The value(?) of repetitive RPGs

[felipepepe]

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" ?

 

[mondblut]

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

 

[felipepepe]

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.

 

[mondblut]

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.

 

[Cael]

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.

You might as well say the same thing as all RTS, then. So why do people like it? Perhaps the real question is why don't YOU?

Perhaps it is not others who are defective, but YOU.

 

[Brancaleone]

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

One of such criteria might be: "do they employ Skinner-type mechanisms or not?"

 

[Infinitron]

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

Is this the right question to ask? Maybe it's both. So if people like repetitive games, the real question is, what's the difference between a good repetitive game and a bad repetitive game? There's been lots of research into this in the F2P mobile industry, no doubt. This is one area where the Codex's expertise probably isn't required.

 

[felipepepe]

Dragon Age: Inquisition was widely bashed for its endless fetch quests, while The Witcher 3 is an even longer game but with interesting quests. That's an easy distinction.

But Spellforce is harder to judge... it's basically a "love or hate" game - you'll probably boredom-quit after three maps or play all 300 hours.

 

[Cael]

...you'll probably boredom-quit after three maps or play all 300 hours.

It is impossible to explain to a non-RTS player why RTS games are loved simply because of the supercilious sneering emanating from the non-RTS player is like a cloud of phosgene gas that kills any attempts to explain before it reaches its target.

 

[Tigranes]

You need a degree of repetition in many mechanics - e.g. because they provide a sense of rhythm to the gameplay; because they give players opportunities to fine-tune and practice their combat strategies; because they help reinforce and resonate a plot theme; because you are, even in the best and most artistic of games, to a degree playing for these repeated shots of satisfaction.

When we try to come up with the one thing that is fantastic or awful, and then maximise it or eradicate it, we're climbing the wrong tree. We are right to criticise filler battles, but not because they are always bad and games should have zero - it's because the industry norm is that there's so many of them (which emerged from development side considerations). Having zero filler battles can risk combat and character development mechanisms becoming hollowed out of their purpose. Similarly, getting rid of 'filler' NPCs is a good sentiment because we have far too many of them to begin with, but you don't want a city where every NPC you talk to has a life-changing proposition for you.

After we establish that baseline, the question of what kinds of repetition & how much comes down to expectations. The Codex generally values - or, well, used to value, before half of it started playing Fallout 4 'because I'm bored & there's nothing else to play' - games that involve some modicum of thought, challenge and consequence. That means it's rational to be a lot less forgiving of repetition than someone who just wants to 'tune out'. For them, it is the repetition that is central to the experience and to the enjoyment - everything else is just candy floss that you need to make sure the repetition doesn't feel too repetitive.

Case in point - people will whine that they keep dying and have to play this dumb fight 10 times, but they will happily repeat what is essentially the same battled reskinned 800 times to beat the game, then do it 800 more times to "get the achievos". They do not stop to wonder, do I actually enjoy these cookie cutter filler fights, do I really need this achievo? The point is that the achievo gives them just enough reason, just enough candy floss, to get back into the comforting groove of repetition.

 

[Grunker]

Strength of core systems. Path of Exile is fundamentally grinding a slot machine. It's just that the process of pulling that lever is insanely fun an deep, doesn't matter that it's repetitive.

I think all criticism strategies that depend on criticizing repetitive tasks in and of themselves fail for that reason. If the task is compelling and complex, it can be a fine tool for certain games.

 

[Ezeekiel]

If the battle mechanics are fun and the results of the fighting are satisfying, plus if there's good enough risk vs. reward options... Then I think grinding/repetitiveness can be fun (or rather, not hinder the fun much). But mostly if there's additional hooks to keep you playing and grinding for something.
A lot of games now have soulless grind mechanics and literally nothing else. You grind for the sake of grinding... Add shallow/primitive mechanics and such and well...

A lot of old JRPG's as well have grinding in them that is literally just walking through an area, hitting random encounters, keeping the select button or whatever pressed so all your guys use their standard attack, and doing that over and over and over.
Other times they have weird mechanics like the first (and maybe others) front mission where you have to play really weirdly in order to get the most stat upgrades out of battles... Like getting hit in order to improve resilience or something like that.
Or really autistic design choices regarding secrets that you could not possibly figure out without either a guide made by the devs, cheating or I don't know what, 500 hours in every area. None of these design choices make for an enjoyable experience imo.

Then there's the Fallout 4 thing were you can be in search of fun for 100 hours, with the game designed to keep you playing via skinner-box design plus lots of possible gameplay/activity options but everything you can do turns out to be shallow and poorly designed on some level and it just never actually gets good or satisfying. Endless cock-tease basically.

As a kid I either had enough spare time that I didn't care... Or I made spare time for this crap (at the expense of more important things in life). Now though? Fuck that. Respect the player's time and design your games properly.


Of course games meant to be mindless, turn-it-off stuff that caters to a specific group of players are a different story, but they still should be enjoyable somehow rather than exploitative.

 

[Cael]

Strength of core systems. Path of Exile is fundamentally grinding a slot machine. It's just that the process of pulling that lever is insanely fun an deep, doesn't matter that it's repetitive.

I think all criticism strategies that depend on criticizing repetitive tasks in and of themselves fail for that reason. If the task is compelling and complex, it can be a fine tool for certain games.

The thing is that he sneeringly referred to RTS games as "enter map, build base, create an army and slowly clean the map." He has already made up his mind and is basically only looking for confirmation bias.

There is no point explaining to him that the map itself poses different challenges, even puzzles, that need to be solved and every map may (or may not, it depends on the map maker) require different strategies and/or tactics to defeat. He won't hear it over the sound of how awesome he thinks he is.

 

[Ezeekiel]

Strength of core systems. Path of Exile is fundamentally grinding a slot machine. It's just that the process of pulling that lever is insanely fun an deep, doesn't matter that it's repetitive.

I think all criticism strategies that depend on criticizing repetitive tasks in and of themselves fail for that reason. If the task is compelling and complex, it can be a fine tool for certain games.

Indeed.

 

[Reinhardt]

amazing 10h RPG

not even worth pirating.

 

[Ezeekiel]

Strength of core systems. Path of Exile is fundamentally grinding a slot machine. It's just that the process of pulling that lever is insanely fun an deep, doesn't matter that it's repetitive.

I think all criticism strategies that depend on criticizing repetitive tasks in and of themselves fail for that reason. If the task is compelling and complex, it can be a fine tool for certain games.

The thing is that he sneeringly referred to RTS games as "enter map, build base, create an army and slowly clean the map." He has already made up his mind and is basically only looking for confirmation bias.

There is no point explaining to him that the map itself poses different challenges, even puzzles, that need to be solved and every map may (or may not, it depends on the map maker) require different strategies and/or tactics to defeat. He won't hear it over the sound of how awesome he thinks he is.

No he was talking about spellforce... That game is just cheap garbage on both the rpg and rts fronts.

 

[felipepepe]

You need a degree of repetition in many mechanics - e.g. because they provide a sense of rhythm to the gameplay; because they give players opportunities to fine-tune and practice their combat strategies; because they help reinforce and resonate a plot theme; because you are, even in the best and most artistic of games, to a degree playing for these repeated shots of satisfaction.

Agreed. An odd example is Magical Diary... the game has a ton of spells and interesting approaches to dungeons, but there's only like 5 dungeons in the entire game. It lacks content to explore the system.

Age of Decadence's "teleport" mechanic is also relevant to the discussion... a lot of people still miss opening random barrels and fighting random battles - it turns the game into a CYOA, they resent the lack of "freedom". A friend of mine was extremely angry that he had a great end-game character, got the Power Armor, but there was nothing else to do besides walk into the pyramid and finish the game. He WANTED random battles.

As a kid I either had enough spare time that I didn't care... Or I made spare time for this crap (at the expense of more important things in life). Now though? Fuck that. Respect the player's time and design your games properly.

This is a key factor... back in the 90s not only I was a kid, but I got like 2-3 games per year. 300 hours of Spellforce would be a lot more attractive than 20hs of Blackguards. And that's still how many fans look back on it - "oh, I played for so many hours!"

 

[Ezeekiel]

As a kid I either had enough spare time that I didn't care... Or I made spare time for this crap (at the expense of more important things in life). Now though? Fuck that. Respect the player's time and design your games properly.

This is a key factor... back in the 90s not only I was a kid, but I got like 2-3 games per year. 300 hours of Spellforce would b a lot more attractive than 20hs of Blackguards.

Spellforce (which I detest due to it's utter lack of any mechanical depth as well as dry-ass presentation among other things... Played like a cheap MMO on an empty server with some super basic RTS functions, on the level of some grad student's weekend project) also came at a time when the RTS genre had weakened massively and RPG genre was declining, or at least that's how I remember it. People didn't have enough stuff to play.

 

[Reinhardt]

I think 60 hours is a sweet spot for rpg.

 

[fantadomat]

I have waste around 3000 hours in EU4 and never felt repetitive for me. While and hour in some jrpg i feel bored and the game feels grindy. Mechanics are repetitive in most game,the problem comes when the thing you are doing is different. In BG most encounters are very different even it use a repetitive mechanics. If you are reviewing,then try using a comparison to what it feels like,not just branding it repetitive.
Also i tottaly agree with mondblut here.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Dragon Age: Inquisition was widely bashed for its endless fetch quests, while The Witcher 3 is an even longer game but with interesting quests. That's an easy distinction.

TW3 also has a plenty of fetch quests. Perhaps it's just that the main story and "main" side missions are not as shit.

Personally, I hate any form of repetition/grind. I'll skip it if I can, endure it if I must, but if it's overbearing, I'll probably quit the game.

 

[fantadomat]

I think 60 hours is a sweet spot for rpg.

Doesn't matter if it is good,yet if it is good i don't want it to end .

 

[Cael]

No he was talking about spellforce... That game is just cheap garbage on both the rpg and rts fronts.

Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. Regardless, enough people loved it that it had two sequels and multiple expansion packs. Now, if he was open and was actually wanting to find out why people love the games, that would be another story, but as I indicated, the opposite was true: He had an opnion and wanted people to validate it.

 

[felipepepe]

Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. Regardless, enough people loved it that it had two sequels and multiple expansion packs. Now, if he was open and was actually wanting to find out why people love the games, that would be another story, but as I indicated, the opposite was true: He had an opnion and wanted people to validate it.

Yes, that's why I made a thread asking about it.

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

 

[Cael]

Yes, that's why I made a thread asking about it.

Suree, you did, kid. Sure you did. You just keep telling yourself that.