What Is the Most Important Factor for Making a Great RPG?

[Solstis]

Certain aspects carry more weight with me. An immersive game world comes well before graphics in an RPG, but nothing should be purposely ignored for the benefit of anything else in my opinion. In that respect I had to vote for 50 shades of grey. Besides, having seen update 49 I know these guys have nailed the graphics.

[mcmanusaur]

content. First and foremost, you must have something to do.

Isn't this like saying the most important thing that makes an album great is music?

 

I voted choice and consequence because if there's no freedom to choose a role you're really not roleplaying in any significant capacity. Immersion and such are a close second, because ultimately roleplay can happen without immersion, even if it's difficult and unrewarding.

[JFSOCC]

Well, you can change the cover photo of an album, you can use different recording equipment, you can have different publishing strategies. But ultimately what makes an album great is the music. So... yes.

[jamoecw]

Graphics are very important. Most people here probably love isometric style graphics and 2D and are here because of them. You can appreciate the graphic engine,style, camera the game uses as much as the story and rpg mechanics. The new unreal engine 4 looks amazing and I believe can revive old school franchises like wizardry to attract new gamers and old fans.  With high production values could achieve Something like legends of grimrock but much more depth and 3x better. 

 

 

 

do you know if non environmental entities affect the light levels in a room (such as the player, or enemies)?  if not it is pretty much eye candy (and who doesn't like candy), as using scripts could give the same effect, after all it has been done in the past.

[JFSOCC]

I love the fact that no-one said graphics, I guess we're all on the same line there. I wonder if we used the word "Visuals" instead, if people would vote differently.

 

I love beautiful maps and background art, it it makes me feel like I'm in a magical place (which is hard to do) I might get mine.

 

But graphics never made a game. Serious Sam, Crysis, Far cry were all cases of crappy game great graphics, At least the gameplay of Serious sam made it fun to do with a friend. It's just not nearly as important as any of the other options.

[TrashMan]

But graphics never made a game. Serious Sam, Crysis, Far cry were all cases of crappy game great graphics,

 

Wut you takin bout foo? I piddy da foo who doesn't like Crysis.

 

It is a great game. Very open and rewarding.

[JFSOCC]

you're joking right? Crysis was the most uninspiring game design. The plot was clichéd to non-existent, the monsters were boring, making use of numbers rather than interesting tactics, and their look incredibly unimaginative. And the suit was both overpowered and didn't encourage you to use it to the best of your ability. Crysis was an expensive engine demo IMO.

[TrashMan]

Pfft. You wouldn't know qualtiy if it hit you in a face with a truck.

 

Game was great.

Story was predictable? So what. 99,99% of stories are.

 

Leve design was great. I must have cleard just that harbor level alone in a dozen different ways. Sneaking in from the railway, infiltrating trough the sewers, swiming into the harbor, ramming a truck into the gas station as a diversion, etc, etc..

Better atmosphere (and AI) then any other FPS I can think of.

 

Action was great.

And suit was not OP (especially not on higher difficulties)

 

Bad design? You want to talk bad design, look at Crysis 2.

 

I mean seriously.

I can just copy-paste your complaints to apply them to almost any game (including BG, ID, PT, etc), they are that generic.

Edited May 9, 2013 by TrashMan

[JFSOCC]

Pfft. You wouldn't know qualtiy if it hit you in a face with a truck.

 

Game was great.

Story was predictable? So what. 99,99% of stories are.

 

Leve design was great. I must have cleard just that harbor level alone in a dozen different ways. Sneaking in from the railway, infiltrating trough the sewers, swiming into the harbor, ramming a truck into the gas station as a diversion, etc, etc..

Better atmosphere (and AI) then any other FPS I can think of.

 

Action was great.

And suit was not OP (especially not on higher difficulties)

 

Bad design? You want to talk bad design, look at Crysis 2.

 

I mean seriously.

I can just copy-paste your complaints to apply them to almost any game (including BG, ID, PT, etc), they are that generic.

I'm sorry but they had to invent space aliens to fight you because clearly humans were no match.

[spudud]

You are all wrong. Obviously, the most important aspect is having every charater be bisexual and a potential LI for the PC.

[Ffordesoon]

@JFSOCC:

 

I don't know why Serious Sam is on your list. Say what you will about the gameplay, but the graphics were mainly impressive at the time because of the game's meager origins, not because they were Far Cry or Crysis-level good.

 

@TrashMan:

 

The three mainline Far Cry games are all great, and they are all insufferably annoying in astonishingly different ways. I haven't beaten any of them, but I had a fantastic time not beating all of them.

 

Crysis was a confused mess of a game that took the original Far Cry and layered a bunch of tedious cruft over it. It was a very fun game at times, but the overwhelming sense I get from my memories of the game is one of pure boredom. And to say the story was predictable is an insult to predictable stories everywhere. Most of the time, when I call a story "predictable," I mean its broad strokes are predictable. Crysis was predictable almost line by line. Oh, and it's ugly. Its commitment to photorealism is so total that it forgets to actually have coherent art direction beyond simple visual noise. It's the prettiest ugly game I've ever played, but it's ugly.

 

Never played Crysis Warhead, but I hear it was better.

 

Crysis 2 was a better, more focused game than Crysis, with a better story. The story was still complete garbage, of course, but it was at least vaguely interesting garbage. They also fixed the overbalancing the first game was plagued with, giving you just enough time with your suit's powers to feel powerful.

 

Haven't played Crysis 3, and don't care to. It looks beautiful and achingly dull.

 

The best game in the whole "Cry" line of games is Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon. Because it strips away all the useless cruft that plagued Far Cry 3 (which had the best gameplay of the series despite its many narrative flaws and aggravating mechanics), gives you all the guns and the keys to robo-Michael Biehn, and says "Go nuts!" It's not serious, and it's not trying to be serious. It is proudly dumb as a sack of hammers. When combined with the base mechanics of Far Cry 3 and the reduced length, the result is a concatenation of most of the best parts of the other games in the series with all the bad parts removed. And it has NES cutscenes, and all the ridiculous macho swagger and gleeful stupidity of every single dumb VHS action movie ever plus every dumb Eighties cartoon ever, and the main character's name is Sergeant Rex Power Colt. It is beautiful.

 

You are, of course, free to disagree.

[tobbe628]

For me, Choice.

I love to choose where to go next, what to say, Have the ability to change the ending.

 

i want to choose everything!

[JFSOCC]

@JFSOCC:

 

I don't know why Serious Sam is on your list. Say what you will about the gameplay, but the graphics were mainly impressive at the time because of the game's meager origins, not because they were Far Cry or Crysis-level good.

well duh, "for their time" is the key. I have no doubt that in time far cry or crysis will be considered outdated graphics too, but at the time of release, serious sam was nothing more than an engine demo, the first which dealt with the warped perspectives you got in other engines the further things got from the centre of your FOV.

[Fearabbit]

I think your poll is a bit biased.   Most polls are, though.

 

Couple of thoughts I had when I considered which factor is most important to me:

 

1) "Graphics":

Good graphics have a bad rep among many gamers. When someone says he thinks good graphics are important, people assume he is shallow.

However, there's a different side to good graphics, and that is: a clean interface, character expressions, interesting art design, intuitive menus... graphics are the most important way to transport information in a game. So when I think of "bad graphics", I think of a game that is very bad at giving me this information. My inventory and character screens are confusing, I don't know how far away the enemy is, I don't know how difficult the enemy will be, I can't tell whether it is currently day or night and I have to open a separate menu to look at the time even though I'm out in the field. Also, think of all the emotions like awe and fear that can be transported by a visually detailed world (the main reason I like Morrowind so much is its ridiculously high fantasy game world, and graphics are the key to get something like that across).

This "information design" is completely missing from your poll and the closest thing on the list is actually "graphics", because games mostly use graphics to do that.

 

In conclusion: I don't care if you give me a game with retro graphics or one with the newest graphical advances, they can both have their charm. So "graphics" aren't very important to me. But art design, ease of use, all the things mentioned above are extremely important to me, to the point where I won't play a game if it falls short in this regard. (Mass Effect 1 is a good example of a game with good graphics, but horrible information design. I couldn't stand it.)

 

2) Choices & Consequences:

I don't see this as a must at all, but if it's implemented, it better be implemented very well, because then it's important as hell. If you don't have choices & consequences as good as those in the Witcher series, don't even bother. I don't want the consequences to be "depending on your choices, one to four of your party members will betray you or die". I don't want consequences where I feel like the game is punishing me. (By that I mostly mean that the whole game acts as if I made a bad decision. I don't mind tragic consequences, but they have to be as rewarding as the others and not be all "you screwed up, load again or play a worse game from now on")

However, "good consequences" also doesn't mean that the game needs to have 12 different endings to account for all the possibilities. Quite the opposite. Games that simply offer you different paths to getting to the same goal are those that offer the most role-playing, and this is what I want. Anyone here played Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis? Yeah, that's a role-playing game of sorts; you can choose to be an action hero, a charismatic team player or a clever stealth type. These paths are completely different, even though they sometimes use the same locations you have to do vastly different things, and it's awesome. But once you reach the last chapter, they all come together again.

 

In conclusion: Linear RPGs can be just as rewarding as the ones that have choices & consequences. But the latter have to be very good - don't punish me for role-playing and make every consequence interesting in some way, not just "because of your choice, this character is now dead". For role-playing purposes, my preferred "consequences" are the ones that don't actually change the ending, but the ones that change the way you get there. (The Walking Dead and Fate of Atlantis are very good games where choices "don't matter", except they do, very much so, by shaping your experience.)

 

 

3) Character Development:

What is this supposed to mean? Should my main character have some sort of development? Should I be able to develop my character the way I want (i.e. choices and consequences on a more personal basis)? Or should characters in general show some sort of development?

If the latter is the case, I'd keep it simple and say "the game needs to have awesome characters - villains, heroes, side characters all have to be excellent", and then file that under "Plot". The first option strikes me as something you'd expect to see in an Eastern RPG. The second option is what I think a Western RPG should have, and it's what I think is most important for a good RPG.

 

 

4) Plot:

It's certainly a good idea to have a plot. Mass Effect 2 for example didn't have a very thick plot (90% of the game is nothing but the assembly of a new team), and that was bad. But how important is the actual plot, and its originality? Many people said Dark Messiah of Might & Magic had the most generic plot a fantasy game could possibly have, and I didn't mind that one bit. The plot allowed for many personal choices that helped me develop my character (aha!), it was fast-paced and epic, it had interesting characters... so what if all the elements have been there before? It was a fun plot, it was completely sufficient.

So I am a bit torn here. If you had explicitly asked about "Plot and Characters", it would be easier - characters are the main drive for a plot, and they are one of the most important aspects in a good RPG. If you ask me if the plot in general is important, I start to think about general things like "does it have twists" or "is it funny, sad, epic etc.", and I have no preference here. Nearly every type of plot can make a good game.

 

 

How I chose and what I would add:

I chose "Character Development" because I interpreted it as "I can develop my character in any way and the game is responsive to that". I think in a game about role-playing, this is the most important factor you can have. I hate it when I can't play my "snarky rogue with a heart of gold" because my party members start to hate me for what I say. I said this before, but it's like improv: It's all about saying "yes" to things. Too many RPGs say "no" to the choices I make, and they say "no, you can't be well-liked by your party members if you say things like that", when it would be much cooler if the tone of the game adjusted itself accordingly.

 

What I would add to the list:

- Cool equipment. A well-developed character needs a well-defined look, and I want LOTS of options. I'm picky.

- Badass moments. Not just for me, but for the characters in general. Remember Duncan in Dragon Age Origins during the battle at Ostagar? Yeah, moments like these. Not just fighting, though. Show how the bard completely rocks at a battle of wits. Give that mage a scene where she makes all the books in a library levitate and twirl around while her familiar senses the tome they search, then have her summon a golem and casually tell it to clean up the mess.

[Crowseye]

This is a question whose answer obviously comes down to personal preference. 

 

For me, the single biggest factor that determines whether I will see a game to the end and replay it afterwards (or continue logging in if it's a persistent-world game) is the connection I feel with my character(s).

 

I have, at times, tried to figure out what exactly makes me feel that connection, and I've thus far only been able to determine that the reasons are quite nebulous.  I have played games that gave me a predefined character and had a lot of fun with them, and also enjoyed a game like Icewind Dale where I defined my own characters within a particular ruleset.  I have loved story-rich games and also spent weeks of my life playing games without any real consideration for the story at all.

 

The constant is that I have spent time theory-crafting and implementing character builds and gear setups and/or writing short narratives that detail the character's history, personality, and talents.  They are MY character and I feel a sense of ownership. 

 

Sometimes it just comes down to luck.  A game that doesn't offer the options for character building and/or internal storytelling that I'm looking for won't hold me regardless of how well the rest of it is made.  I think Dragon Age: Origins is an amazing achievement as far as individual interactions between characters, but I just never felt like I was able to build my characters or choose story paths the way I wanted.  Comparatively, KotOR is a lot less refined, but I've played through that game from start to finish over a dozen times, because even though the Revan character is defined by the game's story, I feel like the I'm able to play different variations of the character (in personality and skillset) in a way that sufficiently reflects the ways I can imagine him.

 

Does the game provide me with the tools in terms of character development and story to realize the vision I have for my characters?  Perhaps that's the best way to summarize it.

[TrashMan]

 

I'm sorry but they had to invent space aliens to fight you because clearly humans were no match.

 

 

What a stupid argumnet. The AI is never a match for a human in ANY free-form type of game.

I could easily say that IE games had monsters, demons and dragons because humans were no match.

Difficulty is not the reason aliens were there. To even insinuate it was is redicolous. The basic plot is defined at the earliest stages ofh te game.

 

 

@Ffordsoon

And I do disagrre. Strongly. It's like you and me played a compeltely different game, sicne there isn't a single thing I can agree with you. Incoherent art desing?

Crysis 2 better? Seriously?

Is this the inverted reality in the Twilight Zone?

[TrashMan]

I have, at times, tried to figure out what exactly makes me feel that connection, and I've thus far only been able to determine that the reasons are quite nebulous.  I have played games that gave me a predefined character and had a lot of fun with them, and also enjoyed a game like Icewind Dale where I defined my own characters within a particular ruleset.  I have loved story-rich games and also spent weeks of my life playing games without any real consideration for the story at all.

 

That's quite normal. Different games (and books and all kinds of medias and things) satisfy us in different ways.

 

You don't play Duke Nukem for deep plot and character, just like you don't play Secret of Monkey Island for fast action. Same days you feel liek blasting s*** up with minimal thought involved. Sometimes you want something deeper. Sometimes you want to escape to a different world.

Just like sometimes you got a craving for something fruity/sweet, or maybe something very specific.

 

In general, trying to generalize and trying to find a single unifying factor for why you like X - it's doomed to fail, becasue there isn't one.

[jamoecw]

 

I have, at times, tried to figure out what exactly makes me feel that connection, and I've thus far only been able to determine that the reasons are quite nebulous.  I have played games that gave me a predefined character and had a lot of fun with them, and also enjoyed a game like Icewind Dale where I defined my own characters within a particular ruleset.  I have loved story-rich games and also spent weeks of my life playing games without any real consideration for the story at all.

 

That's quite normal. Different games (and books and all kinds of medias and things) satisfy us in different ways.

 

You don't play Duke Nukem for deep plot and character, just like you don't play Secret of Monkey Island for fast action. Same days you feel liek blasting s*** up with minimal thought involved. Sometimes you want something deeper. Sometimes you want to escape to a different world.

Just like sometimes you got a craving for something fruity/sweet, or maybe something very specific.

 

In general, trying to generalize and trying to find a single unifying factor for why you like X - it's doomed to fail, becasue there isn't one.

 

don't forget the babes, duke nukem wouldn't be complete without them.

[TrashMan]

Funny you should mention it because I actually liked DNF.. I mean, it was OK.

There was no way it could have lived up to the hpye no matter what they did, and compared to all other FPS games on the market, it was average to above-average.

 

While there design decisions one could argue about (regenrating health, likited guns, etc..), none of them are intrinsicly bad, since many games use the same mechanics. It's more of a matter of expectations.

[Lephys]

I believe the most important factor is 2, since all the game's code is binary.

 

[TrashMan]

I beg to differ my good man. Observe:

 

 

 

Also for your information collecting purposes:

 

CLICK AT YOUR OWN PERIL

Edited May 15, 2013 by TrashMan

[jamoecw]

I believe the most important factor is 2, since all the game's code is binary.

 

 

 

I beg to differ my good man. Observe:

 

 

 

Also for your information collecting purposes:

 

CLICK AT YOUR OWN PERIL

i got to go with trashman on this one, binary is cool and all, but **** is perfect.