Why do rpgs have bad gameplay?

[sullynathan]

Coming from the previous thread, we were talking about what's an rpg and what isn't. This isn't about that, but rather about how poor the gameplay mechanics of a lot of rpgs are and why they are so mediocre to bad. Looking at the prestigious top 50 - 70 list on the codex, the majority of the games I've played from them had poor or boring combat and mechanics that didn't work all that well.

For a genre that is supposedly gameplay focused, you would think the devs would be better at their jobs.

 

[an Administrator]

For a genre that is supposedly gameplay focused

It's often story-focused.

 

[Excidium II]

First because they're big and complex which makes it harder to iterate and polish mechanics.

Second because devs keep basing their design on the mechanics of other CRPGs, copy shit end up with shit.

Third because CRPG players have no standards and are very tolerant of bad gameplay.

 

[Neanderthal]

Depends what you call content, nowadays its just combat, loot recycling an gobshiting but there used to be some options in old ones and that were pretty well implemented. If you could mix combat o ToEE wi Arcanum you'd pretty much have perfect RPG. Simple answer though is why make someat good? Why bother when a shit game'll sell multi millions, an fans'll cheer on every feature you strip from game.

 

[CryptRat]

You can also take an look at Fowyr's list if you're looking for more games to try ; it's closer to my own taste with overall less FPSs and less games based on a heavy story or CYOA aspects. For example the Might&Magic, Buck Rogers or ROA series have good gameplay.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

In my humble opinion, there are two major reasons:

1) Larger Scope - As someone already mentioned, RPGs are very large and complex games, consisting of a lot more parts than other genres. In a shooter, the devs can just focus all their time into the combat system and level design, but in an RPG, they have to do combat, world design, dialogue, character development, various non-combat mechanics (for RPGs that have that). They also have a lot more content. Whereas a shooter can be under 10 hours in length (or under 30 in the good old days), a decent RPG is always expected to be at least 40 hours, or over a 100 for large open world ones. So the dev's time and money, which are limited resources, are spent on a lot more stuff in RPGs, leaving a lot less for any given system.

2) The fascination with stats - In a shooter or an action-adventure game, the devs can just focus on making gameplay fun. For a combat system, they can figure out what shooting model feels good and is fun for the player, and just put it in, for example. But if it's an RPG, the devs feel like they have to tie the model in to the character's stats. Whenever something becomes more stat based, it inevitably becomes less fun. For a very simple illustration of this, consider a pure stat based combat system vs a pure skill-based one. In the former, you just compare the stats of 2 opponents and everything is auto-resolved. In the latter, the player has to actively control everything and demonstrate mastery of the system. This is a simplified comparison, but you get the general idea. Also, stat introduction into system makes things much harder to balance, as stats change over time. This is why shooter and action-adventure combat is almost always more fun than RPG combat. The sad thing is, this fascination with stats is absolutely unnecessary, as there are other ways to enforce roles in RPGs. For instance, allow the character to acquire abilities necessary for the role over time.

 

[Somberlain]

Looking at the prestigious top 50 - 70 list on the codex, the majority of the games I've played from them had poor or boring combat and mechanics that didn't work all that well.

Storyfags.

 

[Roqua]

Coming from the previous thread, we were talking about what's an rpg and what isn't. This isn't about that, but rather about how poor the gameplay mechanics of a lot of rpgs are and why they are so mediocre to bad. Looking at the prestigious top 50 - 70 list on the codex, the majority of the games I've played from them had poor or boring combat and mechanics that didn't work all that well.

For a genre that is supposedly gameplay focused, you would think the devs would be better at their jobs.

1st - any genre of a game should be gameplay focused since it is a game. Any game that focuses on anything other than gameplay is in the wrong medium, nevermind genre.

2nd this is due to people being stupid. They do not want to think. They do not want to try. They do not want to be able to have gimp characters. They want recruitable companions and the ability to steamroll all content with any party built any way. They also want the default difficulty to be easy and steamroll, and the game designed around this.

The effects of this is morinic rpg systems, very lite (if any) character generation, no full party generation, no impact stats, chardev that is flavor only, and not meaningful or significant (because gimping would be possible with meaningful or significant chardev). Mechanics that are click and watch is baseline. People can pick classes that do things, and do things with them, but they are wasting time. The trick is to make them believe they aren't fucking retards and aren't wasting their time. Make them feel like what they are doing is helping them, and their characters are super powerful and selecting whatever on level up is important and not just flavor for retards. I.E. look at dragon's dogma, DA:I, witcher, etc. People actually think their are character builds that matter. It is all flavor and does not matter. Nothing matters. because these games have a target market of fucking retards who want nothing to matter, but they want to pretend it matters, just like they want to pretend the default difficulty is designed for people of normal intelligence instead of monkey idiots that can't and do not like thinking.

 

[Lhynn]

1st - any genre of a game should be gameplay focused since it is a game. Any game that focuses on anything other than gameplay is in the wrong medium, nevermind genre.

By that measure you will find that games like fallout 4, and mass effect 2-3 are better than games like ToEE, arcanum or even fallout 1&2. Because at least the gameplay in those crap games is somewhat competently made.
So its better to ignore your inane shit.

2nd this is due to people being stupid. They do not want to think. They do not want to try. They do not want to be able to have gimp characters. They want recruitable companions and the ability to steamroll all content with any party built any way. They also want the default difficulty to be easy and steamroll, and the game designed around this.

How does this in any way adress why rpgs have bad gameplay? Let alone the fact that you can easily get games with superb gameplay that are extremely easy.

The effects of this is morinic rpg systems, very lite (if any) character generation, no full party generation, no impact stats, chardev that is flavor only, and not meaningful or significant (because gimping would be possible with meaningful or significant chardev). Mechanics that are click and watch is baseline. People can pick classes that do things, and do things with them, but they are wasting time. The trick is to make them believe they aren't fucking retards and aren't wasting their time. Make them feel like what they are doing is helping them, and their characters are super powerful and selecting whatever on level up is important and not just flavor for retards. I.E. look at dragon's dogma, DA:I, witcher, etc. People actually think their are character builds that matter. It is all flavor and does not matter. Nothing matters. because these games have a target market of fucking retards who want nothing to matter, but they want to pretend it matters, just like they want to pretend the default difficulty is designed for people of normal intelligence instead of monkey idiots that can't and do not like thinking.

First, what the fuck is morinic?
Second i agree that dumbing down doesnt do any favors to games, and it banalizes the gameplay. Complexity is what keeps a player coming to a game.
Dragons dogma leveling system is fairly simple, but there is depth in your choice of multiclass. Understanding the benefit of leveling up with one class instead of another and proper management of your gear can allow you to tackle enemies many levels before you are suposed to, or in the same fashion many levels after.
Witcher 1 has probably one of the best setting specific RPG systems ever made. It makes you behave like a witcher. Also the character building in witcher 1 matters a lot.
As for the other retarded shit you said, you are kind of right, but those are low hanging fruits, there are deeper reasons for developmental decisions than "nothing matters", even in the most blatant of cash grabs.

 

[Malpercio]

Define games with "bad gameplay"

Because I've seen people calling Planescape gameplay bad.

 

[DraQ]

First because they're big and complex which makes it harder to iterate and polish mechanics.

A cRPG generally can't afford to have core mechanics (apart from combat crawlers), it needs to support alternative builds and alternative approaches that are associated with them.
This means that designing a good and proper RPG is like stacking multiple games on top of another and hammering them together.

Second because devs keep basing their design on the mechanics of other CRPGs, copy shit end up with shit.

Ah yes, there there is the infamous cargo cult design. cRPGs tend to copy, often no longer applicable, solutions from PnP or other cRPGs that copied them from PnP.
This tends to limit cRPGs to the lowest common denominator of PnP RPGs and video games, the result being shit.

Third because CRPG players have no standards and are very tolerant of bad gameplay.

Which closes the vicious circle.

 

[hoverdog]

Why do games have bad gameplay?

 

[Jimmious]

More options = harder to create a good control scheme

That's why the games with the best "gameplay" would probably be platformers where you basically need 2 buttons and your abilities are jumping, running and occasionally punching

 

[Declinator]

1st - any genre of a game should be gameplay focused since it is a game. Any game that focuses on anything other than gameplay is in the wrong medium, nevermind genre.

By that measure you will find that games like fallout 4, and mass effect 2-3 are better than games like ToEE, arcanum or even fallout 1&2. Because at least the gameplay in those crap games is somewhat competently made.

ToEE is all about gameplay though. It definitely has better gameplay than Fallout 4 or Mass Effects.

 

[Lhynn]

ToEE is all about gameplay though. It definitely has better gameplay than Fallout 4 or Mass Effects.

It would if the shitty encounters didnt suck the life out of the game.

 

[sullynathan]

Also, as an aside, why do Action rpgs like The Witcher not have better gameplay? They are far more focused to one combat style and don't do it as best as they could.

Define games with "bad gameplay"

Because I've seen people calling Planescape gameplay bad.

look at the top 50

 

[octavius]

In my humble opinion, there are two major reasons:

1) Larger Scope - As someone already mentioned, RPGs are very large and complex games, consisting of a lot more parts than other genres. In a shooter, the devs can just focus all their time into the combat system and level design, but in an RPG, they have to do combat, world design, dialogue, character development, various non-combat mechanics (for RPGs that have that). They also have a lot more content. .

Only partly true.
Games that are considered Strategy games, but could just as well be considered CRPGs with a Strategy layer, have superior combat compared to most pure CRPGs: X-Com, Jagged Alliance, Heroes of Might&Magic and Age of Wonders games. They also do many of the other CRPG parts well (items, character development). But then they don't try to be interactive movies, which really helps.

 

[pippin]

Because when you're playing pnp with your friends, most of the fun comes from inner jokes and interaction with your bros.
crpgs don't have that. They rarely even allow house rules, even. In a way, crpgs are anti fun, if you're looking at them from that perspective.

 

[Roqua]

Define games with "bad gameplay"

Because I've seen people calling Planescape gameplay bad.

What is the game part? Combat, correct? Is click and watch combat good? How is non-interactive combat good? Obviously good is relative, as the most popular games have no depth or complexity and are geared towards the broadest audience. In general I think everyone agrees people are stupid, and the bigger sample of people you have the clearer their stupidity and love of shit.

People have a hard time looking objectively at anything. I love games like Arcanum and Fall Out 1 and 2 despite them having shitty combat. In Arcanum's case it was due to the hybrid combat system and some other issues. In FO it is mainly the single character combat, non-controllable henchmen, and the ability to save and reload in combat, making every fight winnable. I liked a lot of the content of PST, but I really can't stand the IE engine combat. It is bad with no redeemable qualities. It is made for stupid people who like to pretend what they do matters.

Now I have articulated my stance. Please articulate yours on how the gameplay of PST is good. Please keep in mind gameplay is mechanics, not story, not dialogue, not setting, etc. Just as the gameplay of baseball isn't about hotdogs and waiting in line to pee or catching fly balls in the stands or wearing weird pants. The gameplay of baseball would be defined by the rules and manifested mechanically as a large system with various subsystems. The announcer, playing sweet caroline, how easy it is to lead on a specific pitcher catcher combo, the green monster, are all flavor. It may make baseball more fun for the players and attendees, but are not mechanics.

No this is not a perfect analogy. But it is easy to understand for the children and retards this site is made mostly of.

 

[Sigourn]

Planescape: Torment's combat was terrible. How can you possibly justify spamming Blood charms in your inventory with no penalty whatsoever?

 

[Malpercio]

Gameplay=combat is fucking stupid. Level design, dungeon design, itemization, menu design, stats and how well they work, NPC interactions it's all part of the gameplay. Of course, depending on the game, some of these things weight more than the others.

What about videogames that don't have combat? They have no gameplay? FFXIII is a game made 99% of combat yet it's piss poor, guess why?

Because Planescape main gameplay system is not the combat, it's the dialogs. Everything happens through dialogs, you learn new abilities through dialogs, your stats mostly serve to open new dialog options, you gains item through dialogs, solve puzzles and recruit people. Every new NPC is an experience itself, a puzzle for you to crack.

Who the fucks judges Planescape by the combat anyway, when it's literally the 5% of the game?

 

[abnaxus]

 

[Severian Silk]

He is getting chubby.

 

[M0RBUS]

I would like to point out that most games have bad gameplay. It's the truly brilliant games that have good gameplay, and they are so rare and far between that we need to "forgive" some bad aspects to a game. Bad choices and consequences and dialog mechanics, but an awesome combat system, or terrific choices and consequences and dialog, but awful combat, both those examples have bad gameplay. But we need to say "hey, screw it, I like this particular aspect of the game".
To be honest, I can't think of more than 5 games that have flawless gameplay within the constraints of their design, and those are all very narrow in scope.
Except for The Age of Decadence, of course.

 

[Sigourn]

Who the fucks judges Planescape by the combat anyway, when it's literally the 5% of the game?

Nigga, what. I went into PS:T thinking combat was extremely avoidable. Turns out it is only when you dump your points into a couple attributes, meaning my experience was far different than the one I was sold.

Combat in Planescape is terrible, and combat is one of THE biggest elements of gameplay in games that feature it. I'll judge other games' gameplay based on what they offer.