Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Why do rpgs have bad gameplay?

Lhynn

Arcane
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
9,824
They should make a game that takes place in a room where you do nothing but fighting.
They have, its called Painkiller and its good.
 

sullynathan

Arcane
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
6,473
Location
Not Europe
Please tell me why Lords of the Fallen isn't as popular as dark Souls
It isn't as good, duh and it's a clone during dark souls height of popularity.
I'll try to engage with you. What did you use to play dark souls and why are the controls shit?
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
4,189
RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In
sullynathan

Trying to argue here is a bit pointless since these are just incohorent rants. You could replace any game he's talking about with another and his arguments would fit just as well:

"Wizardry has shit for monkeys. The whole game and myth that it is some holy grail of combat is just nostalgiafags monkiness and hipsterism at its bleakest and most harmful form. People want to be cool and like the super popular thing, so they force themselves to play and like it. Like all hipster nonsense, it is just shit for shitheads. Trendy fucking retards and tyranny of the masses. Let others think for you and decide what you will like."

"Planescape:Torment has shit for monkeys. The whole game and myth that it is some holy grail of storytelling is just storyfag monkiness and hipsterism at its bleakest and most harmful form. People want to be cool and like the super popular thing, so they force themselves to play and like it. Like all hipster nonsense, it is just shit for shitheads. Trendy fucking retards and tyranny of the masses. Let others think for you and decide what you will like."

"Catholicism has shit for monkeys. The whole religion and myth that it is some holy grail of salvation is just heretic monkiness and hipsterism at its bleakest and most harmful form. People want to be cool and like the super popular thing, so they force themselves to believe in it and like it. Like all hipster nonsense, it is just shit for shitheads. Trendy fucking retards and tyranny of the masses. Let others think for you and decide what you will like."
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,228
Yes, I'm the dumbfuck. Please tell me why Lords of the Fallen isn't as popular as dark Souls.

Maybe because it's bland as fuck? Popularity does sometimes get dealt out where it is deserved. Sometimes.

I like what I like based on nothing but what I like. I admit when I like something that isn't good objectively, or an exception to my usual likes or dislikes. I loved ME 1-3. I went in to the first thinking I'd hate it, like all the other bioware shit games. But I loved it. Why? All that is important is that I decide for myself what I like. I don't give a shit what other people like or dislike. I do care about why the like what they claim to like - and quess what that reason is?

As long as you admit it isn't good, I'll accept that. Why you enjoy playing something you admit isn't good (I'd say it's fucking terrible) is another matter...

What is a well designed game? That is just fluff, hollow words. It is the same vapid shit little girls say when explaining why they love whatever shit they listen to.

Lol. It's something with consistency. Design, logical, and mathematical synergy. Clearly well thought out -- the opposite of your posts.

I live in the old school and have bought and played every crpg that came out since the console exodus. Your prattle that this resurrects anything is such console thinking for console monkeys.

For such a supposedly monocled individual you sure have garbage tastes. Praises Lords of the Fallen and Mass Effect, and shits on Dark Souls all in the same post. How unfortunate.
 

Tehdagah

Arcane
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
9,235
Gameplay=combat is fucking stupid. Level design, dungeon design, itemization, menu design, stats and how well they work, NPC interactions it's all part of the gameplay. Of course, depending on the game, some of these things weight more than the others.

What about videogames that don't have combat? They have no gameplay? FFXIII is a game made 99% of combat yet it's piss poor, guess why?

Because Planescape main gameplay system is not the combat, it's the dialogs. Everything happens through dialogs, you learn new abilities through dialogs, your stats mostly serve to open new dialog options, you gains item through dialogs, solve puzzles and recruit people. Every new NPC is an experience itself, a puzzle for you to crack.

Who the fucks judges Planescape by the combat anyway, when it's literally the 5% of the game?
"Gameplay=combat is fucking stupid. Level design, dungeon design, itemization, menu design, stats and how well they work, NPC interactions it's all part of the gameplay. Of course, depending on the game, some of these things weight more than the others."

But all of it revolves (mostly) around combat. Why do you explore dungeons? To get more money and items that will be useful in combat. If the combat is shit/easy then there's no reason to explore at all. Why bother wasting my time getting fluffy shining new equips if the combat is boring?

Itemization and stats = most of them will be useful for combat.

NPC interactions = sure, you can skip some encounters with certain stats and the right dialogues, but clicking on a dialogue box isn't exactly a challenging thing.
 

Atchodas

Augur
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Messages
1,047
most of RPG's have bad gameplay because devs aim too high to please every scrub out there , run out of resources , release half assed game , and be like BUT WE TRIED
 

Longshanks

Augur
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
897
Location
Australia.
It's down to combat-kiddies. When the gameplay sucks it's invariably down to combat. Most every RPG has too much of it, and because RPGs have more to account for than other genres, it's more difficult to make it great.

Combat is not what makes RPGs stand out. Pretty much every major genre has it. It's character customisability impacting on the game world. RPG designers should focus more on this and less on combat and the gameplay and combat would be all the better for it. Much easier to design combat around a few major fights than hundreds of trash mobs.
 

HansDampf

Arcane
Joined
Dec 15, 2015
Messages
1,471
Is clicking through dialogue trees part of the gameplay? If Torment's gameplay is supposed to be all about combat, why can I beat the final boss with dialogue options?
 

Raghar

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
22,503
Dark Souls has good gameplay.

Dark Souls has shit for monkeys. The whole game and myth that it is some holy grail of combat is just console monkiness and hipsterism at its bleakest and most harmful form. People want to be cool and like the super popular thing, so they force themselves to play and like it. Like all hipster nonsense, it is just shit for shitheads. Trendy fucking retards and tyranny of the masses. Let others think for you and decide what you will like.

You're a dumbfuck hating because it's popular. Isn't that what a hipster is by the traditional definition, before dumbfucks like you butchered it? How ironic.

Dark Souls is a well-designed game, revives a long lost design philosophy, is sufficiently hardcore, and is pure catering to old school gamers. That it is popular among modern monkeys is a rare blessing. It means old school principles are still viable in some form, even if it's not an RPG.
I long for a return of old school design principles. Old school hack and slash. Old school shooter. Old school RPG. Old school everything, because it's just plain superior in most respects. Fuck you for shooting down incline that you clearly haven't even played.

So much stupid irony in your post.

Yes, I'm the dumbfuck. Please tell me why Lords of the Fallen isn't as popular as dark Souls.
Copy protection. DS3 were widely pirated.
 
Self-Ejected

Lurker King

Self-Ejected
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,865,419
Coming from the previous thread, we were talking about what's an rpg and what isn't. This isn't about that, but rather about how poor the gameplay mechanics of a lot of rpgs are and why they are so mediocre to bad. Looking at the prestigious top 50 - 70 list on the codex, the majority of the games I've played from them had poor or boring combat and mechanics that didn't work all that well.

For a genre that is supposedly gameplay focused, you would think the devs would be better at their jobs.
  • Every game in every genre is gameplay focused.
  • Most games in any genre have bad gameplay. That is not a prerogative of cRPGs.
  • The reason why most games have bad gameplay is because is difficult to design good gameplay.
  • What you mean by gameplay in cRPGs is combat system. It is more difficult to make cRPGs with good gameplay than, let’s say platformers, because they have additional complex systems that are difficult to implement such as itemization, character system, skills, etc.
  • It is even more difficult to make cRPGs with good combat if, on top of the complex systems mentioned above, the designers also attempt to implement choice and consequences, skill and stat checks, branching story lines and good writing.
  • The top 70 list of the Codex has many games that stand out for having good writing or choices and consequences, which explains why so many of them have bad combat.
  • The fact that many cRPGs have bad combat is only a problem if you are assuming that gameplay is combat. The truth is that gameplay in cRPGs with reactivity also include choices, the use of stats and skills, etc.
 

Leechmonger

Arbiter
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
756
Location
Valley of Defilement
The game [Planescape Torment] is far more about combat than anything else.

It's about 50/50, definitely not an insignificant part of the game like some apologists would have you believe.

Dark Souls has shit for monkeys.

1. Is this a thing people say?
2. Edgy.

In RPGs you make character once, often deciding major things that you won't be able to change ever.

I agree with your analysis. In short:

1. RPGs force the player to commit to a build (stats, abilities, etc.)
2. RPGs are meant to be beatable without having to restart the game after playing for countless hours
3. This means that RPGs must be relatively easy to beat with any build

We can demand more skill from the player in terms of creating good builds, ultimately allowing for builds that are unable to beat the game. Hopefully a developer that goes with this approach would have the good sense to reveal its mechanics for the player to make informed decisions. Forcing players to constantly restart due to gimped builds is veering into roguelike territory, which while I enjoy a great deal, it's probably a bad fit for story-heavy games.

Another way to go about it is to design a game where the player is expected to change his party depending on his destination, unlike most RPGs where you stick with a preferred composition from beginning to end. Dungeons, enemies, and other challenges could be designed to be more interesting since any insurmountable challenges can be overcome by identifying a party composition that can deal with it. NPC character development would probably suffer, however.

Of course this doesn't work for single-character RPGs. For these games, what if the player didn't have to commit to a build, at least not for the entirety of the game? For example, players could respec at a specific location, so again if a dungeon is impossible to finish characters only need to restart that dungeon (with a different build) rather than the whole game. Again though, the ability to change your character's abilities on the fly wouldn't mesh well with most stories, save for Deus Ex or System Shock with their implant systems.

tl;dr: story gets in the way of good gameplay.
 
Self-Ejected

Lurker King

Self-Ejected
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,865,419
In RPGs you make character once, often deciding major things that you won't be able to change ever.

You can choose to invest in different skills or modify your stats with items, enchantments, etc.

RPGs force the player to commit to a build (stats, abilities, etc.)

Of course, because cRPGs are not action games. The player skill is measured by his understanding of the systems, not by reflexes, etc.

RPGs are meant to be beatable without having to restart the game after playing for countless hours

That depends on the developer’s choices and the player’s ability. If he wants a game to be more challenging, you will have to abandon your crappy build and restart or you will not go on – see how many players get frustrated with Age of Decadence at the beginning.

This means that RPGs must be relatively easy to beat with any build

Only if we are talking about popamole cRPGs.
 

octavius

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
19,182
Location
Bjørgvin
Games with parties should have a pregen party.
Also, it's kind of a no brainer that you need different characters, and not six identical ones.
 

pippin

Guest
Games with parties should have a pregen party.
Also, it's kind of a no brainer that you need different characters, and not six identical ones.

Can you name rpgs where pregen parties don't suck? I'm serious here. I've always thought of them as characters which could be good for tutorial levels but won't help you through the game, as if the devs expected you to try them, notice their weaknesses, and then restart with a party of your own. So I want to know which rpgs really have pregen parties which can take you through the entire game.
 

Freddie

Savant
Joined
Sep 14, 2016
Messages
717
Location
Mansion
But there are solutions for this already. I haven't encountered game stopper because of sub-optimal character builds... I don't recall when. Maybe I can't repair every toaster in the Wasteland, but then that's C&C and actually part of the game experience. I was able to finish the campaign anyway. Maybe my Decker character can't stomp right through every battle in game but I'm forced to trying to be find a better tactic, but I was able to finish the story anyway and I actually like it this way. Even for trivial things there are often multiple ways to solve issues. Can't pick lock because ain't got dex or skill? Well, use explosives, or spells, or smash it to pieces with strong character.

On the contrary that's exactly what I'm talking about. The RPGs can't have really complex or demanding combat encounters like some turn based strategy games do because then some players would be simply unable to finish the game. Likewise, entering places cannot be too challenging because the game has to be possible to be finished with sub-optimal parties. That means no complicated puzzle-like combats encounters like some missions in strategy games, no difficult bosses like in other genres, which in turn leads to combat not being as satisfying as these other games.

The problem here is that why play RPG for turn based combat experience, when there are strategy titles to play? How would RPG be any different from say Jagged Alliance if you take away various ways to approach the game world?

Last game where I really paid lot of attention to attributes was last run through Baldur's Gate series and that was ages ago. I recall I had difficulties in Kotor I and II final encounters because my fucked up builds, but I managed to finish them anyway. Arcanum, Fallouts, then new Shadowrun series of games and Wasteland 2, all I managed to beat even my choices in character building weren't optimal. The thing is I have a new game, I'm not sure how things work, so I don't choose absolutely the hardest difficulty level right from the start.

That's what I'm talking about, the challenges has to be dumbed down and simplified because the weaker characters will simply be unable to beat them. RPGs have to less tight and demanding than other games which leads to worse game-play. That's why endgame of Fallout for consists of targeting head and blasting everyone with turbo-plasma rifle in one shot from the other side of the map while wearing armour that can deflect almost anything, while in JA2 the endgame consists of fighting through Deidranna's elite troopers, who can react better than seasoned mercs, have top-notch equipment and will fuck you up if you aren't careful. Because in JA2 if you find yourself unable to beat the last locations you can just hire different, mercs, buy different equipment and experiment. If FO endgame was as demanding as JA2 endgame then people with sub-optimal build would just have to restart the game. That's why endgame in FO = standing in place and shooting peasants and endgame in JA2 = fighting enemies as good as best mercs but more numerous.

That's why RPGs can't have better gameplay. Because even COD-clone could just throw a very complex and demanding situation at the player and expect him to use his skills to deal with it if the devs wanted it, while people making RPGs have to consider if all optimal and sub-optimal builds and if they'll be able to beat that encounter. And if they just decide to fuck it you are left with Age of Decadence. And FFT, where if you don't have a ninja by a certain point of the game you are fucked.
I actually kind of like what you are trying to do here, even though I don't agree with it. You only take combat in account when you write about gameplay and totally ignored example from ME series. Combat alone doesn't make great RPG, was it real time or turn based.

So I can't see this discussion going but back to what is an RPG.
 

octavius

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
19,182
Location
Bjørgvin
Can you name rpgs where pregen parties don't suck? I'm serious here. I've always thought of them as characters which could be good for tutorial levels but won't help you through the game, as if the devs expected you to try them, notice their weaknesses, and then restart with a party of your own. So I want to know which rpgs really have pregen parties which can take you through the entire game.

Might and Magic 1 and 2, and Dragon Wars for sure. Pool of Radiance, I think.
 

Freddie

Savant
Joined
Sep 14, 2016
Messages
717
Location
Mansion
Games with parties should have a pregen party.
Also, it's kind of a no brainer that you need different characters, and not six identical ones.

Can you name rpgs where pregen parties don't suck? I'm serious here. I've always thought of them as characters which could be good for tutorial levels but won't help you through the game, as if the devs expected you to try them, notice their weaknesses, and then restart with a party of your own. So I want to know which rpgs really have pregen parties which can take you through the entire game.
I finished Shadowrun series of games without recruiting merc characters ever. I recall there were posters complaining Glory's combat abilities in Dragonfall discussion here, but for me she worked out just fine, don't recall what buff's I used though.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom