Off topic: How are games failing you? - Page 4

Ironhawk · #31 February 2nd, 2009, 04:48 PM

The thing that really lets me down about RPGs, these days is the move towards single character games. Mostly now you can play only one character instead of a party. While this is good for some games, I really miss the old days where you could construct your party to cover a lot of roles and didnt have to rely on idiotic AI npcs.

The other thing I cant stand in RPGs is Dynamic Leveling!! Good god, whoever thought that up should be killed. Oblivion was the most prominently bad example. Every battle throughout the entire game was resolved in almost exactly the same manner, regardless if you are a lvl-1 rookie fighting a rat or a level-50 insanely powerful hero fighting a demigod. So stupid! Why put all your effort into your character to not get any reward?

Trumanator · #32 February 2nd, 2009, 05:12 PM

I think that for me, the greatest dissapointment in the gaming industry so far has been the lack of support many companies give to their previous titles. Company of Heroes is possibly my favorite game of all time, and Relic does a better job than many companies at patching and such, but the latest balance patch has been ongoing for EIGHT MONTHS!!! In the meantime the community is bleeding players and lacking in competitiveness at the top because of the balance issues.

As for RPGs, I haven't played one in a while, but Oblivion is my favorite fantasy one by far. Even if Bethesda doesn't do much in the way of support, the flexible editor means that there will always be user-created content if I get bored.

One RPG I would encourage everyone to try though is Freelancer. It looks pretty decent, has one of the most convincing "living" worlds I have ever seen, and you don't have to worry about character stats or creation.

+1 to Guild Wars shout out, I can stop playing for months without feeling bad

trentzero · #33 February 2nd, 2009, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Endoperez

There's a roguelike that did the "choose from random stats" pretty well. I don't remember it's name, but it was D&D derivative.

I believe you're referring to Incursion? Based on the D20 system? Loved it but I'm still waiting for the next update.

NKIcan · #34 February 2nd, 2009, 05:47 PM

On Guild Wars: The concept is good, the execution is very poor. IMHO of course.

The game play just isn't very fun. PvP is nice, but PvE just leaves a lot to be desired.

analytic_kernel · #35 February 2nd, 2009, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ironhawk

The thing that really lets me down about RPGs, these days is the move towards single character games. Mostly now you can play only one character instead of a party. While this is good for some games, I really miss the old days where you could construct your party to cover a lot of roles and didnt have to rely on idiotic AI npcs.

Agreed. Also, party design adds another dimension to the entertainment. Just like one might always wish for another 40 design points when designing a pretender, one often tends to want one more character slot in a party. IMO, trying to find the best complements and synergies between party members, while covering a variety of roles and being limited to the allowed number of slots, is part of the fun of those types of games.

rdonj · #36 February 2nd, 2009, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crandaeolon

/de-lurk

Some good suggestions here, thanks. Got to check out that 'Crawl.

To the people talking about balance nerfs, item-based gameplay and level grinding... ever tried Guild Wars? As far as action RPGs go, it's pretty lenient on grinding or finding items, and even though skill rebalancing happens once in a while, re-speccing is free. Only the primary profession of the character is set in stone at character creation, otherwise you can freely change the "build" of the character after you've picked up the skills from quests or trainers. (There are 1300+ individual skills that result in literally hundreds of "viable" character builds, and many times that if you accept less viable ones.)

The "higher" forms of GW PvP are very strategic and demanding. There are no char level or gear differences, and lots of communication and coordination is required. However, it does take quite a commitment to build the skills and social networks required to break into PvP. Also, it certainly doesn't represent even remotely realistic fantasy army action - it's just small-teams tactics in a fantasy setting.

That was a good mention about guild wars, I wasn't really thinking about it when I wrote my massive wall of text post. It does have the benefit of avoiding completely destroying builds for the most part, and the item based level grind. As another poster said however, the gameplay wasn't completely appealing to me. I never got involved in pvp in guild wars though so I missed out on the main point of the game. It did have some good ideas.

Trumanator · #37 February 2nd, 2009, 11:31 PM

The nice thing about GW is that you're not required to have a guild to get involved in PvP. You can just find 3 friends and play arena battles. Hell, you can just put together a team on the spot and do reasonably well. Its even better in Factions, more options.
I've mostly done PVE though, I think its pretty fun.

Agema · #38 February 3rd, 2009, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ironhawk

The other thing I cant stand in RPGs is Dynamic Leveling!! Good god, whoever thought that up should be killed. Oblivion was the most prominently bad example. Every battle throughout the entire game was resolved in almost exactly the same manner, regardless if you are a lvl-1 rookie fighting a rat or a level-50 insanely powerful hero fighting a demigod. So stupid! Why put all your effort into your character to not get any reward?

Bethesda changed the random encounter spawn for Fallout 3. They split the map into "areas" and each area spawns creatures relevant to the level you first visited, so newbie areas stay with newbie random encounters.

For the most part, however, I'm not sure how "new" it can get. Aren't nearly all games, from 1980s scrolling shooters to FPS to RPG basically all about flinging larger weapons at larger opponents at later points in the game?

Incabulos · #39 February 3rd, 2009, 12:22 PM

New gameplay can always be discovered.

Populous (of course Molyneux had several other innovative titles)
Midwinter
Stunt Island
Sim X (city,theme park, zoo etc)

more recently

Crayon physics
Darwinia
Portal

I think there are a plethora of games that don't involve killing the next big thing and most of those are the ones with innovation in them.

Most 'innovation' in the FPS genre is really new gimmicks (bullet time, terrain adjustment etc...)

Ironhawk · #40 February 3rd, 2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agema

Bethesda changed the random encounter spawn for Fallout 3. They split the map into "areas" and each area spawns creatures relevant to the level you first visited, so newbie areas stay with newbie random encounters.

Yeah I played fallout and the system there was *slightly* better but still lame. Where is the fun in a game when every battle, from start to finish, requires exactly 3 shots? There is no strategy, no feelings of accomplishment. Just level grinding and new equipment. Its fantastically boring!

As for how the gameplay can be different - of course it can! It doesnt take a genius to think of ideas how. I mean all you have to do is make combat specialized. So you have to use a particular tactic against an enemy rather than the 1-2-3 main attack. Or you have to use a specific weapon. Or have a particular skill to outwit/disarm your enemy. The list goes on, all it takes is a little creativity instead of just plugging another NPC mob into a leveling formula.