Quote:Original post by Nytegard
Yes, I wouldn't mind a high ranking weakling. This goes hand in hand with being the person who saves the world. RPGs always seem to happen in a macrocosm. You're always the person who saves the world from the evil bad guy. You're always "the man" in the game. Why can't an RPG exist in which you're just a nobody? Or an objective where you're just solving a problem in the smaller scheme of things. This would open up sequels to an overall episodic big scale RPG.

It doesn't always have to be "save the world" but I really would rather play the role of the hero than junk dealer, delivery boy, pest control, or just all purpose Munchkin

Quote:Original post by Nytegard
And this leads to the linearity of the game. This is especially true with JRPGs. The games never have a time line, rather they are event based. And extremely linear, so I can't go to town B until I clean your stupid basement. Event based portions of the game should be on grand key elements of the game, not every little detail.

This is really just a issue that a game is going to have a finite amount of content and for two games with a equal amount a railroaded game where the player gets to see 90% of the content will get a better review than a more open game where the player misses 90% of the content becouse they weren't at the right place at the right time.

Quote:Original post by Way Walker

Quote:Original post by Kest
4. Generic looting

What's the problem with generic looting?

Nothing, if you enjoy it.

Quote:It seems the complaint is that generic looting is worth your time so let's make it not worth your time... what?

If it's not fun, or if it's tedious and distracting, then it should not be worth your time. Providing an ability to gain gameplay advantages by performing tasks that are not enjoyable is just plain bad game design. There's no exception to that rule.

Quote:Original post by Way Walker

Quote:Original post by Captain Griffen
MangaFox, your list seems to basically be a list of personal dislikes or simply bad implementation, rather than an objective assesment of high level game design.

Same with the OP's list.

My list is obviously personal, but the problems have nothing to do with bad implementation. The features I'm complaining about were purposely introduced, or completely ignored.

Quote:Original post by Kaze
This is really just a issue that a game is going to have a finite amount of content and for two games with a equal amount a railroaded game where the player gets to see 90% of the content will get a better review than a more open game where the player misses 90% of the content becouse they weren't at the right place at the right time.

I honestly like the games that have you miss 90% of content if you weren't in the right place at the right time. It allows for more replayability, and I honestly want to replay it again vs a game where I get burnt out in the end after seeing everything. (The Last Express, while not an RPG, was an excellent example of this. No game is ever the same experience.

Quote:Original post by Nytegard

Quote:Original post by Kaze
This is really just a issue that a game is going to have a finite amount of content and for two games with a equal amount a railroaded game where the player gets to see 90% of the content will get a better review than a more open game where the player misses 90% of the content becouse they weren't at the right place at the right time.

I honestly like the games that have you miss 90% of content if you weren't in the right place at the right time. It allows for more replayability, and I honestly want to replay it again vs a game where I get burnt out in the end after seeing everything. (The Last Express, while not an RPG, was an excellent example of this. No game is ever the same experience.

But I bet you'd also complain about the 5 hour long game that results, right?

Quote:Original post by Captain Griffen
But I bet you'd also complain about the 5 hour long game that results, right?

No. Honestly, I'm all for 5 hour games. I honestly can't stand 40 hour games. (See The Mythical 40-Hour Gamer).

I'm not in school anymore, and don't have time to devote another full time job's worth of time to a game. I prefer to play in 5 minute increments, not 5 hour increments. Plus, I'm mainly an adventure game fan, where many of my fav. games are from the early 1980's. Many of them could be beaten in an hour or two if you knew what you were doing. The difference between them and todays game for the fun factor for me is not that they were better games, as they aren't, but it's a fun ride from start to finish, vs games today where the first 5 hours are fun, and then it becomes boring and repetitive, and I put the game away after the third dungeon, never to see 98% of the game, because I just don't care anymore.

My fav. RPG is Ultima 7. If you knew exactly what you were doing, you could beat the game in under 10 mins. But, it offered hours upon hours of gaming also. That's how I personally feel games should be. You shouldn't be forced into hours of gaming. It should be a choice.

Quote:Original post by Kest

Quote:Original post by Way Walker
It seems the complaint is that generic looting is worth your time so let's make it not worth your time... what?

If it's not fun, or if it's tedious and distracting, then it should not be worth your time. Providing an ability to gain gameplay advantages by performing tasks that are not enjoyable is just plain bad game design. There's no exception to that rule.

But if it's not fun (and tedious and distracting things tend not to be fun), it's not worth my time to begin with. I'm a big fan of simply not playing games that I don't enjoy.

Also, you haven't suggested a means of removing the ability to gain gameplay advantages by performing the task; you've only reduced the returns, making it even more tedious and distracting.

Quote:

Quote:Original post by Way Walker
Same with the OP's list.

My list is obviously personal, but the problems have nothing to do with bad implementation. The features I'm complaining about were purposely introduced, or completely ignored.

Really, it was more a critique of writing off a list like yours or MangaFox' by saying things on it are up to poor implemtnation and personal opinion, when most any list will be like that. I won't say that some games aren't objectively better than others, but I'd say that's largely a matter of the quality of the implementation of the idea. Most other differences are personal opinion. Maybe I just should've asked how your list was more objective and higher level than MangaFox'?

Quote:Original post by Way Walker
But if it's not fun (and tedious and distracting things tend not to be fun), it's not worth my time to begin with. I'm a big fan of simply not playing games that I don't enjoy.

Then you won't miss the removal of it, while that removal will improve the experience for other players.

Quote:Also, you haven't suggested a means of removing the ability to gain gameplay advantages by performing the task; you've only reduced the returns, making it even more tedious and distracting.

There are countless means to removing it completely, so that's not a productive point. However, there are some game features that are impossible to implement without providing a miniscule reward for an unfavorable action. In such a case, reducing the reward is a step in the right direction. It reduces the number of players that will be willing to submit, which reduces the number of players that will have less fun with your game.

Quote:Really, it was more a critique of writing off a list like yours or MangaFox' by saying things on it are up to poor implemtnation and personal opinion, when most any list will be like that.

Poor implementation suggests a positive vision with negative construction. The negatives on my list are aimed at the vision.

Quote:Original post by Telastyn

Quote:Original post by Nytegard
Honestly, I'm all for 5 hour games. I honestly can't stand 40 hour games. (See The Mythical 40-Hour Gamer).

With the decreasing number of quality games (or perhaps my increasing standards for what goes for 'quality'), I'm totally for long, long games even though they take me a few months or so to find the time to complete.

And my personal preference would be a good 5 hour game worth playing at least 8 times. But the "worth playing at least 8 times" is a large factor in my calling it a "good" game. I don't know how many times I played through Sonic 3 (a game I had never played until I played it on the GameCube). Granted, it's not an RPG, but there aren't many good 5 hour RPG's that I know of.

Quote:Original post by Kest

Quote:Original post by Way Walker
But if it's not fun (and tedious and distracting things tend not to be fun), it's not worth my time to begin with. I'm a big fan of simply not playing games that I don't enjoy.

Then you won't miss the removal of it, while that removal will improve the experience for other players.

If I'm doing that in a game, then I find it somewhat enjoyable and worth my time. Why wouldn't I miss the removal of something that I enjoy and find worth my time? Are you claiming that nobody enjoys generic looting?

Quote:

Quote:Also, you haven't suggested a means of removing the ability to gain gameplay advantages by performing the task; you've only reduced the returns, making it even more tedious and distracting.

There are countless means to removing it completely, so that's not a productive point. However, there are some game features that are impossible to implement without providing a miniscule reward for an unfavorable action. In such a case, reducing the reward is a step in the right direction. It reduces the number of players that will be willing to submit to it.

Are we talking about generic looting (point 4) or tedious gaming tasks in the abstract? I thought we were talking about looting.

If you would find it preferable to remove it completely, why didn't you suggest those means? If it's because you meant something more abstract than generic looting, what makes those means not applicable in the abstract case?

And is it really sufficient to try to make it so tedious that only an insignificant portion of gamers will do it? Isn't the real problem that gamers are willing to do things that are not enjoyable? But who says they aren't enjoying it? Why are they doing it if they don't, in some way, enjoy it?

Quote:

Quote:Really, it was more a critique of writing off a list like yours or MangaFox' by saying things on it are up to poor implemtnation and personal opinion, when most any list will be like that.

Poor implementation suggests a positive vision with negative construction. The negatives on my list are aimed at the vision.

And I disagree that those are objective negatives. Like Funkymunky suggested, these were done positively in the past. I'm claiming it's largely personal/subjective negatives (which I think is fine) and, in cases where it's objectively negative, that's more a consequence of the implementation (which also think is fine).

Or, to make sure we're on the same page, in what way do you think your list is more objective and/or less personal than MangaFox' list (or other lists given by other posters to this thread)?