-
Archives
-
Categories
- Anime (72)
- D&D Campaign (84)
- DM of the Rings (156)
- Escapist (319)
- Game Design (69)
- Game Reviews (314)
- Lets Play (78)
- Links (210)
- Movies (208)
- Nerd Culture (135)
- Notices (82)
- Personal (114)
- Pictures (114)
- Programming (21)
- Projects (88)
- Random Thoughts (123)
- Rants (149)
- Tabletop Games (62)
- Video Games (135)
-
RSS Links
-
Links
What Makes a Great RPG, Part III
Previous in Game Design: What Makes a Great RPG, Part II | Next in Game Design: Freedom vs. Story |
After screwing around for the last two posts, I’m actually going to try to tackle this question now. Actually, I can’t really say what makes an RPG “great”, but I can at least define what I like about RPGs. Which is almost like answering the question. Sort of.
This list is going to be very subjective. Opinions will vary. Lots of great answers were already given by readers in the previous post, and I can see that some people like things about RPGs which “ruin” the game for me. This only reinforces the idea that “RPG” is a term applied carelessly to many different games, some of which have opposing or conflicting goals.
1. I know I bring this up a lot, but RPG games should be self-balancing. Having foes “scale” to the player’s level is an abomination that defeats the entire purpose of leveling up in the first place. The same goes for arranging the game so that all players will have about the same relative strength at any given point in the game.
Let the player farm XP if they want to. Let them fight low level foes without penalty if they want to. This is not cheating. This is simply another way to play the game. Maybe the player is new to RPGs and needs the help. Maybe they would rather move more slowly and steamroll over foes instead of moving more quickly and occasionally dying or running away. It’s their character. Let them play it on their own terms.
2. There should be many choices, and they should be interesting. And by “interesting” I don’t mean you earn “good” or “evil” points.
Stupid: You meet a woman on the road who needs your help. Will you help, or murder her and steal her shoes?
Better: You meet a woman on the road who needs your help. If you help her you might anger the baron, which could lead to headaches down the road. However, NOT helping her will aid the baron, and he’s not a very nice guy.
Best: You meet a woman on the road who needs your help, but you sense she isn’t giving you the whole story. You’re not sure if you believe her, or the baron. You’re going to have to talk to some people and investigate a bit if you want to know what’s really going on. Both sides are likely full of flaws, and choosing a side should reveal something about the values or preferences of the player, or their character.
3. Randomized worlds are very good. If you can’t have random scenery, then at least the loot should be randomized. Having the exact same items in the exact same locations every time though the game just kills the replay value.
4. Interesting characters. Villains with no agenda outside of being evil jerks are tiresome and banal. Good characters without some quirks or flaws are usually pretty flat.
5. Skill-based leveling system. This Rampant Coyote post talks about skill-based vs. class-based systems. I’m a big fan of classless systems for sure. For me the ideal system was the one used in Fallout. It was deep, fun, and did a good job of portraying personal growth in the real world. In a good skill-based system you gain “knowledge”, not “intelligence”. You get better at using weapons, not more dexterous. This makes a lot more sense to me.
6. I want to play a character, not a gang. I prefer games where I’m alone. (I’m really put off by games where there IS no central character.) If I have to have some NPC’s with me, they had better be really interesting folks and should not break immersion. They should also manage themselves. I’m busy controlling my character, and I don’t have time to tell them what to do in a fight.
7. I want a good story. No, I don’t want to go on yet another epic quest to collect some stupid sword or bauble.
8. I’m really burned out on Fantasy settings. There’s nothing wrong with magic, wizards, dragons and treasure chests, but we’ve been there and done that a few times now.
9. I like large freeform worlds. I dislike when the “being on rails” metaphor extends to movement within the game world. If I can only go forward or back, then I’m going to get bored. Quickly.
10. “Character customization” does not mean deciding what hat I want to wear. I want to start by choosing age & gender, and end with deciding how I want to shape the bridge of my avatar’s nose.
These are not set in stone, and I’m willing to give up some if they go for broke on the others. For example, Jade Empire had a simplistic leveling system of little consequence, a one-dimensional path through the world, static scenery and loot, and no character customization to speak of. But Bioware hit gold with the story and characters, and so Jade Empire stands as one of my favorites.
Of course one person suggested that the game should just be as much like Fallout as possible. That’s a pretty good answer too.
EDIT:
Here is the follow-up post at Rampant Coyote.
Mr. Halbert has more thoughts on this as well.
Also I’d like to clarify my point #3. When I asked for “random loot”, I’m suggesting thatstuff in containers be nominally randomized at the start of the game. I agree with the comments below that totally random drops just kill versimilitude. An orc wielding an axe should not drop a bow when he dies, and a rat should not drop a longsword.
Previous in Game Design: What Makes a Great RPG, Part II | Next in Game Design: Freedom vs. Story |
There are 76 comments here. I really hope you like reading.
7. I want a good story. No, I don’t want to go on yet another epic quest to collect some stupid sword or bauble.
Sorry Shamus, but I’m kind of a fan of epic stuff. Now if they can make it a good epic story…
The funny thing is that I didn’t enjoy Fallout because of the implied time limit. That just cooked both of the Fallout games for me, because it was taking me a long time to figure out what to do and how to get around.
How about this one: side quests should always be *short* and *fast* to complete. If it isn’t, it should be tied into the main plot some way.
Or: If you’re going to have a “good” path and an “evil” path, make them substantially different. You can arrive at the same end through different means, but the stops along the way should be completely different not just cosmetically different.
I think that the class vs. skill mechanic discussion isn’t nearly as important as the plot/setting discussion. If you do a good, consistent class system that supports the genre you’re going for (like a D&D clone) then your players will appreciate that. For us D&D players, it was cool that Temple of Elemental Evil and Neverwinter Nights captured that, for instance. It’s choosing the right mechanic for the game feel you want to create that I think would be most important.
Oh, and…
Some of us (many of us) can’t play a game for 3-4 hours in a row anymore. Heck, we’re happy to play the game two hours on a weekend night and may have to pause to tend to a child in the middle. Don’t make that impossible for us or we’ll never be able to play the game.
Which brings up a rule that a friend of mine’s wife imposed: any game bought *must* have a pause or other way to immediately step away to take care of real world things.
It’s not finished yet, and it’s only tenuously an RPG, but if you really want to be able to choose the shape of your character’s nose, check out Mount and Blade.
It’s currently freeware (ish*), being developed by a husband and wife team in Turkey, plus a few more guys who chipped in on the forums. There are pretty frequent updates, a really active modding community, and the best use of horses I’ve yet seen in a game.
Sadly there isn’t a story yet, but there is a whole continent waiting to have its ass kicked…
Alex: Agreed. I have M&B, and I absolutely love it. It’s got a much different leveling style, and you have an *enormous* amount of customization with regards to your character.
It’s at http://www.taleworlds.com if I recall correctly…
Shamus, I said it in the first RPG post you did last week. You are basically describing here what Biowares new game Mass Effect is going to be, at least thats what it sounds like it will be. Its coming out for the X-Box 360 but I would not doubt that it will get a PC release eventually(KOTOR and Jade Empire did). As far as your points
1) Self Balancing – Don’t know on this but most Bioware games have been
2) Intersting choices – Supposedly the way conversation structure works in Mass Effect is that you have several different choices and can choose to cut off your NPC mid sentence. And yes that will begin to piss them off. They said they are trying to go farther away from the good/bad dynamic there other games have.
3) Not sure on Random worlds
4) The world itself sounds interesting. I here all teh characters have there own agendas. The main villian has his own agenda but is not all together evil. In the prequal novel he seems to be all about the needs of the many out wieghting the needs of the few. He tends to take it to far, killing innocent people to get his job done.
5) There are classes in Mass Effect, so one strike against it
6) You play one character, you do have people on your team but you direct them via issueing them commands. Like a leader. Not actually controlling them. They seem like interesting people
7) Bioware games always have good stories
8) Sci-Fi space Opera. Not even psedio Sci-Fi but really Fantasy like Star Wars is(I love Star Wars but its basically fantasy in space). Its more Star Trek then Star Wars. But much grittier then Star Trek. Maybe Babylon 5ish.
9) Supposedly you are allowed to basically go anywhere you want in the game. Any planet that is opened to you and run around them. Not sure if it is as freeform as GTA.
10) You pick where you are from, how your military career was. Your personality. How you look and all that stuff.
I might just be a bioware fanboy excited about a game that isn’t even out yet. But if the real game is half as good as the hype this looks like it will be the next big RPG.
I Think I’ll have to second the comment about Fallout. Best damn game ever.
And I stand by my “like Fallout” stance. :D
“I might just be a bioware fanboy excited about a game that isn’t even out yet. But if the real game is half as good as the hype this looks like it will be the next big RPG.”
Well, yeah, it’ll be the best thing available, but honestly, the contest isn’t that great. If you listen to Peter Molyneux, you’d believe Fable 2 is going to rock the socks off the President, but you know how much he talks and how much he delivers.
Bioware does have a tendency to deliver right on the money, but awaiting their games has become somewhat of a no-brainer, unlike say LucasArts Studios, which seem to produce little or nothing other than Star Wars products these days. Practically living off it too.
Now the problem for Shamus here is that getting an RPG for a console is not really the intimate experience he’d really want from a game. As good as Jade Empire was, it’s a fact that it did suffer in a way from it’s console background. There’s just a different level of expectations coming from PC games over console games. Most genres manage this transition fine, which is observed by generations of FPS games and fighting games on the consoles developing their own brands, while old school RPG’s like Baldur’s Gate and Fallout were dubbed too complex and deep for the market of console gamers (see Baldur’s Gate: Dark Alliance).
This has come to the point that I bought the latest Megaman series cartridge for the DS and I felt it had more RPG elements than any RPG released this year.
I’d get a 360 for 2 games: Oblivion, and Mass Effect. But from what I hear, Mass Effect suffers from the “everyone loves lesbians!” syndrome. I liked that in KOTOR, if you were a female character, your love interest would be *gasp* MALE.
I’m fine with lesbians and all but whats the point if you’re not getting anything from it? ;)
Stompin’ post at the Coyote.
I would add: No major decisions upfront. I hate more than anything getting 3/4 through a game and then having to replay the whole story because I screwed up my character. DDO failed.
When Le Revolucion arrives, WoW will bow to Avatar:
http://lilxs.blogspot.com/2007/06/avatar.html
All I have to say is: dare we give in to hope…
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/fallout3/index.html
Fallout one: awesome
Fallout two: even better
Fallout tactics: Meh. not too painful
Fallout three: ???
About point 3:
It should be a semi random item generator, and be generated the moment you press Start New Game.
Semi Random: this means that you will not get uber items in starter areas, and you will not get tiny items in end areas. The game gets a list of posible items in every area and select from it. It’s even posible to add some items in some specific places, that need to be there for plot needs.
New Game Start: this is only to avoid the “I don’t like what I got, let’s load a savegame again and see if I get something better” scenario.
Fallout 3 is, thus far, not looking to be much like Fallout. This is because Bethesda Softworks does not know how to make a game like Fallout. More’s the pity.
See, that was my biggest problem with Oblivion. Absolutely loved the game, but everyone was scaling to me. I’d get my butt kicked in a cave, so I’d gain a couple levels and go back, and I’d still get my butt kicked even though I’d have Gauntlets of Don’t Kill Me and my Boots of Wicked Fast. It wasn’t fair at all.
As someone disillusioned with games who still harbours dreams of being a game designer, I have definatly thought about this a lot. One of the biggest points I agree with is the skill levels instead of character levels. I hated being shunted into one little group. If I’m a wizard, why the hell can’t I swing a sword if I want to? It’s right freaking there! It’s not like I need to study a tome on how to hack at things!
Aside from that the story is ridiculously important. It CAN’T be contrived, full of itself or a messy cliche of an excuse for the action. It needs to be well thought out, and if dramatic, with a dose of comedy, violent, with a dose of humanity and so forth. The NPCs should kind of be like the ones in a Shakespear play. Sure, in Hamlet, everyone is depressed and talking about death, but they still have lovers, bystanders, and comedians. Perhaps I should end my rant now…
BTW, I came up with an awesome idea for an RPG. It’s long.
When you’re young, you’re taken in by a family. They’re nice parents, but one day, troops come to the door and say that they’re sorcerers and must be arrested. Do you a) help your parents escape, or b) help arrest them? This decides whether or not you’re a magic user or weapon user.
Second, once you’re grown, if you’re a weapon user, you’re in the army. If you’re a magic user, you’re underground with your mom and dad. Your sibling is on the other side. (there’s a sibling, yes. I’m typing really fast.) The king is kidnapped by the magic users because they’re pissed about the restrictions, and they decide to ferry him to the mainland. You follow/assist.
Now, there was some reason people didn’t go to the mainland. No one remembers, but it was always a bad place. It turns out that the mainland has been overrun with monsters, and there are only a few small enclaves of people left on the mainland. They’re all starving a defenseless, but trying to hide as best they can.
You find an enclave, and end up assisting a specific one, rebuilding their walls, finding weapons for them, helping them to thrive, and establishing contact with the other enclaves. I haven’t really thought past that, though.
2. There should be many choices, and they should be interesting. And by “interesting” I don’t mean you earn “good” or “evil” points.
More than that, I want the choices to _matter_. I don’t want playing the game through on “evil” to be exactly the same as playing the game through on “good”, but with a choice between killing the villain or letting him live and a different closing cutscene. I want to (to go back to a previous thread) choose between saving city A or City B from destruction… and then spend the next 2 days exploring the city I saved, with the other forever out of reach. I want my different ending for taking a different path to be on a whole different planet! I don’t just want replay value, I want to _have_ to play the game through several times to see any significant part of the content, not just to watch the other set of cut-scenes.
The problem with this is, its very difficult to write a good story if the players choices have real consequences. In effect, you have to write a whole series of good stories, let the player choose which they want to follow, and be content that everything else you wrote remains unseen. Game designers don’t like writing things that don’t get played… you’d have to trust that you were writing a game that only took 10 hours to get through but you’d play a dozen times, instead of a game that you’d play for 100 hours.
Lee said
“BTW, I came up with an awesome idea for an RPG. It’s long.
When you’re young, you’re taken in by a family. They’re nice parents, but one day, troops come to the door and say that they’re sorcerers and must be arrested. Do you a) help your parents escape, or b) help arrest them? This decides whether or not you’re a magic user or weapon user.
Second, once you’re grown, if you’re a weapon user, you’re in the army. If you’re a magic user, you’re underground with your mom and dad. Your sibling is on the other side. (there’s a sibling, yes. I’m typing really fast.) The king is kidnapped by the magic users because they’re pissed about the restrictions, and they decide to ferry him to the mainland. You follow/assist.
Now, there was some reason people didn’t go to the mainland. No one remembers, but it was always a bad place. It turns out that the mainland has been overrun with monsters, and there are only a few small enclaves of people left on the mainland. They’re all starving a defenseless, but trying to hide as best they can.
You find an enclave, and end up assisting a specific one, rebuilding their walls, finding weapons for them, helping them to thrive, and establishing contact with the other enclaves. I haven’t really thought past that, though.”
Believe me, there are plenty of game plots floating around. Especially in midieval fantasy setting. It isn’t nessecarily the generic idea for the game, it’s the excecution of it’s development.
As for the lesbians in Mass Effect, it’s not as gratuitous as it first sounds. You have the option of a relationship involving either a human male or a humanoid female when you play as a human female character, so it doesn’t necessarily have to involve homosexuality at all. it’s based upon your choices.
The way I like to think of it, these are aliens. It’s weird that any human is having sex with any alien, regardless of gender. It shouldn’t be any more weird that a human female is interested in a alien check than it is for a male.
My question about Mass Effect is whether men can be involved with other men? Might as well go for real equality, right?
More on Lesbians in Mass Effect.
Technically if you are a female in Mass effect you can have a relationship with either a human male or an a-sexual Alien. Sure they are a female looking a-sexual Alien but who knows what they are hiding under there sci-fi jump suits.
Also someone commented about PC rpgs vs Console RPGs. I have played both and honestly I don’t see something like KOTOR to be any less deep or RPG like then Baldur’s Gate was(PC Baldurs gate, not the console crap). I think the argument that console RPG’s are dumbed down or less intimidiate comes from generally uninformed people. Games like KOTOR, Morrorwind, and Jade Empire are great games on any system. I don’t think they are any less intimidiate then what is out on PCs right now.
I think we all want another Fallout. And lucky for us one might be coming soon(although I am not happy that its going to be first person). But like all games now a days it is also being designed first and foremost as a console game because that is where the money is. I just hope it is as good as Fallout 2 was.
Ah, see… I’m THRILLED that the next Fallout will be first person. As I said in my comment to Part I of this series, 1st person is my number one criterion for RPGs. But, again, YMMV.
Shamus,
If you’re looking for almost all the items on that list, but don’t mind playing a mid-1990′s game that’ll require a few tweaks to work on modern systems… …check out Ultima VII: The Black Gate.
Yes, it’s fantasy, and yes, you get a party. However, you can choose your party size (or whether you even pick them up). Further, the characters are all interesting. Most of them are old acquaintances, so there’s friendly banter between them that you won’t find in many RPG’s. They run into old flings, get into arguments, and flatter you mercilessly. They are also moral people, so if you commit crimes around them they eventually get ticked off and leave. Finally, you can set general commands (Attack Strongest, Flee, Defend Other Member, etc.) so they do their own thing without micromanagement.
The world is not randomized, but it is both huge and completely open. It takes you about 20 minutes to get out of the first town, and then the world is your burrito. Go walk through some swamps and see how a level 1 does against the local alligators, or buy a ship and really get in over your head on some of the islands.
For an interesting villain, try this: an organization has risen up which has improved the lives of many, has fed the poor, has raised up strong leaders and made a positive benefit in everyone’s life. And its leader is one of the main villains in the game.
The leveling system is not very detailed, but it has an exorbitant magic system with well over 50 spells, and your character can both fight and cast equally. You can specialize or go balanced. It’s a wonderful combo.
The far strongest part of the game, however, is the incredible deep and immersive storyline. The main line is fun to follow, but you do it at your leisure. Along the way, every single NPC has something to say, and they lead to dozens of side quests to go through and explore. It’s all story-driven, so there’s no “I need you to kill 3 rats in my basement!” quests. More like “Someone has defaced the statues outside our castle, and it may be racially motivated, so please investigate” style.
Obviously, I’m a bit biased since it was my first RPG, but all these things make me go back to it every few years, find the file around the web that makes it compatible with XP, and play through it again. It has an add-on as well as a complete second act, and it’s all golden RPing. Check it out.
I’ve been replaying/retrying a few RPGs lately.
Tried Oblivion, marveled at the pretty, got through the first dungeon, saw how leveling worked, realized I’d created my character in an intuitive but precisely wrong fashion, said “screw this,” and uninstalled.
Tried Fable, marveled at how the appearance change system worked, got through the first couple quests, had a quest crash on me right before completion, tried to restore, realized how broken the save game system was, said “screw this,” and uninstalled.
Now I’m going back to Arcanum. I don’t remember the problem I had with it last time around; I think it was just that I was playing it on an old machine that was too slow for it. I remember needing to have combat skill to survive the beginning, but that was true for Fallout 2 as well.
As far as I can tell, the answer is an unsurprising no.
These days I *insist* on the ability to wander around the gameworld. Morrowind was delicious, Fallout and Baldur’s Gate were delightful too… And Daggerfall, which rather shows my age, had the biggest gameworld I’ve ever seen outside of a flight simulator. But I have yet to see a flight sim that lets me break into people’s houses.
This is another reason why I have no time for console-style RPG, or rather RPG-esque, games which are so firmly railed.
What about logical AI? I know that it’s something still being worked out in many systems, but if they can start putting some sort of adaptive AI into sports titles, why not push it into RPGs? After all, the same tactic used over and over again by a character should eventually lead to the baddies knowing what tendencies the character uses. Doesn’t mean that they can stop those tendencies, but the NPCs can prepare for it.
Jeff,
I think the majority of the core videogame demographic will be happy with the, er, Sapphic possibilities of the game. There’s equality, and then there’s undeniable facts of marketing. I know which one I’m betting on in this fight.
According to the UK rating board leak(which is where we heard about the in game slight nudity and the Lesbian action.
If you are male you can hook up with a Female human or a female looking(but according to the game a-sexual) alien. If you are a woman you can hook up with a male human or the same before mentioned alien.
Personally am I offened by the pseudo lesbian action. Nope, but I am drooling over it like a 13 year old would. Am I offended that there isn’t a male homosexual option. Nope, but I can see why the developer would avoid it. Would I be happy if they included it as an option. Yep, the more options in an RPG the better. Again though I see why the developer might stay clear of it.
In this day in age for the most part people are okay with interracial coupling and can handle interspecies(ie aliens, not animals) couplings but there are still a lot of people(Right wingers, Religious extremist, Jack Thompson) who would get all upset if the character could have a male homosexual relationship. No matter how many other choices the player had they would say that the game is teaching kids to be gay.
MintSkittle Says:
“7. I want a good story. No, I don’t want to go on yet another epic quest to collect some stupid sword or bauble.
Sorry Shamus, but I’m kind of a fan of epic stuff. Now if they can make it a good epic story…”
I think what shamus was criticizing were stories that ask you to find some uber sword or some such,not their scale.I too enjoy epic quests,but when such a quest ends in you finding some big ass sword,its kind of a let down.
As for lesbians,I remember that in NWN:HotU,playing a female you could have a relationship with quite a few males,and one female.Although,there were no male-male relationships.
As for #10,I prefer the customization to be more about your history or perks(like the mark in morrowind,or perks in fallout)then the looks.I usually dont care for my characters appearance,but more about his/her past,state of mind and body,etc.
Btw,Im a fan of skill-based leveling system,and I use it in my campaigns.But its quite a pain to track.Any good tips?
I’m a bit more “old school” than Shamus, I guess, because the RPG’s I kinda miss are turn-based RPG’s with a party of at least 6. Needless to say, I really enjoyed Final Fantasy Tactics, the old Gold Box games (I wrote mod tools for Unlimited Adventures back in the 90′s), and Ultimas 4-7 (in my book it essentially stopped being Ultima at game 8, and let’s not even talk about 9). Fallout 1 and 2 was also excellent, though sometimes I wish I could control the NPC’s like I could in old Wasteland…
Interesting. I can’t agree with you more on point 1. Oblivion falls short of being a true “great” RPG because of the damnable sense that leveling is pointless, and the utterly messed up and ill thought out level/skill mechanics. I held it up as an example of the mutability required to make an RPG great, but it utterly fails on so many other points that it only gets an ambivalent (love/hate) “good” grade from me.
In an RPG, I expect to be in waaay over my head at the beginning, carefully exploring to make sure that I don’t wake some god forsaken horror, or even a lair of bandits, and then master of my world by the end, able to crush demons and barter with demigods. That’s an essential characteristic.
Now for the most part I would have to agree with you Shamus, but there are two points you make that I think clash and can’t work together well. A free roaming world is awesome and all, but when the baddies don’t level with you you end up following a path whether you like it or not. I mean if KOTOR was like that say Tatooine was easy and Korriban was hard you’d go to Tatooine first and do the quests there while you are leveling up to be able to tackle Korriban. I just don’t think you can have both ends of the spectrum with that unless there is a game that works out that I’m not aware of.
Shamus, points 1-4 and 6 are why I don’t bother with any CRPG. Roleplaying is about a lot *more* than advancing your character’s abilities, it’s about all those options you mention.
Another word for it is “content”, and ultimately, no CRPG can really provide enough, because the consumers greatly outnumber the creators. Even online experiences that fully incorporate fan-material (like Second Life) have trouble keeping up.
If you really want all of what you’re asking for, there’s still no substitute for the original: a tabletop roleplaying game with a reasonably competent GM. Even a reasonably competent one can usually provide enough varied content and ah-hoc interaction to compare favorably to an online game. A *good* GM can consistently beat them. Even a bad GM isn’t usually bad because he can’t generate content, but because he’s an absolute b****** of an a******. (I’ll admit there are GMs that can’t generate content either, but my gut feeling is that they don’t stay GMs for long.)
In all fairness, a TRPG does have its weaknesses – it probably won’t be as pretty, and combat will almost definitely be slower. But that isn’t what you’re complaining about either.
This is what I want:
1.- I want to play a role…
[Oblivion was good for that. I spent very much time without fighting but acting as I desired)
2.- ...so I want to customize my character. I mean, I wan to CHOOSE race, gender, "profession", skills, atributes. I don't care avatars, or it can be the last.
[Oblivion was great for that]
3.- …so I want to decide my way. I don’t need a linear plot.
[Oblivion & Final Fantasy XII. The second a little bit worst, because certain level is required for certain places]
4.- …so I want some exciting worlds. Medieval, SciFi, Apocalyptic or a combination, with magic, swords, blasters and everithing that I can’t find when I’m not playing (fortunately)
[Final Fantasy: VII, VIII, IX, X, XII are the best for that. I'm expecting for Mass Effect, Fallout 3 and FFXIII]
5.- …so it is necessary to have a good story. The best could be one without good nor evil. Just freedom for making choices, of course, paying consequences.
[Oblivion is too simple. Gothic III the worst (what about if I want to be an orc?). Again, final fantasy has the greatest approach, but it has lacking in originality: it's always evil vs good, and good always win]
7.- Additionally, a good system is always required.
[Action-RPG is one of the best approachs for me: I love Kingdom Hearts II, I want to play Final Fantasy VII crisis core and I really bored with the "tactics" games. At PC, a human cannot manage more than 3 or 4 concepts at the same time, so I don't need 24 shortcuts in my keyboard or a character sheet more complicated than a book of programming (teach yourself RPG games in a nutshell)]
6.- Above all, I’m searching for fun.
· Oblivion desperated me at the end. :(
· I played every Final Fantasy ’till the end :D
· Let’s see Mass Effect (in Europe, it will be released in 2 months), Fallout 3 and FFXIII :)
Final bosses, leveling, side quests and so on are distinctive of each game. A good decission of the designers become a game to a great game. For instance, I really enjoy the new system for Final Fantasy (XII). Another example, it is said that Shadow of the colossus (well, not a RPG game) is one of the best, and all the monster are final (or at least, huge)
At the risk of flogging a dead horse, here is my “reader review” of Oblivion at IGN:
http://rr.pc.ign.com/rrview/pc/the_elder_scrolls_iv_oblivion/702491/43277/
That better expresses my feelings on the game balance issues in Oblivion, and why it fails to be a “great RPG,” while, on the whole, being quite good.
There are a few things I’d like to see more often.
1. Less giant boss fights. Now, this doesn’t mean make all games like FEAR (I mean, I like fighting the dragon/giant/etc as much as the next guy), I just mean less fights that amount to “party of four vs. really big singular enemy.” This can mean fighting a swarm of smaller enemies, a rival/opposed adventuring party, or even a duel between two characters.
2. More steampunk and cyberpunk. This is mostly because I can’t think of any steampunk RPGs besides Arcanum (which I didn’t really like for some reason) and I can’t think of any cyberpunk RPGs unless you count, say, FF7 or something.
3. NPCs taking a dynamic role in the story, perhaps based on the player’s decisions. By this I mean NPCs or party members besides the main character making their own choices. For example, let’s say that Johnny is a character in your party. Let’s say that you drop him from your party in favor of another character–Johnny could perhaps then start his own adventuring party, occasionally meeting or fighting with yours. Or, if you treat him like crap and, for example, steal all of his stuff and kill his family, he could leave your party and then attempt to kill you later on. The problem with this is that it’d be pretty difficult to keep it from devolving into something very simple (such as “evil acts will make the paladin leave” or “if you attack someone they will attack you back”).
I’m not going to touch moral choices and good/evil, because Shamus has said pretty much everything I could.
Zaghadka: I liked your review, spot on. I adored Morrowind, and although I’ve enjoyed the little I’d played out Oblivion, the leveling system really takes alot out of the game.
PS: Did you add this?
“Oblivion features an unprotected DVD disc for easy backup. Please support this corporate ethic.”
@Bogan
If there is a place with tough monsters in a free world,nothing prevents you from scouting the place on a low level.Chances are you will die,but hey,youre still free to push your luck.So if you want to sneak around vampires with a fresh from the bin character,go for it.Maybe you get lucky.If you are carefull,then youll level up before you go there.Free world doesnt mean you can easilly travel the whole globe with a level 1 character,but that each area is accesible if you have the right skill(some doors will be locked,but all doors are pickable/smashable).
5 and 6 are imply a contradiction for me. 6 implies action elements, where you are making decisions in a limited time frame. But action elements mean success in the game is determined by the players skill, not by the game’s mechanics. (ie Ability to dodge is controlled by me dodging in the game, not by my evade% ability). The problem is that this conflicts with stat development. What’s the point of being able to improve combat stats if success in combat ultimately depends on my skill with a mouse and keyboard?
Other than that:
1) What makes non-self balancing games so crappy is that it is so easy to create a self-balancing gameplay, through the means you describe: make later enemies higher level, and allow players to farm low level enemies to improve.
2) This is a dividing point between western rpgs and japanese rpgs. Being a fan of jrpgs, I don’t really care about having control over the overall storyline. A crappy story is a crappy story and a good story is a good story whether or not I can choose the path it takes. But if there are going to be choices, they should be reasonable, and not black and white.
3) Randomized worlds are good if the expectation is that the game will be played multiple times to get enjoyment out of it. But I think that a decent world designer will get more out of creating one excellent world rather than an infinite number of mediocre worlds. Dragon Quest VIII or WoW are great examples of this. It’s fun to wander around just to see the sights. Compare Diablo II, where I doubt anyone ever played to see another random “The Pit” dungeon.
4) Good characterization is essential. Characters should all have motives, and take actions that back them up.
5) I’m not a fan of skill based systems in general, unless the increase is automatic (ie, I improve my ability to use swords by using swords). Point buy skill based systems are brutal for anyone new to the game. As a noob, you are faced with two choices: try to figure it out yourself and end up picking one of the many crappy development paths, or look online for a good build, in which case you may as well play a class based system.
6) I already covered this a bit, but there is a basic scale: the more action, the fewer characters. The more strategy, the more characters. I like a bit more strategy in my rpgs, so I don’t like single player games where you very few interesting options.
7) There’s nothing wrong with a quest to collect some uber item. Good story is decided by the implementation, not the subject matter.
8, 9, 10) Not a big deal to me.
It’s fun to read these three posts and look at the one overall question that needs to be asked, namely:
If you play both tabletop and electronic RPGs, is there some difference between what you expect from a good tabletop game and a good electronic game?
I see some posters that immediately write off the whole idea of electronic RPGs as not being real roleplaying. I’m a veteran of many a D&D campaign, and have played probably a dozen other systems, and agree nothing electronic has matched the feel to me of a good tabletop game. But the last couple of tabletop games I’ve played in haven’t been good tabletop games, as competent GMs are hard to find. (The last couple of games I’ve run haven’t been good, either. Again, competent GMs are hard to find.)
For me, electronic RPGs are a separate genre from tabletop RPGs. While there are similarities, there are insurmountable differences that are probably impossible to overcome for the foreseeable future. I don’t expect my elecrtonic games to have the same freedom that tabletop games have, but I expect them to run much quicker.
One thing that any roleplaying game must have for me, whether electronic or tabletop, is that I must own my character. For Dave H, this requires first person perspective. For Shamus, this is character customization. In a proper first person perspective, you’ll never really see your character, so these two are both valid and contradictory points. I can deal with a precreated character I can see if there is no personality involved; eg, I can map my own emotions onto the character. If I create the character, the plot needs to be either open enough or well written enough that I don’t lose that sense of ownership when my character does something out of character.
In a tabletop game, my character has to be more than a collection of stats, and I’ve seen games, both GM campaigns and rulesets, that ridiculously force characters on me that I can’t identify with and don’t care for. Those always end up bad for everyone involved.
Above all, any game is acceptable if it meets my number 1 requirement for a great game: it’s fun to play. All else is secondary.
42 ngthagg Says:
“5 and 6 are imply a contradiction for me. 6 implies action elements, where you are making decisions in a limited time frame. But action elements mean success in the game is determined by the players skill, not by the game’s mechanics. (ie Ability to dodge is controlled by me dodging in the game, not by my evade% ability). The problem is that this conflicts with stat development. What’s the point of being able to improve combat stats if success in combat ultimately depends on my skill with a mouse and keyboard?”
Not true.NWN fulfills #6 completelly,yet the outcome of combat depends a lot of the skills of your character,and not so much your fast reflexes.
@Civilis
I think we share a point in common – CRPGs and TRPGs are very, very, different beasts. And you do both a disservice if you try to deal with one like the other.
Ryan Dancey has a great series of posts where he analyses the differences between CRPG/MMORGs and TRPGs, and how the latter can compete. I don’t agree with all of his analysis, but his core argument is sound.
(http://web.mac.com/rsdancey/RSDanceyBlog/Blog/Entries/2007/8/13_Step_1%3A__Redefine_The_Hobby.html)
And maybe I’ve been luckier than I thought, but the worst GM I’ve had in recent memory wasn’t incompetent, just an overreactive drama king.
Ok I guess I should really say more that yeah it is a free world, but in the end most players will end up going in a set order anyway almost every time they play it. Of course that doesn’t mean everyone either. I do think a good rpg can stay railroaded though.
I missed out on the previous two installments, so here’s my two cents. I should probably point out that I started with CRPGs and moved onto TRPGs from there, so my expectations for CRPGs seem to be rather different then Shamus’.
Ordered list go!
1. Self balancing. To be completely honest, I’m not a huge fan of your self balancing system, because it for me it seems to kill immersion. When playing a story driven game (usually more linear) I like to keep the pace of the game going. That means I enter an area, clear it of quests and enemies, then move on. If I go to a lot of work killing all the orcs in this section of the mountains, only to find that they’re all back again the moment I leave and return, then what was the point of killing them in the first place? Also, the need to farm experience to continue is game ruining to me. I remember playing the original Final Fantasy. I found that I spent ages just running around in circles in the same four squares of forest waiting for random encounters so that I could get the three or so levels that I needed so that I could enter the next area without being slaughtered outright by the first enemy attack me. I believe that each area should have enough xp (or equivelent for rule set) to ready you for the next area. A good example of this would be KotOR or NWN, I found for the most part the enemies were well matched. True, they were a challenge with a badly made character, but they were still surmountable with a bit of effort.
2. Choices: No complaints here. I’d love a bit more moral ambiguity and grey areas. One example I particularly liked was in Baldur’s Gate 2, one of the Paladin quests. You have to choose sides in a land dispute between a Lawful Evil baron and some Chaotic Good squatters. Although the choice had little baring in the rest of the game, but it did help to flesh out your Paladins beliefs.
3. Randomized levels. I thoroughly disagree with you here. Randomization does nothing but detract from detail and realism, and hence leads to a less immersing game world. Look at Morrowind, Fallout or Baldur’s Gate. The worlds are static and all the better for it. Nothing looks out of place. As for randomised loot, I’m not a huge fan. Firstly, if you kill an enemy, it should drop all the loot it was equipped with. Nothing feels worse then having an orc rum at you with a huge glowing battleaxe, only to find a non-magical dagger on his corpse. If he used it against me, I expect to claim it as a reward at the end of the fight. Conversely, if I’m rewarded with an awesome item after a fight that the enemy didn’t use against me, I’m just going to feel confused. As for loot in chests, I prefer it to be static (especially with the major stuff)but a bit of randomisations acceptable. For example, I don’t care too much if I open a money box and find 3 gold or a silver ring or a crappy gem, they’re all about the same value and have no practical use. But I do mind if that heavily guarded chest which had the kick ass weapon last time this time had a large deal of money, it just seems unfair. On one playthrough I would have been gypped. Though one intersting use of semi-random loot I’ve seen is in NWN:HotU. As all your equipment was stripped from you at the start of the game, you start off with mostly useless stuff. So to help you out there are a couple of places (one chest and one monster) that will drop strong magical weapons of whatever type you have weapon focus in. That’s neat, as it’s annoying to find a good item that you just can’t use. It’s not quite believable, but it doesn’t detract from the enjoyment.
4. Good characters. Probably the most important characteristic in any game. One of the reasons I don’t much like Icewind Dale or Temple of Elemental Evil is that your party have no personality, whereas all your companions in Baldur’s Gate and Planescape: Torment are well written and voiced with complex backgrounds and often conflicting views on the situation.
5. I’m rather ambivilant on this point. It really depends on how the situation is implemented. For example, class based systems work better with parties. Sure, fighters and mages can’t deal with traps, that’s why you drag a rogue along with you. The problem with skill based systems is that you can end up in a catch 22 situation if it isn’t implemented right. For example, I can’t hit anything with my sword because my skill is too low, and I can’t level it up because I can’t hit anything with it. Another problem with classless systems is that you may not be able to create the type of character that you want. Arcanum is an example of this. I wanted to play a fighter/diplomat. In a class system that’s easy, just pick the Knight/Paladin class. In arcanum, I needed to put points into Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Dodge and Melee to use a blade, plus Charisma and Speachcraft to become a diplomat. It wouldn’t be too bad, but these didn’t overlap in the slightest. Then take into account that I wanted to make my own armour, and so would need points in Intelligence to gain ranks in the smithing technologies and my character concept was killed. That being said, the problem with classes are they often limit your growth. Although the Paladin class makes a great Fighter/Diplomat, they’re limited to Lawful Good. Of the other options, monks are still limited to lawful alignments and fighters and rangers find diplomacy to be a cross-class skill. So in conclusion, although skill based systems have the potential to be superior, they can be easily crippling.
6. Going Solo. I’m leaning against you on this point, though I feel there’s a bit more wiggle room then the previous one. Having a party of faceless heroes a la Icewind Dale is no fun at all. But playing Baldur’s Gate or Planescape: Torment without followers robs you of one of the richest experiences in the game. Imagine Knights of the Old Republic without HK-47′s unique world view? That being said, there are some games in which companions would be nonsensical. Bioshock would have been ruined if you weren’t going it alone.
7. Story is paramount. Although I prefer epic over small reaching (who wants to save some village from kobolds when they could be charging through the hells to free some captured deva’s) a well written small scope adventure trumps a by the numbers world shattering one.
8. Other settings. Amen to that.
9. Both freeform and rails have their place. A lot of storys require a great deal of control to tell, and as long as I have a good motivation for my character to follow that story, then I’m happy to jump aboard the train. Jade Empire would be a perfect example of this. Of course, free worlds such as Fallout and Morrowind are brilliant as well, don’t get me wrong. I just believe that both have their place and neither should be discriminated against.
10. Character customisation is dependant on the plot/setting. Sure, it’s nice to have the option to play 200 year old elf, but that just wouldn’t fit in with the timeline of Baldur’s Gate. Hell, Planescape: Torment gave you no choice on the age or gender of the PC, it didn’t even let you name him. BUT, after the game starts, you have full control over everything he does to grow him like you want. It all depends on the situation. Of course, in a TRPG I would be offended if I couldn’t create my own character, but in that environment you can negotiate with your GM on why your choice doesn’t fit in with their setting. In a CRPG you don’t have that connection with the developers, so they have to limit you as they see fit. Though looking back at your point, I think you were instead complaining about games that limit how your character looks due to laziness rather then story reasons, in which case I completely agree with you.
That was a lot longer then I expected it to be, I hope somebody reads and finds it interesting.
SimeSublime Says:
“That was a lot longer then I expected it to be, I hope somebody reads and finds it interesting.”
Some of us even want to comment:)
1)Nothings wrong with a few farming areas.For example,a crypt of ghosts that can be attacked every night.Its plausable,yet not mandatory.You could have a quest ending the haunt,but until you finish the quest you can kill zounds of ghosts and still theyll appear each night.
But what you described about KotoR and NWN is exactly what shamus is saying:You have the option of clearing each area of monsters for loads of XP and easier battles later,or just go for some quests,skip half the monsters and have it harder later.You dont have to have farm areas for the game to be self balancing.NWN is a game like that,but it doesnt have respawning enemies.Same goes for planescape and BG.Opposing games are morrowind and oblivion where you being level 1 or level 30,even the simple rat is a chalenge.
3.What youre complaining about is not randomization,but poor value.For example:If one well guarded chest gives you either a +3 long sword,a +3 bow,a +3 axe or a wand of fireballs,you wont complain what you get out of those.But if the same chest offers either a +3 sword or a +1 dagger,of course youll complain if you get the crappy dagger.
And even if you can loot everything your enemies are attacking you with,that doesnt mean they cant have random equipment.You could have a few orcs attack you with axes,some with swords,and some with bows,and every time you replay,the number of orcs and their composition would change.
5.You could end with no means to fight your enemies with a class based system as well.For example,you play a thief specialised in bows and backstabing,and end up in an area full of skeletons.
Its not a system based flaw,its an implementation flaw.The problem of skill based system appeares if the skills arent balanced properly.This happens more often with this system because you usually have more skills than youd have classes,so you have more things to look after.
But with a skill based leveling system you could still have a few predefined classes,whereas in a class based leveling system,if you want to play some hybrid that doesnt exist,youll have loads of penalties.
6.Actually thats what shamus was refering to as well.In BG you are going solo,but you can hire some help if you need it.
I hope you read this and find this as interesting:)
#25 Jack wrote:
>Shamus,
>
>If you’re looking for almost all the items on that list, >but don’t mind playing a mid-1990’s game that’ll require a >few tweaks to work on modern systems… …check out Ultima >VII: The Black Gate.
Get Exult and it (and the expansion and sequel) run 99.9% perfectly under Windows XP.
http://exult.sourceforge.net
This is well worth the playing, Shamus!
Or if you want to take a change from swords and sorcery fantasy in RPGs, try the Worlds of Ultima games Savage Empire and Martian Dreams (if you can get your hands on em)!
Tuck