Pretend they are buggerers.
-
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?
- Thread starter sullynathan
- Start date
Pretend they are buggerers.
I like this thread, I have read rpgcodex for years as a lurker, but this thread made me finally register. I love RPGs yet weirdly I think the combat is generally pretty crappy. Imo the entire RPG industry split, twice. The first time was in the late 90's when bigger scope games started turning into MMOs with stuff like UO and EverQuest. And then it split again a little later when what used to be RPGs (a party with tactical combat) started getting replaced with single character action games with some stats and shit to pose as an RPG. 'Real' RPG's have kind of hung in there but nowadays it is mostly down to crowdfunding to keep those games alive, meanwhile action games like Skyrim sell tens of millions.
To me the combat is almost always crap, for both kinds of games, and it really annoys me because there is no reason for it. I have no problem with playing a pew pew pew action game, just at least make sure it is intense and exciting and challenging and edge of seat, lip biting action. My benchmark for this is playing Street Fighter 2 in the early 90's, or Quake CTF in the late 90's etc. If you make an action game and it isn't intense and with some depth like those 20+ year old games, then you shouldn't be making games. That should be the minimum benchmark for action RPGs. Not like say Skyrim, where I run around holding 1 mouse button while squirting fire out my fingers. And if there is going to be a tactical RPG, then at least make it deep and meaningful and super strategic, and not like say, Pillars of Dumbassery where you just go from trash encounter to trash encounter pressing the same few keys to awkwardly kill stuff, with only very occasional big battles. The million "JRPG" don't do it for me either, it might be turn based and tactical but there really isn't that much to it most of the time. (I liked FFT though but even that seems primitive nowadays). The only good tactical fix I've had in recent years was from Blackguards and Divinity Original Sin.
With action RPGs, the only ones I can remember ever getting even close to what I would consider to be decent, was Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, and maybe Kingdoms of Amalur. Just because it is a single character actiony game doesn't mean it has to be completely mindless. Blowing stuff up with fireballs in such a way that it blasts them off a cliff or into a some spikes, was really enjoyable, and in Amalur I liked how there were 4 different click methods to get different effects out my staff, while also have some spells to play with. Still miles from having any significant depth or challenge, but it was better than Skyrim which is clearly going through some sort of identity crisis.
Anyway, imo MMORPGs have left normal RPGs in their dust. The newer ones are very dumb and aimed at the same type of gamer who loves Skyrim, but the older ones were great. The classes and actual combat mechanics in most MMORPG's are far better than any RPG. Playing EverQuest, Vanguard, and to some extent Rift, felt like playing a tactical RPG but in real time. It was as good as I've ever played. Multiboxing is especially fun, playing (manually) about 4 classes in EQ is as close to a modern and real time Baldurs Gate as you can get. Not that BG is the best combat ever, the first one I don't like at all but the second one I really loved and is probably as close to interesting RPG combat as I've seen in an offline RPG.
I don't like that the genre has spread out so much, but I think it will work itself out in the end. I think games like Skyrim clearly don't care about RPG gamers or RPG mechanics, as they throw away key mechanics in each iteration of Elder Scrolls. Each game has fewer magic schools, fewer spells, fewer item slots, fewer stats, etc.. Why not just make an action game and be done with it? EAware went the same way, DA:O was dumbed down compared to the old Bioware games, but it was at least still a more or less tactical game with a party and some character building and stuff. DA2 proves that they are the same as every other big company, they don't care about depth or challenge, they care only about accessibility and have a panic attack at the thought of any gamer struggling with anything. So they removed inventories from companions and dumbed everything down even more. DA:I added a few things back due to rare outrage, but at the same time made it like a single player MMO, but a challenge-less one. I think while all these big companies pander to the lowest common denominator dude bro, gaming has at least grown big enough that indie games can now fill in the gaps with games like DoS. Those games are always going to be much smaller budget, but at least those budgets are at a point nowadays that they can still produce some decent games. Before Kickstarter kicked in, I thought the days of Baldurs Gate type games were dead forever.
To me the combat is almost always crap, for both kinds of games, and it really annoys me because there is no reason for it. I have no problem with playing a pew pew pew action game, just at least make sure it is intense and exciting and challenging and edge of seat, lip biting action. My benchmark for this is playing Street Fighter 2 in the early 90's, or Quake CTF in the late 90's etc. If you make an action game and it isn't intense and with some depth like those 20+ year old games, then you shouldn't be making games. That should be the minimum benchmark for action RPGs. Not like say Skyrim, where I run around holding 1 mouse button while squirting fire out my fingers. And if there is going to be a tactical RPG, then at least make it deep and meaningful and super strategic, and not like say, Pillars of Dumbassery where you just go from trash encounter to trash encounter pressing the same few keys to awkwardly kill stuff, with only very occasional big battles. The million "JRPG" don't do it for me either, it might be turn based and tactical but there really isn't that much to it most of the time. (I liked FFT though but even that seems primitive nowadays). The only good tactical fix I've had in recent years was from Blackguards and Divinity Original Sin.
With action RPGs, the only ones I can remember ever getting even close to what I would consider to be decent, was Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, and maybe Kingdoms of Amalur. Just because it is a single character actiony game doesn't mean it has to be completely mindless. Blowing stuff up with fireballs in such a way that it blasts them off a cliff or into a some spikes, was really enjoyable, and in Amalur I liked how there were 4 different click methods to get different effects out my staff, while also have some spells to play with. Still miles from having any significant depth or challenge, but it was better than Skyrim which is clearly going through some sort of identity crisis.
Anyway, imo MMORPGs have left normal RPGs in their dust. The newer ones are very dumb and aimed at the same type of gamer who loves Skyrim, but the older ones were great. The classes and actual combat mechanics in most MMORPG's are far better than any RPG. Playing EverQuest, Vanguard, and to some extent Rift, felt like playing a tactical RPG but in real time. It was as good as I've ever played. Multiboxing is especially fun, playing (manually) about 4 classes in EQ is as close to a modern and real time Baldurs Gate as you can get. Not that BG is the best combat ever, the first one I don't like at all but the second one I really loved and is probably as close to interesting RPG combat as I've seen in an offline RPG.
I don't like that the genre has spread out so much, but I think it will work itself out in the end. I think games like Skyrim clearly don't care about RPG gamers or RPG mechanics, as they throw away key mechanics in each iteration of Elder Scrolls. Each game has fewer magic schools, fewer spells, fewer item slots, fewer stats, etc.. Why not just make an action game and be done with it? EAware went the same way, DA:O was dumbed down compared to the old Bioware games, but it was at least still a more or less tactical game with a party and some character building and stuff. DA2 proves that they are the same as every other big company, they don't care about depth or challenge, they care only about accessibility and have a panic attack at the thought of any gamer struggling with anything. So they removed inventories from companions and dumbed everything down even more. DA:I added a few things back due to rare outrage, but at the same time made it like a single player MMO, but a challenge-less one. I think while all these big companies pander to the lowest common denominator dude bro, gaming has at least grown big enough that indie games can now fill in the gaps with games like DoS. Those games are always going to be much smaller budget, but at least those budgets are at a point nowadays that they can still produce some decent games. Before Kickstarter kicked in, I thought the days of Baldurs Gate type games were dead forever.
sullynathan
Arcane
Someone didn't play Dork Souls.
I watched many videos of that, looks like I would not like it :/ I also only really like playing RPG's as a mage type with lots of spells.
The Witcher 3 is a huge pain to me because it is the only game I ever played that had a story and characters that I actually liked and didn't just skip angrily. I loved the world, the graphics, the quests, everything, except I hate slashy slashy combat. If I could play that game with a mage character from an MMO, it would be my favorite game. Same goes for that ubisoft Mordor game. And many others.
The Witcher 3 is a huge pain to me because it is the only game I ever played that had a story and characters that I actually liked and didn't just skip angrily. I loved the world, the graphics, the quests, everything, except I hate slashy slashy combat. If I could play that game with a mage character from an MMO, it would be my favorite game. Same goes for that ubisoft Mordor game. And many others.
You could try and do one of those conditional type playthroughs where you pick the easiest difficulty, but only use magic. The game does have magic, it may not be powerful, but playing on the easiest difficulty would do the trick.
I finished it on medium as a mage type build, I just didn't like it much. I had to use melee for the first part of the game because the magic was so weak, and then later on I managed to use a few spells in fights but that's all you really get. I had a lot more fun playing as Ciri. Such a nice game, I wish I could play it with an Enchanter from Everquest or something. It would be amazing.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.