Yes |
 |
14.9% (88) |
No |
|
84.6% (500) |
Poll: Who here actually wants RPGs to get easier? Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT | |
You know what I'd really, REALLY want? For people to stop using the term "dumbing down". It's insulting, narcissistic, pathetic, and it makes you sound like you believe you're smarter than everyone that doesn't happen to be as good at games as you. All you're doing by saying that is reinforcing the stereotype that gamers are a non-inclusive group of "elitists" who don't like the share. NOW, more on topic- YES. But, I would also like them to still be brutally difficult. I'm totally ok with accessibility. I love to see people get into games they normally wouldn't enjoy. But the industry needs to find a way to make it so the same game can be played by someone new to the genre and still be a massive challenge to an old pro. I can't wait for that to happen. Grimrock was a step in the right direction. | |
I'm not sure I agree with Bastion's simplicity being a good thing - my experience with that game basically boiled down to playing the demo, realizing how much of a grindfest it was going to be, and deciding it wasn't worth slogging through that just to look at pretty pictures and hear a guy talk to me in an awesome cowboy voice. IMO, gameplay should be the thing you get a game for, not the thing you tolerate in between story segments. | |
This, a thousand times this. I play a lot of WRPGs, and what makes them fun is depth not arbitrary complexity. Whenever an RPG sequel features 'streamlining' before joining in with the whingers I take a look at the mechanics in question and think 'will this take away from the games depth or will this make the games depth more accessible?' For example anyone who complained about the removal of attributes in Skyrim? You're an idiot. As for difficulty a lot of modern games are too easy on the default setting but I tend to find that simply cranking it up is fine. Where I draw the line is when difficulty gets cheap, or the game mechanics change sufficiently that the style of play required to survive is very rigid and restricted. Example: imo Mass Effect 2's insanity mode was fun and challenging, I had to plan my fights strategically and it never felt too cheap, if I died I could normally pinpoint why and alter my strategy accordingly. This is very satisfying. Dragon Age 2's Nightmare mode on the other hand is cheap and frustrating with massive double standards between enemies and your characters, one shotting that is impossible to avoid and friendly fire that is beyond unbalanced. As a result I stuck to hard in DA2 which is imo nicely balanced and much more fun than either Nightmare or Normal. To summarise Depth and Challenge are the important things to get right. | |
I miss AD&D style of RPGs... | |
Skyrim's a good example of both the good and bad sort of streamlining. Attempting to improve the beyond terrible Elder Scrolls leveling system? Good. Improving it by adding a pseudo-Fallout perk system? Good. "Improving" it by throwing the emergent gameplay made possible by attributes out as well? Bad. Failing to improve other crippling problems with the leveling system? Bad. | |
All I'll say is that I find Baldurs Gate and similar DnD based crpgs to be incomprehensible. I really REALLY want to enjoy playing them but I just can't because they are so complex to me. I really appreciated the "dumbing down" of Dragon Age from Baldurs Gate. | |
Wow, that must be one of the most blatantly loaded poll questions I've seen yet. No, "dumbing down" is not good. Now ask if I think cutting out useless, pointlessly complex bullshit is good, or if I think properly teaching the player how to use the game's systems is good. Not every RPG has to be The Witcher or Dark Souls; there can be different types of RPGs with different levels of challenge and complexity to appeal to different people's tastes. The genre isn't so sacred that it has to always appeal to a specific, niche set of sensibilities all of the time. Personally, I prefer RPGs to have a balance, so that they're easy to learn, but hard to master. It's entirely possible for a game to have a lot of depth hidden beneath simple mechanics, and that's the kind of depth that I like to see. Plus, there's no reason an otherwise simple game can't have special difficulty settings to add more complex mechanics, sort of like Fallout: New Vegas' hardcore mode. | |
Easier as in "less challening" or easier as in "less micromanaging bullshit"? If the former, no! If the latter, hell yes! | |
Double negative :/
*Slaps Wayneguard* | |
I'd like them to be a bit harder than Xenoblade and the first Tales of Symphonia game. | |
I want whatever works best for the game I'm playing. If that means simplicity then go for it, if not then that's great too. There isn't just one kind of RPG and there isn't just one style of design for everything. But personally, I like modern RPGs better anyways. I'm not usually a fan of number-heavy gameplay and I've never enjoyed extreme difficulty as I'm usually playing for other reasons
Couldn't agree more. | |
If the game holds my hand the entire way, constantly throwing tutorial screens up at me or just having minimal challenge (think Pokemon with a team of level 80s vs. level 30 gym leaders) then it can piss right the hell off. If the game has streamlined skills, talents and equipment with a non-clusterfuck interface that means I can spend more time playing the game then calculating how many skeevers I'll need to kill to get a plus 3 to my Strength (while still offering a nice wide range of customization options*) then I'm all for it. I've stated somewhere earlier around here that even if the game has an amazing story/characters I won't play it if the gameplay constantly gets in my way of enjoying said amazing story, so streamlining gameplay so it doesn't suck... that's a definite plus. *so by 'streamlining equipment' I mean that the equipment isn't a chore to tinker around with - guns gun things, armor protects things, etc. without any of those retarded 'Gun that actually heals!' or 'Sword that burns your character - also, it's pretty shit.' with 'Heavy Armor that boosts light armor skill!'. Having a nice little 'This gear will boost this, but is shit for this' is welcome, so I don't have to go doing all the calculations myself when finding new items. | |
False dichotomy. Mechanics and background systems should be simplified, generally speaking. As for games getting easier... Remember that difficulty is on a double sliding scale. The difficulty of a game is based on two things - how hard the developers make a game, and how good you are at playing games. For the most part, once we got past the Nintendo Hard era of the 80's, many of which were problems of structural limitations, games have stayed at roughly the same difficulty, maybe a little easier. However, throughout this time period you have been playing games. You have been training for this for much of your life, and you've become quite good at them. This makes games seem less difficult, when in reality you're just very good at them. | |
RE: the number-heavy thing in general, it's important to point out that RPGs aren't alone in number-heaviness. This is what Battlefield 3 weapons look like under the hood. The only difference with RPGs is that they're generally more up-front about their numbers. | |
I do like depth in my games, and that's to a large degree disappeared in newer RPGs, either due to better streamlined game design, or due to dumbing down. Some people can't tell the difference between the two, sadly. That being said, a lot of the things that caused me to die or reload more often in Baldur's Gate than in Dragon Age was due to bad game design, honestly. Having to rest/heal five times and save between them because I'll get ambushed by monsters when I try to sleep isn't good game design, and it doesn't make the game harder. It just makes it more frustrating. Also, even perfectly executed tactics in Baldur's Gate can lead to you getting screwed over and killed due to RNGs. I also didn't really like the fact that I had to move at snail pace through a lot of dungeons due to traps, and then hope my rogue detected them. It kills the flow, and doesn't even create atmosphere. That being said, I do appreciate the fact that Baldur's Gate has more depth than Dragon Age. It's just that the depth in that game also involves some truly outdated and boring game design, and that's coming from someone who grew up with Black Isle. Give me something like Dark Souls tbh. The fundamentals of that game are pretty easy to get due to a very good control scheme, skill is the most important facet of the game, although numbers also count quite a lot, and it punishes you hard for mistakes but makes it easy to understand what you did wrong. | |
I don't think we can make any broad statements on what sort of mechanic complexity is good. Mechanics should be whatever they need to be to make the game work. For instance, adding perks to Skyrim added a layer of complexity to TES character development, but I haven't seen very many people who think that was a bad decision. | |
Firstly we have to agree in to what do we mean when we say "rpg", because I for example, I'm not sure if Mass Effect is an rpg, or Final Fantasy the 13th. And don't ask me what I consider as rpg, because I thought I knew, but I have no idea anymore... | |
True enough, I suppose I should clarify that I don't mind it when numbers tell me what I can do as long as I have some simple way of working with the system rather then fighting it, but I can't stand it when they tell me what I can't do. In the example of a shooter, if the numbers say I can now do more damage or my gun is more accurate that's great. If accuracy is a problem for that gun then I like being able to do something about it, like steading my scope for a limited time in COD or pacing my shots better in Reach. Deus Ex 1 on the other hand might as well not even bother letting you aim your gun at all, since how well your shot lands is virtually entirely dependent on you character's skills. If I know I as the player have the ability to land a perfect headshot I don't want the game telling I'm arbitrarily not good enough yet to do so, there's no way that isn't frustrating. That's why I liked VATS, because by taking the combat entirely out of your hands it made it less annoying when it didn't work. It's the same problem with failing to cast spells in Morrowind or not even being able to attempt high level locks in Fallout 3 or ME1. As far as I'm concerned leveling systems should be more or less about giving you new toys to play with rather then letting you unlock what you're already capable of doing. | |
Well, it's pretty boring playing an RPG where every enemy (or even every boss)has it's weak spot that can be exploited for a godly win no matter how weak you are. When you grind you raise stats and higher stats do more damage and raise defense. I would consider that more honest than "hit him with an ice attack". | |
I did say generally speaking, and by "simplified" I mean that most games shouldn't be "charts: the game". Overly complex mechanics are bad. Deep mechanics are good. I could ramble on, but I'll leave it at this. | |
Excellent, just excellent. The question is: Could it be what you are describing merely as a stereotype, not to be just a stereotype, but the reality for the majority of gamers? I tend to believe the second. | |
Well I love Fable: The Lost Chapters, that's one of my favourite games, but it all went downhill from there. | |
Once again, depends on the game. Crusader Kings II is basically Charts: The Medieval Bastard Simulator, and the level of emergent fun in that game stems directly from the complex mechanics. There's nothing wrong with a game that requires a little bit of system mastery from the player, as long as that game then goes on to allow the player to apply that system mastery in interesting ways. | |
i totally understand that i came from the table top game so it was pretty much pick up and play but for someone who hasnt spent hours and hours learning AD&D you would so be over your head. frankly im really looking forward to wasteland 2 and shadowrun returns will bring back a bit of old school difficulty | |
I disagree with the axiom of the question. If modern RPGs are "dumbed down," that means old-school games were smart. I'm as nostalgic as the next guy, but old games were even more stupid than modern ones. The difficulty wasn't cerebral or meaningful, they were frustrating design flaws- extreme difficulty spikes, not knowing where to go to progress, "I gotcha!" traps, broken combat systems, no difficulty sliders, bugs, etc. I think people tend to overrate old games (I know I've been guilty of this, too). It's easy to cherry-pick a handful of awesome games over a 25 year window and say "this is what games used to be like!" but it's just not intellectually honest. Instead, try remembering how much god-awful garbage you waded through in between discovering those decent ones. Trust me, you will recall a LOT of terrible games. | |
As proven by the PC audience of many many many games we want them to be more difficult, but in our specified ways. For example I will play Fallout games as the Sniper unit. I will play the game on Normal or an easier difficulty. However I will expect that on the odd occasion when I am shot at, it hurts. Game developer's change the difficulty to how you want to play or how they think the masses will want to play. I think... ok... I understand where they are coming from but surely they should have multiple difficulty settings. I hate it when a game gives you a difficulty setting it merely means the enemies do more damage or the enemies have more health... that's just pathetic. A basic example I'll use is the Total War series. There are 2 difficulty settings: The campaign difficulty. The Battle difficulty. If you want the challenge of running an Empire then you turn up th difficulty of the campaign difficulty. In older games this provides fake difficulty by giving other Factions monetary boosts. The key is not to to add a single difficulty slider. Some people want a story... some people want to carry their severed limb across the map to that doctor who can fix it. I personally like a challenge but one that does not get in the way of the story with COD4 Insanity, enemies with homing bullets and stupid amount of respawns >.> Add multiple factors and sliders to people can get off on what they want to. --------------------- An example of where Modders have stepped into help in this aspect is with Mount and Blade. A lot of people play to ride around on a horse and beat people up... on a horse! However people have gone to great extents to improve and try to un-break the single player game. There are many problems with the single player but one of them is the difficulty. Once you own a town and have a good amount of solid troops, you've beaten the game. There is only 2 sets of difficulty settings really. How much damage you receive and how much your allies receive. Top difficulty being that you receive the same damage as your enemies can deal to you. People have modded to make the world around you more challenging instead of just making more enemies. Mount and Blade is one of these great games not because it is great out of the packet, but because you can turn it into whatever you want to. -------------------- With all this in mind RPG's are becoming easier as developers are only designed to need 1 difficulty setting slider. They need to develop games that have multiple difficulty aspects to them in order to allow for everyone to be accommodated by the game, instead of just a single difficulty slider. Games should be made so people can adjust to what they want... automatically dumbing them down is retarded... | |
In regards to difficulty I just want games to reward me for using the mechanics properly instead of forcing me to abuse the system in order to gain ground. | |
*Applause* I agree with everything here, just yes. It's all about depth, simple rules with complex implications, if the difficulty is set low you can just breeze through it, and if it's set high it's a stimulating challenge as opposed to tedious number crunching. I always think it's a real shame when a developer makes a game exclusive for no real reason and is applauded by it. | |
You know what I like in RPG's these days. Complexity is nice, but if I wanted to look at a spreadsheet again, I'd renew my EVE-Online license. | |
in skyrim the mobs did scale with your level but it was waaaaaaay to easy | |
It depends on what you mean by "easier". I would agree that RPGs should be made more intuitive, but not in any way easier, or simpler. I think RPG mechanics should embrace the concept of emergence. Essentially, there should be a very simple core set of rules. The complex would then emerge naturally from the interactions of those rules. The ultimate example of this is Chess. It's a horrendously complex game, but it's only got 7 rules, 6 of which are movement rules and the last one is "players take turns". RPGs need to embrace that same concept. Any given mechanic should have a short list of rules that give structure, then let the rest rise from the player. This applies just as much to the story as it does to the gameplay as well, though we're not quite at the technological level for a fully emergent story to come about. | |
Or he could try actually reading the fucking manual. I think alot of newer rpg players have gotten so conditioned by simplistic & easy rpgs that anything with a little depth/complexity/difficulty to it scares them off before they actually give it a fair chance. As a player of rpgs since the early 80's, rpgs these days have gotten so easy/dumbed down they literally put me to sleep from the boredom. Nothing to really dig my teeth into. Alot of the fun back then came from 'figuring' out the games systems and mechanics, experimenting with different approaches/plans... Now it's... spam the left-click button until the world explodes and you're covered in a pile of steaming achievement horseshit which tell you how fucking unstoppable you are. Let's go InXile and MCA, bring back that former glory with Wasteland 2 !! Quit the nonsense ppl and stop making shit up. Nobody's saying that they're smarter than anyone just because they like more complex rpgs. I'm sure there's alot of ppl that are smarter than I am, but prefer simpler games. It's just retarded to get so easily offended by someone calling a game dumbed down. If you like the game, you like it. I like certain simple games, just not my rpgs though. That's one of the draws of rpgs to me, to get away from those more casual type games and get a different experience. But I guess alot of ppl want all games to be the same shit these days for some reason. | |
I think this needs to be balanced with the transparency issue. Take Oblivion - the goal of that game's leveling system is to be fluid and organic, but the result is just that the player needs a guide to avoid gimping his/her character. Or take something like Modern Warfare or Battlefield -3: you need gun stats to tell you whether, for instance, a 25% damage bonus is worth it for a particular gun. But, since the devs don't want to scare the players with a bunch of numbers, the stats aren't in the game and you need to find a spreadsheet online. I like RPG design that gives you stats and leveling up front, because then I don't have to metagame or look stuff up online. | |
Exactly. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT | |
It depends. There's harder as in "more challenging, requiring greater thought and planning to overcome numerous fair and intriguing challenges" and then there's harder as in "This monster has a 33% chance of killing everyone in your party in any given battle" and there's harder as in "unless you spend twenty hours grinding mooks in the early areas you'll end up in a position where you cannot possibly win and fifty hours of your life will be wasted between the time you spend getting to this position and the time it takes you to recognize you're screwed."
The first one? Sure, why not. The latter two? Keep your sick fetish out of my gaming.