Poll: Who here actually wants RPGs to get easier?

[kTrmnatr]

lulz at: Is dumbing down good? That seems like kind of an asinine question.

I don't see why the sliding scale difficulty (easy, normal, hard) settings can't make an experience accessible, fun, and as challenging as the player likes. When I want a challenge, I set my games to hard; when I want everything I touch to insta-die, I set it to easy. I don't see why there needs to be a direction one way or the other. As far as making RPGs more intuitive, who wouldn't want that, and not just for RPGs, but for all games?

 

[hermes]

You are confusing "dumb down" (as a synonym to "streamlined") with "easy". Games can have a complex battle system without being hard as nails, and they can be hard with a simple battle system.

The main problem with JRPG's difficulty is that it can be solved with grinding, which is just bad design. Any game that forces you to repeat the same task for hours to be able to beat a particular fight (and also, that repeating that task more than its advisable turns the game into a cakewalk) is just badly paced.

I liked the way FF 13 did this... the layered grid makes it clear that over a certain point, grinding will give you nothing of use.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I am saying it mainly as a counter argument for the crowd who will insist DnD rules the perfect solution. We cant do better than that?
Worse is that the same crowd will try to legitimize trying to make a better system because "Its dumbing down". How is that a better position?

I don't think anyone is saying that CRPGs should be D&D simulators. The point I see most often is that either A) there's nothing wrong with a D&D-based game, or B) if developers want to create a homebrew system for their RPG, they should put enough development and playtesting time in to make sure it works well. It never ceases to amaze me how many times devs fail at B.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Call of Duty is a good example of why I like the way RPGs are up-front with their mechanics. There's quite a lot of math [http://denkirson.xanga.com/715966769/modern-warfare-2/] involved in CoD - it's just all behind the scenes. Now as a nerd who likes winning, I like to know exactly what stuff like slapping a silencer on my gun, adding a 25% damage bonus - or both - will affect things like my TTK and where I have to aim my sniper.

So, if I want to optimize my CoD character, I have to look up a chart on the internet. If I want to optimize a character in an RPG, the game will generally tell me what effect skills/perks/feats/proficiencies/items/etc. have on my damage/swing time/THAC0/damage reduction/etc. I prefer the game that understands that I'm a nerd who likes winning, and gives me the numbers up front.

And even with all that math it is still easy enough to pick up.

If you like math then go do math. You dont need a game for that. Go calculate the world. If you like solving objectives, then let that be the focus of your game. Not doing the math.

I've never done any math when playing a D&D game.
Regardless, maybe if YOU did some more math you would realize that turn-based is ALWAYS more tactical than real-time. Imagine if chess were real time. It would be a free-for all for who had the fastest hands, like those fighting games you mentioned are. That's not tactical.

 

[Murmillos]

While most games don't made some complexity in their games, most "true" RPG games in the past have always been prone to getting in the over complex territory which can easily put off players who did want to play the game.

The problem with RPG's of the past remaining "overtly complex" while every other genre improved is because making games didn't didn't cost a miniature fortune to make and RPG were allowed to remain in that niche market demographic. So for a long while, RPG had a very consistent static "feel" that games learned to "expect". And if it didn't sell too well, it wasn't the end of the world for the developer because the game would still have regained most of it back anyways.

Now that gamers are demanding that graphics look better and better, want each NPC having its own voice actor, on top of engine licencing (or making your own) while also needing real "physics"; the price of games quickly skyrocket to more then just mere 'pocket' change.

For every weapon type needing a different 3d rendering for each of the various levels, included unique ones adds time and cost - 2d sprites can be churned out in a day, d3 models, not quite so much.
Every skill needs to be codded and debugged until it works. The leveling system needs to be codded and debugged until it works. The more simplistic these systems are, the lower the price of development the cost is, along with allowing more players to become interested.

Are developers willing to lose 5% of the most hardcoreist of the hardcore PRG's if it means gaining 30% or more of the non hardcore gaming market. You bet their fucking pants off they do. In a way, this is what happened to many of us in the transition of change between ME1 to ME2. Too be fair, people did expected change for ME1 -- just not in such drastic measures.

Now to answer the OP's question, "is dumbing down good?". To be fair, it depends on where you are starting and where you finish up with. Is getting rid of skill that say, only 1% of the gamers population likes "dumbing down". Is getting rid of complex confusing systems that can be redone so its better streamlined, and yet still functional, while only losing a small fraction of its flexibility "dumbing down"?

In some cases, "dumbing down" can be very beneficial to the game play and flow of the game; and there are some cases where a developer and "dumb down" too far. So I vote yes with the statement that that it isn't a blanket across the board "dumbing down is good".

tl:dr -- features cost money -- games today are expensive to make -- RPG's can no longer remain in limited niche markets.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Are developers willing to lose 5% of the most hardcoreist of the hardcore PRG's if it means gaining 30% or more of the non hardcore gaming market. You bet their fucking pants off they do. In a way, this is what happened to many of us in the transition of change between ME1 to ME2. Too be fair, people did expected change for ME1 -- just not in such drastic measures.

The great thing is that not everyone has to do that. There's room for both the Mass Effect 3s and Wasteland 2s of the world. If there's a market for action games with good production values and leveling systems, there's no reason that games like that have to replace RPGs.

 

[Atmos Duality]

That is in reverse. You use math to emulate a situation in a video game. The point is to transfer the exp the best possible way. If you need math to understand it then you failed the whole point of trying to emulate it.

And you use math to solve problems or wield rational thinking, even if subconsciously.
Math is essentially the "language of logic" when you get right down to it.

The degree of effort and complexity needed to learn is a barometer for good game design, yes, but to assume that mechanics that aren't obfuscated are bad design? That much I don't agree with; not entirely.

"Game theory" doesn't go against what my original statement was. That a game should aim to be easy to learn, hard to master.

Idealism. Whatever. Next.

You might be able to see "code" after reading up the game to a certain degree, but if you need to read up to that degree to enjoy it then it failed on a basic lvl.

I agree up to a point. The limit involves tabletops and board games, since they would basically be written off entirely by your argument here; which contradicts my own experiences.

Tabletops and board games are ones where most of the mechanical interactions are perfectly overt, yet people still enjoy them and play them. The burden of adding depth beyond mechanics lies on those playing the game, which is something of a problem for most, but it's also a license for testing logic and skills outside the boundaries of intense computer programming.

 

[malestrithe]

If it makes sense, I'm all for reducing complexity.

The changes in Fallout New Vegas made sense to me. Combine Big guns and Small Guns into one general guns category was not ideal, but they needed to make room for the inclusion of a survival skill.

What is not needed is a skill tree so complex that it would be nigh impossible to follow. That's been my experience with the Diablo 3 beta. It gave me too many options, so instead of experimenting to find out what works in what situations, I just picked one build and stuck to it.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I disagree with the premise. I do not think games are being dumbed down.

OT: I'd like to see some RPGs where you can grind if you want, or you can get buy through clever tactics and planning. Final Fantasy XII was a good example of this. I could set up a gambit system to manipulate my opponent and his friends, or I could spend 4 hours killing cacutar, walk in, and devour the place whole.

i loved ff12's battle system to be honest, i thought it was a bit different than the usual, but still good, like you mentioned, you COULD grind, or you could be tactical with your gambit setup and how your allies attacked. (I beat a level like 48 hunt big ass snake with all my guys at level like 39 if i remember right, i beat it with my last guy (baltheir) with a crossbow shot...probably my last crossbow shot to be exact.) <----that felt amazing, and didn't require grind, but if i found it too hard, i could've taken that path easily.


great...now i wanna go play that game again. too bad the main storyline was out of whack and alot of the characters in your party were..."meh" and "why are they even here?"

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I disagree with the premise. I do not think games are being dumbed down.

OT: I'd like to see some RPGs where you can grind if you want, or you can get buy through clever tactics and planning. Final Fantasy XII was a good example of this. I could set up a gambit system to manipulate my opponent and his friends, or I could spend 4 hours killing cacutar, walk in, and devour the place whole.

i loved ff12's battle system to be honest, i thought it was a bit different than the usual, but still good, like you mentioned, you COULD grind, or you could be tactical with your gambit setup and how your allies attacked. (I beat a level like 48 hunt big ass snake with all my guys at level like 39 if i remember right, i beat it with my last guy (baltheir) with a crossbow shot...probably my last crossbow shot to be exact.) <----that felt amazing, and didn't require grind, but if i found it too hard, i could've taken that path easily.


great...now i wanna go play that game again. too bad the main storyline was out of whack and alot of the characters in your party were..."meh" and "why are they even here?"

In terms of every FF of the new generations (7 and up) 12 had the weakest characters, second weakest story, but had the best side quests, and the second best battle system, so you take the good with the bad.

agreed on all that. in your opinion, which had the best characters? best battle system?

 

[ZombieGenesis]

The problem I find is that 'hard' by modern standards it pretty damn lax... I realise that standards have to change since not EVERY gamer nowdays is a hobbyist who's been gaming since they could walk. It's had to become more accessible or otherwise it would never grow.
However the other day I blew through Dead Space 2 on Zealot with minimal hardship, I remember chopping through CoD4 on Veteran, and I don't think I remember the last RPG I actually died in...

That's not me trying to brag, it's a genuine fault where the last CHALLENGING game I can name was the original version of Devil May Cry 3, and even then it was only the final boss in Dante Must Die mode that stood in my way.

I never beat it, and you know what? I'm glad. Are there any RPGs out there which demand this kind of determination?

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Skyrim is a casual game.

Call of Duty is a good example of why I like the way RPGs are up-front with their mechanics. There's quite a lot of math [http://denkirson.xanga.com/715966769/modern-warfare-2/] involved in CoD - it's just all behind the scenes. Now as a nerd who likes winning, I like to know exactly what stuff like slapping a silencer on my gun, adding a 25% damage bonus - or both - will affect things like my TTK and where I have to aim my sniper.

So, if I want to optimize my CoD character, I have to look up a chart on the internet. If I want to optimize a character in an RPG, the game will generally tell me what effect skills/perks/feats/proficiencies/items/etc. have on my damage/swing time/THAC0/damage reduction/etc. I prefer the game that understands that I'm a nerd who likes winning, and gives me the numbers up front.

And even with all that math it is still easy enough to pick up.

If you like math then go do math. You dont need a game for that. Go calculate the world. If you like solving objectives, then let that be the focus of your game. Not doing the math.

I've never done any math when playing a D&D game.
Regardless, maybe if YOU did some more math you would realize that turn-based is ALWAYS more tactical than real-time. Imagine if chess were real time. It would be a free-for all for who had the fastest hands, like those fighting games you mentioned are. That's not tactical.

What about Starcraft 2? It's super fast, yet very tactical, because you need to adjust your overall strategy to how fast you are. It's not about being fast (only in lower leagues), it's about proper timing and strategy.

I like both turn-based and real time games, but the fact that someting is real-time adds a little more to it. You have to refine your mechanics, how you hold and move your mouse, what your eyes are looking at, timing etc.

I think easy games exist nowadays because of casuals. I don't think they're bad, but once the casuals will demand tougher games, we will get them. In 20 years, TES9 is going to be harder than Dark Souls...or so I hope.

Skyrim is a casual game. I don't think TES will ever add any challenge other than big things which kill you in one hit.

 

[ZombieGenesis]

I've never done any math when playing a D&D game.

Then how the hell have you ever played D&D? As my University DM this perplexes me.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

I've never done any math when playing a D&D game.

Then how the hell have you ever played D&D? As my University DM this perplexes me.

Do you mean those attack scores and 1d8, stuff like that? Well yeah, I mean I look at those but don't do any math with them. But you're talking about the tabletop D&D aren't you?