Crispy™ Controversial opinions about RPGs that you know deep down are true.

[Grampy_Bone]

Conclusion: RPGs are the easiest games on the market, one step above walking simulators and Evony clones. Winning them is a function of time, not skill. Sure, if you're really good at the game you can beat Fallout at level 1, but no amount of grinding will ever beat Super Mario Brothers.

Except grinding extra lives.

Besides the main thing you said was "challenge can be overcome by grinding" ... so, don't grind? Just beat it with skill and tactics.

No, I said RPGs were fundamentally low-skill.

Sure, you can make any game harder by self-imposing limits, but that's not what "fundamental" means.

Fact is, almost all other genres demand a base level of skill from players that RPGs just don't.

 

[Kaivokz]

No, I said RPGs were fundamentally low-skill.

Sure, you can make any game harder by self-imposing limits, but that's not what "fundamental" means.

Fact is, almost all other genres demand a base level of skill from players that RPGs just don't.

Oh, I didn't realize that when you said "Combat tactics (Can almost always be overcome through grinding.)" you didn't mean that tactical challenges can almost always be overcome by grinding, thus making RPGs low-skill.

When you play chess against someone who is really good and you lose, do you walk away, shaking your head, and say to yourself, "That guy grinded way too much. What a low-skill game."?

RPGs offer strategic (long-term) challenges, too. Why do you think games with characters customization get tons of complaints about trap builds? Those games require a certain amount of skill and forethought, and if you try to play them without some tactical and strategic prowess, you're going to fail. Maybe you just have better planning and tactical skills than you do twitch reflexes, so you think twitchy games require more skill than slower ones?

Put Dragon Quest XI w/ harder monsters in front of the average person and they're going to struggle. Sure you could say "go spend 12 hours grinding, otherwise you're just making the game harder with self-imposed limits," but I'd rather spend half an hour thinking of a good strategy and then beat the fight with my current resources and less time spent. To say it takes less skill to beat the SSI pool of radiance games than it does to beat duke nuke em is ridiculous. Between the two, the latter is way closer to a walking simulator (or a walking backward while holding left-click simulator).

 

[HarveyBirdman]

You can't put points into your IQ to get better at chess.

 

[Darth Canoli]

Fact is, almost all other genres demand a base level of skill from players that RPGs just don't.

That's the dumbest thing i've ever read around here and yet, you're not the only retard hammering it down.
What skills exactly ? Making a pixel jump ? hitting a button right when you're expected to ?
Something only useful for other retarded video-games ?

Wow, i'm almost envious of all the skills you acquired except the drawback seems to be a shrinking brain.

 

[Kaivokz]

You can't put points into your IQ to get better at chess.

You can put points in your character's IQ, but that won't help you beat Underrail if you're a dumbfuck IRL.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

Oh, I didn't realize that when you said "Combat tactics (Can almost always be overcome through grinding.)" you didn't mean that tactical challenges can almost always be overcome by grinding, thus making RPGs low-skill.

When you play chess against someone who is really good and you lose, do you walk away, shaking your head, and say to yourself, "That guy grinded way too much. What a low-skill game."?

RPGs offer strategic (long-term) challenges, too. Why do you think games with characters customization get tons of complaints about trap builds? Those games require a certain amount of skill and forethought, and if you try to play them without some tactical and strategic prowess, you're going to fail. Maybe you just have better planning and tactical skills than you do twitch reflexes, so you think twitchy games require more skill than slower ones?

Put Dragon Quest XI w/ harder monsters in front of the average person and they're going to struggle. Sure you could say "go spend 12 hours grinding, otherwise you're just making the game harder with self-imposed limits," but I'd rather spend half an hour thinking of a good strategy and then beat the fight with my current resources and less time spent. To say it takes less skill to beat the SSI pool of radiance games than it does to beat duke nuke em is ridiculous. Between the two, the latter is way closer to a walking simulator (or a walking backward while holding left-click simulator).

This is some bizarre arm chair psychoanalysis, trying to pathologize my words into some other meaning by guessing what my goals are. Chill out bro.

In any case I'd like to see you beat duke nukem with the listed strategy of holding left click, see how far you get.

 

[Kaivokz]

This is some bizarre arm chair psychoanalysis, trying to pathologize my words into some other meaning by guessing what my goals are. Chill out bro.

In any case I'd like to see you beat duke nukem with the listed strategy of holding left click, see how far you get.

I was trying to be generous in understanding why you would make such an outlandish claim. And I literally just repeated what you said. Reasons why RPGs are low skill: Tactical challenge can almost always be overcome by grinding.

 

[anvi]

No, I said RPGs were fundamentally low-skill.

Sure, you can make any game harder by self-imposing limits, but that's not what "fundamental" means.

Fact is, almost all other genres demand a base level of skill from players that RPGs just don't.

Oh, I didn't realize that when you said "Combat tactics (Can almost always be overcome through grinding.)" you didn't mean that tactical challenges can almost always be overcome by grinding, thus making RPGs low-skill.

When you play chess against someone who is really good and you lose, do you walk away, shaking your head, and say to yourself, "That guy grinded way too much. What a low-skill game."?

RPGs offer strategic (long-term) challenges, too. Why do you think games with characters customization get tons of complaints about trap builds? Those games require a certain amount of skill and forethought, and if you try to play them without some tactical and strategic prowess, you're going to fail. Maybe you just have better planning and tactical skills than you do twitch reflexes, so you think twitchy games require more skill than slower ones?

Put Dragon Quest XI w/ harder monsters in front of the average person and they're going to struggle. Sure you could say "go spend 12 hours grinding, otherwise you're just making the game harder with self-imposed limits," but I'd rather spend half an hour thinking of a good strategy and then beat the fight with my current resources and less time spent. To say it takes less skill to beat the SSI pool of radiance games than it does to beat duke nuke em is ridiculous. Between the two, the latter is way closer to a walking simulator (or a walking backward while holding left-click simulator).

You misunderstood his point. He isn't talking about grinding making you a better player, he means grinding makes your character a higher level, and automatically gives you a big mathematical advantage over anything that is lower level. So if some battle requires "strategic prowess", and you fail, you can just go back 2 levels later and crush it.

I agree a good RPG requires more skill than Duke 3d though. But most RPGs require little more than getting stuff to focus your tank, healer keeps him alive, everyone else kills shit and does CC if available. There is sometimes a bit more to it like being skilled enough to know whether you should quickly kill a bunch of weaker targets, or focus on a more dangerous stronger one first. And knowing about likely resists etc. But still, most RPGs are quite basic and I think you could learn enough to beat an RPG faster than you could get good at a more challenging FPS. But a good CCG is far more complex than both of them put together. And in terms of skill, the highest I've ever seen was a fast paced MOBA which has an insanely high skill cap. So high that it basically ruined the game.

 

[Steedless]

Not necessarily controversial but just my opinions:

• The level-by-use system (e.g. Elder Scrolls) is far worse than the traditional way of freely distributing points at level up.
• Companions in non party-based RPGs are mostly a nuisance.
• Respeccing systems destroy replay-ability and the importance of character building.
• Boss fights/levels should always test the player's knowledge and abilities rather than just being a slightly more difficult combat encounter.
• Complete voice acting is a waste of effort and resources that could be spent on more important things like gameplay or writing.
• Playing stealth characters in most RPGs is not fun because of the lack of proper light/sound mechanics and the inability to ghost through the game.
• The trend of having a terrible main quest and great side quests is stupid.
• More RPGs should facilitate viable non-combat characters/playthroughs.
• Being a mage/spellcaster should be more interesting than just having powerful projectile attacks.

 

[Cryomancer]

Paizo > TSR > WotC

• Being a mage/spellcaster should be more interesting than just having powerful projectile attacks.
• Complete voice acting is a waste of effort and resources that could be spent on more important things like gameplay or writing.

Strongly agree with all, only an complement. Shapeshift, summoning, cursing, buffing, debuffing, using magic outside of combat to make profit, etc should be possible in cRPG's for magicians. About voice acting, it not only is an waste of effort and resources, but it as an standard makes impossible for small studios to develop games.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Paizo > TSR > WotC

• Being a mage/spellcaster should be more interesting than just having powerful projectile attacks.
• Complete voice acting is a waste of effort and resources that could be spent on more important things like gameplay or writing.

Strongly agree with all, only an complement. Shapeshift, summoning, cursing, buffing, debuffing, using magic outside of combat to make profit, etc should be possible in cRPG's for magicians. About voice acting, it not only is an waste of effort and resources, but it as an standard makes impossible for small studios to develop games.

Paizo is awful.

 

[Cryomancer]

Paizo is awful.

They are far more tolerant with OGC license, costs much less from their books, and they gave the option to Owlcat games to decide between the 1e or 2e usage. Why paizo is awful in your opinion?

 

[anvi]

Not necessarily controversial but just my opinions:

• The level-by-use system (e.g. Elder Scrolls) is far worse than the traditional way of freely distributing points at level up.
• Companions in non party-based RPGs are mostly a nuisance.
• Respeccing systems destroy replay-ability and the importance of character building.
• Boss fights/levels should always test the player's knowledge and abilities rather than just being a slightly more difficult combat encounter.
• Complete voice acting is a waste of effort and resources that could be spent on more important things like gameplay or writing.
• Playing stealth characters in most RPGs is not fun because of the lack of proper light/sound mechanics and the inability to ghost through the game.
• The trend of having a terrible main quest and great side quests is stupid.
• More RPGs should facilitate viable non-combat characters/playthroughs.
• Being a mage/spellcaster should be more interesting than just having powerful projectile attacks.

Best first post ever.

 

[Kaivokz]

You misunderstood his point. He isn't talking about grinding making you a better player, he means grinding makes your character a higher level, and automatically gives you a big mathematical advantage over anything that is lower level. So if some battle requires "strategic prowess", and you fail, you can just go back 2 levels later and crush it.

I see what you’re saying, but I don’t see how that removes the challenge from RPGs.

Once, long ago, my friend and I were leveling dwarven rogues in world of Warcraft on a PvP server. We were around level 30 and a level 70 (max level) person attacked us. The power difference is huge between 30 and 70 (OHKO difference), but we managed to kill him because he didn’t know how to play his character and we did know how to play ours.

Same is true in RPGs. Just because you can bypass the need for skill (to some extent) doesn’t mean you have to or that it’s the most fun way to play.

Same is true in card games. Yeah, you can look up decklists on the Internet to compensate for your lack of skill to some extent, but that won’t make you good vs someone of higher skill, and it won’t help you understand the mechanics of the game.

 

[ProphetSword]

A person on a NWN server and once challenged me to a PvP battle. He was level 10 and I was level 2. Anyone who knows anything about NWN will know that this will be a quick fight. And it was. My level 2 character owned him in less than a minute; because he underestimated my ability to play my character correctly and use the tools I had available.

My fighter/thief locked him up with knockdown and then used sneak attack as much as possible when he was lying flat on his back. When I missed, I ran so that he couldn’t hit me and would circle around until I locked him down again. He never laid a finger on me, but not from lack of trying.

Point is, skill is more important than you think, and knowing how to use what tools you have available against opponents that are stronger than you are is extremely beneficial.

I mean, I could have declined his duel request, grinded a lot and tried to outlevel him and then challenged him again, but where’s the fun in that?

 

[anvi]

I too have owned people in PVP against the odds But I still think it is easier than other games.

 

[Quillon]

Companions in non party-based RPGs are mostly a nuisance.

Companions in general are way too overrated in prominent modern western RPGs and there are three culprits that I see: Firstly its Bioware's fault; being the leading western RPG dev in 2000s they made it so companions are mandatory for all western RPGs, even Bethesda adopted it, CDPR still resists tho

. Then its MCA's fault; who made the realization of the century that off-loading necessary lore to walking encyclopedias around the player is far more easier than spreading it to the gameworld cleverly so players would learn organically. Then coincidentally Obsidian's fault who still lives by MCA's tenets.

CNPCs became so important(especially in Obsidian's games), all the rest of the game suffers because of it. They probably require at least thrice more development resources then next most important NPC, they have all the necessary shit to convey to the player which hurts regular NPCs who are left with little of import to say to the player(if they are not repeating what you've already heard from your CNPC, they usually are repeating tho in case player offed/never met/didn't bother talking with the content packed CNPC) to the point most of them become part of one of the famous "world-building" side-quests which are at least 2/3 of a modern wRPG's content nowadays and are usually too disconnected from what should be the focus of the narrative.

 

[Quillon]

In another news: Do wRPGs need innovation? :D


https://www.theguardian.com/games/2...re-role-playing-games-getting-too-predictable

Spoiler

From Cyberpunk 2077 to The Outer Worlds: are role-playing games getting too predictable?


Two forthcoming games are generating a lot of buzz – but they also suggest the genre is in need of a shakeup

You can act like a hero, an opportunistic mercenary or a total idiot ... The Outer Worlds. Photograph: Obsidian
It might be set in space rather than on an Earth ravaged by nuclear war, but there is a strong argument that The Outer Worlds, a forthcoming first-person role-playing game (RPG) by storied developers Obsidian, is spiritually a Fallout game. Not only is it directed by Fallout creators Tim Cain and Leonard Boyarsky, it shares a lot of DNA with Obsidian’s Fallout: New Vegas – a spin-off with a reputation as the best in the series. New Vegas earned particular praise for its dialogue, and a world-building background that makes it feel like more than a thin justification for firing mini-nukes at super-mutants.

New Vegas was Obsidian’s first and last game set in the Fallout universe, but The Outer Worlds places similar importance on freedom of choice in dialogue and gameplay. In this world, where mega corporations are starting to take over alien planets, you can act like a hero, an opportunistic mercenary, or a total idiot. The writing is sharp, snappy and funny, the world exciting and vibrant, and there’s a classic New Vegas interplay between factions of characters, any of whom the player can help or hinder.

The genre of choice-based, do-what-you-like narrative game that The Outer Worlds inhabits – sometimes called “immersive sims” – is one I love. But it has ossified so much that a 2019 game can build on the legacy of one from 2010 without needing to change much.


FacebookTwitterPinterest
Freedom of choice: will you chat to people or terrorise them? ... The Outer Worlds. Photograph: Obsidian
This year’s E3 games expo was a stark reminder of how formulaic games in this mould have become. Showing off The Outer Worlds for the first time, Obsidian had the player arriving on a new planet and heading off obediently to infiltrate a facility on the ask of a quest-giver. Depending on whether the player’s character is created for intelligence, stealth, strength or whatever else, they can go in guns blazing; sneak around without being noticed; or use a combination of charm, intimidation, persuasion and hacking to waltz in as if they own the place. But on meeting the head of the facility, there’s a twist: they offer to double your fee if you go back and kill the person who sent you.

When I went to see the near-future action-RPG Cyberpunk 2077, Polish developer CD Projekt showed the player arriving in a new part of the game world, heading off to meet a quest-giver and being told to infiltrate a facility. You can take three broad approaches, we’re told: go in guns blazing; sneak around; or chat your way inside. But once again, on meeting the head of the facility, they offer to double the fee if you go back and kill the person who sent you there in the first place.

In tone and style, Cyberpunk 2077 and The Outer Worlds are different: one is a gritty, violent, urban affair, the other colourful sci-fi. But the fundamental skeleton the games are built on is so constricting that, given an hour to show off everything they could be, both developers independently converged on a near-identical script.

Genre conventions like this have their advantages. Film has embraced the three-act structure for years; pop songs have settled on a rhythm of verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus. They provide creators with structure and familiarity on top of which innovation can occur without fear of alienating audiences.


FacebookTwitterPinterest
Gritty and violent … Cyberpunk 2077. Photograph: CD Projekt Red
But every now and again, a game comes along which shows that innovation can happen without putting people off and revives a genre in the process. The Ubisoft model was once to open-world games what the Fallout model is to first-person RPGs. The blueprint: climb towers to unlock new areas, sprinkle a map with icons representing mini goals to reach, make progress at your leisure. It underpinned Ubisoft’s Assassins Creed, Far Cry and Watch Dogs series, Warner Bros’ Batman and Middle Earth franchises, and many others.

Then came The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, in 2017. It’s got the towers, the open-world, and the plethora of smaller activities to distract you from the main noble quest. But it quietly revolutionised that stale old structure. Nothing in Breath of the Wild is gated. If you wanted (and you were extremely skilled) you could simply walk to the final boss and finish the game, though you would be far more likely to be lasered to death by guardian robots on the way up to the castle. The icon-filled map is almost entirely gone: only fast-travel points and the occasional quest-line show up. The rest is there for you to discover with your eyes and ears, rather than following objective markers like an orienteering enthusiast.

I’m looking forward to The Outer Worlds and Cyberpunk 2077. But their genre needs its Breath of the Wild moment: an outsider to toss out the conventions, and build something beautiful from what is left. Surely choosing between shooting, stealthing or sweet talking can’t be the only options that the next generation of virtual worlds have to offer.

Surely choosing between shooting, stealthing or sweet talking can’t be the only options that the next generation of virtual worlds have to offer.

If so how would you go about innovating them? I can't think of many things or anything atm. Usually I see things that should have been fixed to accommodate the above formula or features should have been inspired by other RPGs...in an RPG.

You can always innovate combat/gameplay I guess but that doesn't really innovate the genre or revolutionize the formula.

Other than that, only thing that could be innovative is procedural stuff...which are shit for wRPGs without the creatively literate AI

 

[Zer0wing]

We just need fresh blood to evaluate and develop on all the work done before by industry giants like Richard Garriot, Warren Spector, you know the names.

 

[Butter]

Wow, big studios that spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on their games aren't innovating? That's unexpected.

 

[Nutmeg]

If you judge RPGs solely as

• combat,
• planning,
• navigating,
• routing, and
  
• economizing

optimization puzzles, as experienced on a second playthrough (i.e. all single solution puzzles solved) and remove any juve-feminine elements e.g. story, reactivity and make believity, you can pick probably only 5 great crpgs in the 1985 to 1995 era, and like another 5 crpgs in the 1995 to 2005 era without starting to pick redundant things, going outside the genre or compromising on quality.

Case in point, Lilura posted a longer list of games earlier but Baldur's gate 2, Diablo 2, Jagged alliance 2 and Wizardry 8 subsume the rest of those titles as far as the above criteria are concerned.

When you look at the crpgs of the 1985 to 1995 era you can pick your choice of 2 of the better Goldbox games (e.g. Dark queen of Krynn), Disciples of steel, Chaos strikes back, and then ... well, you're already stuck, maybe Dark sun? Combat is a bit on the easy side there. Krondor? Not much left on a second playthrough.

And then that's it. There's really nothing else. 20 years of history manages to produce maybe 10 games.

So much for the prestigous ages of incline.

 

[Darth Canoli]

When you look at the crpgs of the 1985 to 1995 era you can pick your choice of 2 of the better Goldbox games (e.g. Dark queen of Krynn), Disciples of steel, Chaos strikes back, and then ... well, you're already stuck, maybe Dark sun? Combat is a bit on the easy side there. Krondor? Not much left on a second playthrough.

And then that's it. There's really nothing else. 20 years of history manages to produce maybe 10 games.

So much for the prestigious ages of incline.

People here would argue you can make a way bigger list.
Still, i'd pick that quality over the quantity of shit we get these days because the best games of these eras are still unmatched and i'm willing to bet it's not going to change anytime soon.

Actually, outside of realms Beyond (let's hope i'm not getting my hopes up for nothing), i can't see anything amazing coming.
KotC 2 will be good, of course, but it'll be a mixbag because of the weird visuals and let's hope i'm wrong, the lack of whatever made Fallout, Planescape and Dark Sun great cRPG.

 

[Trans-Financial-Man]

Goldbox games were the shits. RPGs didn't get good until Ultima actually synchronised gameplay mechanics and storytelling with Ultima IV. You actually felt like you were playing a role and that there were consequences for choosing to play one role or the other. Different playthroughs gave you a different experience. The fleshing out of player choice beyond what stats to manipulate is what made CRPGs more like actual DnD.

 

[orcinator]

Why do you think games with characters customization get tons of complaints about trap builds? Those games require a certain amount of skill and forethought

What a funny way to describe "trial and error" given nearly all "hard" RPGs give you next to no information on what constitutes a good build and which options are trap options.

 

[Trans-Financial-Man]

Why do you think games with characters customization get tons of complaints about trap builds? Those games require a certain amount of skill and forethought

What a funny way to describe "trial and error" given nearly all "hard" RPGs give you next to no information on what constitutes a good build and which options are trap options.

I do think there is a line between trial & error and metagaming. I hate it when RPGs give you a ton of options but only one build is the "optimal" one. I'm fine with figuring things out and experimenting. But don't punish me for not possessing knowledge of game mechanics I won't have when I first start a game. Looking for the "best builds" online killed a lot of the experimentation of RPGs in my opinion.