Games That Would Be So Much Better Without the RPG Elements

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

I wasn't talking about Dark Souls there. I was referring to Dungeons & Dragons / Pathfinder systems where your damage doesn't increase because you're getting better weapons but because you're getting better skills/spells, the skills you do have improve (like a rogue's sneak attack), more attacks per turn (monks & rangers), etc. You shouldn't need to get say new guns in Borderlands to increase your damage, that can be done via leveling alone. The Souls games do have a good system in place so that you do stick one weapon all game and level the scaling stat while upgrading that weapon. Most games do it via looting and constantly getting a slightly better dagger or katana or gun every hour, then that old weapon is garbage. It leads to constant and needless inventory management.

Funny enough, D&D is probably also the origin of the whole +X Weapon/Armor trope. I get what you mean though.

 

[wizzy555]

Probably Lichdom battlemage. The crafting system was pretty difficult to use when all you wanted to do was explode things.

 

[sageoftruth]

Bloodborne

Not so much its RPG elements, which it barely has, but its RPG controls. This game would've benefitted greatly from being a dedicated action game. In stead we have an action game that controls like a Souls game, without the corresponding options i.e. a Devil May Cry/Onimusha game that controls like you're walking through tar.

IMO the biggest point of it is that it doesn?t play like those games. Sure the presentation, level design and lore are welcomed, but I don?t want it to feel like the countless beat ?em ups before it, even if it is supposed to be more Action than RPG. I want to feel like I?m actually swinging a saw cleaver or a bigass hammer, and feel the more physical feedback of it connecting with the enemy.

Part of the draw of SoulsBorne games to me is the tangible feeling of presence and place in its universe, where it much more effectively presents the illusion of being in that world and interacting with everything, instead of some inhuman featherweight avatar bouncing around an arena doing 100 hit combos and whatnot.

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

Assassin's Creed Syndicate (And Unity, I guess). EXP, leveling, and skill points have no place in Assassin's Creed to me. Especially when said skills get ridiculous, like Evie becoming invisible. I'd prefer it if the game went back to the first Assassin's Creed's style of giving upgrades to equipment, skills, and health through successful Assassination instead of buying hidden blades from a fucking store.

 

[sageoftruth]

Borderlands - Guns are outdated constantly. Even if you liked a particular gun and it's an effective gun, you'll have to replace it sometime and you can't use just any other gun even if you like it because if they're not rare, they suck ass in stats.

Totally, I don't get the point of looting prior to end-game honestly. I can understand finding something awesome that will permanently improve your character but everything before end-game is useless in an hour or so. Just about every RPG does this from Divinity to Witcher like how master witcher Geralt can't use a level 2 sword at the beginning. The amount of time the average RPG wastes your time in inventory management is hours per game, it's ridiculous.

TIE DAMAGE INCREASE TO CHARACTER LEVELING NOT WEAPONS!!!

Yeah but you cant balance a game otherwise!


EDIT: Matching weapons to levels is just designers imposing fake barriers to progress
Dark Souls disappointed me quite a lot in this regard. I messed up my build and found everything hard. Once I fixed it, everything became too easy. This was a game that was meant to be about player skill not how many strength points you have

I got puzzled here. Which RPG element in Dark Souls are you upset about? The weapon scaling, the weapon stat requirements, or the existence of stats period?

Not upset. Cant blame it all on stats, but I ended up hate playing DS1 (and I've never gone back)

I was originally told that Dark Souls should be done blind to get the best experience. By the time Orstein and Smough were defeated, I still didn't know you could improve armour or weapons or that you could use humanity or even co-op. So a lot of this is my fault for listening to that suggestion. (I also never knew what the Depths were or why a yellow wall stopped me from progressing. The fight towards the demon ruins after Quelaag was pretty bad.)

Come around to DS3. Nameless King was defeated solo on the second try. And it mainly came down to I chose the right stats to make that fight easier.

I also think about the graveyard in DS1. I hear it makes people bounce of the game. What if everything was the same level so you could actually choose which way to go. But most of this can be attributed to DS not giving enough info for me to engage in the game. I had to research on Youtube

Ah, I see. Kudos for sticking with that approach all the way through Dark Souls 1. That takes dedication and restraint. I confess, I don't think I ever finished a Souls game of any sort without visiting the online wiki, even though I, like you, had thought it would be better to play it blind.

 

[sageoftruth]

Transformers: Devastation's definitely another one for me.

I don't think I've ever seen a more tacked-on loot system than in that game. The idea of "Synthesizing" weapons to make them more powerful really didn't need to be there. Considering this was a Platinum game, I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing they'd taken out the gear and weapon levels and just let the game be pure combat all the way through.

 

[sXeth]

If we're defining RPG Elements as the raw acquisition of visible or invisible numbers linked to progression. Yeah, most games that utilize player skill (which is almost all real time stuff at this point, from aiming in a shooter to dodging around and smacking things in Dark Souls or what have you) could do without them.

Switching a sword to an axe, or a sworc to a flaming sword, or a sword to a sword that shoots lasers, or a sword to a sword that splits into six swords when swung so it can't be blocked. Thats all RPG type upgrades that add depth.

Switching through 100 iterations of the same sword that do 5 more damage each time (or upgrading it) just makes everything seem weird if/when you get behind the curve and a sword stops cutting, or a bullet to the head doesn't kill people anymore.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Bloodborne

Not so much its RPG elements, which it barely has, but its RPG controls. This game would've benefitted greatly from being a dedicated action game. In stead we have an action game that controls like a Souls game, without the corresponding options i.e. a Devil May Cry/Onimusha game that controls like you're walking through tar.

IMO the biggest point of it is that it doesn?t play like those games. Sure the presentation, level design and lore are welcomed, but I don?t want it to feel like the countless beat ?em ups before it, even if it is supposed to be more Action than RPG. I want to feel like I?m actually swinging a saw cleaver or a bigass hammer, and feel the more physical feedback of it connecting with the enemy.

Part of the draw of SoulsBorne games to me is the tangible feeling of presence and place in its universe, where it much more effectively presents the illusion of being in that world and interacting with everything, instead of some inhuman featherweight avatar bouncing around an arena doing 100 hit combos and whatnot.

Sure, I want to feel that too. But I don't want to feel that with Souls controls. When playing an action RPG you sort of accept the stiff, wooden controls because you know the game needs to account for a lot of different options. Bloodborne has little options to speak of, to the point where you can barely call it an RPG, yet it still controls like molasses, has a gun you can't aim, and a lock-on that's complete garbage.

I've played loads of action focussed games that feel weighty but not rusty. They should've either made Bloodborne an action RPG with the same amount of RPG mechanics as a Souls game, or made it a straight-up action game.

 

[Benpasko]

Bloodborne

Not so much its RPG elements, which it barely has, but its RPG controls. This game would've benefitted greatly from being a dedicated action game. In stead we have an action game that controls like a Souls game, without the corresponding options i.e. a Devil May Cry/Onimusha game that controls like you're walking through tar.

I agree with this. The shoulder button controls work in Dark Souls because they're universal. L1 and L2 are your left hand, R1 and R2 are your right. In Dark Souls 2, my favorite in the series, weapons behave identically in either hand. As a result, the game controls brilliantly.

Having L1 be a your 'twohand' button, and triangle for heal was just odd. Weapons being tied to a specific hand was just awful as well, combined with the lack of weapon variety (I don't mean a lack of different weapons, but every "weapon type" is just one weapon. If you want a dagger, you'd better do this specific hidden sidequest that ends with a stupid miniboss).

 

[Nuuu]

Pretty much every action game. This is more of a personal preference, but I hate my performance in the game to be judged by my "level and stats" rather than my skill and proficiency with it. It really takes away the engagement and hampers depth.

Transformers: Devastation's definitely another one for me.

I don't think I've ever seen a more tacked-on loot system than in that game. The idea of "Synthesizing" weapons to make them more powerful really didn't need to be there. Considering this was a Platinum game, I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing they'd taken out the gear and weapon levels and just let the game be pure combat all the way through.

My exact thoughts on the game. This game was the one that made me realize how much I dislike RPG elements in general. I went in thinking I should be trying to get better at the combat, and came out realizing the goal was getting stronger weapons.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Bloodborne

Not so much its RPG elements, which it barely has, but its RPG controls. This game would've benefitted greatly from being a dedicated action game. In stead we have an action game that controls like a Souls game, without the corresponding options i.e. a Devil May Cry/Onimusha game that controls like you're walking through tar.

Could not disagree more with this.

I love me some Devil May Cry or Bayonetta, but the point of the combat in those games is killing in a stylish way. The point of Souls/Bloodborne combat is sheer survival by any means possible. Every attack is slow and has weight because every attack needs to be deliberate and have consequences. That's the ENTIRE point. The game would have been lesser if it was just trying to be a character action game.

Dante doesn't just fight his way through bosses, he effortlessly styles all over them. Having that kind of combat in a souls type game completely undermines it.

On the other hand, I do think that the actual RPG elements in Bloodborne are half-hearted and kind of pointless. There's only a few stats, and the whole blood gem system is a mess. One of the few missteps to what is otherwise an almost perfect game in my opinion.

 

[stroopwafel]

Bloodborne has little options to speak of, to the point where you can barely call it an RPG, yet it still controls like molasses, has a gun you can't aim, and a lock-on that's complete garbage.

Not to be 'that guy' but I think you're just really bad at videogames. Bloodborne's controls are flawless and you want to turn it into Platinum garbage. Bloodborne's combat is perfected almost to the frame and this precise control over your character is one of the reasons that makes it so good. Case in point I don't like action games much(DmC, Platinum, God of War) but love Souls and Bloodborne is probably my most favorite game of all time. The RPG elements is just extra flavor on top. These games combine all the best elements: gameplay, art design, world building, sound and atmosphere. All of which feels very grounded unlike almost any other game.

 

[sanquin]

Not a game that shouldn't have unlockables, but a game that did it right in my opinion: Planetside 2.

-Guns are mostly side-grades or small upgrades, and you get to pick which ones to unlock.
-Different mods for your vehicles work the same.
-Skills and the like can be upgraded, but the base ones aren't so terrible that everyone automatically owns you.

As for games that shouldn't have rpg-like progression systems:
ALL GAMES EXCEPT ACTUAL RPGS FFS. >.> I hate that devs stopped caring about making their games' progression system interesting, and instead just slapped an rpg-like levelling system to friggin' everything.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Not to be 'that guy' but I think you're just really bad at videogames. Bloodborne's controls are flawless and you want to turn it into Platinum garbage. Bloodborne's combat is perfected almost to the frame and this precise control over your character is one of the reasons that makes it so good. Case in point I don't like action games much(DmC, Platinum, God of War) but love Souls and Bloodborne is probably my most favorite game of all time. The RPG elements is just extra flavor on top. These games combine all the best elements: gameplay, art design, world building, sound and atmosphere. All of which feels very grounded unlike almost any other game.

Yet you be that guy and assume I am anyway.

No, I'm not bad at videogames. Not the Souls games anyway, and not Bloodborne either. Bloodborne is probably the simpliest of them all, since there's very little tactic other than 'strike, dodge, dodge, strike'. This includes the Boss fights, which are mostly comprised of big beasts who just lunge at you.

The problem is that the controls don't feel natural for what is generally just an action game. They are FAAAAR from flawless. The fact that you can't aim your gun and that it's tied to a lock-on that's crap is enough proof of that. Though the biggest problem is the noticeable input delay to most of your attacks. There's no instant reaction to me pressing the attack button, meaning that when I'm stringing a combo I have to account for that delay ontop the regular effort of succesfully pulling off a combo. The controls force me to be preoccupied with the controls. This doesn't make the game hard just a hassle. And it prevents me from ever enjoying the action because the reaction time feels so inorganic.

The Souls games suffered from the same control problems, but being an RPG it gave you plenty of options to suit them to a play style that worked for you. Bloodborne doesn't -- It has the cons of RPG controls, but lacks the pros of RPG options.

 

[Pseudonym]

All of 'em, amirite guys?

Almost all shooters. Yeah, bullet sponge enemies is what I want in my shooter... It's the main reason I decided not to buy The Division.

Seriously though, I agree. RPG elements almost never improve shooters, they just fuck with the balance and the gameplay. They make difficult enemies more bulletspongey rather than difficult in a fun way, and they make easier enemies boring. They restrict what the developers could plan for and just generally make the experience less tight.

A general downside of RPG elements in any game, RPG or not, is that they tend to pad out the game which is good if and only if you would like to spend a lot of time on it anyway.

 

[stroopwafel]

Not to be 'that guy' but I think you're just really bad at videogames. Bloodborne's controls are flawless and you want to turn it into Platinum garbage. Bloodborne's combat is perfected almost to the frame and this precise control over your character is one of the reasons that makes it so good. Case in point I don't like action games much(DmC, Platinum, God of War) but love Souls and Bloodborne is probably my most favorite game of all time. The RPG elements is just extra flavor on top. These games combine all the best elements: gameplay, art design, world building, sound and atmosphere. All of which feels very grounded unlike almost any other game.

Yet you be that guy and assume I am anyway.

No, I'm not bad at videogames. Not the Souls games anyway, and not Bloodborne either. Bloodborne is probably the simpliest of them all, since there's very little tactic other than 'strike, dodge, dodge, strike'. This includes the Boss fights, which are mostly comprised of big beasts who just lunge at you.

The problem is that the controls don't feel natural for what is generally just an action game. They are FAAAAR from flawless. The fact that you can't aim your gun and that it's tied to a lock-on that's crap is enough proof of that. Though the biggest problem is the noticeable input delay to most of your attacks. There's no instant reaction to me pressing the attack button, meaning that when I'm stringing a combo I have to account for that delay ontop the regular effort of succesfully pulling off a combo. The controls force me to be preoccupied with the controls. This doesn't make the game hard just a hassle. And it prevents me from ever enjoying the action because the reaction time feels so inorganic.

The Souls games suffered from the same control problems, but being an RPG it gave you plenty of options to suit them to a play style that worked for you. Bloodborne doesn't -- It has the cons of RPG controls, but lacks the pros of RPG options.

Souls and Bloodborne have the tightest controls of pretty much any game let alone action games that have you string together flurries of combos by just mashing a button. Really, it's like you played a different game as I never had any problem with Bloodborne's controls and like I said find them extremely tight and responsive. Your criticism about the gun makes no sense either. It's designed to parry enemies not used like you would in a shooter. It seems everything that makes Bloodborne tick goes over your head. The bosses in Bloodborne are the best of any game ever made. Both mechanically and in their design. Ludwig, Orphan, Gehrman, Gascoigne, Maria etc just ''beasts who lunge at you''? That doesn't even makes any sense and makes me doubt you even made it past Cleric Beast.

No one even shares your negative opinion of Bloodborne which probably also says enough.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Souls and Bloodborne have the tightest controls of pretty much any game let alone action games that have you string together flurries of combos by just mashing a button. Really, it's like you played a different game as I never had any problem with Bloodborne's controls and like I said find them extremely tight and responsive. Your criticism about the gun makes no sense either. It's designed to parry enemies not used like you would in a shooter. It seems everything that makes Bloodborne tick goes over your head. The bosses in Bloodborne are the best of any game ever made. Both mechanically and in their design. Ludwig, Orphan, Gehrman, Gascoigne, Maria etc just ''beasts who lunge at you''? That doesn't even makes any sense and makes me doubt you even made it past Cleric Beast.

No one even shares your negative opinion of Bloodborne which probably also says enough.

I do apologize, I did not know Bloodborne was made of the tears of the innocents, which explains the fervent aggression you seem to have for my criticism against it.

The lock-on in the Souls games and Bloodborne is just plain bad. I don't care how big a fan you are, it's not good. I'm sorry to tell you this but even great games have flaws, and for Soulsborne the lock-on is it. And the gun in Bloodborne is completely dependent on it. Ignoring all that though... it's a gun -- There's no logical reason why I shouldn't be able to aim the bloody thing. Same as why I should be able to aim my magic projectiles in the Souls games, but somehow can't cuz it's the perfect most perfectest game. However in that context I can slightly ignore it, it being magic and astral energy or some such.

But whatever, you can feel warm and cozy in knowing no one apparently shares my opinion. Good for you.

 

[stroopwafel]

Souls and Bloodborne have the tightest controls of pretty much any game let alone action games that have you string together flurries of combos by just mashing a button. Really, it's like you played a different game as I never had any problem with Bloodborne's controls and like I said find them extremely tight and responsive. Your criticism about the gun makes no sense either. It's designed to parry enemies not used like you would in a shooter. It seems everything that makes Bloodborne tick goes over your head. The bosses in Bloodborne are the best of any game ever made. Both mechanically and in their design. Ludwig, Orphan, Gehrman, Gascoigne, Maria etc just ''beasts who lunge at you''? That doesn't even makes any sense and makes me doubt you even made it past Cleric Beast.

No one even shares your negative opinion of Bloodborne which probably also says enough.

I do apologize, I did not know Bloodborne was made of the tears of the innocents, which explains the fervent aggression you seem to have for my criticism against it.

The lock-on in the Souls games and Bloodborne is just plain bad. I don't care how big a fan you are, it's not good. I'm sorry to tell you this but even great games have flaws, and for Soulsborne the lock-on is it. And the gun in Bloodborne is completely dependent on it. Ignoring all that though... it's a gun -- There's no logical reason why I shouldn't be able to aim the bloody thing. Same as why I should be able to aim my magic projectiles in the Souls games, but somehow can't cuz it's the perfect most perfectest game. However in that context I can slightly ignore it, it being magic and astral energy or some such.

But whatever, you can feel warm and cozy in knowing no one apparently shares my opinion. Good for you.

Now you're just being silly. I don't care about criticism or personal taste. Games can have flaws but still be great and I really couldn't care less if someone didn't like a game I like. However with Bloodborne you completely make up 'problems' nobody has with the game but you. Which, again, could make you wonder how legitimate they are.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Now you're just being silly. I don't care about criticism or personal taste. Games can have flaws but still be great and I really couldn't care less if someone didn't like a game I like. However with Bloodborne you completely make up 'problems' nobody has with the game but you. Which, again, could make you wonder how legitimate they are.

You know everyone's opinion on the game then? Wow!

I also didn't know opinions had to be shared to be legitimate. I guess I better check that the next time.

 

[kitsunefather]

As a fan of RPG elements in games, I'd have to say most modern era games could do with less/none of the elements, as they are mostly shoe-horned in to give the game a bit more of a skinner box feel rather than actually there to do anything.

Of the games I've played recently, I'd say Mad Max is the most egregious example; most of the stuff you "level" is upgrades to your gear or unlocking more facial hair options. And you use a levelling system based on reputation, kind of (like the Godfather game mixed with the karma system of Fallout), and that lets you spend the scrap metal you found on the ground to let you wear face paint.