What do you want to improve in RPGs?

[DavidBVal]

Solid mechanics that are the absolute center of it all, instead of story or art.

 

[eXalted]

I think it would help a lot if there was some sort of free engine with the basic systems in place already made for devs (e.g. turn based combat, standard character progression, standard loot tables...), and allow the devs to change those if they wanted to. Maybe open-source as well, so you can download module packs of a different turn based system, or a different character progression system someone else made.

Sure, this would create lots of crap cause it'd be easier to make "RPGs", but at least the big boyz upstairs (or the guys that wanna make good stuff) would have more leeway cause it'd be cheaper.

RPGMaker?

 

[baturinsky]

I think it would help a lot if there was some sort of free engine with the basic systems in place already made for devs (e.g. turn based combat, standard character progression, standard loot tables...), and allow the devs to change those if they wanted to. Maybe open-source as well, so you can download module packs of a different turn based system, or a different character progression system someone else made.

Sure, this would create lots of crap cause it'd be easier to make "RPGs", but at least the big boyz upstairs (or the guys that wanna make good stuff) would have more leeway cause it'd be cheaper.

RPGMaker?

It's not free

 

[boot]

i wish they'd start making them again lol

 

[Sacred82]

Coherence of the creative vision. In about 100% of all CRPG's, there is none (still some do better than others).

Give us games again that are about great world building. Everything else is secondary.

 

[Soulcucker]

A dynamic dialogue system similar to Façade, instead of the multiple choice systems we have now. Façade was made by a couple of researchers a decade ago, one would think that someone could implement something similar or even more advanced into a game today. Sure the system would probably be somewhat buggy with many hard to test edge cases, but not to the point of fully breaking the game. I don't expect such a system in a big game, but I would like to see someone getting the ball rolling.

 

[pippin]

I wish more games would include both a class system and a class creator. Probably the best thing the TES series gave to crpg heritage.

 

[Sacred82]

I wish more games would include both a class system and a class creator. Probably the best thing the TES series gave to crpg heritage.

Arena's class system is fun to play around with, and is the only reason I play it from time to time. Few other single character games dare limit the player in such a way. Once TES also offered free character creation the class system lost its meaning IMO. Has anyone really played a pre-made Warrior or Thief in Morrowind?

 

[pippin]

I wish more games would include both a class system and a class creator. Probably the best thing the TES series gave to crpg heritage.

Arena's class system is fun to play around with, and is the only reason I play it from time to time. Few other single character games dare limit the player in such a way. Once TES also offered free character creation the class system lost its meaning IMO. Has anyone really played a pre-made Warrior or Thief in Morrowind?

Dunno. But class creating is for me a way to exploit the game. I saw a youtube video of a guy playing Morrowind, and he jumped from Sheogorath to Vivec, effectively from one side to the other of the map. In my opinion, current game devs care way too much about balance to introduce true fun into their games.

By the way, pure warriors and thieves suck in tes, but pure mages willalways be fun, even with dumbing down.

 

[jungl]

I want to see the industry move away from 8 bit indie meme games. Different settings then cookie cutter generic stuff like tolkien and sci fi mass effect. West world tv show right now is successful. Why doesn't someone make a rpg setting like megaman in the far future with androids and robots.

Take underrail for example only game I can thing since like 20 years that had psi powers as a minor focus in the setting besides the ps1 game galerians

 

[anvi]

System Shock did it.

 

[ntonystinson]

I want to see the industry move away from 8 bit indie meme games. Different settings then cookie cutter generic stuff like tolkien and sci fi mass effect. West world tv show right now is successful. Why doesn't someone make a rpg setting like megaman in the far future with androids and robots.

Or Game of Thrones

 

[Sacred82]

Dunno. But class creating is for me a way to exploit the game.

That's a reasonable way of looking at it. Unfortunately I never had the discipline to abstain from class creation, even though I would have enjoyed a less exploity Morrowind.

 

[mushaden]

Romances

Spoiler

 

[Daemongar]

1. Lots of the boring parts of RPGs have been eliminated for the sake of making the entire game "enjoyable" while making the game action games. The elimination of stats disturbs me greatly. For this reason, Fuck you Skyrim, it's just a FPS with swords and spells. Oblivion was more of an RPG than Skyrim. There, I said it.
2. All the power-gaming that is going on in RPGs, and the forcing of designers to make all weapons/damage output and classes equal. The Diablo Effect, I'll call it.
3. The "All roads lead to overpowered at level 10" of games. That is, character perks or bonuses that are all awesome. Add a point in two-handed, you'll kill faster ie: more xps! Put a point in dialog, you'll get xp for selecting the right option! Oh boy! How about, you just put a point in something for the sake of playing the game as you want to, and just accept it may not go anywhere? For this, I hold FO:NV in high regard.
4. The need of the designers to make the story "save the world." I don't want to save the world. I just want to finish this here game. "Save the world" can only be told so many ways. I don't need to feel godlike, I want a good game. The Bard's Tale had you saving one city. The day they started making every game about "saving the world" is when everything went downhill. Yes, I'm talking to the Ultima's as well. Sometimes it works, like in Bard's Tale 3, but I like the humble of Darklands. This may be the Japanese influence on RPGs, but whatever.
5. I honestly believed that somehow, after PS:T, the world would take into consideration your stats and classes and make a unique experience for the player. BUT NO. I also believed the same in 1987 when I played Wasteland for the first time. Still eludes me. AoD may have added something here. Give me 3 ways to conquer an obstacle and I'll follow you forever.
6. Random encounters are just fine! You can't handle them? Play your carefully planned encounters in Blackguards and pat yourself on the back. I like hybrid random encounters with a cutoff, myself. That is, you get random fights until you hit a switch, then they stop. The Wizard's Crown was good at this.

 

[Hobo Elf]

Just copy what the Japanese are doing with their dungeon crawlers, and then make them even better. Basically we need to go back full circle. I can't remember what was the last western RPG that I truly enjoyed. Everything is either passable or shit.

 

[Lilura]

5. I honestly believed that somehow, after PS:T, the world would take into consideration your stats and classes and make a unique experience for the player. BUT NO. I also believed the same in 1987 when I played Wasteland for the first time. Still eludes me. AoD may have added something here. Give me 3 ways to conquer an obstacle and I'll follow you forever.

May have? AoD reactivity goes far beyond PS:T. Swordflight, Mask of the Betrayer, Fallout and Arcanum, too.

Also, it's EZ to build a reactive campaign for a pre-defined protagonist, who must be male/human and selects from a limited three-class pool; and then tailor the choicest content to one of those classes and tie the major rewards to two AD&D attributes (Mage TNO with high Wis/Int). Dead fucking EZ.

Agree with your other points, though. So brofisted.

 

[Carnarium]

Better companions.

 

[Naveen]

stuff

All of that, and a lot of what other people are saying, could be achieved if designers went to RPG roots: D&D 0 & 1 editions as they were meant to be played. There are hundreds of modules out there waiting to be made into games, and many of the original rules have yet to be translated into video game form.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

The thing that most regularly pisses me off hasn't really been mentioned yet, or if it has only in passing, so I thought I'd add it:

Secret combat information.

In ye olden days of 6 discs per game, or obvious transfers of popular P&P systems, it was fairly common-sense to include such details as "How does combat actually work" into separate manuals. If you played the game without the manual then you'd be fairly clueless of what was going on but it was at least partially your own fault. However, this led to an inherent philosophy with game designers that they don't need to put details of how combat works into any of their games, players will figure it out for themselves, to the point where I've now played an awful lot of games where such information is neither in the game nor in any manuals nor a direct lift from an established P&P game.

How many games have you played where your character dons "Armour" and had a cumulative "Armour Value" as a result and you plough through the game upgrading this total without ever once knowing what the fuck the stat actually does, just increasing it because it must be doing something and having it go up must make for logical sense - only then to be faced with a quandary like "Armour 50" vs "Armour 40 + Fire Resistance 20" between two similar items of clothing and suddenly realising you have absolutely no idea which item is 'better', because you suddenly realise you have no idea whatsoever what your Armour is even doing, no-one thought to mention it either in the game or in the manual.

Likewise, during combat, if the game doesn't have a fully descriptive battle-log (something even some games with battle logs don't have) then you're never quite sure why what is happening on screen is happening. You have an "Attack Value" of 5,000,000, they have a "Defence Value" of 20, but you still miss, and visa-versa - was it because of Criticals or was it because of Random or was it because of a percentile system where 5,000,000 x 0 still equals 0 or was it because they're using a +5 sword and your 5mil just makes you immune to +4 and under. So often devs just invent a "Combat System" but then, either intentionally or stupidly, completely forget to tell the player what any of it actually means. Maybe the cost of copyrighting a good combat system outweighs the benefits of being open about it, maybe they're just irritating by nature, maybe they're a bit incompetent, maybe all sorts of reasons. But, as an RPG player, it's usually the only part of the game which is in need of info-dumps, as oppose to all the utterly useless dialogue and lore horseshit that normally gets acres of screen time.

When playing P&P you will know every detail of every combat situation, why everything is happening in the way its happening, and this is what makes P&P interesting, what makes things like "only one minor stat improvement on level-up" interesting, because you know exactly why you're so desperate for that one stat. In cRPGs it is more commonly assumed that you wont be giving a shit why anything is happening cos you're more interested in LOLPLOTLOL.

Edit: Oh yeah, and can't forget the biggy - Does it stack or is it highest value only. And is that stacking numerically or cumulatively. And lol at games that use all three.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Simple one: get rid of the lock-picking/hacking minigames. There is yet to be any that surpass the Deus Ex 1 version (for lock-picking, not the 'everything pauses' hacking one) - i.e. the 'minigame' where you have to time your lockpicking to evade the guards, with your speed improving as your skill goes up.

Also has the benefit of not utterly breaking immersion. Funny that.

 

[Azrael the cat]

The thing that most regularly pisses me off hasn't really been mentioned yet, or if it has only in passing, so I thought I'd add it:

Secret combat information.

In ye olden days of 6 discs per game, or obvious transfers of popular P&P systems, it was fairly common-sense to include such details as "How does combat actually work" into separate manuals. If you played the game without the manual then you'd be fairly clueless of what was going on but it was at least partially your own fault. However, this led to an inherent philosophy with game designers that they don't need to put details of how combat works into any of their games, players will figure it out for themselves, to the point where I've now played an awful lot of games where such information is neither in the game nor in any manuals nor a direct lift from an established P&P game.

How many games have you played where your character dons "Armour" and had a cumulative "Armour Value" as a result and you plough through the game upgrading this total without ever once knowing what the fuck the stat actually does, just increasing it because it must be doing something and having it go up must make for logical sense - only then to be faced with a quandary like "Armour 50" vs "Armour 40 + Fire Resistance 20" between two similar items of clothing and suddenly realising you have absolutely no idea which item is 'better', because you suddenly realise you have no idea whatsoever what your Armour is even doing, no-one thought to mention it either in the game or in the manual.

Likewise, during combat, if the game doesn't have a fully descriptive battle-log (something even some games with battle logs don't have) then you're never quite sure why what is happening on screen is happening. You have an "Attack Value" of 5,000,000, they have a "Defence Value" of 20, but you still miss, and visa-versa - was it because of Criticals or was it because of Random or was it because of a percentile system where 5,000,000 x 0 still equals 0 or was it because they're using a +5 sword and your 5mil just makes you immune to +4 and under. So often devs just invent a "Combat System" but then, either intentionally or stupidly, completely forget to tell the player what any of it actually means. Maybe the cost of copyrighting a good combat system outweighs the benefits of being open about it, maybe they're just irritating by nature, maybe they're a bit incompetent, maybe all sorts of reasons. But, as an RPG player, it's usually the only part of the game which is in need of info-dumps, as oppose to all the utterly useless dialogue and lore horseshit that normally gets acres of screen time.

When playing P&P you will know every detail of every combat situation, why everything is happening in the way its happening, and this is what makes P&P interesting, what makes things like "only one minor stat improvement on level-up" interesting, because you know exactly why you're so desperate for that one stat. In cRPGs it is more commonly assumed that you wont be giving a shit why anything is happening cos you're more interested in LOLPLOTLOL.

Edit: Oh yeah, and can't forget the biggy - Does it stack or is it highest value only. And is that stacking numerically or cumulatively. And lol at games that use all three.

I'd agree, but with a massive caveat. Folks who didn't play the first couple of Wizardries when they came out have no idea how immersive and fun it can be to hide everything about the mechanics from the player. Such that figuring out how shit works is a fun and challenging exercise.

The problem with current games is that they half-ass it. Either tell me the whole mechanics, so I can strategise, or tell me nothing so I can experiment and work shit out.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

or tell me nothing so I can experiment and work shit out.

Even then, this only works if the information is workoutable. Most games have systems so convoluted that you'd be bored of looking at the game by the time you'd nailed what 1 additional point in armour actually does.

 

[Daemongar]

May have? AoD reactivity goes far beyond PS:T. Swordflight, Mask of the Betrayer, Fallout and Arcanum, too.

Well, good catch in pointing those games out. Their skill/stat checks allow for a unique experience in each game, and they also share another similarity: they are highly regarded. Playing Arcanum as a different alignment/class felt like a different game. Same with Fallout. There is a lot to see just by making minor changes.

Also, it's EZ to build a reactive campaign for a pre-defined protagonist, who must be male/human and selects from a limited three-class pool; and then tailor the choicest content to one of those classes and tie the major rewards to two AD&D attributes (Mage TNO with high Wis/Int). Dead fucking EZ.

I don't think many folks on their first play-through of PS:T buffed Wisdom AND Int. In fact, in normal D&D, not many people would. I buffed Wisdom on my first go at it because I didn't read the manual and always play cleric. I ended up settling on Thief, since you level almost 2x as quickly as mage. However, it was only through conversing with folks that I discovered the Zerthimon line and lots of other things.

On the other hand, Arcanum had sex, alignment, race, stats and skills affecting dialog and outcomes, and they almost pulled it off. So... it is theoretically possible to have a complex character and complex outcomes. Just expect those companies that dare to run out of money and the last 20% to be a boring slog.

Agree with your other points, though. So brofisted.

Thanks!