What do you want to improve in RPGs?

[endasil]

Is there anything in RPGs that you see as a problem that seem to repeat itself in most RPGs. Example of a couple of things i frequently think about is how much random encounters destroy the fun in games and that NPCs often just repeat the same thing, feel mechanical and lack of personality. Areas with potential for improvement. Also if you would change these factors, how would you design them to make them great?

 

[Jaesun]

 

[ntonystinson]

Dynamic worlds. Why can't the world go on without my involvement. Its the reason I play Mount and Blade, Crusader Kings 2 and waiting for Archmage Rises

 

[DraQ]

Remove cargo cult design from mechanics. That such and such is done this way in PnP doesn't imply it's the best choice for cRPG, that such and such has always been done this way doesn't imply this approach is good.

Dynamic worlds. Why can't the world go on without my involvement.

 

[Excidium II]

That such and such is done this way in PnP doesn't imply it's the best choice for cRPG, that such and such has always been done this way doesn't imply this approach is good.

This nigger pretends CRPGs are actually taking from PnP. If only.

CRPGs are just getting and more and more polluted with videogamey shit, then again so is PnP so maybe there's a point.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

Combat.

Almost all of the best RPGs seem to have really shitty combat. Fallout, Fallout 2 (I liked the turn-based nature, but to win all you had to do was AIM FOR THE EYES), Torment (just terrible), Fallout: New Vegas, Mask of the Betrayer, Knights of the Old Republic 2, Morrowind, Alpha Protocol, Vampire: Bloodlines, Pillars of Eternity, Tyranny.

It is actually quite easy to count the RPGs which do have good combat. I'd count Shadowrun: Dragonfall and Shadowrun: Hong Kong on the list for starters. Also, Trails in the Sky and Trails of Cold Steel if JRPGs count.

 

[Neanderthal]

Fairly much everythin, but first thing i'd change is fuckin players spoutin apologies an excuses for thirtieth year an sayin shit like "priority issues" an "core features," yeah games have been dumpin features, content an everythin else for fuckin ages now, whats survived ant got any fuckin better. You actually get numbnuts arguing for devs doin less work, an games bein streamlined now, an if a feature has any problems then boom "lets get shut on it" rather than improvin this shit. You actually have to argue for a well simulated settin now, thats how fuckin declined we've got, like you need any reason for makin a settin better other than for itsen an makin an interestin gameworld.

An what fuckin idiotic arguments do you get? Oh its busywork, this from a genre where you do nowt but scrap, gobshite an recycle loot. An worst un that every fucker rolls out when they want less from gaming is gonna bog, oh why don't you simulate going to the toilet then, derp derp. I just wanna put me fist through fuckin monitor when I see that lazy tripe. Basically its rampant fuckin apologism, when a quarter century old game were doin more better than latest AAA+++ release, then theres someat fuckin seriously wrong wi games, devs an fuckin players defendin this shit.

Well simulated gameworld thats interestin an feature packed, environmental interaction, npc schedules, day/night cycles, good turn based combat, methods o transittin world, non combat spells, non combat focused classes, good gameplay mechanics reinforced by narrative entanglement, cities that are big enough to deserve name, reactivity that makes sure larpin isn't needed, all these an more should be a minimum now, no more fuckin excuses or apologies.

Oh an more Elf killin.

 

[undecaf]

Most cRPG's have overstreamlined, unimpactful, uninspired and overall shitty character systems. That's something to look at.

 

[DraQ]

That such and such is done this way in PnP doesn't imply it's the best choice for cRPG, that such and such has always been done this way doesn't imply this approach is good.

This nigger pretends CRPGs are actually taking from PnP. If only.

Of course they do. And they end up with unholy, lowest common denominator mix of worst PnP and videogame features.
And it so happens that abstract, highly simplified systems are not actually a strength of PnP, but a necessary concession if all math needs to be handled quickly using paper and pencils.
Borrowing from that (usually indirectly through older vidyagames) cRPGs can only change it by simplifying even further ending with shit.

 

[Excidium II]

And it so happens that abstract, highly simplified systems are not actually a strength of PnP, but a necessary concession if all math needs to be handled quickly using paper and pencils.

Wrong. Most PnP have much more complex systems than CRPGs. Not even worth of comparison.

Needlessly complicated math you find in CRPGs is a result of retards thinking it's fine because "the computer does it". You seem to be one of those.

 

[Sigourn]

Replayability.

It's funny, but Final Fantasy games have much more replayability than any western RPG I've played. And that's because those games don't try to pretend to offer replayability, whereas C&C type of games rarely have any meaningful choice and consequence worth replaying a game. It is meaningful only when you see drastic differences between one playthrough and another, as if you were playing a different game. But I haven't played one single RPG that offers that experience, and while I'm sure there are a few, it certainly isn't the norm.

 

[Freddie]

Level / map design in FPS/TPS POV RPG's. FO:NV was very good example that this can be done. In other hand ME2 and partially ME3 were examples where adventuring in the game world was actually venturing in more or less well masked corridors.
Not every game needs to be a sandbox game though, Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun games are very different beasts and different approach works well for each game.

Art direction and architecture of the game world and level design. Be that city in the trees in fantasy setting or futuristic sci-fi landscape, I don't recall even one fantasy rpg where this actually works well. For sci-fi there was at least attempt in ME series with their modular housing and utility buildings. Anyway, I feel designs are often very conservative. The visions of artists of highways going on multiple layers among skycrapers and flying cars are still background art. Use these visions to make interesting maps and levels. In fantasy player party could either fight on ground level or on treetop level and / or be attacked from both levels. Dynamic elements might be wild animals and fire (use those mages!). In sci-fi use those highways, escort a land car which is attacked, then defend that car and it's passenger against attackers among traffic, which would also be dynamic element. It might also be interesting for a change to use those flying cars to attack land target on highway or other flying cars... or something creative madness, have one alternative route inside skyscraper secure floor by crashing your car inside through windows.

I would also like to see where something similar is tried like in the Sentinel Worlds: Future Magic. There were various places, cities, space stations, dungeons and player could choose from relevant skills how to develop characters (melee specialist, energy weapons, etc.) but in addition there were also skills needed to operate party's space ship. I wonder what kind of hybrid game could be created with those ideas in today's processing power.

Dynamic worlds. Why can't the world go on without my involvement.

+1
In some settings dynamic campaign might also be interesting.

 

[Absinthe]

A lot of today's RPGs have an unrestrained fondness for requiring you to kill countless heaps of enemies and yet make the combat so utterly trivial that the entire fucking game is mindnumbingly awful and best enjoyed on youtube with a fast forward button. That is to say, it's not a fucking game at all. It only pretends to be one. There is something desperately wrong with today's idiots who love planting combat everywhere but can't be bothered to ask what actually makes a good combat system and an engaging combat encounter. Contrary to endasil here, the problem does not lie with random encounters. The problem lies with soulless encounters. You can have a random encounter system that creates good and interesting challenges. The trouble is that most devs don't bother with encounter design just like they bother with making a decent combat system at all. Other than that...

• Time-wasting shit like walking for minutes on end or wall-to-wall cutscenes of self-important dialogue and cinematics is garbage. I like to play games, not watch your latest C-movie plotline or be bored out of my gourd as I slowly witness landscapes scroll by while nothing of worth happens.
• Fake C&C, where you get asked to make supposedly important and meaningful decisions only to have the game just give you goddamn lip service with a new line of dialogue or shit instead of actual consequences and repercussions down the line. This is an abomination.
• World of Warcraft design. Especially with fetch quests and other needless grindy padding. If you do this, just admit you don't understand the first thing about game design or the differences between a single-player game and a MMORPG and fuck off.
• Vendor trash loot. There is nothing remotely interesting, funny, engaging, or otherwise desirable about wasting time clicking around to pick up random loot that clearly possesses absolutely no purpose other than to be exchanged for a fixed amount of coins at the vendor a little later. Also part of the WoW cancer.
• Stealth as a form of invisibility. If you want stealth, make an actual stealth system. Don't make invisible rogues, pretend that's stealth, and call it a day. Stealth games are a lot of fun and there are good ways to use stealth mechanics, but invisibility makes for a really half-baked stealth design which will either not actually let you sidestep enemies (forced combat) or turn stealth runs into mere walking simulators. This too is part of the WoW cancer.
• Linear level design. There was a time when players could get their bearings, learn about the surroundings, and devise a route and plan of action out of multiple possibilities to reach an objective. Nowadays you're stuck walking corridors blowing through groups of enemies and getting guided by quest compasses and automap because good level design is overrated when you can autopilot everyone like an idiot instead.

There's more.

 

[nomask7]

1) Puzzles. Puzzles should be reserved for optional areas and secrets, and there should in general be few enough of them that high quality and a sense of mystery regarding them are preserved, keeping in mind that any puzzle that is too easy is not just pointless but counter-productive.

2) Grinding monsters that respawn. Probably has a place in some games but should be made more of a challenge. For example in Dark Souls 2, instead of being allowed to kill enemies close to the bonfire over and over again, you'd have to clean out the whole level, including the boss, if you want the monsters to respawn in a form that yields souls when killed, otherwise they'd be in some sort of ghostly form that is the same but doesn't yield souls.

3) Combat and monsters. I'd like to see games that would make combat rarer but more special, both by having not-that-many monsters around AND making avoiding monsters the preferable option most of the time, you know as in real life. Gothic 2 Gold is maybe closest to this that I've seen, though you can also larp a monster hunter in it if you want and you will be rewarded with some experience and trophies.

4) Automaps. Something needs to be done about them, or the game world, or both, because currently many CRPGs make me spend half of my time, if not more, staring at the automap, this being an activity that kills immersion. Maybe in such cases the game world is too open or too complex for its own good. Or perhaps orienteering should be made part of the gameplay (i.e. no automap, but the map that does exist would need to be better and the game world would need enough character that you could have some sort of idea of where you are at any given moment).

 

[Kev Inkline]

I think they are already good enough for what they are. If anything, better graphics and more voice acting, and streamlining the story and combat.

Perhaps I would like to improve funding conditions for the AA companies so that they could grow enough to be able to tussle with the big boys. My heart sings for every Obsidian that grows into a Bethesda. Figstarter is a nice start towards something great!

 

[HoboForEternity]

first of all, why don't we define what an RPG is?

 

[Jaesun]

first of all, why don't we define what an RPG is?

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

What is an RPG?

 

[KyivAfter12am]

Just like some people already in this thread, I would like to see much fewer combat encounters, and every encounter should have a reason to exist: resolving a conflict between a character's motivation and an obstacle. +100XP and trash loot is not a good reason. Really, it's gotten so bad that nowadays RPG's have to include a trash management system in character inventory.

The combat should also be more tactical. Ideally, in a party based RPG the player should act more like a commander of a unit than like a weird puppetmaster that is "ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL" of one guy at a time, leaving the other characters to run like headless chicken in the meantime. Imagine if you could position the characters, then assign orders and see them executed to the character's abilities.

I would also love to have more non-combat skills that are useful in interactions with NPCs and environment. This has been getting a bit better in the recent years, with dialogue checks and systems like environment checks (Pillars, Tyranny). The new Torment also promises some kind of non-combat Crises.

Finally, it would be great to see settings and stories that are either more realistic and believable, or more inventive and alien. Too many RPG's these days tend to stick to common boring tropes and weak attempts at humor. To give some examples, I think that Arcanum, King of Dragon Pass, Fallout 1, Morrowind, Pathologic, Eisenwald all got it more or less right. On the other hand, Tyranny, Dragon Age, Divinity Original Sin, Oblivion, Fallout 3-4 got it wrong. Although some of them are good games in other regards.

 

[Comte]

What is an RPG?

Its nice to see that the chart touches upon the wargaming roots of RPG's. I thought I read somewhere that the original AC ratings were based of off some Naval wargame that calculated the armor thickness of various ships.

 

[Atchodas]

Just like some people already in this thread, I would like to see much fewer combat encounters, and every encounter should have a reason to exist: resolving a conflict between a character's motivation and an obstacle. +100XP and trash loot is not a good reason. Really, it's gotten so bad that nowadays RPG's have to include a trash management system in character inventory.

The combat should also be more tactical. Ideally, in a party based RPG the player should act more like a commander of a unit than like a weird puppetmaster that is "ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL" of one guy at a time, leaving the other characters to run like headless chicken in the meantime. Imagine if you could position the characters, then assign orders and see them executed to the character's abilities.

I would also love to have more non-combat skills that are useful in interactions with NPCs and environment. This has been getting a bit better in the recent years, with dialogue checks and systems like environment checks (Pillars, Tyranny). The new Torment also promises some kind of non-combat Crises.

Finally, it would be great to see settings and stories that are either more realistic and believable, or more inventive and alien. Too many RPG's these days tend to stick to common boring tropes and weak attempts at humor. To give some examples, I think that Arcanum, King of Dragon Pass, Fallout 1, Morrowind, Pathologic, Eisenwald all got it more or less right. On the other hand, Tyranny, Dragon Age, Divinity Original Sin, Oblivion, Fallout 3-4 got it wrong. Although some of them are good games in other regards.

AoD has all that , you should play it

 

[Prime Junta]

If I had to pick just one thing... moment-to-moment gameplay.

It's really hard to pull off well in a cRPG and most are between bad and tolerable, and even the best have some fairly glaring flaws.

I believe this is largely because there are so many moving parts. RTSs, shooters etc. generally have much better gameplay because the designers can nail things down more. With a cRPG that lets you build your character -- or even modify it -- in a variety of ways this becomes a lot harder, and also a lot of the attention goes into just attempting to make those systems work reasonably well.

I believe one reason the Infinity Engine games have such a following is that they got that part really right, while most of their immediate successors (NWN1 and 2, DA:O etc) were big steps back, one way or another.

(If i had to pick another, I'd say setting. A cRPG is a really great medium for exploring an imaginary world. Why do so many of those imaginary worlds have to be so boringly same-y and conventional?)

 

[KyivAfter12am]

AoD has all that , you should play it

I actually tried it for half an hour, then got distracted by something else. I should definitely pick it up again.

 

[ntonystinson]

AoD has all that , you should play it

Has all what? AOD is basically just a stat check application. Create through a certain build and just stat check your way through. As long as you get the stats right there is no form of tactics or probability whatsoever, you just waltz through. The game's replayability is just creating another build and stat checking your way through that builds checkpoints. Once again as long as you get your stats right you just waltz through. It's an extremely simplistic game design

 

[HoboForEternity]

^ then stop playing only as a merchant you little shit