The problem is that they exist, dammit. How about some more variety…or some new archetypes or something.
The problem is that they exist, dammit. How about some more variety…or some new archetypes or something.
The problem is that they exist, dammit. How about some more variety…or some new archetypes or something.
The problem is that they exist, dammit. How about some more variety…or some new archetypes or something.
But seriously, I immediately think of two major issues that I have with RPG’s (and I consider myself a pretty heavy RPG fan, down to playing and supporting those weird third-tier titles).
-
The battle systems. I’m generally talking about turn-based battles, which go back to the Ultima games and continued through Final Fantasy, etc. It’s time for a change - there’s really no difference between Lost Odyssey’s turn-based battle system and Ultima III’s, save the window dressing. This needs to change. I really thought that FFXII truly raised the bar for all RPG’s with its battle system and gambit system. Far from the “MMORPG-esque” system that many fans erroneously decried it as, it was a near-perfect translation of the classic turn-based battle system into realtime. The gambit system allowed as much customization as free-time decision making per character, and in fact offered more freedom so that the player didn’t need to simply choose the same tactics each round. FFXII simply raised the bar for console RPG’s, but sadly the industry seems to be content to simply rely on the old tricks rather than trying to emulate and one-up XII’s advances.
-
There needs to be more of a divide between story and narrative-centric JRPG-style RPG’s (Final Fantasy, etc.) and D&D-style “Roll your own characters and story” RPG’s (Elder Scrolls and Neverwinter Nights, etc.), because each one keeps half-assing both elements. JRPG’s offer measly attempts at character and equipment customization that don’t really add anything to the games, while the roll-your-own games try to shoehorn weak “main stories” into open-ended games. I’d like to see each major subgenre of RPG rocket off in its own direction - the next big JRPG should not even allow you to change your character’s weapons and equipment, while the next Elder Scrolls should just do away with a main storyline all together and allow the player to roll his own story.
Least Original Post Ever!
Well… you can play with those characters, but the cutscenes focus almost totally on the girly-boys.
I liked how the Fallouts used action points. Basically your character got a number of action points based on his agility (and any perks or other SPECIAL bonuses–pun intended). Every action during your turn took a certain number of action points. You could move one step per point. Shooting a slower or more powerful weapon took more action points than a quicker and/or less damaging one. Making called shots, which increased your chance of a critical hit or gave a chance to cripple an enemy, added one more action point to the normal cost for that weapon. Using an active skill during combat also cost a certain number of points. There were perks you could also take (e.g. Fast Shot) that would reduce the number of action points a certain task would take, but perks usually had some trade-off (in the case of fast shot, you could never make called shots). Whatever action points weren’t used were lost for that turn. You couldn’t bank them between rounds.
LoL! And remember, these games were made for the Japanese. In Asia, the relatively effeminate (but athletic) male archetype is one of the most attractive forms of masculinity.
I should know. I’m a Korean girly-boy archetype 
I’ve even had my hair spikey and colored :eek:
Computer role-playing games miss the mark because “role-playing” has been corrupted as a term from its pen-and-paper definition — I won’t say origin, role-playing started with theater — to its present state, and as it corrupted in definition, it grew alternate meaning, like a hydra. A ten or twelve hit dice hydra, obviously, not a cryo-hydra or one of those…
…ahem. Anyway.
The term role-playing covers too much ground, so nobody’s quite satisfied with the interpretation. Usually a CRPG means you play a character, and you get to make choices to customize the character over time, picking powers, picking weapons and armor, and so on. Occasionally it means you can make choices based on your character’s personality, or interact with NPCs. Sometimes it means you can influence the outcome of the world-plot.
But heck, some games call themselves RPGs and don’t even give a nod to custom-chosen weapons or powers. So gamers don’t know what to think. Hardly anybody’s happy with the developer’s interpretation.
Some RPGs let you play Evil characters — some gamers consider that Essential. Some RPGs insist on giving you crafting skills (collect 15 fire beetle carapaces and make Crap Armor +2). Some RPGs give you points to spend on developing your character but absolutely no guidance whether a certain construction is valid or worthwhile, leading you along for thirty or forty levels before you finally realize you have to start over — that’s not role-playing, it’s an exercise in number-crunching optimization.
The term RPG is practically meaningless, any more.
I’d like to point out that many of the so-called best open ended RPGs don’t let you play evil very effectively. You either have to be a goody-two-shoes, a greedy brigand, or a psychotic thug. There’s no real path for playing a sophisticated evil character.
Neverwinter Nights 2 was especially horrible because of the constant railroading to the good side. Sometimes you were only really given one option, which would involve sparing some life or giving away some great item/money that your character definitely would NOT do.
I have not played any MMORPGs, but I have played one of the Final Fantasies on a PS2 (I honestly can’t remember which), and I’m currently playing Oblivion and Lost Odyssey on the 360.
I much prefer the gameplay of Oblivion compared to the Lost Odyssey/FF-type of games. Navigating in Lost Odyssey is a royal pain in the ass, imho. I can’t “feel” the environment. It has the worst of both worlds in that you’re moving your character basically on rails, yet operating doors and other devices require you to be standing just so, and as you’re wiggling the controller around so that you’re standing in the magic spot, you end up triggering a damn random battle. I loved the way that Oblivion feels like Halo in many ways. I actually have dreams influenced by marathon sessions of Halo and Oblivion, where I’m bouncing and leaping everywhere. As far as I can remember, I have never had dreams influenced by FF-type games.
Yep, I think you may have hit the nail on the head, of what I was trying to say in the OP but failed miserably.
Take Ocarina of Time for example. I didn’t enjoy this game at first because it just looks like an arcade adventure and didn’t seem to have the depth of a genuine RPG.
But ultimately I loved it because you really felt like you were there, you got under the game’s skin, at the end of the game you felt like you’d been on a journey.
When I buy an RPG, I’m looking for that experience plus weapon customising / character advancement etc.
But they so often fail to provide the experience. Why? OoT looks primitive today, and most modern RPGs have first-person lookaround mode etc. Why don’t I get the experience?
And this, BTW, is why eastern Asia is evil. 
Seriously, though, I just don’t get it. There’s room in this world for boys and young men who haven’t fully come into the growth, but I haven’t ever seen one who looked that much like women or walked around bare-chested to show off their total LACK of a pects or a chest hair. That’s just freaky.
I know the Japanese are big on this. Goes all the way back to Tale of Genji at least. But it’s still freaky.
Well, I don’t know, how hairy and muscular are Japanese guys?
I found it real weird that those 300 mediterranean studs in the movie of the same name didn’t have an armpit, chest or leg hair between all fifteen-score of them, but wouldn’t have found it so weird for some other, uh, genetic backgrounds.
Some of those anime guys look a lot like my brothers, specially the older one (somehow they have the same weight and measurements, yet Lilbro manages to be “more round”). Middlebro has a hole in the middle of his chest but no pecs worth mentioning and barely enough chest hairs to make it plural. Maybe that’s what a Dutch friend meant when he recently said that Spanish guys are “pretty,” as my bros are quite average for local looks… 
I wouldn’t consider Ocarina of Time to be an RPG. It’s strictly an Adventure game to me.
Agreed, and this aggravates me. That isn’t to say that it’s not a good game, (I wouldn’t know) but they style of play is nothing like what I would consider an RPG. There are no levels, character advancement is strictly linear–no customizing beyond skipping upgrades–and the battle system is mostly hack-and-slash. There are puzzles, but that doesn’t push it into RPG territory.
It’s an adventure. You follow a boy on his travels. I don’t care if you are ‘playing a role’, in gaming terms that has nothing to do with what genre a game is, or at least it shouldn’t if we want to term RPG to retain any meaning.
I basically agree. It’s certainly more of an adventure game than an RPG.
But anyway, I guess my point was, that for me, RPGs seldom provide the level of atmosphere that pseudo-RPGs like Ocarina of Time do.
That kind of atmosphere plus RPG elements would be great.
But is it possible? Maybe the very nature of RPGs, requiring masses of battles to hone your characters to the level of supermen, precludes the kind of general wandering and exploration that gives the gamer an affinity with the game world?
Maybe the solution is a game where combat only happens sporadically, and if you want to gain experience, you have to deliberately seek out enemies?
FFXII had the right idea in some respects. You could avoid combat if you wanted to, and the environments were more open than the typical corridor and rooms (even when outdoors) that typifies most RPGs.
I’d call the Zelda games “action-adventure with light RPG elements” (especially in the later ones). There’s a well-defined story, open worldmap, lots of NPC interaction, weapon and armor upgrades, item merchants, equipment management, etc. The RPG elements are just simplified compared to what you’d see in Final Fantasy or the like. Graphical heart bar instead of a numerical HP gauge, weapon upgrades automatically replace the previous version, no grinding (except possibly for money), things like that.
What RPGs need is more role playing.
To me that means more and better inter-character interactions, The Sims level of interaction. I want to be able to develop friendships, romances, enmities. Not only with a few pre-planted NPCs, but with anyone I meet.
And the NPCs should be self-motivated. I don’t want them to only interact with the PC, but to initiate relationships (positive and negative) with each other. Things should happen when I’m not there, but let me talk to my NPC friends (or beat out of my enemies) to find out what happened.
This implies that problems can be solved by more than violence. I should be able to sweet talk or distract or confuse or befriend the antagonists. Depending on how I play, maybe some the roles of some of the antagonists and protagonists switch.
You do realize that half of what you people want is just waaaaay beyond the scope of current hardware and software, and will be for many more yers? I mean, apparently you all want a HUGE world, where you can DO anything, GO anywhere, TALK to anyone, form relationships with whoever you want, resolve any problem in any way you want, blah, blah, blah.
Look, it’s not going to happen, ok? If you want that, you’re going to have to stick to pen and paper RPGs for several more decades, methinks.