Poll: Who here actually wants RPGs to get easier?

[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.

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?

Indeed, mostly because I wasn't aware anyone played the computerised ones...
Actually been doing more tabletop than videogames lately.
Skyrim has become DnD, Old Republic has become Star Wars GURP, Space Marine has become Deathwatch...

So. Much. Math.

 

[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?

Indeed, mostly because I wasn't aware anyone played the computerised ones...
Actually been doing more tabletop than videogames lately.
Skyrim has become DnD, Old Republic has become Star Wars GURP, Space Marine has become Deathwatch...

So. Much. Math.

Well, this is in a computer gaming forum on a computer gaming site so I assumed you knew we would be talking about the computer game D&D.

 

[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.

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?

Indeed, mostly because I wasn't aware anyone played the computerised ones...
Actually been doing more tabletop than videogames lately.
Skyrim has become DnD, Old Republic has become Star Wars GURP, Space Marine has become Deathwatch...

So. Much. Math.

Well, this is in a computer gaming forum on a computer gaming site so I assumed you knew we would be talking about the computer game D&D.

Correction, this is a gaming forum.

 

[newdarkcloud]

I'm not against simplifying systems and knocking out needless complexity (in fact, I'm for the latter). But there needs to be some kind of depth coming from somewhere, either in how the player influences the world, the number of ways they can solve problems, customization of the character. Preferably all of these things.

 

[Flames66]

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.

I think that is the problem. Some people like this but many do not, so developers are trying to make games that appeal to as many people as possible in order to get more monez.

Personally, I would have probably quit the game after what you described and never played it again. I don't mind a bit of challenge, but I play games to relax and have fun so if it feels like banging my head on a wall then it is a complete waste of my time, effort and money.

What I think would improve gaming is more range in the difficulty settings.

 

[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?

Indeed, mostly because I wasn't aware anyone played the computerised ones...
Actually been doing more tabletop than videogames lately.
Skyrim has become DnD, Old Republic has become Star Wars GURP, Space Marine has become Deathwatch...

So. Much. Math.

Well, this is in a computer gaming forum on a computer gaming site so I assumed you knew we would be talking about the computer game D&D.

Correction, this is a gaming forum.

Welcome back to The Escapist, the internet's home for high-quality journalism and insightful commentary on the wide and wonderful world of videogames and gamer culture.

That's from the main page.

 

[Murmillos]

...gamer culture.

That's from the main page.

Indeed so. I don't know if you read, or even watch some of the features on this site, but they often talk about items that are other then just games.

 

[KefkaCultist]

and gamer culture.

I'd say that tabletop gaming constitutes as gamer culture. Video games are only a portion of the main conversation here. Anime, table top games, movie reviews, etc. They are all part of our "culture" and therefore perfectly discussable.
EDIT: Blah, my retort got ninja'd!

OT: No, I hate that RPGs have gotten so easy as of late. I mean, I don't want them to be uber-hard-mode, but I don't want to blast through them as some god character either.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

...gamer culture.

That's from the main page.

Indeed so. I don't know if you read, or even watch some of the features on this site, but they often talk about items that are other then just games.

Still, with 99% of the posts in the main forum about computer or console games, you might have guessed.

 

[Bostur]

It may be an ideal that is hard to achieve, but would you say that we wont get closer?

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 am sure you can make an intuitive and deep system depending on the situation. Blizzard is great at that very thing (they more or less invented the use of the skill tree with diablo 2. Or at the very least popularised it. A system that people can look at and graps almost the instance they see it). I think it can be done even better. And I think the gaming industry should try.

Of course we can do better than DnD rules. Copy/Pasting rulesets between different platforms usually don't make for the best results.

But I think there is an inherent trade-off between complex rules and good gameplay. Chess didn't reach it's popularity solely because of it's simplicty (it's actually one of the most complex of the classic boardgames), it reached popularity because the game managed to modestly grow its rules when specific needs called for it.
Civilization is another example, the first game was the simplest and the sequels got progressively more complex. But I think some of the later version got better because of it.

The objective in my opinion is to get the most gameplay/depth when rule complexity is increased. Depending on the game there is probably a sweet spot in this simplicity/complexity tradeoff.

For RPGs in particular I think it's true that many games have rule systems that are more bloated than they need to be. Many games could probably do with the 4 stats Offense, defense, hit points, energy. But simplifying the rule system is not the only approach. Another way to go could be to make more use of the exisiting complexity of a rulesystem, to allow the player more freedom and actions. Many modern games that we have started to call RPGs don't really allow for much activity outside combat.

 

[Mindless1]

The Problem with RPGs is that you can grind your way to victory in most of them. Most of the challenge comes from higher leveled monsters or cheap tactics. What RPGs need is some sort of non-stat based modifier to combat such as strategy (over come bad odds with tactics) or real time combat (I.E. demons' souls).

There is this one out there called Fortune Summoners, I only to play on my friends netty last night because he wanted me to see the combat. It plays like a side scrolling brawler kind of. You can only level up by finding fortune tokens (Think of the heart pieces from Zelda) that you have to fill by defeating enemies. After beating enemies you and filling up the token you can finaly level up. If you've filled your token then you have to find a new one some where hidden in the game before you can start trying to level up again. So the game kind of sets a level for your and you can't abuse a grinding mechanic to win.

Personally, my favorite grinding prevention technique is the game streamlining that Fire Emblem does. It simply doesn't allow for much grinding (outside of arenas, where it's easy to permanently lose characters), because the game only has a certain number of missions with a finite number of enemies. This makes it so that you can't just power your way through levels and you have to think about what characters you wanna use and distribute XP to.

I did rather enjoy a few Fire Emblem games but I did enjoy Zone of the Enders: Fist of Mars alot more. It was a great game for the GBA going around the same way. Like A tactics esque game with set amount of missions. It had an intereting combat flow. Attacks, Dodges, and Critical hits were not based on stats alone, but an almost shooting range esque mini game after selecting a target to attack. I felt the Rock, Paper, Scissors method of Fire Emblem turned me off from the game a little bit, but it was still a good experience. The only problem I have this types of games is that there always seems to be That Guy who ends up betraying you mid way through the game, and then you find out you wasted EXP,Stats, or equipment on them and you're just tempted to restart the game do metigate loss prevention.

 

[sextus the crazy]

Personally, my favorite grinding prevention technique is the game streamlining that Fire Emblem does. It simply doesn't allow for much grinding (outside of arenas, where it's easy to permanently lose characters), because the game only has a certain number of missions with a finite number of enemies. This makes it so that you can't just power your way through levels and you have to think about what characters you wanna use and distribute XP to.

I did rather enjoy a few Fire Emblem games but I did enjoy Zone of the Enders: Fist of Mars alot more. It was a great game for the GBA going around the same way. Like A tactics esque game with set amount of missions. It had an intereting combat flow. Attacks, Dodges, and Critical hits were not based on stats alone, but an almost shooting range esque mini game after selecting a target to attack. I felt the Rock, Paper, Scissors method of Fire Emblem turned me off from the game a little bit, but it was still a good experience. The only problem I have this types of games is that there always seems to be That Guy who ends up betraying you mid way through the game, and then you find out you wasted EXP,Stats, or equipment on them and you're just tempted to restart the game do metigate loss prevention.

The only useable character in Fire Emblem who betrays you is

Spoiler

Orson

from Sacred Stones and he's a high-level unit you get for one chapter and his betrayal is hinted at before and quickly revealed.

Oh and...

Spoiler

The Black Knight

from Radiant Dawn, but he was a villian from the previous game and your allying with him is just temporary. Not that you'll use him much because he's a max level Tier 3 unit who is impossible to damage.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

There's no doubt that for the past 20 or so years RPGs have increasingly been dumbed down to become more accessible. How many people approve of this?

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.

Your phrasing is bad and completely biased, so I said yes just to spite the poll.

True answer? It isn't that straight forward. The fact is that games have transitioned from being a game in a traditional sense, to being an experience. I feel that we have tailored way too many games to the experience, pampering the player and making him feel special with little effort on their part. However I like some games for the experience, not the challenge.

There are situations where I prefer something more cerebral, something that requires cunning and skill. Other times I just want to wail on a button and get results.

I have sympathy for people who don't get their fix for challenge, as it is hard to find a good challenge in games today. But... I'm not going to say that "Dumbing down" is inherently bad. It offers another level of entry, that doesn't require patience and skill. Like a rollercoaster or a cheesy flick, I don't have to do anything, just sit back and enjoy.

In the end, why can't we have both? There are changes happening in how the developer views their audience. The industry is slowly crawling out of their slump... just keep demanding it and we will see something sooner rather then later.

 

[jpoon]

Make the components slimmer and quicker, sure. But do not make things easier, that is exactly what ruining games means! I don't want an easy game, that shit is for babies.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

There's no doubt that for the past 20 or so years RPGs have increasingly been dumbed down to become more accessible. How many people approve of this?

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.

Your phrasing is bad and completely biased,

You haven't seen my E.E.Cummings and Joycean styled rantings yet. I'm not sure how I can provide you with an unbiased point of view though, scratching my head on that one :/

 

[gideonkain]

The Gothic games have always had an excellent sense of progression, you'd start the game, walk up to the nearest bird monster and be basically 1-hitted. So you learned to avoid them, and as time passed you would stop weaving around the dangerous mobs and start tackling single or double enemies only, eventually you were powerful to defeat any overworld enemy but could still easily die if you did not approach a situation tactically.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

There's no doubt that for the past 20 or so years RPGs have increasingly been dumbed down to become more accessible. How many people approve of this?

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.

Your phrasing is bad and completely biased,

You haven't seen my E.E.Cummings and Joycean styled rantings yet. I'm not sure how I can provide you with an unbiased point of view though, scratching my head on that one :/

I'll keep my eye open for those rants.

You can have an opinion and even convey that opinion from the start, but terminology puts weight too far on one end, without the added benefit of reason, which tends to break a discussion into a series of punches and cusses.

Just looking over your first post (and even the poll title):

Thread Title is fine, it's honest and it isn't pushing an agenda. Games are getting easier, but it's not saying it's necessarily bad... you're leaving it up for debate.

"Dumbed down"... nothing like a buzz word to rile up the hornets nest. You will rarely get clarity from a topic with such a buzz word, just anger and frustration from both parties or indifference from others. At worst you will get called a troll even if there is validity to your point. It dredges up painful reminders for the more seasoned gamers who feel neglected by the industry for the greater part of a decade, while also offending people who have found much enjoyment in games over recent years and don't want to be scrutinised for their choice past times.

No one will "approve" of dumbing down. That's like approving of ignorance and corruption... the implication behind the term "Dumb" is inherently negative. Unfortunately the more popular term "streamlining" is equally weighted in bullshit. It's a cop out term used by PR teams. The best way to do this poll is exactly how you did your title:
"Are games being Easy fundamentally bad?" or "Easy games, Good thing or bad thing?"

A lot of your topics seem to have this problem, despite most of them actually having an interesting point of view. They get weighted down by definitive statements without wiggle room for an actual discussion.

On a forum, the Opening Poster CAN set the tone for the rest of thread (though the first few responders can derail it pretty fast). It's why so few threads on this site get beyond the preconceptions and rarely get into actual discussions. It's just rhetoric and bile flung both ways. Too many OPs start a post like "I hate blah" or "Why all the blah Hate" and other similar declarations, which automatically puts the topic on the warpath (by pressing an opinion even before the first line is read). That is not how one would initiate a healthy discussion.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

There's no doubt that for the past 20 or so years RPGs have increasingly been dumbed down to become more accessible. How many people approve of this?

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.

Your phrasing is bad and completely biased,

You haven't seen my E.E.Cummings and Joycean styled rantings yet. I'm not sure how I can provide you with an unbiased point of view though, scratching my head on that one :/

I'll keep my eye open for those rants.

You can have an opinion and even convey that opinion from the start, but terminology puts weight too far on one end, without the added benefit of reason, which tends to break a discussion into a series of punches and cusses.

Just looking over your first post (and even the poll title):

Thread Title is fine, it's honest and it isn't pushing an agenda. Games are getting easier, but it's not saying it's necessarily bad... you're leaving it up for debate.

"Dumbed down"... nothing like a buzz word to rile up the hornets nest. You will rarely get clarity from a topic with such a buzz word, just anger and frustration from both parties or indifference from others. At worst you will get called a troll even if there is validity to your point. It dredges up painful reminders for the more seasoned gamers who feel neglected by the industry for the greater part of a decade, while also offending people who have found much enjoyment in games over recent years and don't want to be scrutinised for their choice past times.

No one will "approve" of dumbing down. That's like approving of ignorance and corruption... the implication behind the term "Dumb" is inherently negative. Unfortunately the more popular term "streamlining" is equally weighted in bullshit. It's a cop out term used by PR teams. The best way to do this poll is exactly how you did your title:
"Are games being Easy fundamentally bad?" or "Easy games, Good thing or bad thing?"

A lot of your topics seem to have this problem, despite most of them actually having an interesting point of view. They get weighted down by definitive statements without wiggle room for an actual discussion.

On a forum, the Opening Poster CAN set the tone for the rest of thread (though the first few responders can derail it pretty fast). It's why so few threads on this site get beyond the preconceptions and rarely get into actual discussions. It's just rhetoric and bile flung both ways. Too many OPs start a post like "I hate blah" or "Why all the blah Hate" and other similar declarations, which automatically puts the topic on the warpath (by pressing an opinion even before the first line is read). That is not how one would initiate a healthy discussion.

True, but who wants a healthy discussion anyway? Look at the media - they want controversy, not accuracy, that way they can generate a response and audience participation, generating sales. It's a point of view, yes it's biased, but there's 7 pages of discussion here - are you going to tell me that's 'unhealthy'?

I do sympathize with the noble intent of your moral crusading. Might I suggest though, that to fully correct the evilness of the world and its unhealthiness, you'll have to blame the other several hundred people who responded, 85% of whom agreed with me on the poll, and many in their responses.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

True, but who wants a healthy discussion anyway? Look at the media - they want controversy, not accuracy, that way they can generate a response and audience participation, generating sales. It's a point of view, yes it's biased, but there's 7 pages of discussion here - are you going to tell me that's 'unhealthy'?

Oh geeze... that's a can of worms I'm not going to touch tonight (the media thing). Also, I'm a preacher of quality over quantity