I figured it out... Why RPGs seem to be going down hill.

[Luridis]

Relatively speaking of course. A lot of I've seen over the last 5-7 years has, in my opinion, just been getting worse and worse. I've read lots of theories, like "graphics & voice acting eat up most of the development funds," etc. But, I've had to ask myself why I've not seen more complaints about the quality of the quests, mechanics, gameplay, etc.

 

This has got to be one of the reasons... This is what is playing RPGs these days.

 

 

http://youtu.be/zQB6ebDnXuY

 

 

 

Seriously, go back to FPS... Watching those made me realize I was seeing something made by the Sofa King.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Luridis

[Nonek]

RPGs have improved in a couple of ways, those being combat and graphics of course. I'd say their main problem was simply not building on what has come before, great rpgs with great features have come and gone, and made not an ounce of difference on the genre. While poor mechanics from RPGs and MMOs have been aped and copied, leading to yet more degeneration. Even combat systems have degraded now, leaving nothing but graphics and lately a re-emergence of filler content, whether that is the endless grinding of combat or dull fetch quests.

 

Is that the developers fault? Or is it the customers for buying clearly inferior products, and never demanding what was present decades ago? Or is it game journalists who have enthusiastically championed the streamlining and "innovation" (read dumbed down) nature of every new BEST GAME EVAH?

 

The argument always seems to run in a similar manner, that developers should only focus on the "core" experience of their game, and totally abandon anything not conducive to that. Such a shame that ambition, content and features are so easily cast aside, when they add so much to the experience. It was the host of little things, side stories and interesting characters that made Sigil in Planescape: Torment such an interesting and vibrant locale. The atmosphere and bustling nature of Vizima, and the rural idyll of Murky Waters with its pleasant folksy charm in the first Witcher. The horrifying soundscapes and stygian gloom of the first Diablo, an atmosphere dripping with sorrow and danger. The vast, diverse, beautiful, colourful and interactive environments of the Ultima games, jam packed with life, character and culture.

 

A pity to replace this with just a core experience.

 

Edit: Of course just my opinion, whatever that is worth.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Nonek

[rjshae]

Nostalgia has a tendency to enhance and glorify older experiences, which may create the illusion that things are getting worse. However, many of the older RPGs were also boring experiences with stupid repetitive mechanics, lousy stories, pitiful character interactions, and, of course, limited graphics and sounds. It's just that we were willing to put up with them back then because all we had were less capable computing systems and the experience was all so much newer.

[Nonek]

Nostalgia doesn't really apply when you still play twenty year old plus games regularly now, though that's obvious.

[Qistina]

The backbone of RPG is STORY, but today story element being reduced and more focused on visual enhancement. That is why older games are memorable, not because of their graphic, but their story actually.

 

That is what role playing is, that is we play a role in the story, we shape it as we please as what the story allow us to, like advanture game books. I love Fighting Fantasy series, and i do read-play Lone Wolf series although never get to buy all of them

 

The difference between the book and video game is, in the book we imagine what being told to us by the writer, in video games we see it all as what the programers show. So fetch quest in the book is fun, while fetch quest in video game is boring. See what i mean?

 

Skyrim quests are perfect if it's writen in a book, but because of everything is shown visually, the simple quest is so boring.

 

The same thing happen when novel convert to movie, to describe a place the writer tell us every detil in literiture manner, and so we imagine and feel awe. But on film, everything that being written for pages is only 30 seconds on the screen, we see it all in one picture

 

My point is, older RPG  lack graphic, but we have imaginations, and the developers focused on story rather than visual, there's nothing can be done with the graphic back then, so to live up the game is making the story good. But today, it is no longer about story, but how it will look good on screen, the most beautiful graphic will become GotY

 

The same thing goes to movies too, the most awesome CGI movies are considered good and may won awards, while the story is actually suck

 

It is a race of technology, game companies competing the technology, "i make the most awesome graphic than you", so they focus on visual enhancement rather than the story.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Qistina

[bussinrounds]

Nostalgia doesn't really apply when you still play twenty year old plus games regularly now, though that's obvious.

Nostalgia is always used as the default rebuttal by people who don't understand what made a genre/game popular or loved by the people discussing it in the first place.  The fact is that many RPG fans have been disillusioned by how modern (AAA) RPG's have placed an ever-increasing emphasis on action to increase marketability, reduced dialogue/gameplay choices because of  the constraints of voice-acting,/graphics, ect... stripped away depth, challenge and complexity because it doesn't "appeal to a mainstream audience".

[Qistina]

I give an example of game books vs Skyrim

 

let say, a fetch quest, you receive a quest from a mysterious man to find an X item in an enemy fort

 

In game book,...."while you sneak into the castle, you hear footsteps coming from the direction of the corridor, judging by the sound there maybe three to four guards patrolling, you must get past them to get into the keep, the guards will sure notice if you make any sounds, what will you do?

 

i. move silently until you reach the first door on your left, roll a dice and Test Your Skill, if you are successful, turn to page 100, if you are unsuccessful turn to page 40

ii. distract the guards by throwing some pebbles to the corner, roll a dice and Test Your Luck, if you are successful, turn to page 75, if you are unsuccessfull, turn to page 20"

 

It create suspense, you imagine the situation, and you feel thjrilled, even it is just a fetch quest

 

In Skyrim, you just storm the castle and kill the guards, or sneak pass them, or sneak shot them, or use invisibility, get the item and return.

 

See what i mean?

[Luridis]

Oh, I think I may have been misunderstood...

 

He flies through stuff so blindingly fast that I really don't know what it is he gets out of playing. And, that could be perhaps nothing, other than his audience.

 

I like Skyrim, and play it a lot. I love open world... But I wish the reviewers had taken off more score for some of it's problems: balance, mechanics, AI, lack of interactivity in dialogue. Though I know that's a mixed bag because studios apparently earn bonuses on score. Well, even if they didn't lower the score, I'd have liked to see a "these things are less than ideal" section.

 

I'm still at a loss on how much of the issues the game has can be directly attributed to it being multiplatform and thus the core engine being tailored around the lowest common denominator: that disgusting piece of theorycrafted dogdoo called the Playstation 3.

[Volourn]

"The backbone of RPG is STORY"

 

No.

 

 

"but today story element being reduced"

 

Story element has been enhanced.

 

 

"but their story actually."

 

Nope.

[Luridis]

"The backbone of RPG is STORY"

 

No.

 

 

"but today story element being reduced"

 

Story element has been enhanced.

 

 

"but their story actually."

 

Nope.

 

By story, I think she meant "narrative". That can be told a multitude of ways including things like mechanics and atmosphere. Example: Part of the original Diablo's story about the invading horrors was told through the seemingly never ending onslaught of enemies coming at you on each level.

[Volourn]

"By story, I think she meant "narrative"."

 

Story means story.

[archangel979]

"The backbone of RPG is STORY"

 

No.

 

 

"but today story element being reduced"

 

Story element has been enhanced.

 

 

"but their story actually."

 

Nope.

I can do this game as well. NO to all of your noes.

[213374U]

Oh, I think I may have been misunderstood...

 

He flies through stuff so blindingly fast that I really don't know what it is he gets out of playing. And, that could be perhaps nothing, other than his audience.

 

So basically you made a thread out of what should have been a YT comment? Nothing wrong with that, but I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish, though I might be missing some context. Is that account some sort of gaming big shot whose opinion really matters or something?

 

 

 

 

Nostalgia doesn't really apply when you still play twenty year old plus games regularly now, though that's obvious.

Nostalgia is always used as the default rebuttal by people who don't understand what made a genre/game popular or loved by the people discussing it in the first place.  The fact is that many RPG fans have been disillusioned by how modern (AAA) RPG's have placed an ever-increasing emphasis on action to increase marketability, reduced dialogue/gameplay choices because of  the constraints of voice-acting,/graphics, ect... stripped away depth, challenge and complexity because it doesn't "appeal to a mainstream audience".

 

Problem is that, being fair, those claims usually don't hold up to scrutiny. Old* RPGs had rather clunky mechanics and, more often than not, the perceived depth of combat was not really such. Many character builds not being viable, encounters being unreasonably difficult unless you knew and prepared for the one weakness designed into them, a single strategy or combo being so effective that everything else is irrelevant, that sort of thing. And this also extends to dialogue choices, where multiple choices rendered exactly the same result, as a necessity of excessively linear plot lines. Having a lot of fake choices does not add to complexity, it adds clutter. New games sometimes suffer from some of these problems too, especially in the gameplay department. Game designers have the hardest job in the industry, IMO.

 

Old games in general, being tech pieces, don't compare well vs new ones. There's going to be better and worse games in every generation and those all have their highlights and shadows, so any comparison can be made to support the agenda of the day. The funny thing about the incline/decline thing is that seemingly the most avid consumers of modern RPGs are also the loudest. I guess everyone needs a cause.

 

 

*Where is the "old" threshold, anyway? The 90's? The 80's? Maybe I never really knew the golden age.

[LadyCrimson]

It'd be nice if one could sum up the point in the videos, assuming there is one, for those that don't want to spend 50 minutes watching them.

 

As to the general inquiry - we (humans) get older and we are often, at least in part, stuck in our ways and what we want to at least some degree. When we aren't getting what we want, maybe because times/industries change, things seem "worse." It's not like there wasn't plenty of dreck in the "old days" too. I still think it's like asking "why are AAA films getting worse." Market/business growth=skewed to mass market/profit, not niche tastes.

 

Smaller scale projects seem to be where the old-fashioned is, more, not giants like Skyrim. Just like indie movies are often where the quality/more interesting stories may be.

 

At any rate ... I have two personalized elements that turn me off from a lot of RPG's and games in general at the moment. And they have nothing to do with story per se..

 

1--GUI's that are designed to work with gamepad's (and stay that way for PC). They can work fine, yes, but I'll never like them/still think it's quite limiting.

2--too much watching cinematic/npc's, not enough me.

[Qistina]

Good story makes good RPG, bad story makes bad RPG, that is the simple formula

 

Peoples today, especially kids, didn't play a story, they see good visual, they see what being defined as "enemy", then they push the button to kill the "enemy", that's what kids do, that is what the console is for, kids don't care about the story, the one who care the story so much are older people.

 

I play Doom when i when i was a kid, at that time, like i said avove, i see what defined as enemy, then i click to shoot them all, then roaming around and see the graphic, i do't even know what i am doing actually, just roaming around in Doom world, click and shoot

 

But when i am older, i play Unreal, it's similar like Doom, but this time i do care about the story, i read every messages pop up and i found out that my character is actually considered as a Messiah for the local alien people. So instead of mindlessly shooting everything i see, now i do care about those four hand Na Pali people who always worship me when they meet me. I wouldn't do the same if i am 9 or 10 years old, i will shoot them

 

Games today mostly are made for kids who doesn't care about story, for those who feel awed by the graphic, then push the button to kill everything

 

If older gamers like that, then they are actually kids....

Edited December 11, 2014 by Qistina

[Luridis]

 

Oh, I think I may have been misunderstood...

 

He flies through stuff so blindingly fast that I really don't know what it is he gets out of playing. And, that could be perhaps nothing, other than his audience.

 

So basically you made a thread out of what should have been a YT comment? Nothing wrong with that, but I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish, though I might be missing some context. Is that account some sort of gaming big shot whose opinion really matters or something?

 

[Looks Around] This is called a forum, is it not?

 

Seriously, did I miss something between the 90's and today? Forums, thoughts, discussions, etc.

 

As for my opinions: They're mine, and they're opinions. They of course matter to me but... No one else is required to: acknowledge, ratify, agree with, exalt, deny, show disdain for, get flippant about, explain their position, etc. with regards to them, unless they actually want to have a discussion on a forum.

[Gizmo]

I don't think combat has improved in recent RPGs. If anything, combat has strayed further away; I actually see posts requesting Ironsights in RPGs ~and New Vegas actually included them.  Ironsights are for aiming the gun, but in an RPG, it is the character holding the weapon, and the character doing their best to aim ~as per the character's developed skill with the weapon. The player should never be in direct control of the weapon in an RPG.  RPGs are not costume quests, and designing them as digital larp/simulations is not improving combat or gameplay IMO. 

Better [RPG] gameplay should come of a better web of anticipated character actions and their resulting changes to the narative; it won't come from the ever deminishing importance of making a character ~in these modern ersatz RPGs that we see.  Better combat should come of systems that give & take certain advantages based on the the strengths and weaknesses of the PC's; not from making the PCs into "gameplay garnish" tacked onto what amounts to a NOLF-style shooter with a few multiple choice questions. The player's experience should live & die by the limits of the characters they create.  If their character cannot make the shot, then it shouldn't happen; if their character cannot access a certain location, then they should never see it until they play a character who can can access it; who can talk their way in or bully their way in, or just simply notice that there is a place to get into...

Edited December 11, 2014 by Gizmo

[Luridis]

Good story makes good RPG, bad story makes bad RPG, that is the simple formula

 

Peoples today, especially kids, didn't play a story, they see good visual, they see what being defined as "enemy", then they push the button to kill the "enemy", that's what kids do, that is what the console is for, kids don't care about the story, the one who care the story so much are older people.

 

I play Doom when i when i was a kid, at that time, like i said avove, i see what defined as enemy, then i click to shoot them all, then roaming around and see the graphic, i do't even know what i am doing actually, just roaming around in Doom world, click and shoot

 

But when i am older, i play Unreal, it's similar like Doom, but this time i do care about the story, i read every messages pop up and i found out that my character is actually considered as a Messiah for the local alien people. So instead of mindlessly shooting everything i see, now i do care about those four hand Na Pali people who always worship me when they meet me. I wouldn't do the same if i am 9 or 10 years old, i will shoot them

 

Games today mostly are made for kids who doesn't care about story, for those who feel awed by the graphic, then push the button to kill everything

 

If older gamers like that, then they are actually kids....

 

Did you notice that your description also describes the differences between a FPS and RPG. I think that's my more or less what I am trying to explain. The guy in the videos plays TESV like he's in a First-Person-Shooter. That's not to say I don't like the first-person point-of-view in an RPG, that's fine, and has been around for a long time. But when the mechanics are watered down with each new generation to the point of... Well, TES doesn't have classes anymore. There's also no faction animosity or exclusivity, beyond the trite Stormcloaks/Imperial disagreement. And the Blades vs Greybeards "choice" is so obviously a poorly constructed contention story that it's nonsensical in its presentation. Think about that for a moment... Esbern and Delphine went to a great deal of trouble to track you down and then decide they won't have anything else to do with you unless you kill a dragon that warred against their organization more than five millennia in the past. And, he has since done thousands of years of penance for it. That part of the Skyrim story approaches SW prequel levels of not making any sense.

 

All that said, the protagonist of Skyrim ends up a turning into a Mary Sue: Harbinger, Master Thief, Arch-Mage, Dragonborn, Chief Assassin. In short, there are no interesting hard choices to be made in Skyrim.

 

What I'm asking is the genre destined to continue to lose depth and complexity to the point at which just about any RPG made will play like Hexen/Heretic? Because, then I'd be forced to stop buying games all together.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Luridis

[Qistina]

I just making an allegory, of course Doom and Unreal are FPS, but they have some RPG values, i only mention that when i was a kid i play Doom blindly, but when i am older i started to care about the story in Unreal. What i mean is RPG today are movng toward FPS and button mashing is because they created it for kids, only kids who get attracted by visual and then want to kill everything in the game, don't care about the story at all, you guys might call them as "casual gamers"

 

Kids who love to fight over builds, fight over who have the most awesome builds, fighting egos, so games are created for that and being simplified for easy to reach the builds they dream off. Kids who love to see high damage numbers on the screen, they don't like to see the character evading or blocking, they love to see they hit with high numbers. That is why there is no such thing as "defense" in modern RPG, just attack attack attack. While Skyrim do have Block, but Block perks also deal damage

 

I think it's easier to make games to satisfy kids ego than to create one that would likely get a lot of critism by older people

 

But bethesda is wise, even though they do create Skyrim for kids, but they maintain their identity that win older gamers, that is why Skyrim is more tolerable than Dragon Age:Inquisition

Edited December 11, 2014 by Qistina

[rjshae]

 

Nostalgia doesn't really apply when you still play twenty year old plus games regularly now, though that's obvious.

Nostalgia is always used as the default rebuttal by people who don't understand what made a genre/game popular or loved by the people discussing it in the first place.  The fact is that many RPG fans have been disillusioned by how modern (AAA) RPG's have placed an ever-increasing emphasis on action to increase marketability, reduced dialogue/gameplay choices because of  the constraints of voice-acting,/graphics, ect... stripped away depth, challenge and complexity because it doesn't "appeal to a mainstream audience".

 

No it's not a default argument, it's a valid psychological process. I've played numerous RPGs, both old and new. Many older games left a favorable impression on my mind, but in going back and replaying them I found they weren't quite as enjoyable as I once found them. You say that modern games place an every increasing emphasis on action, yet many RPGs of old were almost entirely oriented around action. The stories were threadbare at best, with only a handful having a solid, enjoyable, well-developed plot and interesting interactions that rose above the constant stream of repetitive combat encounters.

[Volourn]

"Good story makes good RPG, bad story makes bad RPG, that is the simple formula"

 

Yeah, because stories is what drove people to play RPGs liek the GB games, WL, the Fallout, M&M, etc., etc. LMAO

[archangel979]

Only reason why it went downhill is because players don't want to read anymore and so the games have catered to this public.

[Volourn]

Nonsense. Modern games have way more writing than older games. You go play true old skool RPGs and then tell me that, on average, they have more writing than more modern RPGs.

[archangel979]

IE games did. So did Fallout.

[pmp10]

Nostalgia has a tendency to enhance and glorify older experiences, which may create the illusion that things are getting worse. However, many of the older RPGs were also boring experiences with stupid repetitive mechanics, lousy stories, pitiful character interactions, and, of course, limited graphics and sounds. It's just that we were willing to put up with them back then because all we had were less capable computing systems and the experience was all so much newer.

It's wasn't so much about the experience being newer but the alternatives being no better.

 

As for RPGs - for me they started rolling downhill when the gameplay and mechanics design got 'refined'.

No developer wants takes risks anymore and I fell that for the last decade I have been playing the same three games with slightly different skins.