I'd like them to be a bit harder than Xenoblade and the first Tales of Symphonia game.
I think Xenoblade did good in having a difficulty curve that went something like this:
New area pretty difficult at start getting easer as you progress and upgrade, then as it is about to get easier you meet a boss (usually pretty hard fights) and then new area again and repeat.
I want whatever works best for the game I'm playing. If that means simplicity then go for it, if not then that's great too.
There isn't just one kind of RPG and there isn't just one style of design for everything.
But personally, I like modern RPGs better anyways. I'm not usually a fan of number-heavy gameplay and I've never enjoyed extreme difficulty as I'm usually playing for other reasons
ZeroMachine said:
You know what I'd really, REALLY want?
For people to stop using the term "dumbing down". It's insulting, narcissistic, pathetic, and it makes you sound like you believe you're smarter than everyone that doesn't happen to be as good at games as you.
All you're doing by saying that is reinforcing the stereotype that gamers are a non-inclusive group of "elitists" who don't like the share.
NOW, more on topic- YES.
But, I would also like them to still be brutally difficult.
I'm totally ok with accessibility. I love to see people get into games they normally wouldn't enjoy. But the industry needs to find a way to make it so the same game can be played by someone new to the genre and still be a massive challenge to an old pro.
I can't wait for that to happen. Grimrock was a step in the right direction.
Mechanics and background systems should be simplified, generally speaking. As for games getting easier... Remember that difficulty is on a double sliding scale. The difficulty of a game is based on two things - how hard the developers make a game, and how good you are at playing games. For the most part, once we got past the Nintendo Hard [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NintendoHard] era of the 80's, many of which were problems of structural limitations, games have stayed at roughly the same difficulty, maybe a little easier. However, throughout this time period you have been playing games. You have been training for this for much of your life, and you've become quite good at them.
This makes games seem less difficult, when in reality you're just very good at them.
RE: the number-heavy thing in general, it's important to point out that RPGs aren't alone in number-heaviness. This [http://denkirson.xanga.com/756891604/bf3/] is what Battlefield 3 weapons look like under the hood. The only difference with RPGs is that they're generally more up-front about their numbers.
I do like depth in my games, and that's to a large degree disappeared in newer RPGs, either due to better streamlined game design, or due to dumbing down. Some people can't tell the difference between the two, sadly.
That being said, a lot of the things that caused me to die or reload more often in Baldur's Gate than in Dragon Age was due to bad game design, honestly. Having to rest/heal five times and save between them because I'll get ambushed by monsters when I try to sleep isn't good game design, and it doesn't make the game harder. It just makes it more frustrating. Also, even perfectly executed tactics in Baldur's Gate can lead to you getting screwed over and killed due to RNGs. I also didn't really like the fact that I had to move at snail pace through a lot of dungeons due to traps, and then hope my rogue detected them. It kills the flow, and doesn't even create atmosphere.
That being said, I do appreciate the fact that Baldur's Gate has more depth than Dragon Age. It's just that the depth in that game also involves some truly outdated and boring game design, and that's coming from someone who grew up with Black Isle.
Give me something like Dark Souls tbh. The fundamentals of that game are pretty easy to get due to a very good control scheme, skill is the most important facet of the game, although numbers also count quite a lot, and it punishes you hard for mistakes but makes it easy to understand what you did wrong.
I don't think we can make any broad statements on what sort of mechanic complexity is good. Mechanics should be whatever they need to be to make the game work. For instance, adding perks to Skyrim added a layer of complexity to TES character development, but I haven't seen very many people who think that was a bad decision.
Firstly we have to agree in to what do we mean when we say "rpg", because I for example, I'm not sure if Mass Effect is an rpg, or Final Fantasy the 13th. And don't ask me what I consider as rpg, because I thought I knew, but I have no idea anymore...
RE: the number-heavy thing in general, it's important to point out that RPGs aren't alone in number-heaviness. This [http://denkirson.xanga.com/756891604/bf3/] is what Battlefield 3 weapons look like under the hood. The only difference with RPGs is that they're generally more up-front about their numbers.
True enough, I suppose I should clarify that I don't mind it when numbers tell me what I can do as long as I have some simple way of working with the system rather then fighting it, but I can't stand it when they tell me what I can't do.
In the example of a shooter, if the numbers say I can now do more damage or my gun is more accurate that's great. If accuracy is a problem for that gun then I like being able to do something about it, like steading my scope for a limited time in COD or pacing my shots better in Reach.
Deus Ex 1 on the other hand might as well not even bother letting you aim your gun at all, since how well your shot lands is virtually entirely dependent on you character's skills. If I know I as the player have the ability to land a perfect headshot I don't want the game telling I'm arbitrarily not good enough yet to do so, there's no way that isn't frustrating. That's why I liked VATS, because by taking the combat entirely out of your hands it made it less annoying when it didn't work.
It's the same problem with failing to cast spells in Morrowind or not even being able to attempt high level locks in Fallout 3 or ME1. As far as I'm concerned leveling systems should be more or less about giving you new toys to play with rather then letting you unlock what you're already capable of doing.
Easier? No, not necessarily. But I would honestly rather have an easier game than one that just demands I spend X number of hours in each new area grinding for XP and/or money to buy equipment. I've been through enough of that in the 8 and 16 bit eras, I don't want any more of it now.
If you're going to give me a challenge in an RPG, make it an honest challenge. If I die every second battle because my tactics aren't right, cool. If I die every second battle because I haven't hit an invisible level based milestone, then screw off.
Well, it's pretty boring playing an RPG where every enemy (or even every boss)has it's weak spot that can be exploited for a godly win no matter how weak you are.
When you grind you raise stats and higher stats do more damage and raise defense. I would consider that more honest than "hit him with an ice attack".
I don't think we can make any broad statements on what sort of mechanic complexity is good. Mechanics should be whatever they need to be to make the game work. For instance, adding perks to Skyrim added a layer of complexity to TES character development, but I haven't seen very many people who think that was a bad decision.
I did say generally speaking, and by "simplified" I mean that most games shouldn't be "charts: the game". Overly complex mechanics are bad. Deep mechanics are good.
I could ramble on, but I'll leave it at this [http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/easy-games].
For people to stop using the term "dumbing down". It's insulting, narcissistic, pathetic, and it makes you sound like you believe you're smarter than everyone that doesn't happen to be as good at games as you.
All you're doing by saying that is reinforcing the stereotype that gamers are a non-inclusive group of "elitists" who don't like the share.
The question is: Could it be what you are describing merely as a stereotype, not to be just a stereotype, but the reality for the majority of gamers? I tend to believe the second.
I don't think we can make any broad statements on what sort of mechanic complexity is good. Mechanics should be whatever they need to be to make the game work. For instance, adding perks to Skyrim added a layer of complexity to TES character development, but I haven't seen very many people who think that was a bad decision.
I did say generally speaking, and by "simplified" I mean that most games shouldn't be "charts: the game". Overly complex mechanics are bad. Deep mechanics are good.
I could ramble on, but I'll leave it at this [http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/easy-games].
Once again, depends on the game. Crusader Kings II is basically Charts: The Medieval Bastard Simulator, and the level of emergent fun in that game stems directly from the complex mechanics. There's nothing wrong with a game that requires a little bit of system mastery from the player, as long as that game then goes on to allow the player to apply that system mastery in interesting ways.
I disagree with the axiom of the question. If modern RPGs are "dumbed down," that means old-school games were smart. I'm as nostalgic as the next guy, but old games were even more stupid than modern ones. The difficulty wasn't cerebral or meaningful, they were frustrating design flaws- extreme difficulty spikes, not knowing where to go to progress, "I gotcha!" traps, broken combat systems, no difficulty sliders, bugs, etc.
I think people tend to overrate old games (I know I've been guilty of this, too). It's easy to cherry-pick a handful of awesome games over a 25 year window and say "this is what games used to be like!" but it's just not intellectually honest. Instead, try remembering how much god-awful garbage you waded through in between discovering those decent ones. Trust me, you will recall a LOT of terrible games.
As proven by the PC audience of many many many games we want them to be more difficult, but in our specified ways.
For example I will play Fallout games as the Sniper unit. I will play the game on Normal or an easier difficulty. However I will expect that on the odd occasion when I am shot at, it hurts.
Therefore I mod. I change the difficulty to how, I want to play.
Game developer's change the difficulty to how you want to play or how they think the masses will want to play. I think... ok... I understand where they are coming from but surely they should have multiple difficulty settings. I hate it when a game gives you a difficulty setting it merely means the enemies do more damage or the enemies have more health... that's just pathetic.
We need more variation in the settings.
A basic example I'll use is the Total War series. There are 2 difficulty settings: The campaign difficulty. The Battle difficulty.
If you want the challenge of running an Empire then you turn up th difficulty of the campaign difficulty. In older games this provides fake difficulty by giving other Factions monetary boosts.
If you want the challenge of being in the tactical league of Napoleon Bonaparte, or Hannibal Barca then you stick the battle difficulty up so the enemy fight with ruthless cunning you must overcome in order to succeed. In older games again fake difficulty was added by increasing the moral of enemy units above what they should be, so you need to be more creative with your orders in order to wear out the enemy more and smash the enemy harder.
You believe yourself to be just a tiny bit of essence of what the man himself Sun Tzu was, then you stick both difficulties up.
The key is not to to add a single difficulty slider. Some people want a story... some people want to carry their severed limb across the map to that doctor who can fix it.
I personally like a challenge but one that does not get in the way of the story with COD4 Insanity, enemies with homing bullets and stupid amount of respawns >.>
Add multiple factors and sliders to people can get off on what they want to.
---------------------
An example of where Modders have stepped into help in this aspect is with Mount and Blade.
A lot of people play to ride around on a horse and beat people up... on a horse!
There are lots and lots of Mods for multiplayer, to add variety like this:
However people have gone to great extents to improve and try to un-break the single player game. There are many problems with the single player but one of them is the difficulty. Once you own a town and have a good amount of solid troops, you've beaten the game.
There is only 2 sets of difficulty settings really. How much damage you receive and how much your allies receive. Top difficulty being that you receive the same damage as your enemies can deal to you.
People have modded to make the world around you more challenging instead of just making more enemies.
Mount and Blade is one of these great games not because it is great out of the packet, but because you can turn it into whatever you want to.
--------------------
With all this in mind RPG's are becoming easier as developers are only designed to need 1 difficulty setting slider. They need to develop games that have multiple difficulty aspects to them in order to allow for everyone to be accommodated by the game, instead of just a single difficulty slider. Games should be made so people can adjust to what they want... automatically dumbing them down is retarded...
For people to stop using the term "dumbing down". It's insulting, narcissistic, pathetic, and it makes you sound like you believe you're smarter than everyone that doesn't happen to be as good at games as you.
All you're doing by saying that is reinforcing the stereotype that gamers are a non-inclusive group of "elitists" who don't like the share.
NOW, more on topic- YES.
But, I would also like them to still be brutally difficult.
I'm totally ok with accessibility. I love to see people get into games they normally wouldn't enjoy. But the industry needs to find a way to make it so the same game can be played by someone new to the genre and still be a massive challenge to an old pro.
I can't wait for that to happen. Grimrock was a step in the right direction.
*Applause* I agree with everything here, just yes. It's all about depth, simple rules with complex implications, if the difficulty is set low you can just breeze through it, and if it's set high it's a stimulating challenge as opposed to tedious number crunching. I always think it's a real shame when a developer makes a game exclusive for no real reason and is applauded by it.
You know what I like in RPG's these days.
fluidness.
I want to be there in the world, live, fight, quest.
I don't want to spend half the time in an inventory screen looking if my damage output will increase, if I take this 2D8 sword or keep using this 2D6+1.
Complexity is nice, but if I wanted to look at a spreadsheet again, I'd renew my EVE-Online license.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
