The value(?) of repetitive RPGs

[aweigh]

felipepepe

it stands to reason that if a game features a strong, enjoyable mechanic thus the majority of the time spent playing it, its gameplay if you will, would consist of using that mechanic as much as possible in as many ways as possible.

since it is impossible to accurately define how much is too much or even enjoyable, some designers will fill their games with more scenarios which feature the aforementioned strong mechanic than you will find approriate, and conversely some designers will not fill their games with enough scenarios which feature the aforementioned strong game playing mechanic than you find necessary.

one could go so far as to state that finding the appropriate amount is the artistic crux of game design, and it thus stands to reason only a small minority of games will straddle this in a universally appealing manner.

i think a more interesting approach to your line of questioning should one that concernes itself with the skinner-box elements used to magnify these play scenarios, like the MSG in a plate of chinese food.

 

[deama]

I think some people just like it cause it allows them to stop thinking about complicated things.
I had a similiar experience once where I was playing end game in path of exile and was mapping (end game dungeons); and at one point I just "zoned out" for about an hour or two.
The description of that experience may not be accurate, but it was kinda like I was too busy playing the game in order to think about complicated things like my future or how much money I need; but the game wasn't complicated enough for me to devote most of my brain power at it; so basically I could only think about basic things like "that pie tasted nice", "the weather's nice" or just look at the pretty colours on the screen.

So to sum it up, it's basically purposefully making yourself retarded so that you don't have to deal with the more intricate problems in your life. So I guess kinda like smoking weed?

You could also combine these repetitive tasks with something in the background, like a podcast, that way you feel smart cause your listening to (hopefully) smart people talk about smart things while you do something that increases your life's value. The key here though is for the game to be good enough to fool you to think that playing it adds value to your life.

 

[mondblut]

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.

Ask the OP, his words. I presumed he implies sort of what dearly missed dr. Leary meant by "drop out". As in, relax, tune out of reality and let whatever you are experiencing carry you to new sights. That's what I feel when my panzer divisions turn moscow into skate park with little to no involvement from myself, at least.

 

[felipepepe]

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.

Yes, I think this is a great description of why SpellForce is so dull to me: I know how every map will play out from the start. The enemy has no real AI, it only reacts to triggers or keep sending the same waves of enemies every X seconds. The same strategy works in 95% of maps - all you need is to spend time executing it.

This is also why random battles in good blobbers feel less grindy than in most mainstream JRPGs - they are actually dangerous and drain your resources, with many monsters that require different tactics. This modern design where there's "trash mobs" that are mostly harmless and the real threat comes from boss battles or optional encounters makes the random encounters feel like pure filler.

 

[fantadomat]

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.

Yes, I think this is a great description of why SpellForce is so dull to me: I know how every map will play out from the start. The enemy has no real AI, it only reacts to triggers or keep sending the same waves of enemies every X seconds. The same strategy works in 95% of maps - all you need is to spend time executing it.

This is also why random battles in good blobbers feel less grindy than in most mainstream JRPGs - they are actually dangerous and drain your resources, with many monsters that require different tactics. This modern design where there's "trash mobs" that are mostly harmless and the real threat comes from boss battles or optional encounters makes the random encounters feel like pure filler.

Judging by your post,you are not big fan of strategy games.

 

[Cael]

Judging by your post,you are not big fan of strategy games.

I'd like to see him build an army of certain units when the map has extremely limited amount of a resource available. Yeah. Same tactics all the way. I mean, that is how we all play RTS SP campaigns, right? Let's build 200 chariots in a AoE game on an islands map! Woohoo! Same tactics are GO!

 

[fantadomat]

Judging by your post,you are not big fan of strategy games.

I'd like to see him build an army of certain units when the map has extremely limited amount of a resource available. Yeah. Same tactics all the way. I mean, that is how we all play RTS SP campaigns, right? Let's build 200 chariots in a AoE game on an islands map! Woohoo! Same tactics are GO!

Nah 200 peasants on island is the true way mate.

 

[Cael]

Nah 200 peasants on island is the true way mate.

Did that once in Conquerors. The look on my friend's face was priceless when 200 (well, more like 150) SPANISH villagers swarmed his base and knocked down every building in sight before running away.

 

[felipepepe]

It's so obvious you two never played SpellForce and have no idea of what you're talking about.

 

[Cael]

It's so obvious you two never played SpellForce and have no idea of what you're talking about.

Actually, I have, and even have the transcribed version of Cenwen's Song on my playlist. That is why I know you are full of crap when you say that Spellforce is always the same tactic. I know for a fact that it isn't and can't be because each map has different scarcity levels and if you use the same troops with the same tactics on every map, you are going to die in some maps but make off like bandits in others. Not to mention the maps have different RACES built into it, so you really cannot use the same tactics for every map. Where you have elves for one map, you may only have dwarves or orcs for another. You have to play to each race's strengths.

 

[felipepepe]

Oh, so now you're saying SpellForce is a great and diverse game, that supports multiple tactics? Damn, somehow that's even sadder.

 

[Cael]

Oh, so now you're saying SpellForce is a great and diverse game, that supports multiple tactics? Damn, somehow that's even sadder.

I made no such claim. I merely said your claim is wrong.

Spellforce has some unique elements, but it is a shallow mix of both RP and RTS. The character customisation isn't strong enough and it doesn't really have a lot of different pathways. Advanced equipment basically forced you down one or two paths, and that's it. RTS-wise, the scarcity of resources means that you can't really do much in some maps. There is no traditional "waves of zerglings, change and make hydralisks instead" adaptibility that other RTS has because the lack of resources means that if your zergling rush fails, you are boned.

Great soundtrack, though.

However, it is hardly the one tactic to rule them all kind of game you claim it is.

 

[felipepepe]

So you agree that SpellForce is shallow and doesn't allow for multiple tactics. Cool.

Stop posting just to antagonize me, it's obvious and ridiculous.

 

[Cael]

So you agree that SpellForce is shallow and doesn't allow for multiple tactics. Cool.

Stop posting just to antagonize me, it's obvious and ridiculous.

Wrong. I said it is shallow in certain areas.

I never said it doesn't allow multiple tactics. In fact, I said it REQUIRES multiple tactics due to the fact that different races play differently, and you have to go through various races to complete the game.

 

[fantadomat]

It's so obvious you two never played SpellForce and have no idea of what you're talking about.

I have played and finished a few times both games and some of the expansions. The first one is more of a strategy while the second is more of a rpg with strategy elements in it. Really fun games in my book. From the looks of it you have never played a strategy game in your life.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

In regard to RTS in general, not just spell-force, especially, if you are playing multiplayer, while the basic system is repetitive, the execution is not. Usually different faction (sometime different techtrees within a faction) have different timing and strategy. Matchup between factions often includes scouting on what your enemies are building upon and adjust you build to counter theirs. Unless it some scrubs vs scrubs in which, of course, the game would devolve into 40 minutes base building and one big death ball fight to determine the winner.

In regards of more single-player focused RTS, mission design is as important as in good RPG. I can't speak for Spellforce, but if an RTS mission design is dumb that it only includes build shit for 40 minutes then snowball then the mission design is shit and I won't be playing it for long.

In regards of RPG, it depends on how repetitive the repetitiveness is. Personally I can't stand old JRPG like Wizardy and its clones that pretty much Microsoft Excel with graphics. You grind the shit out until you are strong enough to steamroll a given dungeon, rinse. and repeat 1000 thousand times. There is basically no indication on anything regarding your build so also add tens of your first hours figuring those out. Some people like the mapping aspect, but I find that only a padding busy works to prolong an even shittier system.

ARPG (diablo clones) are pretty similar. The core of gameplay is just to do the same shit with increasingly high number. Usually they make it better by having bigger fight vs boss being somewhat unique and different builds will require different strategy. Being a single character focused genre also helps because good ARPG usually have nice variation of builds.

EDIT: In ARPG and RTS, mechanical skills (as in the player hand, eye, brain coordination) are incredibly important. While the codex would say popamole shit and mah true AR PEE GEE should only about number crunching, the mechanical aspects helps with the repetitiveness, especially because the gameplay is real time. You could be in the exact same map with same enemies composition but different movement will end with different result. Noticeable in high level ARPG dungeon where environment usually started to adds to the challenge.

On the other hand, let's talk FF:Tactics. While the combat is repetitive in the sense that the type of class you and enemy have is limited, there are enough variations to keep the game entertaining (until certain point in whcih you are too strong for anything). Being grid based trun based games helps as variety in environment could pretty much result in different encounter even with similar composition.

 

[Paul_cz]

Over the past few years writing & editing reviews on several games, one aspect has always been controversial: repetition.

Personally, I hate grind & filler content. I'd rather play an amazing 10h RPG than a bloated 100hs one. Very few games - such as Baldur's Gate II - have enough quality content to last that long. Yet a lot of people defend these saying they offer a lot of content for the price - or that they are simple, "tune-out" experiences.

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. There's very few curve-balls or gameplay changes, but a lot of people love these games.

The Agarest games and a few niche JRPGs also do this A LOT, with hours upon hours of grinding & filler battles, then asking you to replay it 2 or 3 times for the "true ending". We're talking over 200 hs, mostly spend in random battles!

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" ?

Any kind of "autogenerated" quest system is total bullshit that has no place in videogames, at least until these quests are generated by superAI that can make them indistinguishable from handcrafted ones.

I always ignore that shit and criticise games that have it.

Best RPGs (games) ever are ones that are entirely handcrafted.

 

[Cael]

In regard to RTS in general, not just spell-force, especially, if you are playing multiplayer, while the basic system is repetitive, the execution is not. Usually different faction (sometime different techtrees within a faction) have different timing and strategy. Matchup between factions often includes scouting on what your enemies are building upon and adjust you build to counter theirs. Unless it some scrubs vs scrubs in which, of course, the game would devolve into 40 minutes base building and one big death ball fight to determine the winner.

In regards of more single-player focused FPS, mission design is as important as in good RPG. I can't speak for Spellforce, but if an RTS mission design is dumb that it only includes build shit for 40 minutes then snowball then the mission design is shit and I won't be playing it for long.

In regards of RPG, it depends on how repetitive the repetitiveness is. Personally I can't stand old JRPG like Wizardy and its clones that pretty much Microsoft Excel with graphics. You grind the shit out until you are strong enough to steamroll a given dungeon, rinse. and repeat 1000 thousand times. There is basically no indication on anything regarding your build so also add tens of your first hours figuring those out. Some people like the mapping aspect, but I find that only a padding busy works to prolong an even shittier system.

ARPG (diablo clones) are pretty similar. The core of gameplay is just to do the same shit with increasingly high number. Usually they make it better by having bigger fight vs boss being somewhat unique and different builds will require different strategy. Being a single character focused genre also helps because good ARPG usually have nice variation of builds.

EDIT: In ARPG and RTS, mechanical skills (as in the player hand, eye, brain coordination) are incredibly important. While the codex would say popamole shit and mah true AR PEE GEE should only about number crunching, the mechanical aspects helps with the repetitiveness, especially because the gameplay is real time. You could be in the exact same map with same enemies composition but different movement will end with different result. Noticeable in high level ARPG dungeon where environment usually started to adds to the challenge.

On the other hand, let's talk FF:Tactics. While the combat is repetitive in the sense that the type of class you and enemy have is limited, there are enough variations to keep the game entertaining (until certain point in whcih you are too strong for anything). Being grid based trun based games helps as variety in environment could pretty much result in different encounter even with similar composition.

In Spellforce, the enemy doesn't need to gather resources. As the idiot said, they just spontaneously spawn in their camp and come running at you. That means that up to a point, you can gather your resources and build and all that. But once the local resources run out, you are in deep crap as the enemy will not stop coming. Hence why resource management is actually far more important in Spellforce than other RTS, and why you need different strategies to succeed. Every map has different levels of resources and there are 4-5 different resources. On top of that, you are commanding dfferent races as you go through the campaign, and each race has different unit philosophies utilising different combinations and quantities of resources.

Therefore, it is not just about Elves having archers, dwarves having fighters and orcs having shamans. You also have to worry about the local resources because you might be playing Elves, but the local resources may not allow you to build an army of archers to steamroll the enemy due to scarcity of one of the resources required. You have to use another unit instead or somehow stretch what you do have (i.e., switch tactics). Planning, logistics and strategy are a far larger part of Spellforce than most RTS. And then on top of that, you have your hero, whom you can build to be a siege engine/tank fighter or a necromancer or a elemental mage or a healer or an archer or a psion or a combination of the lot, which would affect your tactics as well.

The idiot calling it repetitive and only one tactic required has, in all probability, never played the game, and is only parroting what he read somewhere.

 

[Grauken]

Did Felipe murder some of your puppies?

 

[anvi]

There should be games you can "tune out" playing, and games you have to be completely focused for and have no filler. The gaming audience is big enough, it should be able to support both types of experience.

I think some games are better suited to this stuff than others though. Action RPGs are suited to the tuning out thing, flying around shooting fireballs and stuff can be therapeutic I guess, I think most FPS games are all about this. But if you have to think about what you are doing, then lots of repetition is just annoying and boring. This is one of the reasons I hated Pillars of Eternity. I couldn't just blow everything up with the same routine because everything had to be clicked and targeted manually and not even in real time. Yet every trash battle was the same crappy routine.

I found BG2 was a pretty perfect mixture because there were a lot of trash fights where 20 little goblins jump my party, but it was slightly different each time. I couldn't just land a fireball in the middle of them all because it would kill my party too, so each trash battle was a little puzzle on how to kill all those goblins without wasting all my spells. How do you win without using too much so you don't need to rest, yet not getting too injured either. It was a balancing act and was at least enough to make the trash battles not a boring chore. And often there were big fights that I loved and that's what kept the game interesting.

 

[Cael]

Did Felipe murder some of your puppies?

Nah. I just love to lay the boot into SJW virtue signalling sh!theads who like to bait people into giving them confirmation bias with their leading questions. I trolled the crap out of one the other day at the gym by giving his obvious fishing questions the exact opposite answers to what he was looking for. He devolved very quickly into the intolerant racist that is his true personality, telling me to go home to my own country, amongst other things. He was probably wondering why I had this sh!t eating grin on my face while he was ranting.

The really troll part? He was asking me something that I don't even have any say over, so my views were completely irrelevant. It is like asking me if I would vote Trump or Clinton :D

 

[felipepepe]

 

[Falksi]

Top thread felipepepe

For me it's all about stimulation. As you say, the second you suss a pattern out with something it starts to become boring, and it's far harder for bigger games to keep things fresh without you encountering similar patterns more regularly.

However, the modern dev/publisher has embraced Joe Casual, and so can get away with more repetitive patterns in games, because Joe Casual is usually a fucktard who does whatever advertising or similar brainwashing tells them to, and who takes longer to suss things out.

We can only ever crticize games from our own personal POV, but I don't think it's far wide of the mark to say that there's a hell of a lot of dumb fucks currently experiencing their first RPG type games, spunking over them because it's all so new/fresh (and thus they're unfamiliar with said patterns), and ruining the standard of games as devs/publishers bend over for their mong-esq desires.

All we can really do is support & promote the better games, and hope that the devs find some way of including Joe Casuals' wishes, however retarded, whilst retaining quality & depth at the same time.

 

[Cael]

Top thread felipepepe

For me it's all about stimulation. As you say, the second you suss a pattern out with something it starts to become boring, and it's far harder for bigger games to keep things fresh without you encountering simiar patterns more regularly.

However, the modern dev/publisher has embraced Joe Casual, and so can get away with more repetitive patterns in games, because Joe Casual is usually a fucktard who does whatever advertising or similar brainwashing tells them to, and who takes longer to suss things out.

We can only ever crticize games from our own personal POV, but I don't think it's far wide of the mark to say that there's a hell of a lot of dumb fucks currently experiencing their first RPG type games, spunking over them because it's all so new/fresh (and thus they're unfamiliar with said patterns), and ruining the standard of games as devs/publishers bend over for their mong-esq desires.

All we can really do is support & promote the better games, and hope that the devs find some way of including Joe Casuals' wishes, however retarded, whilst retaining quality & depth at the same time.

Actually, the decline of RPG came long before the modern age. It was already apparent back before 1992 when EA was going through its rampage of buying up smaller game developers and crapping all over the bought IPs.

As an indication: Ultima 4 took TWO YEARS to create. If you took 2 years to create such a relatively simple game in this day and age, you'd be fired (see the Feargus and Pillars of Eternity thread).

Joe Casual is not a fucktard. It is that he had never had the chance to play really good RPG because corporate pushing has ruined every RPG since Ultima 7:2 (and even that one was a miracle it came out as well as it did). Compare Ultima 7 with Ultima 8. They turned one of the best RPGs in history into a freaking PLATFORMER! Joe Casual never had a chance to actually know what is good and what is bad. He is the very real representation of someone who has been fed sh!t his entire life and cannot conceive of anything better than eating sh!t.

You want to blame someone for the decline of RPGs, blame EA and their ilk. They are the ones who ruined RPG. Hell, even WotC managed to ruin the DnD franchise, turning it into Diablo on paper.

 

[vivec]

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

Play diablo maybe?