Poll: Who here actually wants RPGs to get easier?

[Indecipherable]

The classic D&D RPGs that follow the rules strictly at low levels are just a nightmare. One hit and you can be dead, every attack is crucial and a single strike decides everything.

Unfortunately those don't make for fun play, they are just luck. You have next to no abilities so your strategies are significantly less than what they will be later, so it's just chance on some encounters. I don't care for that at all. A game should become more difficult over time and the beginning should introduce you to the gameplay and let you develop what works and what doesn't. Old school D&D games violate this.

I'm quite happy for them to introduce sliding difficulty bars (which most RPGs have) and put one up at some extreme level to satisfy you, but for me? No. I like challenge but some of the older games were pointlessly binary with life/death where if you went the wrong = certain death. Or having 6 hp and a single attack from an axe deals 1d8. No skill there, just load/reload/reload/win!

 

[Smooth Operator]

They just need a more advanced difficulty setting, because there really is no problem automating half the game for lower difficulties, but of course if you don't make it complex in the first place you save money on production while still retaining 90% of the player base, or possibly even advertise it for granny and go far beyond your usual numbers... so guess what the accountants go for.

 

[Don Savik]

Just make a game that takes skill to play certain content. GW2 looks promising with its dungeons.

I don't understand playing an mmo like some people do (facebook with an auction house)

To me, that mindset needs to die. The role of mindless economy drone shouldn't exist unless it suits the overall gameworld (ie EVE Online).

"I don't understand it, therefore it needs to die." Not really how you want to come across with people. *shrug* Not that I'm in favor of that playstyle, but there must be a reason for it, I suppose.

And "skill" in games is something that's just too vague of an expression; I mean in the end it's still just hand-eye coordination and memorizing patterns most of the time. Reflexes aren't a "skill", on the other hand, and I do dislike "twitchy" games.

That said, any move to make an RPG less clunky is a good one, because when half your boss battle is against the game's interface, someone screwed up somewhere.

On the contrary my good Vego, I do understand it. Auction house sentry duty is the best way to make money if you're good at it. But that's the problem, there is no other way in these games to make money as fast as an auction house tycoon. And what do they do with all this money? Sit at the auction house some more. Riveting. What bugs me about it is that these people are all but oblivious to the magical game-world around them because the auction house is too powerful. I just think the system needs to be redone in a way that suits both adventuring and economy.

Edit: I know I contradicted myself, I know WHY, but I don't know WHY people would want to deprive themselves of gameplay to do it.

 

[Knight Templar]

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

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

It really, really depends.

Obviously, indiscriminate dumbing down is bad. I don't think I even need to give an example for that, games with an "I win" button are seldom fun.

However, take the Elder Scrolls series. A lot of people were upset about how much the stat and level systems were dumbed down from Oblivion to Skyrim, but in my opinion the old system was complex to the point of being broken. You started the game in Oblivion (and Morrowind, at least) by declaring what you wanted to be, and therefore which stats were important to you, and then you leveled up based on those stats. However, you still had access to all the other stats, which you could also improve, and the world leveled up only with the stats you declared you wanted.

All of this combined, basically, to create a situation where if you wanted your character to be a bad-ass mage, you told the game you wanted to be a warrior. Then you leveled up your sewing and harmonica playing skills (unrelated to both) exactly 7 and a half times each level in order to get enough stat boosts to compete with the monsters that were leveling up when the game thought you were getting more powerful... which had, in reality, precious little to do with when you were actually getting more powerful.

Now, you could say that this sort of thing adds complexity and depth, but for me what that system did was force me to constantly think about the nuts and bolts of how the game worked, that forced me to constantly play the game backwards and do things for reasons that made no sense in the game universe in order to win. Sure, the extra skill juggling was harder, but it was also less immersive and more annoying, as opposed to providing any sort of legitimate, in-game challenge. It was the difficulty of doing your taxes by hand... undeniable, but of limited merit when compared to other options.

That said, I'm all for RPGs getting more accessible, as long as they still leave me something to do, and I'm all for RPGs getting harder, as long as the challenge is the sort that adds to the experience rather than detracting from it.

 

[bjj hero]

Games are getting easier. I beat some really nasty titles back in the day like Gouls and ghosts, Super probotector, captain commando, Druid II, most of the megaman titles. Even early D&D titles on the genesis.

The difference today is disposable income. Back then you got very few games so you had to get on with it and play them through, you would not get a new title until christmas. Now new games come along all the time, if you get stuck you move on rather than poser through.

I do like games which need tactics or improved skills to win, rather than another hours grinding. So difficulty is relative.

Reflexes aren't a "skill"

Maybe not but they improve with practice.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

Easier? Hell no. Unless i turn RPGs onto nightmare difficulty i can normally complete them without dying once, even without using healing potions/spells or whatever.

There's no need for games to be dumbed down or made easier.
Have difficulty options sure but dumbing down doesn't help anyone. If you think your game is complicated actually work on decent tutorials for it.

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

Don't the old kind of RPGs get easier as you level up? That's one thing I have been wondering to be honest. I've always thought that if at level one you're getting destroyed, surely the game must reward you very strongly each time you level up.

That's always going to be an issue in RPGs, i suppose. When you level up and buy new, powerful stuff then you might out-level the game which is something a lot of people, myself included, experienced in Dark Souls. You spend the first half of the game getting your face pounded into your stomach and later on you find yourself dancing circles around the big boss monsters. I can't really see a way to work around that with a leveling-based combat system.

OT: I really don't think calling back to the old days of RPGs sound like a very good idea. At least not in terms of gameplay because what little i've managed to try my hands on and have later on seen from late 80's early 90's RPGs have been things i really would just throw my hands up and not care about. Also the copious amounts of grind.

Sure, it would be nice to see some genuine challenge, but that doesn't really apply only to RPGs now, does it? But as was mentioned earlier in the thread... if i have to spend several hours on the freakin' start-up menu to tweek my character and/or party and still run the risk of being slaughtered everywhere i just don't see the point. And if i'm made to grind to level up to take on whatever roadblock was there then that doesn't make things better. Some apparently see the grinding as the core that should hold every RPG together, but personally i tend to despise it 'cause it's rarely neither fun nor challenging.

I like to level as i go instead of leveling up and then get to go.

EDIT: Oh yeah, i couldn't really answer the poll because i don't feel like dumbing games down is a very good idea, but i do like the fact that managing inventory/skills/abilities/party members etc. has become more manageable. Dark Souls didn't explain any of the attributes either in-game or in the manual and i know for a fact i'm not the only one who was annoyed by that, because it's sort of important to know those things when trying to build a character.

 

[distortedreality]

I think your poll is inherently flawed with the use of the term "dumbing down", so much so that it's pretty much useless.

Games can be simplified and streamlined without becoming easier or dumbed down, Witcher 2 is a case in point. If anything, it got harder, partly due to it's simplification compared to the Original.

I've just done a playthrough of Chrono Trigger, and - while i've always loved the game, and it still holds up remarkably well today - I have to say after playing it, I immediately felt like doing a Witcher/KoToR/Mass Effect/Deus Ex playthrough, partly because I wanted a game to show how far the genre has come in the intervening 20 years or whatever it is.

 

[Skoldpadda]

I started playing a 22 year old RPG (I won't say which one) and after spending 2 hours creating my party got massacred nearly every battle. I'm no stranger to RPGs either and consider myself experienced and a reasonably good player.

The point is, I like this. It gives a sense of challenge and adversity which needs smart thinking to overcome. Modern RPGs don't have this. Even Legend of Grimrock was easy.

Why wouldn't you say which one? Assume I agree with your assessment about the dumbing down, and I'd like to play a complex and challenging one. Here you are, not willing to share. Forcing me to go back to ME-simplicity, and making you part of the problem in a way.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

I started playing a 22 year old RPG (I won't say which one) and after spending 2 hours creating my party got massacred nearly every battle. I'm no stranger to RPGs either and consider myself experienced and a reasonably good player.

The point is, I like this. It gives a sense of challenge and adversity which needs smart thinking to overcome. Modern RPGs don't have this. Even Legend of Grimrock was easy.

Why wouldn't you say which one? Assume I agree with your assessment about the dumbing down, and I'd like to play a complex and challenging one. Here you are, not willing to share. Forcing me to go back to ME-simplicity, and making you part of the problem in a way.

I'm talking about Pool of Darkness. It's complex in its party dynamics and the huge possible combat arrangements and tactics, and challenging in its ability to extract mistakes. But there's a ton of those types of games back there.

 

[getoffmycloud]

I would like to see more complex RPG's that have a combat system that doesn't rely on dice rolls because you can be the best player in the world but still lose because all your characters miss attacks through no fault of your own.

 

[bluegate]

I liked FF13 when it came out, it was a breath of fresh air of sorts.

It had battles that were challenging but it also had aspects that would entitle the game to the 'RPG for dummies' award.

For example, when you died in a battle, instead of having to load your savefile, you just started right in front of the fight you lost; no progress loss, just an easy flow of gameplay.
Or what about how you were healed after every fight so that you wouldn't have to worry about healing your party between battles, no more hogging those pesky potions, etc.

I like the more risky RPG as much as the next guy, but at the time I liked the more secure nature of FF13 and the feeling that no matter what you did, you wouldn't be affected by it in a negative way. Some RPGs in the past would have a hybrid system, such as giving you the option to load a savefile but retaining all the items you found and exp you had gotten ( suikoden if anyone is wondering ).

At least, these are the RPGs that I usually play ( JRPGs ), and at times yes, I think that making them a wee bit easier in the way discussed above wouldn't be a bad thing persay.

 

[babinro]

Do I want the mechanics and background systems simplified? Absolutely.
Do I want them to get easier? No.

I feel they are doing a great job with varied RPG's that are eaasier to get into but still challenging at the proper difficulties.

 

[New Vegas Samurai]

I think I'd have to say the best example is the DA series.
It's not original idea, but yeah, the two games in the series comprises two very different play styles after all.

I liked Dragon age one because the farther you got, or the higher the difficulty you set it on, the more tactics you have to use and the more diverse your team has to be. For dragon age II, I kind of enjoyed the fight system, but it was also how I managed to get through the game with little to now effort.

My vote really goes to challenging difficulty and tactics, but not to the point where it becomes an unbearable trudge through hell.

 

[Sixcess]

I like to know that a game can kill my character if I play badly.

Recently in World of Warcraft I was taking part in the Ironman Challenge - in which you try to level a character 1-85 under a set of player devised (and entirely unofficial) restrictions: no stat boosting gear, no class specialisation, and perma-death so if you die once it's over.

By level 60 I had about 1/2 to 1/3 of the hit points and damage output I should have had at that level, and my crowd control and other utility abilities (most of which are tied to class specs) were severely lacking. When I finally hit Outland at level 62 (4 levels after the 'recommended' level) every fight was a life or death struggle. One mistake and it'd all be over.

I was totally focused on my surroundings, read every word of quest text so I knew exactly what I was getting into and approached every quest as if it was an endgame raid. I can safely say that I've never played better than I played for those levels - squeezing every iota of performance out of my build that I could, and then some. It was the best experience I've ever had in WoW.

In the regular game on the other hand, now that it's been streamlined for wider accesibility and faster levelling to endgame, after about level 20 I'm nigh on invincible and the revamped world makes it impossible for me to pick up higher level quests so even if I want a challenge there's none to be found. And as a result I play really really badly, and die to stupid things, because when a standard 'boss fight' won't leave me at less than 80% health there's no reason at all for me to concentrate. I don't even bother learning my class properly because there's no need - 3 or 4 abilities will carry me through almost every encounter.

So I get bored, and quit.

That's an extreme example but I suppose what I'm saying is that if there's little to no risk then I'm far more likely to lose interest. I don't want to be dying to every trash mob, but I want a game to reward skill and punish stupidity.

 

[Vegosiux]

Recently in World of Warcraft I was taking part in the Ironman Challenge - in which you try to level a character 1-85 under a set of player devised (and entirely unofficial) restrictions: no stat boosting gear, no class specialisation, and perma-death so if you die once it's over.

Well...considering you can level purely by mining and picking flowers now, I guess that needs to fall into the "rules" too.

 

[Sixcess]

Well...considering you can level purely by mining and picking flowers now, I guess that needs to fall into the "rules" too.

It does, but I was giving the short version. No professions are allowed except for first aid, which gives no xp.

For anyone interested here are the full rule of the challenge.

 

[Skoldpadda]

I started playing a 22 year old RPG (I won't say which one) and after spending 2 hours creating my party got massacred nearly every battle. I'm no stranger to RPGs either and consider myself experienced and a reasonably good player.

The point is, I like this. It gives a sense of challenge and adversity which needs smart thinking to overcome. Modern RPGs don't have this. Even Legend of Grimrock was easy.

Why wouldn't you say which one? Assume I agree with your assessment about the dumbing down, and I'd like to play a complex and challenging one. Here you are, not willing to share. Forcing me to go back to ME-simplicity, and making you part of the problem in a way.

I'm talking about Pool of Darkness. It's complex in its party dynamics and the huge possible combat arrangements and tactics, and challenging in its ability to extract mistakes. But there's a ton of those types of games back there.

Thanks, I'll try to find it!