ID:181763
 Sep 24 2009, 1:24 pm
|
|
RPGs they had their run. But now they seem to be... uhh less distinct between games. I mean some people add some things here in there, but what could someone EVER put into a RPG to get players and keep them hooked?
| |
Well I've tried to put together different rpgs but the programmers always complain that the features are too advanced and they never do any work, or fix any critical bugs. I still can't put any real features into my current game because I cannot create it.
| |
UmbrousSoul wrote:
Well I've tried to put together different rpgs but the programmers always complain that the features are too advanced and they never do any work, or fix any critical bugs. I still can't put any real features into my current game because I cannot create it. That's called having crappy programmers. | |
To be fair, ever since the invention of console RPGs, the only tangible and measurable improvement they have had is better graphical quality and sound quality.
Every other area is entirely based on opinion. Even graphics and sound are based entirely on opinion (there is no denying the quality of these has improved, more colours, polygons and whatever sound has, but that does not mean artistically they are better). Gameplay? RPGs have very little of this. Outside of combat, I do not think RPGs have changed very much at all. Inside of combat, the fundamental gameplay has not changed that much. Some games have tried to improve on this, depending on your opinion they have have succeeded, or failed. But at the end of the day, combat in RPGs is still very similar to what it use to be 20 years ago. (In a lot of cases it is literally identical). The quality of story telling has on the whole improved (but in recent years I can think of a lot of exceptions). But again, whether the actual stories themselves are better or not is entirely upto opinion. Honestly, I do not think console RPGs have progressed as a genre at all in the past 10 years. And in the 12 years previous to that, they made some progress, but not a lot. Definately not comparable to the progress other genres have made. | |
Making it a good, fun game. See: Mass Effect.
| |
The Magic Man wrote:
Gameplay? RPGs have very little of this. ... "Gameplay includes all player experiences during the interaction with game systems, especially formal games. Proper use is coupled with reference to "what the player does". " - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gameplay what exactly would YOUR definition of gameplay be, considering it's obviously not that? Outside of combat, I do not think RPGs have changed very much at all. Inside of combat, the fundamental gameplay has not changed that much. this is an EXTREMELY vague statement, and gives the impression that you think that in order for an RPG to be "changed" from a previous RPG it has to not be an RPG at all ("the fundamental gameplay has not changed"? that's good, since it shouldn't-- that would involve it not being an RPG). i don't really know what much more to say without you giving me specific examples of RPG's not "changing" from to another, both inside and out of combat. Some games have tried to improve on this, depending on your opinion they have have succeeded, or failed. But at the end of the day, combat in RPGs is still very similar to what it use to be 20 years ago. (In a lot of cases it is literally identical). again, provide examples. combat has changed drastically from one RPG to the next-- for an easy example, look at fallout 1/2 and then at #3. wildly different combat mechanics also, your idea of "but that depends on one's opinion" clauses attached to everything brings to mind truthiness | |
Oh I always enjoyed RPGS, but they usually need something distinct between them to make them enjoyable. It seems a lot of RPGS are just following the RPG formula and that isn't cool.
I enjoyed Final Fantasy for such a long time because each version was unique. The system was the same, but at the same time it wasn't, there was special tweaks to it that made me love it all over again. SquareEnix has gotten lazy lately and Final Fantasy isn't Final Fantasy anymore. Pokemon was original and fun when it came out. And throughout the series with the addition of days/nights, breeding and more I enjoyed it, but GameFreaks (or whoever develops it now) is just following the Pokemon Formula and isn't really trying to push the envelope. They need to expand upon the game a lot more and make it more free roaming then it has been in the past. | |
UmbrousSoul wrote:
the programmers always complain that the features are too advanced Designers often come with a false concept of what is a good feature. Whenever you come up with an idea, ask yourself how much a player is going to gain out of adding this to your game and how much it is going to drain on resources. If this was not an issue, most every programmer would happily simulate each single atom in an environment. Consider the following. You design a lot of NPCs to interact with each other and your players. This is a nice idea and certainly has some benefits. The drawback is that you'll have hundreds (or thousands) of little non player characters running around in your world, taking up a massive chunk of resource. A better feature would be to allow for interaction with your players, but whenever there is no player to witness, turn the NPC off and instead estimate the outcome. Or, in other words, the true art of designing a game is to develop ideas that look like there is a large interaction and feature rich change in your game, when in reality, there is not. | |
Actually it wasn't WHAT the feature was it was simply what it did. The users had no involvement other than simply being forced through "said" feature. It was more of a system implementation than a user feature. It involved changing servers for different lands, the programmers (well known ones included) said it was too advanced for byond and my old game slowly faded into nothing but stolen sources that got released as half assed junk.
| |
UmbrousSoul wrote:
It involved changing servers for different lands, the programmers (well known ones included) said it was too advanced for byond I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that I managed to understand what kind of feature you tried to describe, nor whom you rate as well known. But since that would likely derail the topic, since it would be a specific game implementation other than the general RPG we're talking, I'd invite you to a conversation on the pager. | |
Ham Doctor wrote:
I enjoyed Final Fantasy for such a long time because each version was unique. The system was the same, but at the same time it wasn't, there was special tweaks to it that made me love it all over again. SquareEnix has gotten lazy lately and Final Fantasy isn't Final Fantasy anymore. Have you even played these games? How long is lately? What do you mean by "isn't Final Fantasy anymore"? And I'm fairly positive that taking 3-5 years to make a game gives them a status of a little better than lazy. Pokemon was original and fun when it came out. And throughout the series with the addition of days/nights, breeding and more I enjoyed it, but GameFreaks (or whoever develops it now) is just following the Pokemon Formula and isn't really trying to push the envelope. They need to expand upon the game a lot more and make it more free roaming then it has been in the past. What do you mean by "expand"? If you haven't noticed, even the remakes of the series have been super-sized. I'm pretty sure that XD changed it up a bunch as well. What do you mean by "free roaming"? I'm pretty sure that, aside from story, Pokemon has been one of the most free-roaming RPGs ever made. | |
Akeldama15 wrote:
But now they seem to be... uhh less distinct between games. I mean some people add some things here in there, but what could someone EVER put into a RPG to get players and keep them hooked? Well, Final Fantasy usually1 keeps me hooked because of compelling storylines. When I think of RPG, I think of a story-game. So basically the package just needs to have a strong story packaged with a gameplay mechanic that is enjoyable for the duration of the game. Final Fantasy games tend to accomplish this gameplay mechanic by almost always changing things like character customization or the battle system, as well as allocating many resources to the audio/visual department to make the games pleasing to look at and hear as well as heavy emphasis on design to make sure elements of the game are always intuitive and elegant. Some other titles off the top of my head that had interesting gameplay and rich stories: Kingdom Hearts and Star Ocean: Till the End of Time. However, while I emphasize on the game's story, it is possible for the lack of other interesting elements to kill it. I'm sure Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King has a great story, but I never got far enough into it to tell. For me there were several horrifying gameplay flaws and I think the story took off too slowly (if it ever does), as I got bored of it as much as a half-hour into it each time I played. <small>1See Final Fantasy X-2 or Final Fantasy Dirge of Cerberus for some examples that failed to hook me.</small> | |
Gameplay goes before EVERYTHING for me. Most people who know me know that - as 75% of what I play is rather old NES/SNES games. Graphics? If it isn't terrible like SS13 I'll like it. Music? Don't care if it's bad, I have an MP3 player.
Story? Added bonus, not needed. Gameplay? It's everything. | |
Something to explore that's worth exploring. Things to find that are worth finding.
| |
|
In response to Hiro the Dragon King
|
|
Hiro the Dragon King wrote:
Ham Doctor wrote: Final Fantasy to me has always been a turn based role playing game, which allowed you to take your time and allowed for a bit of strategy. The last few releases of Final Fantasy haven't had the Final Fantasy feeling to it. I liked almost all Final Fantasy games, up until the 10th one, after that, it just wasn't the Final Fantasy game I knew anymore and I didn't like it. RPGs ever made.Pokemon was original and fun when it came out. And throughout the series with the addition of days/nights, breeding and more I enjoyed it, but GameFreaks (or whoever develops it now) is just following the Pokemon Formula and isn't really trying to push the envelope. They need to expand upon the game a lot more and make it more free roaming then it has been in the past. Are you insane? Pokemon, the most free-roaming RPG ever made? It is one of the most standard, linear RPGs I have ever played. You HAVE to go from point A to B, and sometimes C. Sometimes you have to go from point C back to A before you can even progress any further. Granted there are little side things here and there, but the Pokemon series does not allow for a free-roaming game experience. It is almost a straight line all the way through, the game stopping you with stupid situations where a single person blocks you out of the way, simply because they don't want you going any further. As far as expanding upon the series, I don't have a whole lot of ideas right now, simply because I stopped buying into Pokemon a long time ago. Oh look, now we can double team up, now we can dress our Pokemon up. Now we can trade with people online through a broken and flawed trading system. Now we can cuss at each other through Wifi. Big deal. Whoopie. I'd like something a little more interesting where it also allows for trainer classes. Maybe they should allow players the choice to join Team Rocket, or steal pokemon, or just be the stupid child hero in every single game. I know inviudal games have allowed similar situations, but all of those games weren't a complete Pokemon experience anyways. Hell I'd be happy with a fully functional 3D Pokemon game, not some of the lame fufu they have released in the past. Dragon Warrior Monsters is more unique and creative then Pokemon is. You want examples of free-roaming? Fallout, Oblivion even games like Might and Magic where more free-roaming like Pokemon. Some of these games are so free-roaming that you can even break the system by killing the wrong people or doing something the developers never foreseen. And I find that awesome. | |
this belongs in design philosophy most likely
anyways, i'm actually quite offended that you'd think that RPGs can't bring something new to the table, or that they will from now on always be boring just because others created RPGs before.
were you born yesterday? :P did you just discover RPGs? how many have you played? have you seen RPGs of previous years come and go, each bringing their own interesting perspectives and mechanics? can your question not be applied to every other genre of game?
there are plenty of things that could be introduced to keep an RPG interesting, and there always will be, but the question is too vague and open-ended for it to be proper to answer with a specific example.
don't expect it to be an easy question to answer, though-- the fresh ideas and mechanics of a game are at the core of what makes it interesting and fun to play. of course it's not going to be a simple process to conjure up something new, but it'll never be impossible