What elements make a good RPG?

[Stone Cold Monkey]

I had been playing the webRPg Mechquest when I realized that the game almost completely relies on luck since I didn't have a whole lot of options, and the game is almost only giant robot battles. While I became irritated at the hundreds of battles just to buy that shiny new auto cannon, I kept playing. Why I don't know. As I checked the on site forum to determine maybe if I was missing something, I found few complainants of the huge number of fights just get a little better. If fact many of the players seemed to enjoy the repetitiveness of the game. It had me wondering, 'what elements of a RPG do gamers enjoy?'

I also want say up front that I believe Fallout 2 is the best video game RPG. That is not what I getting at. I want ask everyone what elements of RPGs they enjoy when they play them and maybe an example of game that used it. To help this discussion, I will try to break down some various parts of RPGs for more specific answers.

Genre: Does the genre matter to you? Most of the popular RPGs are of the fantasy sword and sorcery type. I will include KOTOR as your character does wield a sword (lightsaber) and magical powers (force powers). Is this genre you prefer or would you like to see other such a more Sci-Fi like Mass Effect or Fallout, Horror such a Vampire, Superhero as in City of Heroes, or something else completely different?

Character Creation: How do you feel about basically playing a character that designers wrote like in most Final Fantasy games? These games typically have your character much more involved in the story world, but can hamper the choices available to the player making the game feel more like an interactive movie. Personally, I prefer the games that allow the player to make their own character with as many options as possible in customization. Sure these types tend to be the stoic hero with no past type that are almost never referred my their player given name, but that is small price to pay for a person I created.

Allies: Which do you prefer, games with team of adventurers or heroes, or your character by themselves (i.e. Elder Scrolls) against the world. In the case of teams, how do you like games that don't allow to control you teammates but give them personality traits they follow instead. That was one of the things I always had an issue with Fallout 2 which caused my character to travel mostly with only one companion due to a large group shooting each by accident at first and on purpose later.

Combat: Real time or turned based combat? Random encounters or one you see coming? For the longest time video game RPGs had nothing but constant random encounters that everyone got a turn. However, as technology increased, this old stand by to could dropped, but some games like Lost Odyssey still use this trope. What are your feelings about this?

Scope: Nearly all RPGs have the entire world in the balance, and in some games several times. Do you think it possible for a RPG to have a more limited scope (I know some do) or because of their epic nature must have an epic scope?

Inventory Management: I have a hard time thinking of a RPG that doesn't have a fairly extensive inventory management system in place. It seems hand in hand with the genre like hit points and experience. Do you think this is must and if so how extensive to you like to see it? From click and drag to spread sheets that daunt accountants RPG have it all.

Level/Skill Progression: Early video game RPGs were made up largely of level grinding. You had to wander around in some forest fighting slimes until you could reach a high enough level to move up to fighting drakees and ghosts. I want to know how enjoyable you find that. Personally, I tend to find this tedious and artificial game lengthiness.

Power: How powerful do you like your character to be both at the beginning of the game and the end? Many games start you so weak that rat fighting is a challenge. By the end of the game your dispatching mega-zombie dragons in a single round. Final Fantasy (my whipping boy of RPGs) seemed to have this problem so much that some of last teammates you have join could have wipe the floor with your character if they met at them beginning.

I'm sure I could think up other elements to discuss, but I'm still quite new to the site and I figure this topic will generate a few good debates.

Thank you for reading
and Happy Gaming!

 

[Dectilon]

Genre: I don't care about the setting. I don't mind D&D or Neotech, but I'll take a unique world like in Torment or Bloodlines if possible

Character Creation: I often prefer premade characters because that ups the chance of the script not sound dorky. Kotor 2 was excellent, but it still feels weird when you can switch from flower child one second to malicious murderer the next, and no one really comments on it. It also bothers me that since NPCs often hold long monologs after every sentence that escapes your character you sound like a moody thirteen year old regardless of what you wanted to play (except for in Torment, where you actually get longer and wiser lines as your wisdom goes up ^^). I guess games like FF6 is an example. The characters are set in stone, but once in WoR you can go where you want and do side-quests to regain lost characters, or leave them to their fates.

Allies: I prefer to have some allies. Partly because it seems only natural that you have friends and acquaintances just like everyone else, but also because it just gets lonely sort of. Without anyone to relate to your character as anything else than an automated questing service it starts to get dull and gray for me. The Witcher is okay in this regard (while Oblivion really wasn't) because many characters return to throw you a line here and there whatever else you're up to, and although the voice acting is painful at times they do try to create friends and lovers to whom you actually mean something.

Combat: Turn-based or real time doesn't matter to me. Both have their charm. Some games (like many mmorpgs) pretend to have real-time combat but are in fact turn-based, and that kind of combat I don't like much. If it is to be turn-based I want to have time to evaluate my choices and strategize, be it to earn the most xp, weaken an enemy so I can capture it or just what way I can destroy the enemy with as little effort as possible I want to have precise control over every more the characters make. In Kotor it was okay still, because you could paus, but it was annoying how you had to switch over to give orders (orders not always followed). If it's real-time I want something like Fable where your skills at blocking and dodging is what gets you out of the harder fights, not how many enemies you killed before coming there.

Scope: The scope doesn't matter as long as it feels plausible (for that world) and well-implemented. At least half of The Witcher (because I'm only half through the game) takes place inside one city. Whether the world hangs in the balance or not I'm not sure of yet. For now, all I'm trying to do is prevent a war and stop a murderer, and that's scope enough for me. I do fine with "save the world" or even "save the universe" as long as the story is well-written.

Inventory: It depends on what I'm playing. Games like D2 are practically built on the idea of collecting and utilizing tons of gear (and selling tons of useless gear). I've grown tired of this idea lately, and now I prefer if most of everything I pick up has a use for something. Kotor had a pretty good level of this. Sure, you got some useless stuff now and then, but more often than not it was a slight improvement of what you already had, so it felt useful.

Level Progression: I think it should be optional. There's an old jrpg called Lufia 2 where you at one time fights this half-god. If you haven't ground any up to this point he finishes off your entire party with one attack, but the game continues from this point; you're supposed to lose. However, if you grind and grind you can actually defeat him there, stealing away his sword before he escapes. Same thing in FF7. If you grind a bit just as you leave midgar, getting a Fire materia to lvl 2 you can get the Beta spell off of the Midgar Zolom right off the bat, making a good bit of the game from thereon much easier.

Power: Final Fantasy is hardly alone at having ridiculiously powerful characters late game. What rpg doesn't have you slaying dragons or siths with one hand behind your back towards the end? I played this tactical rpg a while back (it was an untranslated japanese game, and I don't remember the name) where most of the enemy generals join you once you defeat them. They are often a bit stronger than you were to make them meaningful as "boss"-characters. However, there are some characters that join you when you complete sidequests and the like, whom are much weakers than you, but if you level them up they can (sometimes) become some of the strongest in the game (especially after class changes). I think Suikoden had things arranged similarly, and it worked well. Still, it depends on what you're trying to do.

 

[Natural Hazard]

Genre: Generally to me the genre doesn't matter, i think we have quite a few fantasy RPGs out, however only a few good ones. Personally i would like to see more games heading generally in a more Sci Fi sort of way, such as mass effect.

Character Creation: It depends on the game, generally in an RPG like Final Fantasy for instance, i would like characters created by the developers, as this gives them the opportunity to create very personal storys for them. However, character customisation in say Oblivion, where the game is open-ended, i feel the option should arise. Take a look a Two Worlds, it really bugged me when the character customization, even though it was there, was so very limited.

Allies: I always have the problem with allies, sometimes you have too many that most are put on the backburner, like it FF and most recently Lost Odyssey. But once again, Oblivion, it seems very quiet and dull sometimes so having some allies, only 3-4 is always a win.

Combat: Strictly turn based, this is a personal preference. Mainly becasue it allows me to strategize more and think what i am doing than sat there aimlessly attacking and hoping something happens. One of the reasons i hate FF 12... is the poor battle system, which for some reason is voted as one of the strong points.

Scope: I think there should always be one main point of interest in a RPG, to cut the story at some point. However i believe there should be more options to take a turn more, take a diffent route but always ending up at the same place at the end. I played a game called Farenheit [Not an Rpg], it allowed you to make certain decisions that would effect certain parts of the game, however it still ended with a primary route.

Inventory Management: I personally don't mind confusing inventory managment, it means i have to take a more hands on approach to things, than just sat their aimlessly pressing a button do use certain items.

Level/Skill Progression: Grinding, takes time yes, but all good things don't come free. Especially in RPGS, even though i am sat grinding for a few hours, it helps me understand my characters strengths and weaknesses, and also different strategies i can think up off to take down enemies. Hence why i like turn based.

Power: The problem is the characters that join need to be upto par with your party, or you may find yourself in a rough spot. Personally i agree sometimes characters are a little overpowered, easily solved by making the enemies much harder. Oblivion however.. has a very poor system which is the horrible level scaling of enemies... Thats a No No

 

[EnzoHonda]

I'll say a few important elements and add a few.

Genre: I find I'm generally more forgiving of problems in games that take place in a modern or futuristic setting. I especially enjoy games that have a tie-in with the real world. Vampire Bloodlines, Deus Ex, Mass Effect, Xenosaga, etc.

Urgency: Here is one of my biggest pet-peeves. A game developer makes a huge world with a lot to do: Mass Effect, Oblivion, Baldur's Gate II. Then they make the main story super important and time-sensitive. I have to save all life in the galaxy, but I'm going to spend my time surveying planets? My childhood friend is locked away in a horrible prison with a madman who tortured her, but I'm going to spend my time doing Fed-ex errands for people I don't know?

Realtime/Turnbased: I like turnbased or a Baldur's Gate-esque realtime if I'm controlling a group. Realtime, first-person for a single-player adventure.

Dialogue: If I'm one character (like in Planescape Torment or Fallout) I need dialogue options. If my perspective jumps around (like in Xenosaga) I'm fine with going along with the characters.

 

[edinflames]

I think I could go on for long time trying to list the differences between the RPGs I love and the RPGs that bore the crap out of me. For a start I have never enjoyed J-RPGs like FF - though this is due mostly to the combat-interface and aesthetics. So I'll try to keep it brief:

Story - What is it exactly that creates a truly compelling story in an RPG? A sense of personal involvement, I suppose. Baldurs Gate (and BG2, though the expansion pack concluding the story was not as good) achieved this with the brutal murder of your guardian/parent and then tying the subsequent revenge narrative into the unfolding world events around you, all the while trickling down information as to your protagonist's true identity. Ultimately, unless you are trying to build a genuine ROLEPLAYING mmo (and even if you are, to be honest) an in-depth story should characterise the genre. However, I did enjoy Diablo 2 despite the absence of any personal involvement in the story, except as an arbitrary hero.

Choice - I'll be honest, if an RPG doesnt have a character creation system (with as many variables as possible please - D+D or D20 is a very robust framework with volumes apon volumes to draw from, but a game-specific 'rules-set' is often better) then it isn't a proper RPG. Furthermore, the choices you make in character creation should have serious consequence on how you experience the game world; because involving, stimulating interactive and interesting worlds, or the illusion of them, should be what defines the genre and differently composed individuals experience their worlds in a slightly (or significantly) different manner. I'm not even going to go into the issue with regards to dialogue choice etc, because it should go without saying. Fallout and Fallout 2 really are, in my mind, the best ever examples of this.

With regards to allies/party-members I am of the belief that they must be compelling themselves, with some kind of narrative, or else they are naught but weapons that swing/fire by themselves. KoTOR (or KoTOR 2, I can't remember) was good for this, as was Fallout 2 (something lacking from the original) and Baldur's Gate (to a lesser extent).

And with regards to character development/levelling-up, Khell_Sennet hit the nail on the proverbial head in the above post.

Ultimately, the intention of these core RPG atrributes is (or at least, should be) the 'immersion' of the gamer into the game. A good RPG should be like a good book, only you can play it differently each time around and you decide exactly how the bad guy dies.

Oops. It seems I forgot to keep it brief.

 

[Nickolai]

Genre: It's all the same to me. Fantasy, modern, whatever.

Character Creation: Again, all the same. Whether my avatar's pre-set or custom made, it doesn't add or subtract from my experience.

Allies: Depends. If it's like a party where I can control everyone, then yes please. If they're computer controlled, then they'd have to be either smart or have Final Fantasy 12 style Gambits available. Nothing pisses me off more then wasting heal spells/items on an idiot who think attacking the big evil monster at the end that bites is a good idea.

Combat: I've nothing against true turned based. The FF ATB system I've always had a thing for. I prefer real-time however, as it's much more choatic. Less time to think, which results in you improvising on the fly. It's lead to me doing some things in games I didn't know were possible. Mass Effect, with the option to do a stand-by thing to select abilities,
had my favourite combat system so far. Final Fantasy 12 is right behind.

Scope: I like epicness. Big awesome epic worlds. But if you don't have enough content to fill said world, then I'm gonna be pissed. Conform your setting to your content, not the other way around.

Inventory: Just make it simple and intuitive and I'm happy. Diablo 2 still has my favourite inventory management. No screwing around, just drag and drop. Simple, realistic, perfect.

Progession: I don't mind grind...to a point. Everquest and WoW turned me right off when my friend told me about how going from 60-70 takes as long as 1-60 in WoW. He regaled me with tales about weeks long quests to gain one level.

Screw. That.

Clearing out a dungeon multiple times in order to buff up hasn't ever bothered me. So long as I can kill the next boss before my next birthday, I'm happy.

Power: Keeping it realistic is nice. There should always be a random element. If you're lvl.99 but a lvl. 3 goblin managed to put a dagger into the nape of your neck because you didn't check you six, you should still die, or at the very least, lose a huge chunk of health. A bullet to the head is still a bullet to the head, no matter what your DEF is.

All in all though, I'm pretty open minded when it comes to RPGs. Evolution Worlds can go to hell as far as I'm concerned however. To hell with that abomination.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Genre: I honestly do not care. If I did, I would not enjoy both Oblivion and Morrowind, along with Mass Effect.


Character Creation: I prefer having as much customization as possible. Probably my favorite system I've used was in Oblivion, despite the lack of a feminine female face.

Allies: I prefer having teammates, as it usually allows for much greater characterization on the part of said teammates. However, I prefer it if they have a set personality I cannot alter much, like in KOTOR II.

Combat: I prefer real-time combat, and I usually hate random encounters due to the added load times that entails. However, with most Final Fantasy games, I make an exception.

Scope: I really think RPG's do need to have an epic scope, otherwise I'll be trying to figure out why I'm doing this way too often to enjoy the game itself.

Inventory Management: I prefer an inventory system where it is possible to organize your stuff by category instantly, but it is always easily accessible, like in KOTOR or Mass Effect.

Level/Skill Progression: I find it enjoyable to a degree. After all, then final boss is not going to get owned by four snot nosed punks from town Y. However, when you have to spend extra hours to level just to beat one boss, I find that extremely tedious.

Power: It really depends on the game for me and the character background. For example, your character in Mass Effect is a trained soldier. Civilians who can barely hold a weapon should not pose a threat. However, in a game like Oblivion or Morrowind, where you are just a normal person in the wrong place at the right time, you should have some initial problems holding your own.

 

[VRaptorX]

eh...I'll keep this short and simple.

1 - the plot must be thought provoking. That doesn't necissarily mean original. Different and thought provoking do not go hand in hand.
2 - good battle system
3 - no random counters (running away or choosing to fight works better IMO. That made TOS so much more fun)
4 - please get GOOD voice acting
5 - keep emotions. Make me actually feel for the characters.
6 - no corny mary sue speaches and insanly ditsy characters. Noone likes them.

other than that it's really just personal stuff. Do you like story driven or more "do what you want"? Love story? Character design? The rest is just personal tastes.

 

[Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow]

RPG's are my favourite kind of game. Anyway here's my take on this:

Genre - couldn't care less what the genre is, be it fantasy, Sci-Fi or contemporary.

Story - an absolute must have for any good RPG game. If the story is great, then you've got the basis for a great game but only the basis.

Combat - I prefer real time over turn based but I don't mind turned based combat either. Real time keeps you on your toes where as turn based lets you sit back and consider your next move.

Allies - definately need allies in a game. They are a good source of plot device/motivation for your protagonist as well as a source of interesting dialogue [who could forget Minsk from the Baldurs Gate series?] and in addition, can provide nasty twists and turns to the over-all story via betrayal or intrigues. All these enhance the game.

Character Creation - not so important although being able to have/create a unique character rather than being forced to play/push-around a game avatar [ie: Gordon Freeman] means you have more invested personally in the game. As much as I liked Half Life, I always wished there was a way to be someone else rather than Gordon Freeman.

Scope - I like this to be non-linear, epic and VAST! I like a world in which I can explore, that I'm not stuck on some railline pathway that I can't deviate from. I like being able to take my time examining areas and finding those hidden surprises. Also not being on a clock in order to complete a game is a positive.

Inventory management - this can be a pain if it takes ages to sort out your equipment. I think NWN had the best inventory menu with Function keys allowing for instant access to items.

Level/skill progression - I dislike having to wander around slaughtering local wildlife in order to earn EXP's so that my character is tough enough to survive the next encounter. I also am not that keen on Fed Ex quests that have you running courier errands unless they are at the very start of the game and are there to help you get familiar with the game system and environment. I'd like to see a game that EXP is award in different ways and not just from killing various enemies. You should have a number of ways to solve the conflict/puzzle etc and some should be more rewarding than others.

Power - once your character, in most RPG's I've played, gets to a certain point you become pretty much unstoppable. I don't like this feeling of godlike invincibility and would rather see a system where your skills get better but it shouldn't take much to kill you. Skill increases should be more costly the closer they get to 100% and getting to 100% should be dam near impossible and so hard and time consuming that only people with an obsessive complusive disorder would bother spending the required time and effort in order to get that last point [and in reality shouldn't have it anyway as there is no such thing as perfection in humanity].

I'd add a new field to this discussion: type of game interface. First Person Shooter or isometric/camera pan perspective? IMO, either works for me however if Halo & Half Life had more scope and the ability to create your own character, explore the world at your leisure, the ability to manage a larger inventory and improve on your skills then for my money, they'd have been fantastic.

 

[Dectilon]

"Character Creation: It depends on the game, generally in an RPG like Final Fantasy for instance, i would like characters created by the developers, as this gives them the opportunity to create very personal storys for them. However, character customisation in say Oblivion, where the game is open-ended, i feel the option should arise. Take a look a Two Worlds, it really bugged me when the character customization, even though it was there, was so very limited."

This reminded me of something: I really loved the character creation system in Daggerfall, and I was saddened when it was so heavily dumbed down in preparation for consoles : ( For TeS V. I loved being able to customize stuff like phobias, weapon specializations, material allergies and watch that little sword (that decided if your character was balanced out or not) go up and down until I had exactly the character I wanted to play. That system also allowed you to make a wimpier character at startup, but one that gained experience faster. Ah, the good old days ^^

I liked the combat system too, where you semi-controlled the weapon with the mouse, making different movements to do different attacks. There was of course the bugs that made the game almost unplayable, but sometimes you just have to stick with it ^^

 

[bassie302]

Genre: fantasy or future-tech, I don't really care

Character creation: I prefer to be able to select whatever is going to walk the world for me, instead of being given something and forced to be a hero with a face like the rear end of a horse.

Allies: personal experience makes me believe allies only get in your way (try Oblivion when someone helps you and you're a marksman. They jump in front of your arrows like they want to get shot)

Combat: both are fine to me, though being able to pick my battles realtime does have a bit more appeal to me.

Scope: bigger = better, as long as I get to explore random dungeons for shiny treasures I'm happy, even when the world is getting swamped with evil dudes.

Power: I do think that once you've decked yourself out in treasure and weaponry of extreme power, The lower enemies should flee rather then fight. Suicidal bandits are a laugh at first, and an annoyance afterwards. Oblivion countered this by making the monsters progressively harder as you'd expect. But I believe they went on and missed the point a bit. Higher level should make killing something easier, but I find myself having to shoot over a dozen arrows in said monstrosity before his health gets halfway, even when using the best I can get to fire them with.

 

[Sethzard]

take oblivion and you will have it. i want free roaming enviroments and plenty of skills and spells and real time combat, fucking brilliant

 

[_Janny_]

I'd say Oblivion is as close to one of the best RPGs as possible. But, if you skip the side quests, you see that the main plot is very short and disappointing. I think that it needed more quests, more diversity (different quests than "go get this item located in this cave").The graphics and loading time were perfect, IMO. The customization was pretty good, but the plot was not.

So, in my book, Oblivion plus a few more features would have made a perfect RPG.

 

[PurpleRain]

Level/Skill Progression: Grinding, takes time yes, but all good things don't come free. Especially in RPGS, even though i am sat grinding for a few hours, it helps me understand my characters strengths and weaknesses, and also different strategies i can think up off to take down enemies. Hence why i like turn based.

Grinding is boring. Games are supposed to reduce bordom. Grinding games ruin that plan. Grinding is the devil work!!!

 

[monodiabloloco]

Here's something not covered by OP's original questions...

One thing RPGs tend to do that I just cannot f'ing stand is the zoning of monsters by difficulty... Using FF7 as an example, what is it about Nibelheim that makes their local monsters twenty-five levels more difficult than Midgard's? Why are the monsters from Yufi's village so damn tough while the ones around the Golden Saucer are pussies? Games always progress through monsters in stepped difficulties, but rarely give explanations as to why they are so tough in Area 2 as opposed to Area 1.

Are the people of Cosmo Canyon just that much stronger than those from Costa del Sol? Is that how they can survive and defend an area that hostile? Can heroes only come from Midgard or Kalm because to set foot out of your house in the mountain pass would be suicide to a rookie?

WoW is to date the ONLY game I know that doesn't just line up monsters in a linear progression, step into the wrong area and those won't be L6 Striders, it will be L23 raptors.

I agree wholeheartedly. I loved Morrowind for the reason that, if I wondered into the wrong place, I got my ass kicked. That was one of my major dissapointments with Oblivion. I *should* be punished for stepping where I shouldn't, but not restricted from going there with no explanation. Also, on the flip side of that, if I take a chance and do well, then I should be able to reap the rewards of that (lots of XP, and teh ph47 1007Z!)