The value(?) of repetitive RPGs

[Hoaxmetal]

Go back to the GamerGate thread, you're only making a fool of yourself.

So he can see you making a fool of yourself in the gamergate thread?

 

[Cael]

So he can see you making a fool of yourself in the gamergate thread?

I already did, although his incoherent rantings and screamings meant I didn't say anything as I can't make anything out other that "You same as SJW! Hur hur hur! You bad like them, so you shut up!"

 

[Cyberarmy]

If it is fun to repeat then I don't mind a decent dose of repetition. Good gameplay and quality content needed for this.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

A good example is SpellForce...

...The Agarest games and a few niche JRPGs also do this A LOT...

Others examples could be Bethesda's "Radiant AI quests", Borderland & its endless DLCs, Eador: Genesis, Neptunia, Dragon Age: Inquisition, BloodLust Shadowhunter, etc...

The question is, how can one fairly criticize a game like this? Where to draw the line between "repetitive" and "long-lasting" ?

Is this really about repetition? Borderlands has some redeeming qualities, but it can get real boring real fast. Every other game on this list would still suck even if they had less of a grindy or cookie cutter approach.

That said, repetitive gameplay is certainly a valid criticism, as is a
lack of meaningful content.

 

[CryptRat]

Bad games are bad. Calling a good game repetitive generally means not valuing or disregarding the game's own merit. For example if you can't value good level design then Dungeon Master is repetitive (and otherwise it's great), if you can't value the overall challenge over individual character customization then the gold box games are repetitive, if you can't value resource management over individual encounter challenge then games where you can only save in town are all repetitive, ...

 

[unfairlight]

Repetition is a subjective thing and I think that it can work absolutely fine with more social/online games. If it's a singleplayer game then repetition is generally shit (although can be utilized well to pad out game length without making it too annoying,) but if you count MMORPGs as RPGs then going through repetitive content with a friend just dicking around it can be fine.

 

[felipepepe]

if you can't value the overall challenge over individual character customization then the gold box games are repetitive

Still many Gold Box fans will agree that Secret of the Silver Blade is the worst of the series because of how combat-heavy it is - the lack of variety gets repetitive after a while.

 

[Background Character]

I consider it repetitive when you have to beat the game once to unluck "New Game+" to get a new path/conversation option/bonus boss that was previously inaccessible (for no good reason mind you) and unlock the best and "true" ending

Also don't forget to grind to max level to defeat another bonus boss that has almost no bearing on the main story but it's a really cool fight (that was also previously inaccessible) you have to remember though that you need to grind to get the best weapons (inaccessible on the previous playthrough) to get a smidget of a chance at beating him

And also don't forget that to get that new path/conversation option/bonus boss you have to do VERY specific things in the previous areas or else you get LOCKED out of it for this playthrough

I'm talking about JRPGs though, if you couldn't tell. I never really felt that sort of frustration playing WRPGs or maybe I just don't remember.

 

[resilient sphere]

I consider it repetitive when you have to beat the game once to unluck "New Game+" to get a new path/conversation option/bonus boss that was previously inaccessible (for no good reason mind you) and unlock the best and "true" ending

shin megami tensei: strange journey owner has logged on
if they stripped the constantly-having-to-return-to-the-ship and having-to-beat-the-game-three-times tendencies out of that game we'd all have a minor classic on our hands

 

[Reinhardt]

I never really felt that sort of frustration playing WRPGs or maybe I just don't remember.

Of course. In WRPGs there is nothing new on next playthroughs so you almost never need to play them more than once.

 

[Daemongar]

From my experience, you can't remove all the repetition. I don't think this conversation should include JRPG's, because besides them all being shit, they are just grind-grind-grind until the next image of a naked elf gal in chains.

I think that somehow, it used to be ok to have random encounters every 5-10 minutes. I am trying to think of what game changed this, Fallout 1 maybe? It became clear you could have an RPG without constant combat and still engage core players.

Some things that make/made Wizardry 7 and 8 fun for me is just zoning out and playing the games, not worrying that it was the 3rd battle in 20 minutes against those same moths. Some days, it does annoy me so I play something else.

The problem is that when things get too scripted (in order to raise the awesomeness index), it takes away what makes games great. Developers make NPC's unkillable, situations unavoidable, and all around painful parts of the game where the character you designed must do something out of character/moronic to advance the story; ultimately revealing that your actions don't really matter.

There is a fine line between scripted and unscripted. The unscripted you may see as the grind portion, but it's all about balance. Some games have almost no scripted areas (Bard's Tale 1, for example.) while others are almost all scripted (DA:O).

I lean towards the unscripted, but I'll just say most of the classic RPGs had balance when it came to freedom and forced.

 

[felipepepe]

Of course. In WRPGs there is nothing new on next playthroughs so you almost never need to play them more than once.

Baldur's Gate II and Witcher 2 aside, they usually only have minor cosmetic changes or new conversations - stuff you can watch on youtube or just read about. Or they go full decline and just have a last-minute choice.

What most games do now is a long playthrough where you do & see everything. We rarely get replayable RPGs like AoD, Fallout or even Daggerfall.

 

[Shinji]

A good example is SpellForce. With all the expansions for SF1 you get like 200hs of basically the same gameplay: enter map, build base, create an army and slowly clean the map

Wait, are you talking about repetition in gameplay mechanics or in content?

Gameplay mechanics have to be repetitive by nature. Think of soccer, it's basically the same thing over and over again -- same set of rules, same initial number of players for each side, same objective, grass field as field of play, and so on -- yet people still play it and are eager to pay money to watch a bunch of players do it for them.

Having repetition gives consistency for a game, it helps the brain make decisions because it can take some things for granted. If nothing was repetitive (i.e. nothing remained consistent), then rules wouldn't be important, because anything would be valid at any time -- one day soccer could be played with hands, another day players could punch each other freely, etc.

Now, if iit's repetitive, how can it be fun? How can people enjoy soccer, basketball, rugby if it's always the same thing?
Because the content changes, not the rules.

What is content in soccer?

• Number of players in each team (if one player is sent off, things miight get complicated for the punished team)
• Strategy of each team (each team might have a different style of play and different ways to make the ball cross the opponent's goal-line)
• Referee (if he's inexperienced, he might judge events naivelly )
• Type of ball
• Size of field and quality of grass
• Player motivation and emotional level
  
• Player skill (some players are more skilled than others, and in different ways)
  
• Team engagement (a more engaged team communicates better)
• Manager
• Stadium and how many supporters came to the game
• Weather conditions
  
• Many others

Obviously, if people had any say in this, they would choose the most favorable conditions for their team -- like in a videogame. But this would make things boring for everyone.
The reason many soccer fans enjoy watching a soccer match is because anything can happen during the game. It's impossible to have a match that's exactly like any other due to the amount of variables that exist.

This level of uncertainty is what keeps people interested, that's why people enjoy matches between rival teams the more, because there's 50% chance of victory for both sides.

At the end of the day, people want more of the same. They want the same rules, but different content.
That's why Nintendo managed to make a game about jumping interesting for more than 30 years.

 

[Serus]

Tuning out is what lots of people enjoy. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

Point is, people can tune out to all kind of stuff. There are those who spent hundreds of hours with Skyrim's Radiant AI quests... that doesn't mean they are good quests.

What's "good" though?

When you are not painting the map, Paradox games are fucking screensavers, yet they are considered a pinnacle of grand strategy, and probably for a reason.

In short, life mostly consists of boring, repetetive mind-numbing stuff, and games are no different. If you need 2 hours of non-stopping adrenaline pumping button-awesome, go watch a Michael Bay movie.

Paradox games are only a pinnacle of anything because they have no competition in the field. There might be a few WW2/20th century grand strategy games (mostly shitty) but if you want earlier periods of history + grand strategy ? You play Paradox or not at all. You'd better find a better example.

 

[Neanderthal]

I find repetition to be almost stifling these days, mainly because theres nothing else to do in most rpgs other than combat, conversation an collecting crap. I attribute this to gameworlds being dead places that are totally focused around the pc, they have no content there except whats made to pander to the player so they feel false and uninteresting. Whereas in Arcanum say or the Ultimas I could do loadsa shit when I hit a respite in the game, and it was interesting stuff that was not cheap and nasty filler, because it arose from a well simulated gameworld that had content for its own sake.

In comparison modern design is steadily marching into Dungeon Siege land, where the game plays its fucking self, and the few pieces of actual interaction we get are: All kinds of worthless boring crap to collect and then sell, combat that makes you just sigh and want it over or conversation that tells you nothing and always leads to the same conclusion whatevers said.

I want more from crpgs, I want them to at least try and ape the medium they come from, not degenerate into the arpgs that they are now.

Course I realise i'm fairly much alone in this an most folk'll cheer on all the streamlining an devs giving em less, an despise any "busywork" that takes em away from their usual busywork, so I don't hold out much hope that anybody but ocassional indies'll show some ambition.

Mind you this int to shit on systems that force you to adapt, experiment an overcome through superior tactics, them I love, just don't find em that often.

 

[Goral]

Very few games - such as Baldur's Gate II - have enough quality content to last that long.

Baldur's Gate II is one of the bloated ones and besides, even its best parts are mediocre at best.

 

[Dexter]

I dislike repetition and grinding in most games. It works... to a point like random look tables or random enemy spawn, but as a rule I abhor any systems that "Procedurally generate" stuff. I think many a system that a designer hasn't spent time painfully creating, placing shit himself and thinking it through because he didn't think it was worth the time is usually not worth the players time either e.g. "No Man's Sky" or Mass Effect's (1/2) "planet missions" or "planet drilling", the games would have been better without. And a lot of ARPGs that randomly generate levels and dungeons from set pieces for instance Torchlight instead of something like Victor Vran that I've been playing lately and has thought through Levels with various objectives.

That's also why I really like most Piranha Bytes "Open World" games, while I abhor most Bethesda "Open World" games and have barely managed to finish any. Piranha Bytes hand-designs and places most of the world, even if it ends up being smaller in the end, while in Bethesda games a lot of the world seems boring and repetitive, and the dungeons in say Oblivion or Skyrim like they randomly generated them.

That said, I'd make a difference for instance for Online RTS or FPS games, while I wouldn't play StarCraft or Jedi Knight II or Battlefield 2/3 or whatever over and over in Singleplayer repeating the same maps, but it makes sense for the Multiplayer "experience" to sometimes play the same map over and over again since it's usually a different experience and is still challenging. And Borderlands kind of falls in the middle, I enjoyed the first one good enough due to Co-Op capability, but I think I liked RAGE better overall. It's probably a mix and how well it is done.

There's JRPGs though that I can't stand, played Final Fantasy XIII and gave up after a while, since the entire game is just long corridors and filler combat at some point, Septerra Core was a Western-made "JRPG" that was good for the first 3/4 or so but then ended up being grinding over grinding near the end and I gave up on it.

 

[Goral]

Personally I don't know of a long RPG that provides high quality content during whole game. The closest would be Arcanum I think but even Arcanum had weaker moments (especially the late part of the game). Fallout 1 has perfect length (it ends before it begins to bore) but it's not a long (LONG) game, unlike Fallout 2 where San Francisco and Enclave are quite bad (some of the initial locations are also bad but then again this game was created in a very short time so it shouldn't be surprising). Age of Decadence is quite short on a single playthrough and that's why it's so enjoyable. There are no fillers here, no copy-pasting and no bloat. You can't grind here either because every fight is meaningful and there are no trash mobs. In fact, quite often it's more advantageous to skip a fight and skill points because the price is too big to pay. Now that's truly unique way of making cRPGs and goes against AAA way of doing things.

BTW, often criticized "teleportation" is one of the reasons why I like AoD so much. Same goes for Fallout 1 where you could run through even biggest cities very quickly. Yet these games have to offer more quests and characters (that had something interesting to say) than most cRPGs in recent years. Take Fallout New Vegas: in most locations there were only a few quests but the location was so big that you still had to walk through huge distances just to walk a 100 m distance (fast travel was only between cities). You just walk and walk and then walk so more, tedious and boring but Bethesda can boast that people spend hundreds of hours in game, right? Another example is Vampire The Masquarade: Bloodlines - sewers were just too long and you had to waste time on walking through virtual corridors. But Santa Monica and Downtown were superb even though you've had everything squeezed in a small area.

Exploring a huge location and walking a huge distance might be fun as a first time experience, although even that isn't that easy to achieve (only Gothic 1 comes to my mind at the moment) but for a replay it gets tedious and is a waste of time IMO. There should always be an option to speed things up. It's not making a game easier, it just cuts something as simple as holding a keyboard key or a mouse button (or worse - a clickfest). Having this is similar to having subtitles in a voiced over game - usually you can read the text faster than actors read them and many people just skip audio and read at their own pace because otherwise it would take too much time (proper intonation takes time).

In general most developers like to lengthen the game with such tricks like decreasing our speed or increasing the distance between points, adding crafting and shit ton of items, adding bartering with items scattered all over the place (so if we want to build something we need to visit almost every trader or if we want to sell something we need to seek the proper trader), adding some secondary quests along the way (knowing perfectly well that the gamer must go through that place/road and he will stumble upon it), etc. etc.This is true for many games, including Witcher 3 or Underrail.

 

[adrix89]

Grind exist when the combat is shallow shit. If it was good it would be called gameplay.
Even if its the same enemies the situation should change and you have to adapt to the situation and make actual fucking decisions.
Say what you will about nu-XCOM RNG bullshit but it provides variations to the situations even with the same enemies.

In fact even in completely new encounters with new enemies if the combat is braindead it would still be a grind.
So a 10h game can be just as bad as a 100h game.

 

[coldcrow]

I am not sure why repetition, to a sane extent, should be considered bad. It's an integral part of becoming good at something and pleasure can be derived of honing your skillz. It get's a bad rep due to shitty combat systems including no available fast fillernuke at higher lvls, way too much filler, way too few options etc.

 

[octavius]

The first game that came to my mind when I saw read the OP was Wizardry 7. For me that's the crown example of a great game that is too repetitive, due to having too frequent random encounters and not enough variety in the encounters and loot.

 

[abnaxus]

Repetition is the mother of learning, the father of action, which makes it the architect of accomplishment.

 

[Dorateen]

if you can't value the overall challenge over individual character customization then the gold box games are repetitive

Still many Gold Box fans will agree that Secret of the Silver Blade is the worst of the series because of how combat-heavy it is - the lack of variety gets repetitive after a while.

I did not mind the combat in Secret of the Silver Blades. After all, it was the adventure that featured a lich for the first time in the Gold Box series. What I found lacking was the absence of an overland map, no multiple towns to visit, less side quests available. In other words, the game was structured differently than the first two installments. Just as Curse of the Azure Bonds was more story and character focused than the more open-ended Pool of Radiance.

Having said that, "worst" is a strong word. For all its faults, I would still take Secret of the Silver Blades over what is popular in mainstream computer role-playing games these days.

 

[Leitz]

Tuning out is what lots of people enjoy. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

"Tuning out" seriously what do you mean? I don't get it.

 

[Hoaxmetal]

Tuning out is what lots of people enjoy. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

"Tuning out" seriously what do you mean? I don't get it.

Turning their brain off (as if it was ever on if you're someone who likes to "tune out").