortunate enough to witness it.

Firstly, I don't hate the Souls games, I find them average to slightly above average games. Any good combat game throws enemies at the player that forces them to change up their strategy and the Souls games do not have that. Does it matter if I use a game like Nioh (a Souls-like) to compare to a Souls game or a Bayonetta or even an Uncharted? Good enemy design will force the player into utilizing all the game's mechanics regardless of the type of combat; slow, faster, melee, shooting, stealth games even. Souls does a lot things wrong with regards to combat and its RPG elements. What's the point of the parry/riposte in Souls when 1) it's just plain better to just block because the reward of risking it for a parry just isn't worth it and 2) you have to look up a FAQ just to see what enemies can be parried. Bloodborne greatly fixes almost all of that by making just about every enemy (besides the really big bosses) susceptible to visceral attacks plus there's no shield so that visceral attacks are encouraged and much more worth it. Hbomberguy's Bloodborne is Genius video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC3OuLU5XCw&feature=youtu.be&t=953] brings up lots of great points about what Bloodborne does right that Souls does bad even though his main point about the "right" and "wrong" way to play is basically impossible to prove considering fun is subjective. His "play conditioning" section makes a lot of sense regardless if you think his core argument is flawed (which it is).

With regards to what makes an RPG an RPG, I find that the following Escapist podcast [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escapist-podcast/5431-035-What-Defines-An-RPG-More-Mass-Effect] starting at the 8:00 mark pretty much echoes what I consider an RPG to be, it's all about player agency and the world responding to your actions. One guy even says JRPGs aren't RPGs because they really aren't. Here's a direct quote from said podcast (at 15:35) "We've gotten so used to RPGs being the RPG elements and not being RPGs anymore". So many elements that people feel are essential to RPGs aren't essential at all like leveling, inventory management, etc. At least in the video game medium, RPGs have lost their essence mainly because making a real video game RPG is hard to do while numbers/stats/leveling/combat/etc are easy. There's a great podcast called Film Reroll [http://www.filmreroll.com/] where they playthrough movies and basically "reroll" them by seeing how things change based on how the characters are role-played and of course the actual dice rolls too. They are one-shots basically with no character advancement or leveling, are you going to argue that they aren't playing an RPG because there's no leveling? My friends and I just last week did our own reroll on Jurassic Park.

Sure, Souls along with the majority of video game RPGs have some (usually a very minimal amount) of agency and consequences to your actions, but that is hardly the primary element of those games. It would be like classifying Mirror's Edge as a shooter because it has some shooting. Mirror's Edge is as much of a shooter as Dark Souls is an RPG

.

You?ve linked that Bloodborne video so many times in these kinds of threads. One of these days hopefully soon I?ll have time to watch it all with more insight. Probably after I finish it thoroughly. You?re right about fun being subjective though. While there are things I like more about Bloodborne - its tight focus, level design, soundtrack, overall weapon quality to name a few - there are others that make me miss the added freedom of Souls proper.

I personally don?t want a game to restrict me into playing a certain way, unless it?s so simple it?s practically unavoidable. It mostly encourages me to find ways to exploit its systems if not outright break them. Part of the appeal of Souls to me is just getting lost in the folds of its worlds. Simply walking around exploring, looking like a badass with a shield raised checking out a new area, or two-handing a greatsword to strike down whoever?s in the way. Having a large swath of melee, magic, miracle, pyro, projectile, and consumable item options that I may or may not use is like an all-inclusive smorgasbord of comfort food. I?ll usually default to a few favorites, but the rest is still there if the urge for something new or different arises.

I?d barely even call Souls an action-RPG as it traditionally is. To me it?s more of a dungeon crawling adventure with the action-RPG stuff thrown in for good measure. Sure, the combat could be deeper and more polished, but even as it is no other game series I?ve played has come close to the feeling. I think it?s the animation system and Havok physics that yield a deliberate feel to every motion. They were big parts of what first drew me into Demon?s Souls.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I mean, yeah in the ideal world they're borrowing RPG from tabletop D&D and the like. Until we get AI's that can function as the DM for the game though, and dynamically redo everything to respond, that ideals a bit off (though probably closer then we'd think).

Hence stuff kind of splits up where its priorities lay. Some would pursue that sort of responsive world idea to (Very) limited success, but most of the videogame implementations were fixed narratives that followed some of the ideas you'd find in tabletop games (Skill checks and heavy storytelling focus.). The genre staple across both these tended to be that you created and evolved your character on a mechanical and characterization basis (as much as would work within the storyline), the same way you leveled your tabletop character.

JRPG's for the most part have well veered off those initial principles for preset characters and very little general freedom in how they progress mechanically or otherwise. The shift was pretty abrupt really, Final Fantasy 1 is your own personal Warriors of Light, Final Fantasy 2 immediately becomes someone elses characters.

The western style varies a bit. But there's certainly a case for Dark Souls or Skyrim, Whereas the Witcher for instance, is a fantasy action-adventure game with a few borrowed mechanics. Your DArk Sousl character can progress mechanically and in a general characterization in a varity of ways (Be it the straight playthrough or becoming a gravelord and invading other worlds), Skyrim offers a similar path for your character, while always the Dragonborn, might be a Dark Brotherhood Assassin or aaclaimed Imperial General (or both, which is stupid and coutnerintuitive to any sense of characterization). Geralt will always be Geralt. Defined Geralt with his defined Geralt priorities, relationships and quirks. Bethesda actually also provides us with their own unique example of the pseudo-RPG in Fallout 4. You create the character and control the mechanics, but the voice-acting left them with one character. No matter your best efforts, you're always playing the slightly sarcastic do-gooder guy/girl chasing after their son.

I think the Mass Effect series (and probably several Bioware games that I haven't played) accomplish legit role-playing in the video game medium. People would spend hours in each Mass Effect trying to recreate their exact same looking Shepard from the previous game, even start over because the model didn't look right in-game vs character creator. And, the main reason players were so upset of the ending was because of how attached people got to their Shepard vs other games having horrid endings (AssCreed 3 and it's ending released the very same year for example). Shepard felt as much of Bioware's character as he/she did your own character because of how the game emphasized role-playing. And your actions as Shepard did effect the world in meaningful ways. Sure, Bioware dropped the ball at times but that is mainly due to some poor writing and not having everything planned out like they should've. But no game series had my friends and I discussing our decisions more than Mass Effect; a friend and I had at least an hour long conversation about what was the right thing to do about the Krogan genophage in ME3. Of course, video games can't be as open-ended as a tabletop game but that's no reason to not have role-playing in video games. Shepard can't be literally any character you can think of but that's fine too because a commander needs certain character traits to be an effective commander. It's like there's nothing wrong with making just a ninja RPG where you can only be a ninja, it's limiting to only being a ninja but you can still fully role-play as a ninja. Limiting isn't necessarily bad for an RPG. DnD/Pathfinder can only make fantasy characters vs other RPG systems that are far more flexible that can make literally any type of character you can think of.

I've said this many times, but I merely classify a game's genre by what do I do most in a game. If I fight enemies more in a game than anything else, it's some sorta combat game and not an RPG. I definitely feel Mass Effect had more time role-playing vs shooting so it was a legit RPG because of that. RPGs shouldn't be mainly about combat because if they are mainly about combat and the combat is lacking (which they almost always are), then why am I even playing it when I can play a legit action combat game with a better combat system whether it's a Bayonetta or Monster Hunter. There's tons of video game RPGs where literally every stat/skill/ability pertains to combat, there's no way that's an RPG then IMO. Many video game RPGs like Dark Souls have role-playing opportunities and such, but at the end of the day, the thing your mainly doing is combat. It's like nobody is going to call Mirror's Edge a shooter so why is Final Fantasy called an RPG?

Errant Signal [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqkZXNZwZq4] did a video on Fallout 4 about how the game lost basically all of it's role-playing.

You?ve linked that Bloodborne video so many times in these kinds of threads. One of these days hopefully soon I?ll have time to watch it all with more insight. Probably after I finish it thoroughly. You?re right about fun being subjective though. While there are things I like more about Bloodborne - its tight focus, level design, soundtrack, overall weapon quality to name a few - there are others that make me miss the added freedom of Souls proper.

I personally don?t want a game to restrict me into playing a certain way, unless it?s so simple it?s practically unavoidable. It mostly encourages me to find ways to exploit its systems if not outright break them. Part of the appeal of Souls to me is just getting lost in the folds of its worlds. Simply walking around exploring, looking like a badass with a shield raised checking out a new area, or two-handing a greatsword to strike down whoever?s in the way. Having a large swath of melee, magic, miracle, pyro, projectile, and consumable item options that I may or may not use is like an all-inclusive smorgasbord of comfort food. I?ll usually default to a few favorites, but the rest is still there if the urge for something new or different arises.

I?d barely even call Souls an action-RPG as it traditionally is. To me it?s more of a dungeon crawling adventure with the action-RPG stuff thrown in for good measure. Sure, the combat could be deeper and more polished, but even as it is no other game series I?ve played has come close to the feeling. I think it?s the animation system and Havok physics that yield a deliberate feel to every motion. They were big parts of what first drew me into Demon?s Souls.

Here's a video from Snoman Gaming [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqAVQUSEtng&feature=youtu.be&t=383] (all cued up to the exact point) that just popped up on my Youtube feed yesterday where he basically says the same exact thing that hbomberguy's Bloodborne video is about how Bloodborne causes you to play other Souls games differently. I think there's definitely something to playing a game "right / fun" or "wrong / unfun" but you can't really prove as fun is subjective so you can't make blanket statements like such and such is the best way to play, but I think it can be generally true across a majority of players. It's sorta like playing Vanquish as a cover shooter or playing Dishonored as a pure stealth game and being disappointed; and I would say that you played them wrong.

I like my games to only give me the good stuff as I've said numerous times here. I don't mind one playstyle or several playstyles as long as they are all good. I just found Souls' magic to be very underwhelming in the actual mechanics of casting spells to spell variety to just the satisfaction and visuals of the spells themselves. Of course, magic makes certain enemies and bosses joke easy as well. I feel similarly about shielding as I don't find the controls to be as good as they should be plus I felt it was too easy to block. I made a fully dex/faith based thief in Dark Souls and my character shouldn't have been able to block nearly as well as I could. That's just one of the things I felt Souls failed at with its RPG mechanics and why Bloodborne fixes stuff by basically removing all the stuff Souls did poorly.

I find Monster Hunter "feels" a lot like a Souls game combat-wise but with a lot more mechanical depth. You have to be really on point with every button press and action or you'll end up doing an extra action instead of being able to dodge that'll get you hit pretty damn hard. You have to make those same hard decisions about having a big enough window to charge up stronger attacks or go for a couple quick hits. Big weapons/strong attacks feel very weighty as well. Of course, Monster Hunter has stamina that you have to keep track of. Every weapon is basically its own totally different playstyle.

 

[Aerosteam]

^^ I think the best part about the Snoman link though was a comment he made:

So the coolest part about making this video has been seeing the love for all of the Soulsborne games in the comments. I've gotten equal comments talking about each game and why they love it so much, which is awesome and shows me why the series is so great. Everyone can love different aspects of the series and hold different games as their favorite

You might disagree of course, but instead of leaving it at that you?ll routinely rattle on and on about how x game does y so much better. It is irrelevant seeing as how if x were the be all-end all of what makes a great *correctly designed* game, then stuff like SoulsBorne wouldn?t have developed the fanbase and critical acclaim it has.

Games like DMC, Bayonetta, etc. aren?t even apples to oranges, so I don?t know why you always bring them up in comparison. As for Monster Hunter I watched some kid play with a bow build that was apparently really good, and to me it looked like a slog. He spent about ten minutes doing the same damn thing while the monster basically just stood there and thrashed its tail occasionally. It may have deep combat but to me that doesn?t automatically equate to an engaging experience if one really steps back to think about it.