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.

Can a good RPG have too many gameplay systems?

lukaszek

the determinator
Patron
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
12,621
there are good RPGs that have an abundance of gameplay systems/mechanics/features/whatever.
star traders. Mind you that its roguelike so you have are supposed to replay it often.
On single playthrough you will perform only a fraction of activities available. Hell, from what I saw number of those doubled since last time I played.

I guess you need to be open world and let player do whatever.

To smaller degree streets of rogue. There is a lot going on there, everything is about what do you focus on this time. One time you are a thief, using glass cutter to gain entry into people houses, another you are a small changeling and flush yourself down the toilet to escape capture
 

Harthwain

Magister
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
4,690
It's good to have good systems in place. However:

1) Don't add gameplay mechanics without a clear (meaningful) goal(s).

2) Make sure your gameplay mechanics come together. That way they will be greater than the sum of their parts.
 

laclongquan

Arcane
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
1,870,144
Location
Searching for my kidnapped sister
Yes.

Take Final Fantasy 8 as an example. FF9 has as much but it's a bit too buggy.
FF8 has

Open world.

And moddable weapons (think of the 100% customizable offense/defense buff)

And ammo types.

And a special attack system

And a card game with changing rule process.
 

Zlaja

Arcane
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
5,682
Location
Swedex
Before adding more systems, make sure that the systems you already have in the game are fun and have depth. Don't add more systems, just to cover up the fact that what you already have in the game isn't good enough.
 

CryptRat

Arcane
Developer
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
3,548
I think there's a specific point to make about some very complex games, with tactical combat and complex character sheets and important non-combat systems and detailed and interactive environments and open-ended events, but where combat still takes a big part, as it should do, and the games would have benefited from at least slightly better combat part, games such as Darklands, Arcanum, Serpent in the Staglands or Blade of Destiny. Case in point, the combat in Blade of Destiny is boring while because of higher chance to hit by then, some little less annoyance like you can target diagonally and slightly more enemies which are not some nuance of basic bandits, it's really not much, the combat in Star Trail is not that bad.

These games are ace anyway so a lot of complex, good enough, systems is great and there's probably nothing wrong with their approach but there are clearly games out there with better combat and it's an important part of the gameplay of this kind of games so I think there's nothing wrong either with the other approach of spending a bit more dev time on the combat part, combat spells, items, encounters and a bit less time on other aspects. Open enough exploration (not mission shit, especially) and a bunch of skill checks/secrets/puzzles on top of good combat content can make very good RPGs too.
 

distant

Learned
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
181
I agree with a lot of what people have said in this thread. I'd just like to add that it's also dependent on the length of the game, no matter how strong the core gameplay loop is it can very easily become stale over a long run time. Take for example Resonance of Fate which started incredibly strong but started to become stale and repetitious over time. I think that's why Troubleshooter succeeded in having as many mechanics as it had.
 

zwanzig_zwoelf

Graverobber Foundation
Developer
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
3,085
Location
デゼニランド
This question is a bit too general. An RPG can be as complex as it needs to be, but you have to keep the design as elegant as possible and trim the fat by streamlining things that won't enrich the important parts of the game. That said, if you start implementing stuff that makes zero sense in your game just because it doesn't fit some rando's checklist, you're wasting your time. And money. And potentially ruining the experience for those who liked the game before these changes due to unnecessary baggage.

Deus Ex won't become a better game if you add romances. Wizardry 1 won't become a better game if you throw in party banter and long-ass story scenes on every corner. System Shock won't become a better game if you add friendly NPCs in 'safe' areas. A simple but fun RPG won't get better if it's 60+ hours long and stops introducing new mechanics 15 hours in.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
4,229
Complexity is actually a bad thing. The fact that people often think otherwise just shows they haven't actually considered it very carefully.

Complexity is the cost for a good thing, interesting gameplay choices. So they wind up equating the cost, the complexity, with the pay off, interesting gameplay choices.

Reducing complexity is a good design goal, for many reasons. It makes it easier for your players to understand the systems, it is easier to implement, and it even leaves the possibility that the complexity cost you saved can be spent on adding new interesting gameplay choices without having to increase the overall complexity.

Being complex for the sake of being complex is bad. Design should try to simplify things while maximizing the amount and/or quality of interesting gameplay choices to make.

However with that said, when first checking out games to see if you want to buy them, apparent complexity can sort of work as an estimate for how many interesting choices a game could be expected to have. A game that looks incredibly simple will probably have fewer than one that seems to have a lot of going on from the screenshots and gameplay videos.

And that is the reason that people often wind up thinking complexity is actually a good thing, and equating the cost, complexity, with the pay off of interesting gameplay choices.

And this line of thinking is how we ended up with AAA mainstream garbage. Thanks for reinventing trash.
 

Hassar

Scholar
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
208
Yes. But a lot of these random systems are designed by the scenario development team, not the creator or writers so they often feel out of place because they were literally just jammed in to add padding to the game.
 

Butter

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
7,523
It depends on what your game is about, and if the added complexity or features add anything to that. A game like Icewind Dale would not have been improved by the addition of a mini-game ala Gwent. But for a game like KotOR, where part of the appeal is feeling like you're in the Star Wars universe, it makes sense to include Pazaak so you can justify hanging around the bar absorbing the atmosphere.
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Location
Ingrija
system bloat = lack of purity of vision

very common nowadays

"Purity of vision" is for simpleton games made by simpletons for simpletons. Solitary confinement cells shaped like games. After Kenshi I can no longer go back to such a base and puerile entertainment.
 

Harthwain

Magister
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
4,690
A game like Icewind Dale would not have been improved by the addition of a mini-game ala Gwent.
I am not so sure about that. Kingdom Come: Deliverance had Farkle and The Witcher 1 (and 2) had Poker. Both are dice-based and I feel like they could easily fit into the medievalistic atmosphere of the Forgotten Realms.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,052
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
I love complexity in games, especially RPGs and strategy games. Those two genres exist to provide complex systems with lots of interaction between each other. That's what makes them fun.

But when the systems stand alone and don't interact with each other... then it's just a mess. Don't just tack something on and have it stand on its own, disconnected from everything else. Any complex new feature should feed back into the core gameplay.
 

copebot

Learned
Joined
Dec 27, 2020
Messages
387
At least in a strategy game like TW: Warhammer 2, the battle map mechanics are pretty simple and mostly the same as the series has had for around 20 years. Over DLC releases they have added tons of unique mechanics to different factions and races. You only generally experience the mechanics of the particular faction when you play them, although there are some minor impacts of unique faction mechanics when you play against the other factions. This allows for lots more added complexity to the game as a whole because you never get all of those options all at the same time and you are expected to play multiple factions through multiple playthroughs. For example, Markus Wulfhart's campaign is very different from either Gelt's or Karl Franz's despite them being part of the same race. Some of the races have fewer major differences, like with Tomb Kings only Arkhan is really all that unique besides the start position because he gets access to some different units and has different campaign goals.

In an RPG or similar type of game, you can apply the same principle. I think too many RPGs try to go the "epic campaign" route because developers think that is what people want. For example, you could add a lot of complexity to something like urban intrigue mechanics that create new roles for rogues and wizards for a certain mini-campaign. A campaign designed around evil races could have a human sacrifice mechanic that gives your party of orcs, goblins, and ogres long-lasting or permanent buffs. A planes-hopping campaign could have unique mechanics around finding the keys for portals or trading valuable materials across enormous distances. A campaign designed around vampire-hunting could have all kinds of special vampire mythos mechanics that would be too heavyweight for a more open ended game.

This can also be a good way to potentially introduce more character customization without overwhelming the player. It makes total sense, for example, to open up a "vampire hunter" prestige class or special mechanics around staking in the campaign designed around killing leeches. Those would be bloated options in a larger campaign which may or may not have any vampires in it.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,110
My 2 cents:

You shouldn't think of things like complexity when designing your game. Complexity is an abstract concept, and once you start designing around abstract stuff, you end up like one of those empty suits in modern development, talking using words like "leverage" and "complexity" and designing some shitfest.

As a small indie developer, you should think in terms of the gameplay loop, and how to make it fun. Given that you likely have limited resources, you can aim for the lower end of that, ie the minimum amount of gameplay systems you would need to make a fun experience that YOU would want to play. Then, you can add other stuff that would improve the experience later.
 

Darth Canoli

Arcane
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
5,687
Location
Perched on a tree
There is two ways, first, taking a classic like Dark Sun and improving on the battle system to get closer to a ToEE/KotC combat system, say more KotC but groups of enemies attacking together from ToEE was really neat.
If you find few features to add that would really improve the experience, just do, otherwise don't.

On the other hand, complexity is a good thing if you have the resources to pull it off and if the features are well designed and work well together.

The best RPG hasn't been released yet, when you look at games like Fantasy General and UFO, which are not RPG but close to the genre (tactical combat), it's clear they're better than whatever have been released in the last20 years, first, because of production value but also because of the complexity and how well every feature is designed.

The best RPG would be a synthesis between PST and KotC with some well designed additional features (without it, if perfectly designed, it'd already be the best RPG of all times), a good trading simulation of kingdom management would work well if well designed and easy to use (remotely from the party, not adding loading screens, bug-free, well optimized).

For example, a huge open world with different pre-designed scenarios randomly triggered with kingdom management and trading routes, with multiple adventuring parties which you can all control or put some on auto-mode with some directions.
Add to this different origins, from prince of a kingdom to merchant, evil apprentice wizard wanting to make a pact with demons or planning to become a necromancer and then a lich and unleash undead hordes, Orc warrior with the options to become chief and gather multiple tribes, demon prince, ...)

Add to this handcrafted complex scenarios that can trigger in your game of not with a lot of build up, handcrafted dungeons, hidden locations you'll have to scout.

So, if you have 30M €, a great team, a good taste and a vast knowledge of PnP and computer RPG, complex is good, otherwise, simple and close to the classics is best with few if any new features.

Also, don't waste resources on cut-scenes and 3D graphics.
 

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,624
If I'm pedantic, "too many" already implies a negative thing, and the answer to the question is "yes".

Now, I think the question you wanted to ask is "is it bad to have many gameplay systems?". And the answer is, of course, "it depends". I think a game that introduces loads of gameplay systems in one go can be overwhelming. A game that has many pointless gameplay systems could do without them, or make them feel like pointless if the systems are worth salvaging.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,052
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Also, don't waste resources on cut-scenes and 3D graphics.

Friendly reminder that decent 3D is cheaper and more versatile than decent 2D.
Doesn't it take more hours to get decent at 3D than 2D? Though obviously if you're just hiring someone else there are better freelance 3D artists around than 2D ones.

Depends on your skillset and what you consider decent.
If we're talking indie games, you're gonna get Quake, Thief, or Morrowind quality of 3D easier than you can get early 90s adventure game pixel art quality, especially once you factor in the animations.

Or if you just wanna buy pre-made assets, there's a lot more and cheaper 3D assets available and they're way more flexible than pre-made 2D assets.
 

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