Do you believe in the concept of "system bloat" in RPGs?

[whydoibother]

No one ITT can define system bloat as something other than 'system I don't like'

System bloat is when new systems are introduced over time in a way where the novelty and added sophistication doesn't make up for the nuisance of learning or using them.
Like having an RPG where you pick stats and equip weapons to alter said stats, and the states to combat with enemy stats, and then halfway through you add base building, and in the end you turn the game into Microsoft F-35 simulator which ignores the character build or items.

unrelated image

 

[The_Mask]

doesnt matter what anyone considers or thinks, it *is* bad

If I ask you to explain why it is bad... will you take it personally and get retarded, or will you actually explain how the buildings largely don't matter, and only the decisions in the Throne Room matter?

See... I think Rusty has a point: features are not the same as systems. Features are composed out of systems.

It's like this: there are simple things in the world. And there are complicated things.
And complicated things are simple things strung together.

Why is the Kingdom Management in Pathfinder: Kingmaker bad? It's because the systems that comprise it, are not equally relevant.



Is the idea of having a Kingdom Management feature bad? No.

Is the execution of it in P:K bad? You can make a very strong argument for "Yes".

 

[†††]

I'm noticing a theme here. The issue isn't bloat, but unfinished shallow systems stacked on top of each other. A 'bloated' game would be great, look at Dwarf Fortress, one of the most bloated games of all time.

There's time for bloated games and there's time for more contained experiences. Not everyone wants to relive Dwarf Fortress every time a new game is played.

 

[Vic]

Since having an avatar of a game means identifying with the flaws of said game, shall we start with the PoE games?

Sure, the base management in pillows was far too shallow and not enough was done with it.
Dumpsterfire's ship combat was lol, again, far too shallow.

I'm noticing a theme here. The issue isn't bloat, but unfinished shallow systems stacked on top of each other. A 'bloated' game would be great, look at Dwarf Fortress, one of the most bloated games of all time.

That's exactly my issue, most of the time devs tack on systems like kingdom management to Pathfinder as a "gimmick", to appeal to a wider audience or to maybe stand out from the other RPGs.

It just feels like bloat at that point.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

System bloat usually becomes a problem due to trying to sell loads of expansions/DLCs and the need to justify people buying them. It's usually a big problem for Paradox games and "live-service" type MMOs and such where you have people dumping loads of hours into the game. Warframe and EU4 are probably two of the most bloated games I've ever played for more than a few hours.

Not often a problem for RPGs. There are useless crappy features due to kickstarter promises or whatever, but even at their worst, they tend not to actively harm the main game in the way the above does.

Everquest has added countless features over the years and I ended up liking most of them because they were fairly well thought out/implemented.
Not too long ago they implemented a mercenary system where you 'collect' characters from around the world you've previously interacted with like cards with their own stats, and send them on missions. And it was well integrated into the base game and gave good rewards. Most players I interacted with enjoy the system, the missions, and the stories involved.

And yet, I get the feeling many here would detest the very idea of it. They want games to be as simple as possible because there's a chance a developer might mess up the idea or implementation, and after all, why give them the chance to shoot themselves in the foot? Just make the games simpler, smaller, and shorter. Never try to make a masterpiece, settle for the absolute least amount you can do.

I'm glad these people weren't around to tell Gygax that AD&D was just bloat.

 

[d1r]

It's definitely annoying when feature bloat is fucking with the main campaign of the game (Fallout 4 Settlements)

But the issue is that they don't do anything with settlements. If proper settlement defense existed, settlers helped build & defend, etc., it would probably be praised.
So, how is this bloat if the issue is that it doesn't have enough features?

If this actually were the case, we would have had some sort of Spellforce Fallout hybrid, in which Settlement building would have played a way greater role than it currently does in Fallout 4. And I am not playing Fallout because I want to do that shit. It's the same with Kingsmaker. I am not even in the slightest way interested in playing the game because of the kingdom management aspect, even though the game (combat and party gameplay) looks about right.

 

[Vic]

Usually if a system is well developed people don't call it bloat, it's because they are shallow that people feel that way.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

It's the same with Kingsmaker. I am not even in the slightest way interested in playing the game because of the kingdom management aspect,

And yet it sold well. It's not some feature they randomly spring on you, it's a main selling point. People were clearly very interested in it. It takes up about half of the steam store description:

Conquer new regions as claim them as your own, carving your kingdom from the wilderness. While classic dungeon crawling and exploration lie at the heart of this adventure, diplomacy, politics, and kingdom development are also part of the challenge. Choose your allies well, and keep them close while exploring ancient tombs and ruins — and while dealing with politics in your own court.

Your kingdom is a reflection of your character and your choices throughout the game. It is a living thing shaped by your alignment, your allies, and your ability to lead your people. Not only can your kingdom expand, opening up new territories and allowing you to build new towns and communities, but your capital city will physically change based on your decisions, your policies, and even whom you choose to ally with. As your kingdom grows, a number of factions and neighboring countries will come to you to seek favor—and to test your strength.

Usually if a system is well developed people don't call it bloat, it's because they are shallow that people feel that way.

So the issue isn't some nondescript 'bloat' but that the systems are in fact bad?
makes you think...

 

[Vic]

If this actually were the case, we would have had some sort of Spellforce Fallout hybrid, in which Settlement building would have played a way greater role than it currently does in Fallout 4. And I am not playing Fallout because I want to do that shit.

Why are you playing Fallout 4 in 2022/2023? Loverslab?

 

[Reever]

Usually if a system is well developed people don't call it bloat, it's because they are shallow that people feel that way.

Key word is usually. You can have a well-developed system (by itself) but if it doesn't interact well with the rest of the game (maybe because it is obsolete. Something that happens a lot with live-service games) and the game already multiple systems that require your constant attention I think you can call that bloat. Path of Exile and Warframe come to mind here.

 

[d1r]

If this actually were the case, we would have had some sort of Spellforce Fallout hybrid, in which Settlement building would have played a way greater role than it currently does in Fallout 4. And I am not playing Fallout because I want to do that shit.

Why are you playing Fallout 4 in 2022/2023? Loverslab?

Last time I played Borderlands 4 was on release day.

It's the same with Kingsmaker. I am not even in the slightest way interested in playing the game because of the kingdom management aspect,

And yet it sold well. It's not some feature they randomly spring on you, it's a main selling point. People were clearly very interested in it. It takes up about half of the steam store description:

Conquer new regions as claim them as your own, carving your kingdom from the wilderness. While classic dungeon crawling and exploration lie at the heart of this adventure, diplomacy, politics, and kingdom development are also part of the challenge. Choose your allies well, and keep them close while exploring ancient tombs and ruins — and while dealing with politics in your own court.

Your kingdom is a reflection of your character and your choices throughout the game. It is a living thing shaped by your alignment, your allies, and your ability to lead your people. Not only can your kingdom expand, opening up new territories and allowing you to build new towns and communities, but your capital city will physically change based on your decisions, your policies, and even whom you choose to ally with. As your kingdom grows, a number of factions and neighboring countries will come to you to seek favor—and to test your strength.

Sure, that's a matter of preference then. Let's put it this way then, if "bloat" actually becomes a well thought out and fun part of your game, then I also wouldn't call it bloat anymore. Like I said before, I knew exactly what Kingsmaker is, and thus, I never bought it because I was not interested in this part of the game. This of course doesn't mean that it's a bad game.

Though I feel like that it's kinda different with already established franchises like Fallout, where something like settlement building could be classified as such, because settlement building was never apparent/important or a feature in any other Fallout game. Usually, Fallout fans are interested in character building, good quests and an atmospheric world, and settlements had none of this, even worse, they actually destroyed immersion because how shitty implemented they were.

 

[Vic]

and settlements had none of this, even worse, they actually destroyed immersion because how shitty implemented they were.

 

[Vic]

^ they just tried to capitalize on the crafting/basebuilding trend that minecraft started. Is it well made, relevant, thoughtful? Even with the DLC it just feels tacked on.

 

[Vic]

And by the way, that comes from a guy who's frist post on the codex was this:

https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/fallout-4-ruined-fallout-for-me.126588/

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

No one ITT can define system bloat as something other than 'system I don't like'

I could only see such a thing in a live service multiplayer game where they add on features and it makes the game less accessible to new players from launch. very little relevance in rpgs which lean towards stream lining

because 'system bloat' doesn't exist, only good or bad systems.

You're being deliberately obtuse. Systems bloat is a specific criticism of bad design or execution due to excess. It's an identified root cause of failure. A diagnosis.

if that 'excess' was in fact good, nobody would complain

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. "wow, I don't like bad things... but there's a lot of bad... The issue must be that there is a lot!"
if someone serves you a big bowl of shit, is your first complaint also that there's too much shit?

We are agreed that execution is the only thing that determines if a feature is bad. Bloat is a term which attributes that poor execution to attempting to integrate too many features--features often regarded as unessential. It can sometimes merely be a distraction or burden to the core gameplay, or even injure it for diverting resources during development.

Think of a hamburger that was poorly prepared because the chef consumed themselves with many elaborate garnishes, rather than the beef and bun.

 

[FriendlyMerchant]

It's good to have a lot of systems as long as the systems are well designed

 

[Ol' Willy]

It's definitely annoying when feature bloat is fucking with the main campaign of the game (Fallout 4 Settlements)

But the issue is that they don't do anything with settlements. If proper settlement defense existed, settlers helped build & defend, etc., it would probably be praised.
So, how is this bloat if the issue is that it doesn't have enough features?

When I was a kid I always thought that it would be cool to be a gun runner in a Fallout world.

Instead of doing some stupid chores like looking for water chip or saving your tribe, you will just travel the wasteland, look for old bases and warehouses, manage to get through, collect merchandise and then sell it. Maybe also fight your competition and see the consequences of your weapon deals to various groups, like, do you want one group to dominate the other or you want them to kill each other in a balanced way

 

[Norfleet]

You can do kitchen sink design in a good game, and it gets better

Do you think crafting, tower defense and cooking would make Fallout better, or detract from the core game?

Given that some of the more popular Fallout 4 mods appear to be aimed at doubling down on the crafting, tower defense, and cooking, apparently it makes it better. Probably because as RPGs, Bethesda games are not actually very good.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

or it could be because base management & defense is a core pillar of RPGs that crpgs overlook due to developer laziness

 

[quaesta]

shouldn't you want to engage with more systems?

Isn't it cool to have more knobs and dials to adjust?

Notice that you're always saying more, more, more.

*More* systems, *more* knobs, *more* dials to turn.

No. More isn't always better. I prefer to view this discussion as good design vs poor design, not "more vs less".

Exactly. It's not less is more, it's that depth comes from meaningful interactions in the systems, not how much there is to a system. Everyone agrees chess is a deep game, but the complexity comes from the stratagems in the design, not the rules themselves.
In a similar vein, Fallout 1 isn't obtusely complex, at least for casual play. But you can use the perks, specials, etc etc to build out your character, which not only has an effect in gameplay, but on the route/story of your game (the famous example is the dumb vs smart dialog.).

 

[Nifft Batuff]

"RPG elements" is a system bloat in other genres.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

fallout 1 is dead simple

 

[Norfleet]

fallout 1 is dead simple

And also dead, since I notice you're no longer playing it. Why is that? Because it's over and that's the end of it, is why.

 

[Ol' Willy]

And by the way, that comes from a guy who's frist post on the codex was this:

https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/fallout-4-ruined-fallout-for-me.126588/

So you were fine with the atrocity of Fagout 3?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Patiently waiting for a video game adaptation of rolemaster so half this forum dies of an aneurysm.