1eyedking Top 10 things that RPGs don't do anymore

[Max Stats]

Hmm...things RPGs don't do anymore, eh?

Well, I used to enjoy the feelies you'd get when you bought a game in a box. My old Ultima games came with a bunch of different things. IV had a cool world map printed on cloth and a metal ankh. One of the first four came with a cloth pouch full of Britannian coins in different denominations.

The coin pouch came with the rerelease of Ultima I.
I dunno what if anything feelie came with 2-3.
4 had an ankh.
5 had a codex coin
6 had a moonstone
7 had a fellowship "coin" (triangular)
7 part 2 had no feelies (unless you count the map)
8 had a pentagram coin
9 had a bunch of stuff but you had to buy the special edition for most of it. That's the version I have so I'm not sure about the plain release
Underworld had a different pouch, with little bits of metal embossed with runes ("runestones")

All of the numbered games from 2 on had a cloth map. Some (all?) of the spinoffs cheaped out and only had paper maps (as did some rerelease/collection versions.)

These days its rare to even get a manual. I was fairly shocked at how much stuff they'd shoved into the Witcher 3 case. I haven't even gotten around to playing it yet, but given that, I'd almost certainly buy their next game if they're actually treating the customers that way. Reminds me of all the stuff WD put in the Lunar and Arc the Lad games.

 

[Arulan]

One thing I was thinking: allowing you to break the game by killing everyone, turning it unwinnable or having OP powers like flying in M&M.

I especially remember Fallout, Might & Magic, Ultima and Morrowind for this... any others?

Could this be summarized as a desire to be creatively unbalanced, that is to prioritize player-creativity in design, rather than limiting and balancing player-options for fear that the player might have a bad experience (difficulty, reaching a location earlier than intended and then dying to a high level enemy, breaking a quest, etc.)?

I think Divinity: Original Sin is one recent example that expresses this idea throughout, especially in its teleportation pyramids.

 

[pippin]

It's multiplayer. Games were mostly made to be played by one person at a given time, but when MMOs became popular, games rewired the mindserts and reflexes of gamers so anything that wanted to be remotely popular had to change in one way or another.

 

[agris]

Well, I used to enjoy the feelies you'd get when you bought a game in a box. I know you can still get feelies now, but only in special editions and pre-orders.

Yeah, and even if you do get the physical edition it's like "Special obsolete edition! Complete with a game DVD you won't bother to unwrap!" It just feels like, I got this physical box and prizes, so what, it has nothing to do with the game really. Back in the day it was all one package and it meant something.

This was one of the great things about SitS. The special release Erlein's Handbook actually contained information that both drew you into the world and helped you solve some puzzles. It wasn't like a strat guide or anything of the sort, more like the Volo/Elm's tips in the BG1 manual but more focused.

 

[naossano]

I didn't play many games like Wasteland 1, so i don't know if other games had it, but i was amazed that you were able to have your party members split in 4 little squads, that could each go in different directions, go in separate locations of the gameworld, sometime far from each other, interact with their environment, and even battle at the same time. So you can end up in a turn-based combat situation in which many groups are involved in many separate locations.

Fallout 1 time-limit is something i would wish to see more often and expanded upon it. A game that you can actually lose (and not just through your own death), while being fair (you are damn welll aware about what is at stake), and game with time limit on the main quest, but also with some secondary events that happen over time (like the slaughter of Necropolis), not just trigger by your action. (although it is a bit of both in the example i mentioned)

Main quest that relies less on exposition and checkpoint, but more about your own path. Different ways to get to the ending, depending on where you go, your character, your playstyle, and your interactions. Being able to ask about your quest to anyone. Some of them will have no idea about what you are talking about, some would lie to you so you can do their quest, some will be misleading, while some other will just screw you for some cash. (in Fallout 2, you could buy a map that will lead to Vault 13... Or rather, a cave with a Vault 13 sign, but no vault) About geographical non linearity, sure, but that should make your path different. There is no point of giving you several possible direction if the enemies and the loot are scaled, and the lore is generic, dumb, repetitive or non-existent.

Speaking of merchants, it made me remember of Land of Lore. The trader *inventory* wasn't even an inventory. You had the whole shop rendered on sprite graphics, and you could directly click on the item within the store, to know the price, the description from the merchant and buy it. I don't think there are many game released recently that had those kind of shops.

 

[Cyberarmy]

It's multiplayer. Games were mostly made to be played by one person at a given time, but when MMOs became popular, games rewired the mindserts and reflexes of gamers so anything that wanted to be remotely popular had to change in one way or another.

And back then when were playing Ultima online, we were thinking that multiplayer age will be glorious for RPGs.
What we got now is dead WoW clones and 2786 "survival" games....

 

[eXalted]

Well, I used to enjoy the feelies you'd get when you bought a game in a box. My old Ultima games came with a bunch of different things. IV had a cool world map printed on cloth and a metal ankh. One of the first four came with a cloth pouch full of Britannian coins in different denominations.

Recently I received boxes with the two Witcher 3 DLCs as a present and was pleasantl surprised that they don't contain physical CD but the Stem/GOG keys and the cards and rules for Gwent. Every DLC has two factions with all f their cards. Not many games now do at least this.

RPGs (and games as a whole) are missing not only global timers - "Help me, the house is on fire and will collapse any moment now. Get me out of here!". And she will keep screaming this till the end of time because the house will never collapse untill you get her out of there. It will collapse of course the moment you go outside.

 

[Arulan]

Fallout 1 time-limit is something i would wish to see more often and expanded upon it. A game that you can actually lose (and not just through your own death), while being fair (you are damn welll aware about what is at stake), and game with time limit on the main quest, but also with some secondary events that happen over time (like the slaughter of Necropolis), not just trigger by your action. (although it is a bit of both in the example i mentioned)

If only for the purpose of giving agency to the player, I think it's worth looking into. You often find yourself with several quests at a given time. Most of the time your choice in which one you do first is arbitrary. It's typically determined by whichever path appears most interesting in the moment. You can try to think about what your character's immediate motivations would be, but choices such as which quest you do first, or before another, rarely has any in-game consequence.

In an ideal world, players would take the NPC's word as face value, because you expect there to be consequences. In reality, you collect a number of quests in your log, and simply choose which content you wish to see first. Timers would at least remind the player that this game actually cares in some part about what you're doing, and you should prioritize your actions.

I have to give The Age of Decadence credit here. It quickly reinforced in me the need to treat NPCs, and the setting at face-value.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

And these 2 discussions prove why timers are a bad thing, because implemented badly timers can kill a game stone dead, equivalent to a game-breaking bug. I've played two games that have had ridiculously short timers to complete some small task and represented an end-game scenario, both of which were games I was up until then enjoying. When you promote concepts you tend to forget that humanity is really rather flawed and in huge long games its quite easy for a bad timer to slip past the net. While a bad developer can fuck-up everything, at least most fuck-ups aren't game-breaking. I must admit though, it would provide no-end of hilarity codex threads if we suddenly get a stream of crappy RPGs with ridiculously stupid timers, but that's a pleasurable angle I'd rather forego...

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

RPGs (and games as a whole) are missing not only global timers - "Help me, the house is on fire and will collapse any moment now. Get me out of here!". And she will keep screaming this till the end of time because the house will never collapse untill you get her out of there. It will collapse of course the moment you go outside.

Now imagine designing the game.

Have the timer too short and its a game breaking bug.
Have the timer too long and its pointless having the timer.
Will there be other objectives in the house other than saving the person? Such as loot, quest items, etc, or will it just be a case of reloading until you've learned all the mishaps you'll need to avoid to go from A to B and back out again, because, if its timed, how long are you going to give the player to work-out each mishap (such as jump of X then turn on tap and use bucket for Y).
If there are other objectives in the house, how will the timer be effected? Give people time to find the optional extras and you make the central rescue potentially too easy.
How do you create the initial player agency to, firstly, notice the fire and, secondly, decide to react to it. If its an unavoidable cut-scene objective then its just another effing cut-scene bullshit and if you leave it open to the player as a concurrent event then its probable that the player will just think its atmospheric fluff and will ignore it, making the saveable NPC not be a main quest NPC and possibly a lot of work creating a vast area that barely anyone will ever see apart from walkthrough-readers if you make the NPC then deliver a side-quest - but then if the whole game is timed, why would you want pointless side-quests anyway. If the optional quest of rescuing the person just provides exp then it can't be much, the kind of amount you'd get for doing any random find 10 items of bollox quest, which is a lot of effort for an event with such a minor impact on the game.

Like most things, the devil is in the detail.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

On timers: Star Control 2 wouldn't be the classic it is without them. The point of the game is to figure out how to accomplish your goals within the time constraint, including learning what those constraints are.

Are we really so resistant to the idea that players might lose progress, have to reload a save, restart a game? Sure, it's an inconvenience, but that's part of the challenge.

Genres: Adventure game, Shoot 'em up

No argument against the concept of reloading to retry a timed puzzle, but how does that differ to the concept of 'savescumming', and I really do hope you're not one of those people who rallies against savescumming on another thread dedicated to 'decline' nevermind your 'ironman' run being dictated by twitch issues if its a game marketed at non-twichers.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

Tilting at windmills? I have no problems with savescumming, play however you like, cheat if need be. My only concern is with lazy design that pushes you towards that. You the player should be able to find the process of discovering fail states and learning from them interesting. But that requires that fail states exist.

And if you simply must play the tired old definition game, perhaps you could do it in a thread that isn't about learning something from the classics, whatever label you might put on them?

So you do have a problem with savescumming, guess I nailed it. How does someone make "lazy design which pushes you towards that" exactly? What are you even talking about here? How would any design which encouraged savescumming not be a game which provided constantly interesting fail-states?

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

I'm not even sure we are speaking the same language if you infer the precise opposite of a statement and imagine yourself insightful for doing so.

That would be because you said "I have no problems with savescumming" and then went on to contradict yourself by saying "My only concern is with lazy design that pushes you towards that" to which my reply was at the second sentence.

 

[Serus]

Fallout 1 time-limit is something i would wish to see more often and expanded upon it. A game that you can actually lose (and not just through your own death), while being fair (you are damn welll aware about what is at stake), and game with time limit on the main quest, but also with some secondary events that happen over time (like the slaughter of Necropolis), not just trigger by your action. (although it is a bit of both in the example i mentioned)

If only for the purpose of giving agency to the player, I think it's worth looking into. You often find yourself with several quests at a given time. Most of the time your choice in which one you do first is arbitrary. It's typically determined by whichever path appears most interesting in the moment. You can try to think about what your character's immediate motivations would be, but choices such as which quest you do first, or before another, rarely has any in-game consequence.

In an ideal world, players would take the NPC's word as face value, because you expect there to be consequences. In reality, you collect a number of quests in your log, and simply choose which content you wish to see first. Timers would at least remind the player that this game actually cares in some part about what you're doing, and you should prioritize your actions.

I have to give The Age of Decadence credit here. It quickly reinforced in me the need to treat NPCs, and the setting at face-value.

Not sure about the last point. Actually AoD doesn't have any times system in place at all. So when an NPC tells you that he will kill you if you screw up something then yes - take it at face value because he will --> game over (or a you get a hard fight --> game over for a pure talker/diplomat anyway). But when an NPC tries to suggest that something is urgent - it is a bad joke, you can take all your time, resolve all the quests available at that point of the game, visit every location available before giving a shit about that partucular NPC's quest and still it won't matter. A small downside to an overall very good game (i finally found the resolve to play it ~ a week ago and actually finish it. I liked it a lot this time, played with more builds but only finished it once). I understand the budget/manpower/time limits ITS had so it isn't a big complaint but when i read about "taking NPC's word at face value" and AOD in the same post - in the context of time limit if F1. it doesn't make much sense to me.

Also as a few people already mentioned the time limit in F1 was very genereous - extremely so in fact. I remember on my playtrough in the 90s i finished the game without spoilers, my english was even worse than it is today, in addition i was fairly new to computer RPGs at the time. Despite all this i explored all locations on the map and still had plenty of time left at the end. Still as idea it was interesting and i agree with people who want to have it in CRPGs today.

 

[Goral]

Actually AoD doesn't have any times system in place at all.

It does, e.g. when you need to deliver a package in Maadoran. I don't know exactly how it works but if you wonder around wasteland/satellite locations long enough he will disappear. Unless it was a bug or he disappeared for some other reason... Same goes for storming the Monastery with raiders (they won't wait for you). Also, if you travel to Maadoran or to Ganezzar you won't be able to complete quests because too much time would pass (distance between Teron and Maadoran and Maadoran and Ganezzar is just too much). Elhoim

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

Well, I'll conclude my pointless efforts at trying to put into words how utterly retarded you lot are by saying the whole reason I like RPGs so much is precisely because they are slow-paced, leisurely exploration games, if you think time limits are a good promoteable thing to bitch about for RPGs for no other reason that Fallout 1 had a global one that didn't even matter too much then there's no hope for you and I'll be off to find a different genre or just sticking to the older ones till I've worn them out. The best RPGs are the ones you only 'need' to play once.

Laters... much laters.

 

[eXalted]

I talked about time limit in certain short term situations.

I hate the Fallout 1 time limit.

 

[naossano]

About the time limit, it doesn't have to happen in all games. So those who don't like it would pick another game and those who like it would have it in some games. Not all games are meant to suit all players. Which, unfortuately seems to be forgotten these days, with formula that applies to most games and seem intended for the majority. Missing games that had their own quirks.

Also, i would like to see games with less permanent companions and more temporary companions. Not only companions related to one quest, but companions related to one location, companions related to one faction questline, companions that would follow you until one plot event happened, and leave you afterward, or companions with cost. It makes more sense to have those, than having people following you forever just because you convinced them once.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Zombra]

I've played two games that have had ridiculously short timers to complete some small task and represented an end-game scenario, both of which were games I was up until then enjoying.

Out of curiosity ... what two games were these? What happened?

 

[an Administrator]

RPGs (and games as a whole) are missing not only global timers - "Help me, the house is on fire and will collapse any moment now. Get me out of here!". And she will keep screaming this till the end of time because the house will never collapse untill you get her out of there. It will collapse of course the moment you go outside.

That burning ship quest in D:OS had time limit.

 

[salaciousbcrumb]

Riddles: Who can forget Betrayal at Krondor's chests, or that riddle the Baldur's Gate Genie made:

A princess is as old as the prince will be when the princess is twice as old as the prince was when the princess' age was half the sum of their current ages.

This particular example is a bad puzzle and lazy puzzle design. Why? Because it has nothing to do with what is going on in the game. It is just an algebra problem in words, it could be on the PSAT and nobody would blink an eye. If it takes you out of the game to solve, it's not a good puzzle. Even MRY is guilty of this sort of design IMO, some of his puzzles were only superficially related to the story and its characters, which is not much better than Tex Murphy disarming a bomb by doing a tower of babel puzzle.

The best adventure game puzzles require the player to pay attention to the game, synthesize information from the game, and come up with a solution. Since you mentioned BAK moredhel chests, my favorite moredhel chest riddle is the one that goes like "What will Prince Arutha do?" which solution is fairly simple (trivial to brute force, especially because of the rhyming structure) but solving it "normally" only makes sense if you've been paying attention to the game and know who Prince Arutha is and what the relationship is with the Moredhel elves.

Something else from BAK: in-universe item descriptions. When the player inspects any item, it's not just the stats that show up, but a short prose paragraph about Gorath or Owyn commenting on how it looks/feels/tastes. Just a little detail like that makes the game world come alive, helps the player identify with the characters, and in this case also makes the player feel like he's reading a Feist (yes obligatory hallford mention) novel. But execution matters, it can't be some random loredump that nobody cares about reading, like in the Bioware titles.

I've just done that puzzle now with a pen and paper, though someone posted the ages of the prince and princess. And because my brain dosen't work well with algebra, I had to work it out a different way.

"A princess is as old as the prince will be when the princess is twice as old as the prince was when the princess' age was half the sum of their current ages."
A. Princess is 30, Prince is 20
B. Princess is 30, Prince is 40
C. Princess is 40, Prince is 30
D. Princess is 20, Prince is 30

I worked it using the grammer and by working backwards.

Half the sum of the current ages
A 50 /2 = 25
B 70/2 = 35
C 70/2 = 35
D 50/2 = 25

When the princess age was half the sum. So that means we can discount D as it states the princess age is 20

As the prince was when the princess age was half the sum.

In the case of A that would make the prince 15
B The Prince would have been 35
C The Prince would have been 25

When the princess is twice as old as the prince was.

A 30
B 70
C 50

A princess is as old as the prince will be When...

A 20
B 80
C 40 So this is the right answer.

Just looking through the thread I find lot's of this interesting. But playing through the Wild Hunt, there is a lot of this stuff in there, tailored quests, good NPC's etc, interactions with some monsters, different paths. The only problem is that it's been streamlined so much and the game would be far more interesting if you actually removed things from it and relied more heavly on asking questions and studying lore.

For an example a monster hunt would be great if it was a monster that you didn't get to fight again in the game. You had to read the book to know it's weakness and remember it, not see it displayed on the UI, if you had to prepare for the battle, not just wing it and you didn't have the silly witcher detective vision and the beast wasn't level capped, it's just that early on you would be woefully unprepared without the best armours weapons oils potions or bombs to take it out.

They could have even reduced the content and made dungeons more branching and interesting, but instead it's a game packed with content telling you with big neon signs where to go and the quest log ends up being like a pokemon collect them all fest. All those bandit camps and buried tresures are completely pointless when there is nothing unique and you just end up gathering weapons and armour to flog to merchants.

All those side quests and every one of them would have been made more interesting by reducing the neon signs and stumbling over lore, maps, diaries etc and following the clues.

I guess what I'm saying is that they can still make games with these features it's just that they destroy them due to handholding and streamlining, the need to have quantaty over quality, "awesome" cinematics, which wreck intresting dialogue decisions and the lack of a quest fail state.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[salaciousbcrumb]

Hmm...things RPGs don't do anymore, eh?

Well, I used to enjoy the feelies you'd get when you bought a game in a box. My old Ultima games came with a bunch of different things. IV had a cool world map printed on cloth and a metal ankh. One of the first four came with a cloth pouch full of Britannian coins in different denominations.

I know you can still get feelies now, but only in special editions and pre-orders.

Actually, all the materials that came with Ultima IV were great. I still have the players' manual and the spellbook. Both are printed on high-quality paper and both are "in character" for the game world so they read like tomes you might find in a Britannian library. There was a real commitment to immersion before it became a hollow marketing buzzword.

When I was a kid I had Gunship 2000 on the spectrum, due to the long loading times I didn't know how to play the game but knew everything about the Apache attack helicopter and the Warsaw pact from reading the bible like manual.

 

[Serus]

). I understand the budget/manpower/time limits ITS had so it isn't a big complaint but when i read about "taking NPC's word at face value" and AOD in the same post - in the context of time limit if F1. it doesn't make much sense to me

Actually AoD doesn't have any times system in place at all.

It does, e.g. when you need to deliver a package in Maadoran. I don't know exactly how it works but if you wonder around wasteland/satellite locations long enough he will disappear. Unless it was a bug or he disappeared for some other reason... Same goes for storming the Monastery with raiders (they won't wait for you). Also, if you travel to Maadoran or to Ganezzar you won't be able to complete quests because too much time would pass (distance between Teron and Maadoran and Maadoran and Ganezzar is just too much). Elhoim

As lukaszek already said - it is not a time system, just a trigger. The "time" in game so to speak only advances when you travel for the first time to certain places (to Maadoran, Legion main camp as legionnary [Caer-something], then Ganezzar, then the Temple and possibly to the mountain pass - not sure about the last) afaik. For exemple: after the first travel to Maadoran you can take all your time, travel between all available locations (except Ganezzar and perhaps the mountain pass) and nothing in game world will change ever - unless you do something to change it. As i said this not a big deal - vast majority of crpgs don't have an actual "time" that matters in game. On the other hands it means that what NPCs say about something being urgent is just smoke and mirrors. Nothing is urgent ever in AoD unless you LARP. Still a very good game. And i had waited too long to give it a serious try.
Fallout 1 was an exception to the rule not the rule (and in F1 time only mattered for the big time limit - not for any particular quests IIRC - or maybe there was one or two... not sure anymore).

Hmm...things RPGs don't do anymore, eh?

Well, I used to enjoy the feelies you'd get when you bought a game in a box. My old Ultima games came with a bunch of different things. IV had a cool world map printed on cloth and a metal ankh. One of the first four came with a cloth pouch full of Britannian coins in different denominations.

I know you can still get feelies now, but only in special editions and pre-orders.

Actually, all the materials that came with Ultima IV were great. I still have the players' manual and the spellbook. Both are printed on high-quality paper and both are "in character" for the game world so they read like tomes you might find in a Britannian library. There was a real commitment to immersion before it became a hollow marketing buzzword.

When I was a kid I had Gunship 2000 on the spectrum, due to the long loading times I didn't know how to play the game but knew everything about the Apache attack helicopter and the Warsaw pact from reading the bible like manual.

Edit AFAIK the game you are talking about is not "Gunship 2000" but "Gunship". Gunship 2000 is a sequel (iirc) and it BARELY worked on a PC 286 (or Amiga 500) so on a Spectrum it would be nothing short of a programming miracle :D.