What's the ONE Thing You've Wanted In RPG's Over The Past Decade?

[Arck]

A complex gameplay, one of my first rpg was BG2 and I never found anywhere else so many spells and so many different ways to engage a fight.

[mcmanusaur]

As for PE, I'm still wondering if it is more simulation-focused or narrative-focused since BG, especially BG2 was more on narrative (unfortunately, not a good one, IMHO) while Sawyer and Festermarker seem to be more accustomed to simulation focused games, different from Ziets and Avellone.  I wonder how team chemistry will end up with this project.

 

Honestly I'm wondering what elements you consider simulation-focused because most of the games you've mentioned seem very narrative-focused on the whole to me. My initial impression is that you are distinguishing between games that are 90% narrative/10% "simulation" and those that are 80% narrative/20% "simulation".

[Elerond]

 

Sensuki that just isn't right.  Most of the big "RPG's" from the last few years were not ported from console.... they were ported from PC.  The Witcher 2, Skyrim, Fallout New Vegas, Dragon Age: Origins, just for example were all designed for PC first or PC and console at the same time.  Just because it is designed to play well on a console too doesn't mean it was designed for console primarily.... nor does being a console RPG mean it sucks by default.

You tell yourself that, buddy. The DAO Camera control was really designed for PC first, you know, that whole bit where when you're in isometric mode you can't free look ... lol.

 

 

DAO was designed to be PC only game before EA bought Bioware and decided that Bioware should also make console version of it (same time as EA decided that there should be PC version of Mass Effect).  Which is reason why there is much bigger difference between PC and console versions than there is in DA2, that was from begin designed to all platforms.

[Nonek]

The one feature that I would like a return of is interactivity with the environment, that seems to have been totally abandoned since the days of Ultima, to the point where people don't believe that it is a part of rpg's. I think a major part of my disappointment with Baldur's Gate (apart from the setting) was the lifeless environment, it was undoubtedly pretty and evocative but unlike Ultima it felt like walking through a painting rather than being "in" an environment.

 

The one thing i'd like much less of, so as to compensate, would be combat. Slaying endless droves of mooks doesn't particularly empower me or make me feel like a badarse, it makes me believe that the majority of foes are weaklings, that i'm a dumb, homicidal brute and have to mop up the waves like a cleaning woman.

 

Cleaning Woman.

 

CLEANING WOMAN.

 

As Rigby Reardon would say.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

A combat system that doesn't fall apart after level 15 and isn't heavily biased towards 1 group like spell casters or ranged.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

If I am required to distill it down to one thing, I would have to say I'd like an interesting spell system. The IE AD&D games had the greatest spells of any cRPG I can think of. I had hopes for Dragon Age: Origins, but it fell woefully short of their ambitions and claims. I look forward to a system developed by Obsidian as a kind of "evolved Vancian" spellsystem, as every mana based one has been entirely mundane, unimaginative, and repetitive.

[Solviulnir the Soulbinder]

Story.

[Rabain]

Choice.  In BG1 and 2 I always felt I was making choices.  Party composition,  which quest lines to pursue first , being nice or being bad etc.  In other supposed RPG's since I've kind of felt railroaded down a specific path with regard to one thing or another.  I'd like some freedom back to actually RP the G.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Freedom to role play without constant cutscenes, limited dialogue responses and other arbitrary limitations getting in the way.

[Helz]

I guess the one thing I'd want most of all if for my real life to improve as I level up in the game.  Make it happen, Obsidian!

[Sensuki]

 

 

Sensuki that just isn't right.  Most of the big "RPG's" from the last few years were not ported from console.... they were ported from PC.  The Witcher 2, Skyrim, Fallout New Vegas, Dragon Age: Origins, just for example were all designed for PC first or PC and console at the same time.  Just because it is designed to play well on a console too doesn't mean it was designed for console primarily.... nor does being a console RPG mean it sucks by default.

You tell yourself that, buddy. The DAO Camera control was really designed for PC first, you know, that whole bit where when you're in isometric mode you can't free look ... lol.

 

 

DAO was designed to be PC only game before EA bought Bioware and decided that Bioware should also make console version of it (same time as EA decided that there should be PC version of Mass Effect).  Which is reason why there is much bigger difference between PC and console versions than there is in DA2, that was from begin designed to all platforms.

 

 

I am not an idiot and I was following the game since it was announced in 2003, when the concept was very different. You cannot tell me that the final version is a PC game though, there are A LOT of design decisions and UI design decisions that were consolized. Personally I don't care if it was 'PC first', a lot of developers say that to appease the PC crowd. If a game is developed for PC and console side by side it is going to be a console game. If it is developed for console then ported to PC - like ME1, then it is a console game. If it is developed for PC first then ported to console, then it might be a PC game ... unlike Diablo 3 .

[Karkarov]

That said what would I like?  I would like to see the narrative depth of say... the Witcher (minus all the pointless sex) but in an open world like Skyrim and with a character I get to create who is not a blank slate but has a in depth in game method of generating a personality and backstory.  Not asking for much I know.

 

As a Witcher fan yourself, you know about the Witcher 3 coming along, right? It promises exactly what you're talking about, plus the pointless sex.

You mean in Witcher 3 I don't play as Geralt of Rivia and I actually get to create my own character with my own backstory and personality?  Wait that's not how it is?  Didn't think so.  I want the whole enchilada.  Skyrim open world/freedom, deep/engaging plot like Witcher, but ability to create my own character with their own backstory to some extent like in Dragon Age Origins.

[Zeckul]

Tactical combat and beautiful graphics. Unfortunately the closest to that in recent memory was Dragon Age : Origins, and I didn't like the graphics at all. Too brownish and bloody.

 

The Witcher on the hand has superb graphics, but very boring combat.

 

Basically I want Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale back. Project Eternity's my only hope atm. 

Edited November 30, 2013 by Zeckul

[lordgizka]

Significantly different content based on the player's decisions. To encourage replayability and all.

 

So far, I only saw The Witcher 2 do this properly. 

[IndiraLightfoot]

The one feature that I would like a return of is interactivity with the environment, that seems to have been totally abandoned since the days of Ultima, to the point where people don't believe that it is a part of rpg's. I think a major part of my disappointment with Baldur's Gate (apart from the setting) was the lifeless environment, it was undoubtedly pretty and evocative but unlike Ultima it felt like walking through a painting rather than being "in" an environment.

 

The one thing i'd like much less of, so as to compensate, would be combat. Slaying endless droves of mooks doesn't particularly empower me or make me feel like a badarse, it makes me believe that the majority of foes are weaklings, that i'm a dumb, homicidal brute and have to mop up the waves like a cleaning woman.

 

Cleaning Woman.

 

CLEANING WOMAN.

 

As Rigby Reardon would say.

 

This really makes a difference in order to achieve a teeming world where people go about their lives and businesses, as it were, and in Divinity: Original Sin we'll see a return of this Ultima depth of a CRPG. However, it's quite time-consuming for the Devs, and does it really enchance gameplay that much? A harsh question, perhaps, but I'd say MotB and it's attention to story and varied environments with unique events meant much more to me RPG-wise. It was too railroaded at times, but still, wow! It was fantastic, literally, it was like being in an exciting series of dreams, at times.

 

P.S. And yes, Witcher 2's combat, just like Kingdom of Amalur's, made me stop playing the game, and that's not a good thing. I'd much rather have much less encounters that are very varied and unpredictable. Hopefully, Torment Numenera will get that right.

Edited November 30, 2013 by IndiraLightfoot

[Wombat]

 

Sawyer and Festermarker seem to be more accustomed to simulation focused games, different from Ziets and Avellone.  I wonder how team chemistry will end up with this project.

 That sounds like a dream team! The perfect combo, IMHO.

If you expect better parts, yes but team chemistry is quite hard to predict especially from outside.  Alpha Protocol originally had Brian Mitsoda and Chris Avellone but the game itself seem to have experienced complicated process.  The details are not known but Misoda ended up denying his relation to the final writing in that game.  Sometimes or more often, putting "good" designers in the same box doesn't produce desirable results.  Then again, chemistry can work better than expected, at times, too.  So, I'd cautiously take a wider margin for my expectation.  That said, so far, I don't feel conflicts among the designers themselves unlike AP's case.

 

 

As for PE, I'm still wondering if it is more simulation-focused or narrative-focused since BG, especially BG2 was more on narrative (unfortunately, not a good one, IMHO) while Sawyer and Festermarker seem to be more accustomed to simulation focused games, different from Ziets and Avellone.  I wonder how team chemistry will end up with this project.

 

Honestly I'm wondering what elements you consider simulation-focused because most of the games you've mentioned seem very narrative-focused on the whole to me. My initial impression is that you are distinguishing between games that are 90% narrative/10% "simulation" and those that are 80% narrative/20% "simulation".

Actually, not a surprise, judging from your using even CK2 as an example.  However, how many of past Obsidian/BIS games, which are considered as archetypes of PE did focus on simulation?

Totally off topic but CK2 seems to be a good game in its own right-I'm just waiting for all in one package version.

[Fearabbit]

The ONE thing I really want is non-degenerate, balanced gameplay for all classes and skills.

 

Which is why I have very high hopes for P:E.

 

I get it very rarely that I'm struck by the extreme fairness of a game, but when it happens it's much more satisfying than having lots of choices or branching storylines.

[Nonek]

 

The one feature that I would like a return of is interactivity with the environment, that seems to have been totally abandoned since the days of Ultima, to the point where people don't believe that it is a part of rpg's. I think a major part of my disappointment with Baldur's Gate (apart from the setting) was the lifeless environment, it was undoubtedly pretty and evocative but unlike Ultima it felt like walking through a painting rather than being "in" an environment.

 

The one thing i'd like much less of, so as to compensate, would be combat. Slaying endless droves of mooks doesn't particularly empower me or make me feel like a badarse, it makes me believe that the majority of foes are weaklings, that i'm a dumb, homicidal brute and have to mop up the waves like a cleaning woman.

 

Cleaning Woman.

 

CLEANING WOMAN.

 

As Rigby Reardon would say.

 

This really makes a difference in order to achieve a teeming world where people go about their lives and businesses, as it were, and in Divinity: Original Sin we'll see a return of this Ultima depth of a CRPG. However, it's quite time-consuming for the Devs, and does it really enchance gameplay that much? A harsh question, perhaps, but I'd say MotB and it's attention to story and varied environments with unique events meant much more to me RPG-wise. It was too railroaded at times, but still, wow! It was fantastic, literally, it was like being in an exciting series of dreams, at times.

 

P.S. And yes, Witcher 2's combat, just like Kingdom of Amalur's, made me stop playing the game, and that's not a good thing. I'd much rather have much less encounters that are very varied and unpredictable. Hopefully, Torment Numenera will get that right.

 

 

Though I would agree that MOTB was a tour de force without doubt, I do feel that this is the very aspect that has resulted in nearly twenty years of decline for rpg's. Too much discarding of what is not conducive to the core experience has led to several examples of rather dead lifeless worlds, Dragon Age 2 immediately springs to mind, which was in essence a succession of corridors, wherein alternate combat and conversation were partaken in. That is what I fear lies ahead for mainstream rpg's, and that Kickstarter with its different priorities might be a solution to.

 

Having a believable and living world is a thing to aspire to in and of itself for me, and aids environments verisimilitude and depth, even if it is just in terms of plentiful text descriptions littered throughout the gamescape, as we find in the beginning areas of say Icewind Dale. Indeed I would say that a rich and reactive environment can tell its own little story, equally as effectively as those spoken by npc's or acted out in the main narrative.

 

Whether this be as simple as equipping swamp boots to progress through a marsh, furs to venture into the frozen north or simply taking a seat at the Blue Boar and ordering dinner, while listening to the band who perform in one corner, before stumbling to the Inn, renting a room and curling up under the covers of your bed. There is a certain charm and completeness in seeing or reading of this, for me at any rate, and it has been sorely missed in modern games.

 

Good examples would be Ultima 7 obviously, the wonderful text descriptions of Betrayal at Krondor thanks to Mr Halford, and for a more modern iteration the bustling medieval city of Vizima in the first Witcher as well as certain parts of New Vegas.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Wombat: Of course, it's impossible to predict the creative outcome regardless of the dev team composition. I'm just hoping till I turn blue that this will turn out really well this time.

 

Nonek: You're dead on right about the trend seen in CRPGs over the last 20 years, and also about the fact that a rich and reactive environment can tell its own story to a remarkable effect. One example to me would be Dunwall in Dishonored. Sure, it's pretty easy, as it's plague-ridden and mostly abandoned, but they have done it so darn well. My point is that it takes a lot of work to make it happen, and often dev teams making CRPG in the past has had the pressure of the publisher to deal with, and this aspect is the easiest one to cut. Like you, I want to see loads and loads of stuff not connected to the core experience, but not in the way Skyrim does it (cookie cutter fetch quests all the way), but I'd like to have unique stories, tonnes of lore, and glimpses of everyday stuff, preferably with a twist or two, and of course lots of interaction between party members, animal companions and NPCs. 

[anameforobsidian]

Six people in a party.  I've wanted six people in a party for so long.

[AGX-17]

A New Game+ mode which is basically a different game in which the protagonist already knows how the story played out the first time and has access to new choices which wildly diverge from the original plot.

[IndiraLightfoot]

"What's the ONE Thing You've Wanted In RPG's Over The Past Decade?"

 

A friend, an in-game friend that I love and that will always stand by my side (like Frodo's Sam), or perhaps of the more quirky kind (like Snoopy's Woodstock).

 

Morte was perhaps the closest one in any CRPG, and he was a floating, cackling cranium!

Imoen was very far from it, she only made me plan heinous crimes for her, and sure enough, in came BG2.

Khelgar was like a fun, loud and tipsy guy you meet at a pub. Fun the first fifteen minutes, later on, not so much.

 

Get me a true friend, Obsids, please!

[imatechguy]

Very difficult to answer with just one thing because I have a pretty good sized list, but presumption driven reputation/influence changes are probably one of my major pain points in a game.

 

The thing I'd like to see is the removal of presumptive influence/reputation changes from both the general game and from my companions.  Why must the companions I've surrounded myself with and chosen to travel with constantly have to make motive checks on the things we do? Worse why do they insist on doing so in front of the mook I'm trying to scam?  While I realize there will at times be perceptions of intent made by an NPC that I cannot and at times should not be able to influence, however for the most part the game and especially my companions should not presume my motivations.  I'd be okay with a dialogue where large shifts could occur depending on intent but that dialogue shouldn't limit me to the typical Lawful Dumb/Stupid Evil type of replies.  Saving a town from a small horde of undead doesn't mean I'm a "good", not assisting them doesn't mean I'm "evil".

[Chippy]

Very difficult to answer with just one thing because I have a pretty good sized list, but presumption driven reputation/influence changes are probably one of my major pain points in a game.

 

The thing I'd like to see is the removal of presumptive influence/reputation changes from both the general game and from my companions.  Why must the companions I've surrounded myself with and chosen to travel with constantly have to make motive checks on the things we do? Worse why do they insist on doing so in front of the mook I'm trying to scam?  While I realize there will at times be perceptions of intent made by an NPC that I cannot and at times should not be able to influence, however for the most part the game and especially my companions should not presume my motivations.  I'd be okay with a dialogue where large shifts could occur depending on intent but that dialogue shouldn't limit me to the typical Lawful Dumb/Stupid Evil type of replies.  Saving a town from a small horde of undead doesn't mean I'm a "good", not assisting them doesn't mean I'm "evil".

 

I suppose it depends (for me) on how certain situations are presented, there are certain actions that a person will perform that I instantly recognise as a summary of that persons rotten character - e.g. I recenly witnessed a 'man' violently throw a length of heavy guttering from a scaffold 3m up onto the street below at a young black child while muttering in hate-filled language that he "couldn't support these *******".  The boy wasn't harmed.  So I see where your coming from, but would also like to see these interactions expanded on so that if one character does something so evil, it must prompt a reaction from another character of particular alignment, or even from my main character who may choose to do stand by and do nothing.  Or not.

[Lephys]

For me, it would have to be a sense of control over magic (as a Mage/Wizard). Games almost ALWAYS give you the same-old-same-old spell list, even if you get a few feet of wiggle room to "customize" your own spell list, and the same stupid cliche themes apply:

 

Fire = most damage/extra damage over time

Ice/frost = less damage, but lots of slowing and freezing in place.

Lightning = middling damage, but most concentrated one-shot damage, and/or most piercing/critical damage/chance.

 

Stuff like that. I'm soooooo sick of fire, it's not even funny. "Oh, you picked the magic class? You get... FIREBOLT! 8D!"

 

No... no no no! I want to build a Mage who couldn't care less about ever using fire, except to light pipes and make cantrips, etc. Out of ALL of magic, why is the absolute best thing a Mage can do always burn stuff? We can do that WITHOUT magic! It's easy enough to make a flamethrower, or molotov cokktails (take THAT, overly senstive censor!). But, the fact that you can wave your hand to make it instead of generating sparks or heat with physics is somehow the greatest thing in the universe? Even though it can burn the crap out of all your friends (and yourself) in the process?

 

Don't get me wrong... fire's a fine element. But, sweet lord! I'm sick of it being THE go-to element for magic. Magic does not EQUAL fire. You can do PLENTY of magic without ever even using a lick of fire.

 

Hell, you want magical fire? I want to make fire that freezes people. Yeah, it physically behaves like fire, but it frost-burns and freezes the crap out of stuff, like flames of liquid nitrogen. Now we're talkin' magic!

 

And, on the note of actual control over magic... I want either spell customization (logistically simpler than it seems), OR such a variety of spells that I feel like I'm actually weaving magic the way I want to. Want to use Ice magic? Awesome, how so? Do you want to hurl razor-sharp shards of ice at people? Maybe you, instead, want to freeze bodies of water? Orcs crossing that river, knee-deep in it? FROZEN! Nice... Or maybe you want to hurl "boulders" of ice at enemies, that then explode into clouds of ice "dust" (tiny shards of ice crystal) that blind targets and deal AoE damage, etc.? Why not that instead of a fireball? Or, maybe you want to use Frost/ice formation to stick enemies together? Pool moisture on them, then freeze it? Now they suck at fighting you, unless they've practiced 3-legged-race fighting a lot.

 

There are so many things I would do if I could ACTUALLY wield magic. I'd want to invent my spells by finding ways in which to weave the elements. Not just "hurt that thing, but in a flavorful way, with my favorite glowy color of element."