RPG gameplay elements/habits you don't understand

[JarlFrank]

There are a few things players do (and developers implement) that I don't get.

Recently saw some youtube vids on Fallout games and the guy who talked about them played New Vegas and Fallout 4 with companions following him everywhere. And I just don't get it. Having followers in first person RPGs is lame as fuck, all they do is cramp your style, especially in something as clunky as Bethesda's Fallouts where they only get in your way when you wanna shoot at the enemy.

I don't get the appeal of having companions in first or third person action RPGs, yet devs keep implementing them and players apparently like it. New Vegas, Skyrim, Fallout 4 all have companions. Elex has companions. Chances are, if you play a modern action RPG there are companions you can recruit to follow you around.

Everyone hates escort quests, but companions in those kinds of games are cool? How? It feels like having a constant escort quest character tagging along with you. You have to babysit your companions to make sure they don't suicide themselves and it just makes the game more stressful and annoying. There are zero gameplay benefits to having an uncontrollable AI companion tag along with you in an action RPG. You can't coordinate your attacks with your companion in most of these games, so it's not like you can involve them in tactical approaches. Once the enemy spots you, your companion's AI will just derp out and go on a frontal attack, and if you don't want him/her to die you have to also run forward and do your best to prevent the enemies from killing the retard.

I'll never understand the appeal of companions in action RPGs.

Are there any features/habits in RPGs that you don't understand the appeal of?

 

[Snorkack]

Especially in NV companions are awesome, because you can delegate all the shootan to them and don't have to put up with the retarded VATS or the lame gunplay.

 

[Stormcrowfleet]

For me, companions are an almost subconscious appeal to min-max. I don't care about them or their story and you are right that they generally take space and are bugy. That being said, it's an extra pair of hand/gun, so why wouldn't I take it ?

 

[Zibniyat]

Companions are useful. For distracting an enemy and getting shot instead of my character. Depending on a game, they can serve as wonderful pack mules as well.

 

[Carrion]

Especially in NV companions are awesome, because you can delegate all the shootan to them and don't have to put up with the retarded VATS or the lame gunplay.

They also trivialize most of the game's challenge right away, as having one or two tanks with you makes the combat way too easy. It's nice to have them because of their quests and dialogue, but not so much in terms of gameplay. At least you can give them enough orders to not have to constantly babysit them, so the game doesn't feel like one big escort quest.

 

[Melcar]

I only like companions in RPGs (I mostly play "action" RPGs) if I can control them the same as with my MC. Companions in the first FO I hate, for example. No matter your play style (Rambo, stealth or diplomatic), they are useless and only hinder you.

 

[Wunderbar]

Recently saw some youtube vids on Fallout games and the guy who talked about them played New Vegas and Fallout 4 with companions following him everywhere. And I just don't get it. Having followers in first person RPGs is lame as fuck, all they do is cramp your style, especially in something as clunky as Bethesda's Fallouts where they only get in your way when you wanna shoot at the enemy.

dunno about what devs were thinking, but as a player in bethesda-style games i tend to use companions as pack mules.

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

Companions in third person or first person exist to be meat shields and disposable. Funnily enough, you'd think having them within arm's grasp would make you form more of a personalized connection to seeing their continued mortality but they also never hit that immersive note with me. I care much more about my IWD party or companions in other isometric view games, maybe the lack of physical detail makes me use my imagination to personalize them more in my mind.

I don't get the appeal of romances. I like to shitpost about romances and participate in some good old fashioned "I'd rail her" discussions, but romances being this big draw for some people remains a mystery to me. Look, I used to make fun of people for having long distance relationships and thought there was nothing gayer than a guy roleplaying as females in chatrooms and actually trying to legitimize themselves as being real women. By that extension, romancing an NPC in a computer game is the stupidest, geekiest shit and not geeky in the respectful grognard way. I prefer the female NPC to look good, maybe a bit flirty, but don't let my charname actually engage in romantic dialogue with her. It's better if she exists as a Rule 34 fantasy than "I'm in love with a pile of code." That shit may be the genesis for deplorable terms like pansexuality for all I know.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

Western devs have largely given up on companions, especially in action games, turning them into immortal gun turrets or healbots.

Controlling a party is one of the more sublime aspects of RPGs, going far back to the roots of the genre with Wizardry and Ultima. Balancing out a team to effectively combat the myriad of challenges in the world is a form of gameplay unmatched by any other type of game. The way devs have let this crucial element fall by the wayside to point players consider them optional or even a hindrance is massive decline for the genre as whole.

 

[V_K]

Are there any features/habits in RPGs that you don't understand the appeal of?

Combat.

Spoiler

 

[DraQ]

I don't see how it is any different from having (uncontrollable) followers in, say, Fallout 1-2.

• They are pack mules.
• They may provide interesting banter/dialogue (in Skyrim you might need some modded followers for that, but Inigo and quite a few 3DNPCs ones are a good bet)
• They assist you in combat (even if you don't control them directly you can usually give them orders to some limited extent or otherwise affect their combat behaviour and once you know that behaviour/adjusted it to your need you can cooperate - for example one of you tasnks the enemy with a shield, the other flanks and delivers finishing blow into the opening.)
• They might provide usable skills.

They only become a burden if you do a lot of stealth or acrobatics to progress via unusual routes, but you can always leave them somewhere and continue solo then.

 

[Silly Germans]

Mass Effect did companions and it worked pretty well there. I'd say its all about the implementation.
The problem is that games with optional companions typically include them in a half-assed way.

A feature that i find off-putting and have never seen done in a way such that
it improves gameplay is durability of items. On a conceptual level it sounds
sensible but i have never seen a game where it was actually fun and not
simply a pain in the ass or irrelevant. All it does is typically add tedium by
forcing you to repair shit once in a while for a redundant cost.
I am not against it in principal but id really like to know if someone has
an example where it actually contributed something to the enjoyment of a game.

 

[Mikeal]

Free pack mules are always good. Also Boone is god-tier companion both from gameplay and story perspective.

 

[octavius]

especially in something as clunky as Bethesda's Fallouts where they only get in your way when you wanna shoot at the enemy.

Sounds like a better deal than Fallout 1 where you get in Ian's way when he wanna shoot at the enemy.

 

[DraQ]

especially in something as clunky as Bethesda's Fallouts where they only get in your way when you wanna shoot at the enemy.

Sounds like a better deal than Fallout 1 where you get in Ian's way when he wanna shoot at the enemy.

Or FO2.
With Marcus.
With Bozar.

 

[Silly Germans]

especially in something as clunky as Bethesda's Fallouts where they only get in your way when you wanna shoot at the enemy.

Sounds like a better deal than Fallout 1 where you get in Ian's way when he wanna shoot at the enemy.

The old saying about friends and enemies proofs its validity time and time again.

 

[octavius]

Are there any features/habits in RPGs that you don't understand the appeal of?

Grinding. It feels like work. Especially in games where there's already a gazillion random encounters, why not improve your characters on them instead? (A bit like driving to a training center and run on a treadmill instead of walking or jogging in fresh air).
And then in Might&Magic 2 the grinders complain that there's always 255 monsters in random encounters. I love Jon Van Ceneghem for trolling the grinders that way. :D

 

[DraQ]

Are there any features/habits in RPGs that you don't understand the appeal of?

• Grind
• level scaling
• item fever
• cooldowns
• stat inflation
• hard requirements
• minmaxing
• masturbation via incrementation
• optimization that only gives benefits long after normal person would have retired that character/party
• combat XP and associated bullshit XP farming
• RTWP
• morality meters
• dissociation between mechanics and what it's supposed to represent

 

[Grampy_Bone]

I'm confused by anti-grinding players. If you don't want your characters to get more powerful, play an action game or RTS or something.

 

[JarlFrank]

Growing powerful naturally through doing quests and beating challenging encounters is fun.

Mindlessly trawling through generic filler mob after generic filler mob is tiresome and shit.

 

[octavius]

I'm confused by anti-grinding players. If you don't want your characters to get more powerful, play an action game or RTS or something.

Well, as I said:
"Especially in games where there's already a gazillion random encounters, why not improve your characters on them instead?"

 

[undecaf]

Recently saw some youtube vids on Fallout games and the guy who talked about them played New Vegas and Fallout 4 with companions following him everywhere. And I just don't get it. Having followers in first person RPGs is lame as fuck, all they do is cramp your style, especially in something as clunky as Bethesda's Fallouts where they only get in your way when you wanna shoot at the enemy.

I get your point, but I always took it as more of a challenge to cope with them. I have this posse I'm going around and they're not robots (god bless the dumb AI for that), they make mistakes they don't necessarily read my mind, they do what they do. And I have the get used to it because they can be more than helpful in their respective places. It's the same way I approached followers in Fallout and Fallout 2, they are not "my pawns" they are individuals of their own and act accordingly; and when shit hit the fan because of them, that's simply the way things happened for better or worse, #dealwithit.

I found it, in a strange way, more organic and fun than if I had full control over them or if they were gone altogether by design. It's more of a "roleplaying", I don't play Sulik or Vic or anyone like that. I play as someone who, by choice, travels with them.

So, that's one way to approach it.


On the topic otherwise...

I do not understand at all the way to play pretend out-of-the-game, or with out-of-game rules - like those Oblivion folks in that well known website whose name - luckily - escapes me right now. I don't see that as roleplaying at all, what the fun in it, I can not tell.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

Growing powerful naturally through doing quests and beating challenging encounters is fun.

Mindlessly trawling through generic filler mob after generic filler mob is tiresome and shit.

I want the game to put me in charge of my own power accumulation, however that is achieved. Not necessarily through mob spam.

There are people who hyperventilate at the idea of other players "getting too powerful" or whatever. But whenever I see a game advertised as 'no grinding!' I know it will be a challenge-free game.

Consider BG2, the game has "grinding" but it's not economical, you will never gain levels from fighting random battles in a reasonable time. But it has the side-quests and free-roam aspects you describe, so a player can control how powerful they become at most points in the game. A player who rushes straight to Spellhold will have a very different experience from one who defeats Firkraag and fully explores the Planar Sphere. I like that.

Or in a game like Fallout 2, where I like being able to go to New Reno, run into random battles, and loot a .556 pistol off a dead goon, making much of the early game much easier. Some players just get all bent out of shape at that sort of thing.

Meanwhile, modern RPGs are 'over balanced' because of all the 'REEEEE I hate grinding REEEEE' players. As a result you can't really control how powerful you are at all. In Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland 2, Bard's Tale 4, Div OS, etc. etc., you just run through the game and get to the level the game developers want you to be at. No higher, no lower. It's lame.

 

[Elex]

Gothic companion are great.

 

[JarlFrank]

Growing powerful naturally through doing quests and beating challenging encounters is fun.

Mindlessly trawling through generic filler mob after generic filler mob is tiresome and shit.

I want the game to put me in charge of my own power accumulation, however that is achieved. Not necessarily through mob spam.

There are people who hyperventilate at the idea of other players "getting too powerful" or whatever. But whenever I see a game advertised as 'no grinding!' I know it will be a challenge-free game.

Consider BG2, the game has "grinding" but it's not economical, you will never gain levels from fighting random battles in a reasonable time. But it has the side-quests and free-roam aspects you describe, so a player can control how powerful they become at most points in the game. A player who rushes straight to Spellhold will have a very different experience from one who defeats Firkraag and fully explores the Planar Sphere. I like that.

Or in a game like Fallout 2, where I like being able to go to New Reno, run into random battles, and loot a .556 pistol off a dead goon, making much of the early game much easier. Some players just get all bent out of shape at that sort of thing.

Meanwhile, modern RPGs are 'over balanced' because of all the 'REEEEE I hate grinding REEEEE' players. As a result you can't really control how powerful you are at all. In Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland 2, Bard's Tale 4, Div OS, etc. etc., you just run through the game and get to the level the game developers want you to be at. No higher, no lower. It's lame.

None of the examples you mentioned qualify as grinding, though.