Why do rpgs have bad gameplay?

[Valky]

I don't play visual novels, so I can't answer your question OP. I stick to ToEE.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

You can choose to invest in different skills or modify your stats with items, enchantments, etc.

In most RPGs there is a point where it won't help you, like making low agi character in Fallout. If you made a demanding endgame in FO1 that could rival the endgame of let's say JA2, push Agi 10 characters to the limit and really make players think about what he does next then all the subpar characters would just be unable to beat the game.

Of course, because cRPGs are not action games. The player skill is measured by his understanding of the systems, not by reflexes, etc.

We are talking about comparing RPGs to strategy games, which also require understanding of the system, however usually provide much better gameplay. The problem is that in most strategy games the most complex decisions are made further in the game, while in RPGs the most complex and far-reaching decision (character making) is done before the game even starts.

The problem here is that why play RPG for turn based combat experience, when there are strategy titles to play? How would RPG be any different from say Jagged Alliance if you take away various ways to approach the game world?

Because besides a few examples here and there most of the time spend in RPGs is spend on combat, usually against trashmobs using subpar combat system. Also Jagged Alliance has all the ways of approaching the world that RPGs do: you can bash the door, lockpick it, recruit NPCs, sneak itd. JA differs in approach to party and character creation.

I actually kind of like what you are trying to do here, even though I don't agree with it. You only take combat in account when you write about gameplay and totally ignored example from ME series. Combat alone doesn't make great RPG, was it real time or turn based.

Because as other people has mentioned combat is usually what you do the most in most RPGs and that one system that binds it all together. You try to make a good character, recruit NPCs, collect items all to succeed as inevitable combat. And also because other ways of dealing with conflicts in RPGs sucks even more:
-sneaking never went beyond flat skill-check or a poorly made sneaking gamee
-diplomacy consists of getting your skill high enough and clicking a highlighted option
-hacking or lockpicking are the same as diplomacy, with addition of a annoying minigame

So I can't see this discussion going but back to what is an RPG.

Action or strategy game + adventure game + character creation and development

 

[Metro]

Can we get sully a dumbfuck tag already?

 

[sullynathan]

Can we get sully a dumbfuck tag already?

wtf? what's the problem now?

 

[Siobhan]

In most RPGs there is a point where it won't help you, like making low agi character in Fallout. If you made a demanding endgame in FO1 that could rival the endgame of let's say JA2, push Agi 10 characters to the limit and really make players think about what he does next then all the subpar characters would just be unable to beat the game.

This wouldn't be an issue if progress in RPGs was about horizontal growth (getting more abilities to interact with the world) rather than vertical (higher DPS, more hitpoints). That would also solve the issue of trash mobs, because the player would never reach god-tier stats where almost everything can be stomped in seconds and HP sponges are the "toughest" kind of encounter because they require a skill check against the player's patience. But as has been discussed here several times before, limiting vertical growth conflicts with the zero-to-hero paradigm of mainstream RPGs. For a genre that doesn't even dare to explore settings outside the familiar mold of Fantasy and SF, that's too much to ask.

Horizontal growth in a full-fledged RPG also requires a much more creative character system and more complex ways of interacting with the world. A party-based, isometric game with a point-and-click interface will have a hard time implementing typical horizontal growth features like double jumps, wall climbing, and so on. JA2's character system is much less central than in a typical RPG, and even keeping that in mind it only works because there's a shit ton of different weapon types, each one of which comes with its own specialty. Remove those and you're down to electronics, stealth, night vision, medical, and teaching, which isn't exactly riveting. A first-person game likes Deus Ex, on the other hand, can give you all kinds of skills and upgrades that completely change how you move through the world. But that kind of first-person gameplay does not work for party-based RPGs, which is the majority of RPGs.

Long story short: vertical growth kills RPGs, and if you want to mitigate that you should look at JA2, Invisible Inc, DX, SS2 and other "alternative" RPGs. It won't be easy to reconcile that with more traditional RPG design principles, and you still won't get the tightness of a completely linear game without any choices but with every parameter carefully calibrated by the designer. But it will be a marked improvement over the status quo, I'd say. Alternatively, you can have the attitude of old-school blobbers and just give the player the finger if they're too stupid to create a viable party. Super Mario doesn't have to support players who want to larp a pacifist turtle fetishist with severe fear of heights, so why should RPGs have to stoop to that level?

 

[adrix89]

Combat sucks not because the systems don't work. Other then the idiocy of mixing combat skills and non-combat skills together.

Ballance is not a problem. In fighting games you have a wide range of characters that can be all equally viable. And in RPGs with parties you can mix and match the characters and their skills you need to complement your character.

The idiocy has always been horrible combat encounters and mission design. Sure you can't expect everything to be balanced perfectly and in some cases you can overpower things with a setup. But you can have variety of combat mixes that can be a challenge.

 

[Jasede]

That's exactly why BG 2 is decent despite the awful RTwP system... good encounter design testing a wide variety of skills a party had to be able to provide. That's also why playing BG 2 solo was great. It was fun to have those terribly one-sided encounters and trying to frantically cover the weaknesses that only having a single character inevitably leaves you with.

 

[adrix89]

We are talking about comparing RPGs to strategy games, which also require understanding of the system, however usually provide much better gameplay. The problem is that in most strategy games the most complex decisions are made further in the game, while in RPGs the most complex and far-reaching decision (character making) is done before the game even starts.

Which is stupid. JRPGs had it right. You start as a peasant and then you GROW in power organically. In fact this is the case in all RPGs with good combat.
We already have classes to use as templates.

As a reminder Roguelikes have both character evolution and challenging encounters.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

On the contrary that's exactly what I'm talking about. The RPGs can't have really complex or demanding combat encounters like some turn based strategy games do because then some players would be simply unable to finish the game. Likewise, entering places cannot be too challenging because the game has to be possible to be finished with sub-optimal parties.

And that shouldn't be seen as a problem, at the very least not as something that should be avoided at any cost. Not saying you shouldn't strive to provide as many options and make the game systems transparent but a player should be expected to play to his character strengths reasonably well to beat the main path (and jack of all trades or even any kind of non-specialized character should be hard to play IMO).

Instead we have as you said, main path made easy and any challenge (if existent) is delegated to side-content. My personal preference is for "organic" game design, where challenge/gameplay is tied to world design/story which is obviously very much in conflict (especially when we're talking about modern gaming industry) with developer & publisher obsession with broadening the audience.

That's why RPGs can't have better gameplay. Because even COD-clone could just throw a very complex and demanding situation at the player and expect him to use his skills to deal with it if the devs wanted it, while people making RPGs have to consider if all optimal and sub-optimal builds and if they'll be able to beat that encounter. And if they just decide to fuck it you are left with Age of Decadence. And FFT, where if you don't have a ninja by a certain point of the game you are fucked.

This is a common criticism of AoD but let's be honest, it's a mixed bag in that respect. I mean yes, there are situations where you need Traps 8 to move forward with your chosen path but there's also a number of situations where you can simply opt out of a potentially challenging encounter with no skill requirement whatsoever with the main issue there being that the player is simply not used to having "chicken out" as a legitimate option. I'd say that's one of the biggest AoD's accomplishments actually, having combat not be an afterthought but something you might want to avoid, to pause and consider your options (mainly talking about Teron which is by far the best part of the game IMO, later on even hybrid builds can become Power Armor wearing combat monsters).

 

[Lilura]

BG 2 is decent despite the awful RTwP system...

It is awful, yes. Worse than even the writing.

 

[Jasede]

I remember very little of the writing... the last time I played BG 2 I was... 14. That was 16 years ago or so. ... Jesus.
I do remember soloing the entire game with almost every character class there was, though: Skald, Assassin, Bounty Hunter, Swashbuckler, Avenger, Magic User, Monk, Paladin, Cleric.. I had that game completely figured out, combat-wise.

 

[Lilura]

I thought Athkatla was more than several loosely-tied-together-areas, too. Guess it was just nostalgia because it feels theme-parky and almost senseless (as opposed to Arcanum's Tarant or Swordflight's Calimport).

 

[Jasede]

I'm sure it'd be a great deal worse if I were to replay it in this day and age, that's for sure.

 

[Lurker King]

In most RPGs there is a point where it won't help you, like making low agi character in Fallout.

There is nothing wrong with that.

We are talking about comparing RPGs to strategy games, which also require understanding of the system, however usually provide much better gameplay. The problem is that in most strategy games the most complex decisions are made further in the game, while in RPGs the most complex and far-reaching decision (character making) is done before the game even starts.

Complaining in a cRPG forum that cRPGs suck because they are not like strategy games is like going to a masquerade ball and complaining that they are not throwing a wedding party.

I’m not so sure that the most complex decisions are made further in the game. You will have to provide many detailed examples to sustain your point. The few strategy games I played don’t become more complex as the time goes on. Some of them provide you with more weapons, but that doesn’t make them more complex, while others provide more of the same. Besides, it’s obvious that strategy games should have better combat because the game is designed around it. They don’t need to balance player’s progression with exploration, one hundred fetch quests and distribution of XP. It is much easier. They don’t need to implement NPCs with their own personalities and dialogues, or branching paths with choices and gated content. Of course, that is not relevant to you because you are trying to reduce gameplay to combat, but other players will want these features in a cRPG because they want to play a cRPG, not a strategy game.

That's why RPGs can't have better gameplay. Because even COD-clone could just throw a very complex and demanding situation at the player and expect him to use his skills to deal with it if the devs wanted it, while people making RPGs have to consider if all optimal and sub-optimal builds and if they'll be able to beat that encounter. And if they just decide to fuck it you are left with Age of Decadence. And FFT, where if you don't have a ninja by a certain point of the game you are fucked.

The problem is that cRPGs rightly punishes players for not having the proper skills and stats. Players get annoyed by this because in 99% of cRPGs skill checks are fluffy and stat skills are inexistent. But even this complaint is exaggerated and reveals like of understanding of the game. AoD provides most freedom and alternatives than any other cRPG. ZagorTeNej mentioned that in some cases you need Traps 8 to move forward, but I challenge him to name one location in which this is true. In every location with traps you have at least two alternative paths with different skills.

And also because other ways of dealing with conflicts in RPGs sucks even more:

-sneaking never went beyond flat skill-check or a poorly made sneaking game

-diplomacy consists of getting your skill high enough and clicking a highlighted option

-hacking or lockpicking are the same as diplomacy, with addition of a annoying minigame

That sucks for you because you want a cRPG to play like an action game, i.e., something that is governed by your abilities instead of your understanding of the mechanics. If you don’t like any mechanics governed by skills and stats you should forget about cRPGs and invest your time on the games you want. Complaining that a whole genre is not like you want is pointless.

 

[CryptRat]

That sucks for you because you want a cRPG to play like an action game, i.e., something that is governed by your abilities instead of your understanding of the mechanics. If you don’t like any mechanics governed by skills and stats you should forget about cRPGs and invest your time on the games you want. Complaining that a whole genre is not like you want is pointless.

No, you're wrong, it's a combination of both. Dragon Wars and Wasteland (and Serpent in the Staglands) don't ask you to put a stupid amount of experience in a skill or spell to make it work but ask you to use the skills and spells by yourself instead of just clicking on a "yes" option. That's another important factor which makes the game fun.

 

[adrix89]

That sucks for you because you want a cRPG to play like an action game, i.e., something that is governed by your abilities instead of your understanding of the mechanics.

If you want to talk about character "builds" Dota is right next door.

The reality is that in most RPGs "stats" are a steaming pile of shit with no thought put into them.
They follow character development of PnP that cannot exist in a computer game since there is no GM arbiter that tailors the encounters to the abortions the players make.

 

[Lurker King]

No, you're wrong, it's a combination of both. Dragon Wars and Wasteland (and Serpent in the Staglands) don't ask you to put a stupid amount of experience in a skill or spell to make it work but ask you to use the skills and spells by yourself instead of just clicking on a "yes" option. That's another important factor which makes the game fun.

But the use of skills in the environment and skill/stat checks are not mutually exclusive. Age of Decadence allows you to interact with the environment at the mines in Teron, in the Abyss, in the library of Saross, etc. The use of skills in SitS seems less frustrating to you because you are thinking about more active skills such as incantations, but each incantation chant has linguistics skill level requirements; or maybe it is because it is a more traditional games focused on exploration, which makes you feel in charge. Age of Decadence offers more scripted interactions and text adventures with skill checks, which makes you feel restricted. At the end of the day, all this moaning about Age of Decadence just shows that the head of some supposed cRPG players is not in the right place and they should reexamine their priorities. They have a game with fantastic writing, decent harsh combat system and more chances they could possibly dream in a cRPG and all they can think about is that “Teleporting sucks”, “Skill check sucks”, “I want moar exploration!”. It’s pathetic really. THESE COMPLAINTS ABOUT AGE OF DECADENCE REMIND ME OF FEMINISTS TALKING ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF BEING EMPOWERED.

 

[Lhynn]

Age of decadence is one of the most suffocating games ive ever played.

 

[Lurker King]

Age of Decadence is one the most deep, imaginative, sophisticated and challenging games ive ever played.

 

[Lhynn]

Age of Decadence is one the most deep, imaginative, sophisticated and challenging games ive ever played.

Dunno about challenging, but the rest seems to fit.

 

[NeoKino]

That sucks for you because you want a cRPG to play like an action game, i.e., something that is governed by your abilities instead of your understanding of the mechanics.

If you want to talk about character "builds" Dota is right next door.

The reality is that in most RPGs "stats" are a steaming pile of shit with no thought put into them.
They follow character development of PnP that cannot exist in a computer game since there is no GM arbiter that tailors the encounters to the abortions the players make.

There is more variety of builds in a game like Divinity Original Sin, Underrail, or ToEE than the entirety of an ASSFAGGOT roster. If you think stats are a steaming pile of shit then why are you even here? Stats are design to work with the encounters the developers decided to make, If a dev makes a good game (which would have well design encounters) then how could the Stats be a steaming pile of shit?

Also here's your (You).

 

[Freddie]

The problem here is that why play RPG for turn based combat experience, when there are strategy titles to play? How would RPG be any different from say Jagged Alliance if you take away various ways to approach the game world?

Because besides a few examples here and there most of the time spend in RPGs is spend on combat, usually against trashmobs using subpar combat system. Also Jagged Alliance has all the ways of approaching the world that RPGs do: you can bash the door, lockpick it, recruit NPCs, sneak itd. JA differs in approach to party and character creation.

The problem here, imo isn't necessarily bad mechanics, but filler combat or player decision favouring combat option.

I actually kind of like what you are trying to do here, even though I don't agree with it. You only take combat in account when you write about gameplay and totally ignored example from ME series. Combat alone doesn't make great RPG, was it real time or turn based.

Because as other people has mentioned combat is usually what you do the most in most RPGs and that one system that binds it all together. You try to make a good character, recruit NPCs, collect items all to succeed as inevitable combat. And also because other ways of dealing with conflicts in RPGs sucks even more:
-sneaking never went beyond flat skill-check or a poorly made sneaking gamee
-diplomacy consists of getting your skill high enough and clicking a highlighted option
-hacking or lockpicking are the same as diplomacy, with addition of a annoying minigame

These are player choices in character / party building and what kind of approach player decides to take. Without these I don't really know if game could be classified as RPG but action / adventure / dungeon crawler.

So I can't see this discussion going but back to what is an RPG.

Action or strategy game + adventure game + character creation and development

Nope, RPG's existed before any of those genres, though in P'n'P format.

 

[KILLER BEAR]

The reality is that in most RPGs "stats" are a steaming pile of shit with no thought put into them.
They follow character development of PnP that cannot exist in a computer game since there is no GM arbiter that tailors the encounters to the abortions the players make.

Acknowledge this user's Agenda

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Which is stupid. JRPGs had it right. You start as a peasant and then you GROW in power organically. In fact this is the case in all RPGs with good combat.
We already have classes to use as templates.

As a reminder Roguelikes have both character evolution and challenging encounters.

Yeah I agree with that. Gothic and other from zero to hero games are a bit better in that department since you can learn to play and then commit to a particular gamestyle.
Roguelikes are interesting example - they benefit from the fact that dying a lot because of shitty char and restarting the game from scratch isn't something wrong or source of frustration but simply the way the game is played.

There is nothing wrong with that.

It is. It makes encounters suck because devs have to make sure that most characters will beat them. Sure people might accept that this is how RPGs how, but then they shouldn't complain that gameplay is bad.

Complaining in a cRPG forum that cRPGs suck because they are not like strategy games is like going to a masquerade ball and complaining that they are not throwing a wedding party.

I’m not so sure that the most complex decisions are made further in the game. You will have to provide many detailed examples to sustain your point. The few strategy games I played don’t become more complex as the time goes on. Some of them provide you with more weapons, but that doesn’t make them more complex, while others provide more of the same. Besides, it’s obvious that strategy games should have better combat because the game is designed around it. They don’t need to balance player’s progression with exploration, one hundred fetch quests and distribution of XP. It is much easier. They don’t need to implement NPCs with their own personalities and dialogues, or branching paths with choices and gated content. Of course, that is not relevant to you because you are trying to reduce gameplay to combat, but other players will want these features in a cRPG because they want to play a cRPG, not a strategy game.

Most complex decisions are made further in the game. In the first mission of RA2 there are almost no important choices, get your soldiers and attack. As the game progresses the game starts demanding more from the player, offering him more choices and new challanges. If people play RPGs for interaction with NPCs and exploration then devs should stop forcing combat down pepople's throats.
Take U4 for example. The most challenge lies from puzzles in the dungeons, navigating the world, figuring how to get over some obstacle, however I've spend like half of the game slogging through subpar braindead combat. Removing 80% of the monsters from the world wouldn't make the game worse in any way? If strength of RPGs lies in NPCs and exploration then the gameplay should be more centered around it. Instead in the 90's RPGs became more centred on shitty combat. Interaction with NPCs is limited to reading dialogue for flavor and clicking on everything to receive quests, while going out in the wild means fast travel or other forms of instant transition.
I'm not saying that RPGs have to have good combat, but if I have to spend most of the game in combat or preparing for combat then it better should be.

The problem is that cRPGs rightly punishes players for not having the proper skills and stats. Players get annoyed by this because in 99% of cRPGs skill checks are fluffy and stat skills are inexistent. But even this complaint is exaggerated and reveals like of understanding of the game. AoD provides most freedom and alternatives than any other cRPG. ZagorTeNej mentioned that in some cases you need Traps 8 to move forward, but I challenge him to name one location in which this is true. In every location with traps you have at least two alternative paths with different skills.

Yes AOD is one of the good examples. It can be demanding because of it's narrative structure so even if you are fucked and cannot achieve what you want then it means getting back a few hours, not 40.

That sucks for you because you want a cRPG to play like an action game, i.e., something that is governed by your abilities instead of your understanding of the mechanics. If you don’t like any mechanics governed by skills and stats you should forget about cRPGs and invest your time on the games you want. Complaining that a whole genre is not like you want is pointless.

I've used both Jagged Alliance and AOD as good examples in my previous post, they are both governed by stats and require understadning of the system (unlike most RPGs which require only basic reading comprehension), if you are not gonna bother to read my post, why should I bother replying to this post.

The problem here, imo isn't necessarily bad mechanics, but filler combat or player decision favouring combat option.

I think that large quantities of filler combat come in part with devs being unable to provide challenges catered to player abilities and therefore resorting to boring and generic encounters. The reason why combat is so good

These are player choices in character / party building and what kind of approach player decides to take. Without these I don't really know if game could be classified as RPG but action / adventure / dungeon crawler.

Choices in character creation are good, the problem is that with no option to back-down on bad decisions you can't really push the player character building skills to the limit, because no sane dev will force people with shitty builds to restart the game after clocking-in 20 hours. And since it's hard to make a good character without having much experience it means that encounters and challenge are catered to mediocre builds, which hurts the gameplay IMO. I'm not saying that the gameplay have to evolve but people who accept making a character once and going through 60+ hours game with it should stop complaining about shitty encounters and easy bossed.
In that regard I agree with Lurker King. If people don't want to compromise they should just shut the fuck up.

Nope, RPG's existed before any of those genres, though in P'n'P format.

Yes, these games are also very different from their computer counterparts. I was under impression that we are talking about computer RPGs. If we are talking about tabletop games, the let me please take back everyone what I've said. Every fault listed in this thread (and every other thread similar to this) can be fixed by having a competent DM who will simply alter his adventures to suit the current party. There is no game in existence with better gameplay, because what can beat creating a great story with a bunch of friends. Everything ever said here is stupid and useless, we should all just stop talking.

 

[newtmonkey]

Can't even answer this cuz it's like trying to answer "why do you keep beating your wife" or whatever (drunk, can't remember the exact question)

The question seems like it answers itself. "Cuz bad RPGs are bad, so they have bad 'gameplay.'" Just like any other genre. Why do FPS games have bad gameplay? Uh, in general they don't. Bad ones do. Makes absolutely no sense imo.

Are we talking about old RPGs? It's a whole different kind of "gameplay" (ugh). It involves collecting information, taking notes, mapping, and figuring out what you need to do to get to the end. Are we talking about Fallout??? It involves carving your way through the world. I have played a lot of RPGs with bad "gameplay" but those are barely worth talking about. By the way, 90% of the games I have played have had bad "gameplay" and are not worth talking about.

IMO when you play a really good RPG it offers you something you won't get from another type of game. I love action games. I grew up playing NES as a kid. All the Mario games, all the Metroids, Kid Icarus, Ninja Gaiden, those are satisfying games to play for sure. But not the same as digging into an awesome RPG where you need to piece together what you want to do, explore, figure the game itself out. If you play Mario enough, even without thinking, you'll eventually get through it (never mind modern games). No one will get through Pools of Radiance or Dungeon Master or even "crap" like Battletech Cresent Hawks Inception, if they don't take notes and figure those games out.

Modern RPGs? I dunno. You can play Skyrim or any of the Mass Effect games, Dragon Age, whatever, and not really pay attention cuz eventually you'll get through unless you deliberately make it harder for yourself. This is coming from someone who played and finished ME 1-3 and DA 1 and 2. RPGs are simply not the same as they were back then. Maybe for most people they have better "gameplay" now, who knows.