How do you feel about innovation in RPGs?

[Trashos]

Took the Centrist position. I fundamentally like innovation, but practically more often than not the new ideas are pure decline.

Here is what is actually going to happen (eventually). RPGs will evolve to be this 3D world where you wear 3D glasses, like an evolution from FPS action RPGs. But most of them won't involve fighting, they will involve dating.

In the meantime, I 'll keep enjoying the little sprites on my PC screen, on my quest to reach level 20 by killing kobolds.

 

[Machocruz]

I'll settle for them actually feeling like their source format on a consistent basis.

 

[Morality Games]

On a separate note related to the question: Innovation in game.

Innovation is something overhyped among game developers and players. They love to say they love innovation. God forbid if they ever utter otherwise.

But the reality is that gamers dont like innovation that much. The top innovative game of all time, Final Fantasy 8, get a lukewarm rememberance among gamers. From the look of it, Death Stranding sound like a top innovative game coming up. In which case, I expect it also not very welcomed among players.

As for developers, the less said, the better. In the 90s, they experimented with all sort of shits. Sometime to their own detriment. Case in point: Prince of Qin. It start out as Diablo-like RPG with all sort of extra innovative feature. Its sequel, Seal of Evil, try something new, something MMO, and become a bland game nobody remember.

That's not to say they didnt innovate successful. Case in point: Fallout 1, Fallout 2, then we have Fallout Tactics which is the logical successor to Jagged Alliance 2. Though the deviation from heavy RPG of 1/2 into RPG-lite, tactical combat game that is Tactic, drive gamers into a frenzy and they said all sort of shits about FTBOS. It is a successful innovation, though not appreciated by audience. Of course, there's also the unmentionable Fallout Brotherhood of Steel for PS2. Now you can spit.

There's a clear difference, a clash of ideas between gamers and developers. Gamers, from the look of it, dont like innovation that much. But developers simply like to test or try something just for the sake of test something new. Reinforce the old success doesnt get done that often.

I think gamers like innovation contextually and often hunger for new gameplay mechanics, but it's a complex chemistry. Making lengthy turn-based fights in Torment: Tides of Numenera just further imposes on the gamer's desperate effort to get emotionally involved in the world and story and overlooks that in the original Torment, fighting was far less tactical and more about building atmosphere, character, and adding personality to the party. To the extent it was about gameplay, the game was collecting new abilities so you could use them to easily smash apart enemies (sort of the same appeal as learning combos in Dynasty Warriors); the combat was more about content and systems than tactics.

Screw around with that chemistry at your own peril.

 

[smaug]

Playing the same shit over and over again gets boring.

So, yes innovation is needed.

 

[DraQ]

Revolutionary, with two caveats:

• I agree that if it's not broken it doesn't need to be fixed (although most things are broken in cRPG genre).
• Innovation, not innovashuun!!1 - changing things randomly for no reason and without good plan is among the dumbest things ever.

 

[Morality Games]

Revolutionary, with two caveats:

• I agree that if it's not broken it doesn't need to be fixed (although most things are broken in cRPG genre).
• Innovation, not innovashuun!!1 - changing things randomly for no reason and without good plan is among the dumbest things ever.

That's basically centrism (they want change as long as nothing bad happens, there are no problems, and you don't lose what is already good). Revolutionaries don't care about making a mess of things and don't think anything is good enough that they are scared to lose it.

 

[Viata]

I don't want innovation, I want different settings.

 

[DraQ]

Revolutionary, with two caveats:

• I agree that if it's not broken it doesn't need to be fixed (although most things are broken in cRPG genre).
• Innovation, not innovashuun!!1 - changing things randomly for no reason and without good plan is among the dumbest things ever.

That's basically centrism (they want change as long as nothing bad happens, there are no problems, and you don't lose what is already good). Revolutionaries don't care about making a mess of things.

The status quo of cRPGs is heavily slanted towards bad, stupid or misapplied mechanics deeply entrenched via recursive cargo cult design, so no.

 

[DraQ]

I don't want innovation, I want different settings.

Start with upping your "brightness" one.

 

[Morality Games]

Everyone says they want different settings, with historical RPGs frequently cited, but when somebody makes a perfect example of an innovative and engaging historical RPG (Expeditions: Conquistador) and follows up with a perfect example of a historical RPG that is traditional turn-based isometric (Expeditions: Vikings), nobody cares to try because "the historic period doesn't interest me." And then, if the setting is right, "They didn't do this setting correctly."

Digesting and acclimating yourself to the themes and motifs of a different setting is actually a mentally intensive, emotionally draining task (like reading the Book of the New Sun or Dune vs Lord of the Rings). While it is usually worth it if you devote the effort and the target is quality content, it isn't easy to do and doesn't come naturally to most people.

 

[Sigourn]

I want innovation, fuck yeah.
Just because you stick to the core gameplay doesn't mean you can't try fun new things with it. Innovate with the gameplay by adding more features, and innovate with quests by adding more creative quests with even more creative solutions.

 

[Shinji]

All RPGs should be like Realms of Arkania or Darklands

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

what you probably call "innovation" i call "decline". what's supposed to be this "innovation" you're speaking of? bigger worlds? within extreme constraints, daggerfall pisses on everyone's head. more detailed worlds? that's just graphics, and by the way morrowind is 15 years old, maybe older. npcs schedule? they're very very barebone (in bethestard stuff) or completely absent (most of the other stuff, the oh so praised outer worlds included), i was going to cite gothic but then i remembered even frigging ultima had them already 30 years ago. [stat] check can be seen often lately, yet fallout 20 years ago did them a thousand times better just by hiding the [stat] part, requiring the player to use his own brain to get the most out of any situation.
i can't see any "innovation". interfaces and controls have improved, sure, but mostly because of not having too many computational limits anymore and by just applying common sense. last time i've been truly amazed? might be with fallout. not even new vegas or bloodlines did, the former was drawing blood from stones but it was still fallout 3, the latter was a perfect execution, just perfect, but the truly new addition, the physics, is used only in 2, maybe 3 set pieces.

 

[Abu Antar]

I'm probably a centrist, leaning more towards traditionalism. I'm not against innovation, but I don't want innovation just because. Actual thought needs to be put in as to why you want to do something innovative, and not just "wow, this seems cool!"

 

[Dorateen]

I support reactionary game design.

 

[barghwata]

I don't think you can a make a broad statement that innovation is always good or bad, but i've seen so many modern games claiming that they're inspired by older games: Underrail and Atom RPG for fallout, dragon age and PoE for baldur's gate etc...... and honestly most of these games failed terribly in recreating the older games that they're inspired from. At this point i just want developpers to have the balls to make their own type of games instead of trying to copy better older games to pander to their audiences.

The people who made legendary games like fallout and arcanum weren't trying to copy anything, they might've inspired some things from older games sure but they clearly had their own vision, and in having the guts to stay true to that vision they managed to make great games; modern developpers lack this passion so they just copy older games but in copying them they will never manage to make games as good, just make your own shit already.

And yet when i look at the state of modern tactical RPGs for example which completely went to shit, i would honestly just settle for games that copy JA2 at this point even though they clearly won't be as good.

 

[LudensCogitet]

I went centrist, but for a pretty specific reason: I want to see RPGs develop and explore (mechanically and thematically), but I abhor the cliche that gaming has "advanced".

First, as far as mediums of expression go, video games are practically newborn and it seems like adolescent hubris to have game development degrees and professors as if anyone knows what the hell they're doing.

Second, the "advances" often seem to boil down to making games more and more appealing to a broader and broader audience and the condemning the older things as backward because we've trained ourselves to be too lazy to engage with them.

Fallout 1 is still a great game. Jank and all. But it seems that little has been done to develop the real potential it represents. Not interface and graphical "quality" (the game looks great) but dynamic reactivity, the ability to participate in the telling of multiple tales.

(P.S. the tale telling includes the combat and other systems. I am not attempting to reduce the game or the genre to one part of itself)

 

[Strange Fellow]

old things good

new things bad

except when new things are good, in which case new things are old things, so the badness of new things remains pure

In all seriousness, there's such a vast amount of good stuff in old games from which to draw inspiration that we don't need a revolution any time soon, unless taking some stuff from one old game and other stuff from another old game qualifies as "innovation" to you. But that would be silly.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

Junta, I'm sad and somewhat shocked at your declining, life sucks opinion. I thought you were a positive guy on the level? But you don't actually like RPGs. This saddens me. Where did Happy Junta go?

 

[user]

RPG is a spectrum, it's 2019 guys for gawd's sakes!

But seriously, centrism is the way. It's just that hardly anyone applies it correctly.

 

[Mark Richard]

Most of my favourite modern RPGs were made by teams who have little experience making RPGs. Consortium's lead designer worked on such prestigious titles as Scarface: The World is Yours. Expeditions Viking had a Deus Ex modder for a lead. Kingdom Come: Deliverance was created by some of the guys behind Mafia and Operation Flashpoint. Solasta looks like another good prospect, with major tabletop enthusiasts rallying behind a 4X developer.

This pattern tells me I crave innovation. I still hold to the notion that a safe and well-executed experience is better than an experiment gone wrong, but even a partial success tends to net major points with me.

 

[ScrotumBroth]

This topic is purely academic, nowadays gaming is not a hobby or art, it's pure cold business.

You don't need to reinvent hot water, just be true to the RPG values and little sparks of innovation will come spontaneously. I find that I enjoy devs first games the most coz they're just figuring it out and not trying to confirm to mainstream expectations.

 

[Atchodas]

Kingdom Come: Deliverance was created by some of the guys behind Mafia

And thats why both games are great

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

I like the kind of innovation that renames Perception skill 24 times and calls it a revolutionary dialogue system.

 

[RegionalHobo]

power fantasy sells it s that simple. and i'm obviously not just talking about rpgs, take a look at movies, tv series or books.

games are now mainstream and so are rpgs. as such they'll be made to sell, to reach a critical mass of consumers. for each tired veteran there'll be 10 kids, it s like those people complaining about pokemon games being always the same shit when it s basically ads for children

most people on this board are extreme low priority for big devs. our hope is in indies, that s why eastern europe devs have such high rep around here.

as for your question : i guess i'm a centrist, i've played enough as you did and mainstream games are even more braindead/plastic these days. i'd love to play a low level adventure game like teron was in aod, i'd love underused settings like dark sun, , arcanum is my favorite of all time, etc. that said i think there s space for me to have fun with good execution of the classics like i did with pathfinder

bah talking about this is depressing. it s sad to remember that both in general games and in the rpg niche i've been kicked out of the target demographic, fuck