What don't you like about RPGs?
Author
Hey peoples
Recently I just finished a very rough design document for a game I want to try and put together as an homebrow project after my uni course ends. Without going into too much detail, it's basically an RPG for people who don't like RPGs, consisting of an accessable plot, fast paced fight engine, and overall simple interface.
With this in mind, what features should I consider? If you were making an RPG for RPG haters, what would you have?
Thanks for your help
That depends on what RPG-aspects those RPG-haters actually hate. :)
Personally, I don't mind a few upgradeable things here and there, and I'm fine with buying items. I don't like the fantasy theme that many RPG's go with though, and I don't like the horrible combat system that so many RPG's go with either. Oh, and when it smells like everything has been 'questified', I'm gone. Silly things like finding some necklace for a little girl or doing someone elses job aren't what I call fun. Neither do I like experience statistics, or numeric statistics in general: just use distinct items with different functions, rather than a +1, +2, +3, etc. version of everything. I don't like number pushing games, that basically reward time investment rather than skill.
So my anti-RPG RPG would probably look like an adventure or shooter, with a relatively small range of more or less distinct items that can be found or bought. Upgradeable weaponry and armament perhaps, and it'd be set in a nowadays or futuristic theme. I'm not sure if I would take a linear story approach, or try something less restricting. Probably linear, because I like solid storylines, and if you're not writing it out, everyone will form their own personal storylines - which can be fine, but personally I find such 'stories' much less interesting. I like reading a book much more than writing one after all. ;)
Personally, I don't mind a few upgradeable things here and there, and I'm fine with buying items. I don't like the fantasy theme that many RPG's go with though, and I don't like the horrible combat system that so many RPG's go with either. Oh, and when it smells like everything has been 'questified', I'm gone. Silly things like finding some necklace for a little girl or doing someone elses job aren't what I call fun. Neither do I like experience statistics, or numeric statistics in general: just use distinct items with different functions, rather than a +1, +2, +3, etc. version of everything. I don't like number pushing games, that basically reward time investment rather than skill.
So my anti-RPG RPG would probably look like an adventure or shooter, with a relatively small range of more or less distinct items that can be found or bought. Upgradeable weaponry and armament perhaps, and it'd be set in a nowadays or futuristic theme. I'm not sure if I would take a linear story approach, or try something less restricting. Probably linear, because I like solid storylines, and if you're not writing it out, everyone will form their own personal storylines - which can be fine, but personally I find such 'stories' much less interesting. I like reading a book much more than writing one after all. ;)
Personally, I would consider Zelda an anti-RPG RPG. You find and to a limited extent buy items, the only "numbers" factored in are the number of hearts that Link has (and lets face it, nearly every game needs some numeric health indicator). Battles are won by skill, and are fought on the map without any transitions needed. Plus to top it all off, Zelda is one hell of a fun game. [grin]
It does depend on exactly what elements of the RPG you wish to remove for your RPG haters; my feeling though is that you'll end up working in a different game genre but possibly with a slight "RPG" feel.
Zelda is a good example; I've seen people classify this as an RPG for some reason, but I think of it more as belonging to a genre I call "action-adventure" (or even "Zelda style games" since it defines the template). As Roots described games of this type involves some action/arcade skill for combat, and "level ups" are delivered in the form of health upgrades and increases in the protagonist's capabilities usually through equipment upgrades (these extra abilities also usually act as a method for locking away content until the player is ready). Metroidvania style games also fall into this category, as do other games such as the Little Big Adventures and Beyond Good and Evil.
The action/adventure sounds like it fits the description of features you've given; accessable plot, simple interface and action oriented.
Zelda is a good example; I've seen people classify this as an RPG for some reason, but I think of it more as belonging to a genre I call "action-adventure" (or even "Zelda style games" since it defines the template). As Roots described games of this type involves some action/arcade skill for combat, and "level ups" are delivered in the form of health upgrades and increases in the protagonist's capabilities usually through equipment upgrades (these extra abilities also usually act as a method for locking away content until the player is ready). Metroidvania style games also fall into this category, as do other games such as the Little Big Adventures and Beyond Good and Evil.
The action/adventure sounds like it fits the description of features you've given; accessable plot, simple interface and action oriented.
Quote:
Without going into too much detail, it's basically an RPG for people who don't like RPGs, consisting of an accessable plot, fast paced fight engine, and overall simple interface.
Or... not really an RPG at all!
Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's important to remember that things that make fighting or action or adventure games good is not necessarily the same things that people don't like about RPGs.
Author
Quote:Original post by Captain P
That depends on what RPG-aspects those RPG-haters actually hate. :)
Personally, I don't mind a few upgradeable things here and there, and I'm fine with buying items. I don't like the fantasy theme that many RPG's go with though, and I don't like the horrible combat system that so many RPG's go with either. Oh, and when it smells like everything has been 'questified', I'm gone. Silly things like finding some necklace for a little girl or doing someone elses job aren't what I call fun. Neither do I like experience statistics, or numeric statistics in general: just use distinct items with different functions, rather than a +1, +2, +3, etc. version of everything. I don't like number pushing games, that basically reward time investment rather than skill.
So my anti-RPG RPG would probably look like an adventure or shooter, with a relatively small range of more or less distinct items that can be found or bought. Upgradeable weaponry and armament perhaps, and it'd be set in a nowadays or futuristic theme. I'm not sure if I would take a linear story approach, or try something less restricting. Probably linear, because I like solid storylines, and if you're not writing it out, everyone will form their own personal storylines - which can be fine, but personally I find such 'stories' much less interesting. I like reading a book much more than writing one after all. ;)
Thats pretty much what I think, I'm sick of fantasy realms, sick of having to memorise which element beats what, and I'm sick of overcomplicated leveling up systems. And since no one else is making that game, I will. Looking at it, it probably is more of an adventure game then anything else.
Without going into too much detail over what I want to do, I'm worried trimming it to the bone will take away too much depth. For instance instead of levelling up, im planning on them just being given items which give them special moves in combat, using a fixed party etc.
A couple of people have said that it isn't wouldn't be an RPG. I think the plan I've got now is just about one, the same way a Chiuaua is a dog. It's just not what you'd expect one to be.
If it bears more than a passing similarity to Progress Quest, it's out in my book.
If removing the "progression" in the game made it unplayable due to boredom, or if an online title would be boring if played single player, I don't like it. Progress is an enhancement of game play, not an end in itself. Most people and players learn this eventually in life. Unfortunately, progress still seems to be the base metric of RPG's.
If removing the "progression" in the game made it unplayable due to boredom, or if an online title would be boring if played single player, I don't like it. Progress is an enhancement of game play, not an end in itself. Most people and players learn this eventually in life. Unfortunately, progress still seems to be the base metric of RPG's.
Lol what I hate about RPGs are when they don't have good deep non-cliche stories and character development, and when they are just fighting over and over and over again.
Quote:Original post by sunandshadow
Lol what I hate about RPGs are when they don't have good deep non-cliche stories and character development, and when they are just fighting over and over and over again.
The fighting over and over and over again is actually what I like about most RPGs.
@OP: Make the game how you want to make it. You can't please everybody; there are going to be people who like parts that others don't.
Btw, RPG haters hate RPGs for a reason. They're not going to want to play one. If you want to make an RPG, make it for the ones that LIKE RPGs.
I just hate that almost all of them are so incredibly long. Is there anything in the definition of an RPG that requires them all to be 100+ hour long opuses? It's not even the repetative combat that bugs me; if someone made a 100 hour long game that had good gameplay the whole time (and I've played a couple like that), I would probably still dread playing something so long.
So if we could get more *short* RPGs, that would be great. And when I say short I mean like 1 or 2 hours max. Movies and TV shows aren't any longer than that, and they are frequently able to deliver a solid story with memorable characters.
So if we could get more *short* RPGs, that would be great. And when I say short I mean like 1 or 2 hours max. Movies and TV shows aren't any longer than that, and they are frequently able to deliver a solid story with memorable characters.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
