KissingSunlight said:
I want to thank everyone who have posted so far.
The first thing I want to say is I am curious about what do YOU like about RPG's? I am looking more for posts like this one.
To be honest, that still comes back to the same question I asked in my first post; Which RPGs?
To be honest I like most of them, but for vastly different reasons.
I like Dragon Age; Origins, Knights of the Old Republic and Pillars of Eternity because of their rich worlds and lore, because of the non-combat options for getting through many encounters, and because its focused on planning and problem solving, rather than on reaction times. The parts I didn't like in all these games were the parts where it was entirely combat focused, in a very long section of the game, with no other options to resolve things. The less creative parts, I guess you could say. The filler content. Otherwise I love them as games.
I love the Witcher 3, Dragon Age Inquisition and Deus Ex for the ability to really get into the role of my character by being them. I love the level of polish they still bring to the core story moments despite this, as well as some of the interesting abilities you unlock while playing that aren't just a +1 to damage, but that allow you to do new things in combat, or sometimes outside of it. I dislike how a lot of the game turns into a cheesy action game exploit a lot of the time, and how there is still plain old number based progression in a game where those numbers are near meaningless. I also dislike the huge amount of filler content in them all, necessitated by the open world choice - though some games are far more offensive with that then others.
I love the total freedom, amount of content, and the novel ideas in Skyrim. I hate the actual gameplay as that was not thought through at all.
I love the setting and story in Mass Effect, and how everything in the game world is there to build the feel of the world and story. I dislike the inventory being so shitty and the ton of duplicate guns you'll pick up. I also didn't find its combat as offensive as most, seeing it as an ok compromise between action game and RPG, and preferable to Mass Effect 2's Gears of War styled combat.
It really depends on the RPG as to why I like it. Different games offer different things, and I like them all for different reasons.
This recent interest in RPG's started last winter with World of Warcraft. I didn't realized the time and money you have to invest in the game. So, it ended up gathering dust. My next attempt was Dark Souls. Beating your head against a brick wall is fun. Until you passed out with a concussion. Right now, I'm playing South Park: The Stick of Truth. I quit in frustration the other night when I couldn't get the character to perform an action to advance the game.
I think this post sums up most of my experiences with RPG's in the past.
-snip-
The only other RPG games that I had played in the past was Knights of the Old Republic and Fallout 3. I liked the first game. Fallout 3 had too much information you have to remember that you have to keep playing or else you will forget it.
Ok, first things first, RPGs are going to require a large time investment. That's just how they are. There's normally a lot of dialogue and story being told, and that's before you start actually playing the game and completing missions, which tend to move slower than most normal game missions as they're almost never focused on twitch action reflexes. Then you've got the hub zones, where you'll stop of to do tasks like buying and selling equipment, or finding missions, that in most games you won't do as they're entirely linear. Then there's the huge abundance of side quests that often exist to be finished. It often takes me 80-100+ hours to finish my first playthrough of any given RPG, because I do everything, and there's a lot to do. You won't find many, if any, RPGs that play like your classic Battlefield or God of War where its over in 20-40 hours on average, sometimes less. A big part of RPGs is the story, and the world, and if you're not going to get immersed in them - its just going to drag on. That said, if you're fine with time investment...
You kind of put yourself in a difficult spot, as I think the sort of gameplay you're looking for isn't the sort of gameplay RPGs tend to offer. Action wise they're always going to be less actiony than God of War or something, because they also have progression to worry about, and the fact that that style of combat would often greatly clash with the rest of the feel of the game. The Top Down Isometric styled ones are always going to have more balance issues, due to the sheer number of 'moving parts' as it were, and this can make the games either extremely easy, or extremely hard. On top of that, its a puzzle; once you know the solution to the puzzle, you're good. Some games try to throw varied encounters at you - high health high damage single mobs in one room, lots of low health moderate damage mobs in the next, so the first you need focused DPS the next you need AoE, as one of many possible examples - but there is always a way to solve these problems [Otherwise it wouldn't be a very good game], and thus once you've figured out the solution, the game is quite simple and easy.
If you're looking to really get into an RPG, you have to be willing to invest into its world, and its story and characters, even if the combat isn't perfect. It can also help to pump points into non-combat stats; I can't tell you the number of times I've simply talked my way out of a combat encounter in an RPG, and that helps immensely when the combat isn't desirable. If what you'll want out of the game is really tight mechanics... You're almost always going to be disappointed.
That said, going through the games you've listed;
WoW: Most of it is the most generic stock standard RPG stuff of this day and age. Once upon a time, its design was somewhat revolutionary, allowing more players to get into RPGs while still offering depth. These days, almost every RPG has taken that formula, and often grown on from there. Its world is harder to invest in as its an MMO, and it is quite honestly designed primarily to have you grind your way through the lower levels constantly with skinner box rewards until you reach level cap. At level cap, the game itself actually begins. Multi-user Raid dungeons are often where the more interesting parts of the story occur, and where the more interesting mechanical depth is, or according to many used to, be found. Problems aren't just solvable by having a healer that pumps out more healing than the boss's damage. Positioning becomes important as patterned AoEs can wipe an unprepared party, side mobs spawn in and require a tank to co-ordinate and distract them so that they don't destroy your DPS characters. You need other tanks to keep aggro away from those DPS, which is easy in single player, but trying to coordinate 40 people to do this? A lot harder. Often times there are specific puzzle mechanics in a given boss fight that need to be figured out - for example, the boss will zap one player with a DoT spell, and become invulnerable while healing from that DoT, and you need to get the link between that player and the boss severed by moving some item in the room between them to stop the heal and make the boss vulnerable again. Its easy when you know how, mostly, but when you don't, trying to figure that out can be quite interesting. That said, by this point if you're doing these dungeons you've pumped hundreds of hours and hundreds of dollars into the game to get through the grind. They can be great experiences, its a shame the rest of the game tries to discourage you from getting there.
Dark Souls: An acquired taste, even among RPG enthusiasts. Its method of worldbuilding and story telling works great for some, others hate it. Its method of combat is loved, but many hate how unforgiving it is until you really get the hang of it. It expects you to die many times to figure things out, but sometimes makes re-doing that progress a chore. Its not really the sort of game I'd recommend to someone who doesn't play RPGs, to be quite honest. You've got to want what it offers before buying it. Its popular, but I don't see it having a ton of general appeal to non-RPG players, as its a lot harder to get into compared to other RPGs. That doesn't mean its actually hard as a game once you understand how things work, but its a pretty big paradigm shift from most normal games.
Stick of Truth I haven't played, but that sounds like some sort of bug or poor design choice. Can't comment beyond that.
KotOR: A classic of the RPG genre. Bioware have sadly stopped making that sort of game these days, but there are some that are kind of close. SW:TOR is the... Theoretically sequel but honestly it messes with the lore a lot and its just not what many asked for from a sequel. SW:TOR is, however, an easier to get into WoW. Similar style of gameplay and dungeons and skinner box and all that. No entry fee though, or subscription. Does still require a considerable time investment. It is more geared as a single player game in many respects, but most of the single player stuff is a drag. The MMO world really killed that side of it, and the multiplayer side of it can be fun, but again you'll want to drag through the grind of the single player in order to get there.
Its story telling and characterisation is much better than WoW, and that's what Bioware is known for, but a lot of it suffers in the MMO world. Can still be fun, but its not really the best example of the genre.
Dragon Age; Origins is the closest Bioware have made to KotOR in the modern age. Its high fantasy, instead of Star Wars, but mechanically its more similar, its single player and focused on that, and it works. Its got its problems no doubt; combat is your general top down isometric combat. You'll either love it or hate it. Sections like the Deep Roads, or the Fade, drag on way, way too long, especially after your first playthrough. Balance is... Questionable at best. Some things are really OP, others are useless. That said, its story, while reasonably generic, is very well told. Its characters are often well written and likable. You have a fair amount of freedom in how you play your character, and there are always choices to be made at the end of every arc, and even in the middle of many, which do actually affect the final outcome of the game. In those respects its great, but it may not be what you're looking for if gameplay and long time investment are concerns for you.
Fallout I haven't personally played, but they're Bethesda games. Pretty standard to have a ton of small, meaningless quests, pretty eh gameplay, somewhere between terrible and passable world building and characterisation, though some great lore, and a lot of freedom to just do what you want.
In terms of RPGs you haven't tried... The Witcher series is one option. 3 is arguably the best [some prefer 2], and the most recent. It does require a much larger time investment though because of all the side stuff you'll end up catching yourself doing. Its world building and characterisation though? Top notch. A lot of the side content is actually meaningful and thoughtful, rather than just filler, though a lot of it also isn't. The main story is pretty strong, the graphics are amazing, and its a very interesting world to experience. Combat is simpler than 2 in some respects, but also streamlined a lot more to get rid of some of the annoying flow breakers from 2. Its also a lot easier than 2. Well loved by many. If you're expecting the best action gameplay you've ever had out of it, probably not for you. If you're expecting to knock it out in a week, probably also not for you. If you're happy with passable gameplay, and to play for a long time for the rich world and story? Worth a try.
Two has strengths in being more linear, and thus far more focused. Less time investment required, and some parts of the combat and such are much harder than in 3. Story and characters and all that are often still great, as are the graphics and such. Biggest problem is it sometimes has problems with flow, with many things interrupting the flow of the game for some reason or other. You'll also likely run into the same problem as with Dark Souls until you hit a high enough level to literally triple your HP, as mobs of enemies will just eat you alive until then and you often don't have a way to tell they're coming without having played through a section before.
Also, in both games, you make choices that genuinely do change what happens in the game and the game world in a meaningful way, and which there is no right or wrong answer to. Two is, IMO, better for this as they're able to craft those changes better in a controlled environment, but 3 manages it still. Both have their faults, but both can be fun.
Mass Effect, as a series, might also work for you. 1 is my favourite, 2 is widely considered the best, 3 is seen as having the best gameplay but utterly falling apart on the story front, for various reasons even outside the ending.
One's gameplay is... Clunky. It works. Its not like its offensively terrible and unplayable. But its very different to the general third person shooter conventions of the day, and not really designed to offer great action game feedback. For example, the accuracy of your guns and your ability to stably aim while sniping is determined by how many skill points you've put into that particular weapon. Control of the Mako vehicle is also... interesting. I have personally never had a problem with it, but it is very reactive. Tell it to turn, its going to turn fast. This often results in many flips and impossible to right situations. The inventory is just... Bad. Its functional, just, but its a chore to use. Which is a shame, considering you'll have to use it fairly often thanks to an arbitrary inventory cap requiring you to clear stuff out all the time. One by one. For hundreds of items.
That said, I find the gameplay does have its own charm, and fits the feel of the game. It is a slower game, and one based more I guess on the old Star Trek days of being down on a planet and watching what happened. There was some camp charm to those episodes, and that campiness is in the mechanics for Mass Effect. Story wise though? Brilliant. The best in the series. It is what started the insane popularity of the franchise, and honestly flung Bioware into the mainstream. Its not necessarily anything new, again, but it is executed brilliantly, and has a ton of great moments. The characters are mostly good. They're not as well written as in 2, but they've all got some personality, and something meaningful to say. It touches on a lot of social issues through these characters too, and through its side quests, while its main story is a space epic adventure. Additionally, there are choices that you make through the game that have a sort of immediate impact in your mind and change the world there, but sadly all are retconned as of Mass Effect 3.
Mass Effect 2 changed the gameplay to be tighter and more focused, and more akin to Gears of War. Its not perfect, but it flows a lot better, and feels less clunky. At the same time, the game became a lot more linear to accompany this. Mako was removed, and was replaced with a shitty tissue paper tank [3 shots from a turret and its dead. Your character personally can take more than that], for a number of purely optional missions, though one of them {Overlord} was actually worth it. The characters have a lot more personality put into them, and are the stars of the game. At the same time, the story turned into generic Michael Bay/Jar Jar Abrams shit to be quite honest. Lots of action and explosions and fights and things that don't make sense but sound cool, and a lot of the details driven greatness from the first game being lost. That said, nothing was offensively bad with it, and it still had some amazing moments, but story wise it wasn't as good as 1. For you, I'd recommend 2 because you prefer gameplay it seems, but honestly you should still play 1 to experience its story.
Mass Effect 3 made the gameplay the best its been. It flowed better than 2, while containing more options that had existed in 1. Enemy variety increased, with new novel methods to fight each enemy required, and honestly it was pretty good there. Story wise? It kind of fell apart. It starts of pretty nonsensical, and just gets worse and worse as time goes on. You can tell the writers had written themselves into a corner, and while there are some great CHARACTER moments, almost every STORY moment is contrived to create these character moments, and often also just doesn't make a ton of sense. Everyone behaves out of character, the main enemy is almost entirely replaced by a minor side threat, there's a lot of just plain nonsense that's there to make a Michael Bay scene, more so than in 2, and this is before we get to the ending and the nonsense they tried to force there. There's also a lot of moments when the game runs like ass, like with the half a minute loading time walking between the main part of your ship, and the war room. Its painful. Some love the game, but the general reaction... I'm sure you saw the internet melt down a couple years back. Kim Kardashian doesn't break the internet. Mass Effect 3 did for all the wrong reasons.
But to go out to a more general level, if you want to get into RPGs, you need to be looking for an experience that you can immerse yourself in, and wanting a longer term time investment into a world, its lore, its characters and a story. Gameplay, whether great or terrible, comes second to this in what makes RPGs enjoyable. If you don't have time to get sucked into a long story, or aren't really that into the idea of that, then you're probably not going to find many RPGs you'll enjoy, as the Role-Playing part where you immerse yourself into your character and the world, is where a lot of the genre's appeal comes from [And its kind of the name of the genre too =P]
