-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
RPGs are bad game design and shouldn't exist anymore
- Thread starter Arithmetician
- Start date
RPGs are only truly bad when the leveling mechanic is pointless because the game offers nothing in the way of challenge or player choice. Like pokemon sword which is extremely bad.
In the last 30 years or so or RPG design, your character(s) level is less of a limitation on how strong of an enemy you can beat, and more of a way for less skilled players to brute-force their way past difficult enemies by grinding a lot. I am fine with leveling as a mechanic since it enables interesting things like skill systems, without tying them to exploration or story completion.
But i would also welcome more RPGs taking their cues from Chrono Cross. That game could actually be a little bit difficult at times, since there wasn't much leeway to strengthen the party if you did happen to get stuck on a boss.
But i would also welcome more RPGs taking their cues from Chrono Cross. That game could actually be a little bit difficult at times, since there wasn't much leeway to strengthen the party if you did happen to get stuck on a boss.
Levels in Elder Scrolls have prevented me from beating any of them. Bethesda needs better design around enemy levelling.
Any amount of grind makes me stop playing a JRPG.
I agree levels can be a bit of a scourge even though I really love levelling up my character. I'm happy for different games to experiment with systems but I wouldn't want levels to disappear completely.
Any amount of grind makes me stop playing a JRPG.
I agree levels can be a bit of a scourge even though I really love levelling up my character. I'm happy for different games to experiment with systems but I wouldn't want levels to disappear completely.
I appreciate gameplay which challenges my systems knowledge, quick thinking, and manual dexterity. Vertical power progression disrupts the integrity of such challenges. Furthermore, I have no appreciation for the myriad ends for which vertical power progression is a suitable means. In conclusion, I will be resurrecting Gary Gygax so that I can personally kick his ass.
But -1 again for the fact that his use of it is exactly the opposite of what it means.
The one thing I don't like is using the same model for different level enemies, so a blue crab is level 5 and the same crab, but yellow, is level 10? Sometimes is used the same model and color, but it's level is higher because it's location is different. This really bothers me. Do some model modifications, like an extra horn, some extra legs or at least a different texture.
For human enemies I think a different armor can work to differentiate enemies.
For human enemies I think a different armor can work to differentiate enemies.
That's literally video games though? Doing the same stuff over and over but with different window dressing. Every FPS has your shooting the same bad guys or demon throughout the game, sometimes maybe they have a shield or something, but you're still doing the same shit constantly throughout every single video game.
I hear you, but if people are out to exploit games, then they only have themselves to blame. The more you try to build systems that resist exploitation, the more you restrict player freedom. Skyrim is wide open to exploits, but it's also wide open to role playing and that's the trade off. If someone wants to jump up and down on the spot for an hour to max out their athletics, then I guess good for them, I hope it doesn't ruin things for them, but I'd rather programmers spend time building cool experiences rather than chasing exploits (at least in single player games).
I definitely understand feeling that way, but my in my experience I get a lot of fun out of strategizing and trying to figure out the best way to progress. For example I'm a big fan of the SMT games which expect you to come up with the most broken combinations of buffs and debuffs and weaknesses and exploits you can find and are balanced around people doing that. Another obvious example (which I have a creeping suspicion you like) are the Souls games, which have tons of unique and clever ways to approach problems and allow for tons of player expression without ever fully losing the core of the experience. Then, turning around and going back to Skyrim suddenly if I play my preferred way the game devolves into a terrible slog and I have to purposefully hold back to not make it trivially easy and boring.
Basically I get the most fun out of RPGs when I'm allowed to go all out and the systems push back in a satisfying and challenging ways. When playing optimally breaks the game, that puts the onus on the player to constantly resist playing too well and ruining their own experience — basically asking them to design the game for themselves.
OP
OP
Exactly. I don't want to be in charge of determining how difficult the game should be at each point. That's what game design is all about; the developers should design encounters to be as difficult as they need to be at every point in the game.
Also, if you're going to scale the world's levels with the player's levels, why have levels at all? Developers clearly have an expectation that players should be level 15 at this stage, 45 at that stage, to face off against level 15 and 45 enemies. If you're always supposed to be the same level as the enemy, levels aren't adding much to the game really.
I think this comes down to whether you're invested in role playing or not. Within any sufficiently complex system, there is likely to be an optimal path that is degenerate. I think Souls games (and action games in general) can be more focused in that regard because all the system are just supporting combat. In more story driven games, I think it's important for there to be other rewards such as narrative / story elements that you might not see if you play in a degenerate way. Obviously Skyrim so open-ended that you can pretty much get away with anything though.
I actually prefer how a lot of immersive sims do it. Deus Ex: Human Revolution/Mankind Divided, Prey, Dishonored. Finding and earning upgrade points to unlock new skills or enhance your abilities.
Fuck this thread and its shitty title.
That said, there are other systems missing in the survey that I would vote for, like Deus Ex / Fallout style perks and skill trees, which are my favorite.
Or what the poster above me said, damnit
That said, there are other systems missing in the survey that I would vote for, like Deus Ex / Fallout style perks and skill trees, which are my favorite.
Or what the poster above me said, damnit
you know, there was a time where when you didn't like things you would just ignore them and focused your attention on what you liked, instead of wishing they didn't exist.
I don't agree with OP either, but you need to calm down lol.
I don't agree with OP either, but you need to calm down lol.
Because you don't like the design, doesn't mean it's bad design.
I like grinding in games, it's relaxing, it's interesting to see how I get stronger in game.
I like grinding in games, it's relaxing, it's interesting to see how I get stronger in game.
I sort of agree in a way, but my counterargument would be if modern BGS is going to throw up their hands and let people break the game if they want, they don't do it enough. Like Morrowind is even more broken and exploitable in Skyrim, but breaking the game there is actually tons of fun since it requires no grinding and leads to you gaining the ability to jump over mountains or fly over any obstacle or turn completely invisible and wreak havoc on a small town of completely clueless NPCs who have no idea what's happening. Plus, you put it at odds with role-playing, but the lore of Morrowind is such that breaking the game with magic like that is entirely justified in universe, and is in fact how certain gods in the pantheon rose to god status.
So that's why Skyrim is sort of the unfortunate middle ground. It's not balanced enough to make strategizing and minmaxing satisfying, but it's not sandbox-y enough to make shattering reality through the sheer force of your character's will fun or engaging.
I definitely am generally not a fan of level scaling either, at least when not done extremely conservatively.
But I think saying encounters should be designed at a static, bespoke difficulty loses something special about RPGs. Obviously for many games that works well, but the interesting thing about RPGs is how the systems allow for the experience to change based on your own choices. So a game where you start with all your skills maxed out, like you suggested, will always provide the same experience for each encounter to everyone who plays it. Meanwhile, a game where the player character grows along different paths depending on how you play allows for the same bossfight to play out entirely differently depending on whether you upgraded your weapon a certain way or leveled up magic or rely on a shield build or whatever. That reactivity would be lost.
This I absolutely agree with about Bethesda games. It would be better if they leaned more into the meta stuff that made Morrowind lore so great!
I think this complaint very much comes from the idea that some people don't like grinding in games.
On one hand, if you don't have any grinding, levels and stats become pointless.
On the other hand, hunting the same random encounters and over and over again can be boring.
I'm reminded of Dragon Quest III, where you could very quickly end up in the fourth village (Kanave in the English DWIII), and be getting your ass handed to you by Giant Crabs because you're underleveled. You needed to grind to get up to around level 11 to be safe with the encounters in the area.
Similarly, there was a section of forest east of Kanave where much stronger enemies were available to fight that could wipe you in a single round. You could use this to very quickly level your party but you were also taking a big risk of getting killed and losing half your gold. That was part of the challenge. You are restricted by your relative strength, but could pull off a victory against three Executioners if you managed to put them to sleep effectively and hammered away until they died, resulting in a massive experience and gold haul. But you could also run into two Old Hags who could Firebane you to death in a round or two.
On one hand, if you don't have any grinding, levels and stats become pointless.
On the other hand, hunting the same random encounters and over and over again can be boring.
I'm reminded of Dragon Quest III, where you could very quickly end up in the fourth village (Kanave in the English DWIII), and be getting your ass handed to you by Giant Crabs because you're underleveled. You needed to grind to get up to around level 11 to be safe with the encounters in the area.
Similarly, there was a section of forest east of Kanave where much stronger enemies were available to fight that could wipe you in a single round. You could use this to very quickly level your party but you were also taking a big risk of getting killed and losing half your gold. That was part of the challenge. You are restricted by your relative strength, but could pull off a victory against three Executioners if you managed to put them to sleep effectively and hammered away until they died, resulting in a massive experience and gold haul. But you could also run into two Old Hags who could Firebane you to death in a round or two.
If you don't like leveling up and the rewards it brings, considering its one of the hallmarks of RPGs... shouldn't you simply drop the genre and move to things that actually interest you, OP?
I dislike shooters, but that doesn't mean they're bad game design that shouldn't exist. It simply means they're not for me.
At this point in time, I'm starting to think that any discussion that involves the words "game design" should be banned unless the creator of the thread can prove they know about the topic, because its kind of insulting to the people who actually know and work in the industry.
I dislike shooters, but that doesn't mean they're bad game design that shouldn't exist. It simply means they're not for me.
At this point in time, I'm starting to think that any discussion that involves the words "game design" should be banned unless the creator of the thread can prove they know about the topic, because its kind of insulting to the people who actually know and work in the industry.
I don't have time to read all of this quite yet. I've recently come along to the ideas that stat based levels are inherently poor design too. They remove a lot of space for intentional design and require a lot of finnicky and frankly impossible balancing to arrive at something that still doesn't quite work in a one size fits all way.
At best, their negative effects can be modulated down by other systems -- this is not exactly a ringing endorsement. In most cases, just straight up removing the leveling system would improve the game.
Incremental equipment improvements that only pad stats by small percentages are the EXACT same thing as levels in most scenarios. They are just time gated. Hell half the time you get the equipment by grinding for money (i.e. a different kind of exp) or drops (basically randomized exp).
Qualitative skills that change your action-space, e.g traditional Zelda or Metroidvania type skills can work fine though. If these are gated by exp or time (i.e. levels) than that's fine.
Not a lot of time to expand but just again saying this is a good conversation.
Most game mechanics discussions don't really distil down to the essence of the thing. E.g. what is a level? What is exp? Really its mostly time doing certain activities. Is gold just another type of exp then? (Yes). Is a game that is progressed by repeating the same actions until stats go up really any different mechanically from an idle game like cookie clicker (of course it is different, but seeing the similarities and working them out is enlightening). There are better more intuitive abstractions we can probably use than exp nowadays, that will in the end amount to similar end results.
At best, their negative effects can be modulated down by other systems -- this is not exactly a ringing endorsement. In most cases, just straight up removing the leveling system would improve the game.
Incremental equipment improvements that only pad stats by small percentages are the EXACT same thing as levels in most scenarios. They are just time gated. Hell half the time you get the equipment by grinding for money (i.e. a different kind of exp) or drops (basically randomized exp).
Qualitative skills that change your action-space, e.g traditional Zelda or Metroidvania type skills can work fine though. If these are gated by exp or time (i.e. levels) than that's fine.
Not a lot of time to expand but just again saying this is a good conversation.
Most game mechanics discussions don't really distil down to the essence of the thing. E.g. what is a level? What is exp? Really its mostly time doing certain activities. Is gold just another type of exp then? (Yes). Is a game that is progressed by repeating the same actions until stats go up really any different mechanically from an idle game like cookie clicker (of course it is different, but seeing the similarities and working them out is enlightening). There are better more intuitive abstractions we can probably use than exp nowadays, that will in the end amount to similar end results.
Honestly, I read a thread title this obnoxious and I'm not gonna read the OP by default, don't care how well thought out it is. Cut the clickbait shit. I'm so sick of 'xyz is bad game design and shouldn't exist because I, the ultimate master of video games, know better than the entirety of game developers out there' thread titles in general.
I hear what you're saying, but Persona 5 Royal is the best game I have ever played, so I'm just gonna do my own thing man, and you do yours.
This, millions of people enjoy this game design so I really don't care if you think it's outdated or whatever OP.
It's an inflammatory title but the measure of whether a design is elegant and parsimonious probably should have no relation to whether people enjoy it. People love literal slot machines. That is not a reason to just say shut up we can't talk about this.
It becomes more of an academic and abstract level of criticism which games doesn't have too often. But I think it's interesting! You can still go play the games it's not going to hurt your identity to critique the mechanical design
That's...not ludonarrative dissonance. I'm not even sure what you're describing here, to be honest. If a game uses "level" to signify a character's combat parameters, and under the game's rules it is impossible for a level 10 character to beat a level 20 character, then how can you say that your battle strategy is fine or that you "know" you're skilled enough to beat the fight? Your strategy is broken at a fundamental level: you chose an opponent your character is not strong enough to defeat. If what you want is an RPG where the stat spread is narrow and/or the rules permit a beginning character to kill any advanced character, there are plenty of those. Everyone's already pointed out to you that the Souls games work like this. Some Fire Emblem games can be beaten with zero growths. Multiple FF games have been beaten at Level 1.
Leveling up is fun for many players. Setting aside the simple (but easily manipulated and ultimately empty) pleasure of seeing bars fill/numbers get bigger, players get into the simulation aspect of the game and enjoy the fact that their character is "more powerful" within the game's universe, with new abiliites, access to new areas, etc. Can these rewards be replicated in a game without a "level" parameter? Of course. But that doesn't show that levels are bad design.
I'm not sure why you can't imagine a specific kind of make-believe rabbit being more powerful than a specific kind of make-believe dragon, but it seems to me there are two solutions that are each relatively common in the RPG world: (1) art and world designers save more intimidating-looking enemy types for later in the game and hint, in dialogue, why bunnies on Island 5 are tougher than dragons on island 1; (2) in more simulation-focused CRPGs, it's possible to see low-level enemies in high-level areas, and vice-versa.
Games that genuinely depend on the player grinding trash mobs to increase stats are relatively rare and also not the greatest games of today. I don't mean that "needing to level" is rare but that good games try to keep even "easy" encounters relatively engaging and tune experience/loot distribution so that a typical player does not have to intentionally grind levels in order to advance.
It seems like you spent more time writing this post than actually thinking about why designers use level systems.
I'd wager most people like character progression in RPG ( and not only RPG tbh ).
One option could be to tie that progression to the story ( and/or remove the option to freely grind, a la Fire Emblem depending on the difficulty ), making it easier to balance fight across the game. But many people do enjoy the ability to tackle a difficult fight not only by getting better at the game but also through getting your party stronger ( level up, farm gear ).
Imho more option should always be the answer, level scaling and/or no possible grind as an option, things like :
should become the norm ( among other things simply because difficulty is subjective ).
Let's take Fire Emblem as an example, I loved the last game, but I hate the fact that the freedom of grinding is part of the difficulty, and not a separate toggle like perma death. So you either have the choice to be able to grind in a difficulty where it's already easy without it, and you can't grind to aleviate the difficulty when the game is actually hard, makes no sense at all QoL wise.
XCDE expert mode with it's ability to store xp is not a prefect answer to a difficulty settings, but it's already a very usefull start.
One option could be to tie that progression to the story ( and/or remove the option to freely grind, a la Fire Emblem depending on the difficulty ), making it easier to balance fight across the game. But many people do enjoy the ability to tackle a difficult fight not only by getting better at the game but also through getting your party stronger ( level up, farm gear ).
Imho more option should always be the answer, level scaling and/or no possible grind as an option, things like :
should become the norm ( among other things simply because difficulty is subjective ).
Let's take Fire Emblem as an example, I loved the last game, but I hate the fact that the freedom of grinding is part of the difficulty, and not a separate toggle like perma death. So you either have the choice to be able to grind in a difficulty where it's already easy without it, and you can't grind to aleviate the difficulty when the game is actually hard, makes no sense at all QoL wise.
XCDE expert mode with it's ability to store xp is not a prefect answer to a difficulty settings, but it's already a very usefull start.
When the title of the thread says the game design shouldn't exist any more, there is no conversation to be had beyond agreeing or disagreeing. Millions disagree, and my thoughts on the matter end there.
We already have the answer to this, though. If you don't have levels you just differentiate through abilities, gear, and well, anything really. You can show how much a character has progressed in any number of ways. You can give this stuff to the player in any number of ways as well. Via story milestones, sold through shops, given as quest rewards, found in the world, etc. This can work for both action games and turn-based games and anything in between.
Filling bars and going from level 3 to 4 is fine, and it's fine to enjoy it. Many do. And it's probably used so often for that very reason, but it isn't an inherently fundamental and immutable aspect of character progression, even in an RPG.
I agree with a lot of these points, and I think there is a line that can be walked where you can still have traditional levels that allow you to grind levels without ruining balance. The problem is that it's difficult to do this, especially for the entire game.
The most successful games I've seen so this are ones that rely on gear, or distribute major experience from boss battles and insignificant amounts from common enemies. If you go sidequesting and encounter bosses you'll be able to level up more than normal, but if you just get into a lot of battles and explore you'll still be in the normal range for that part of the game. At the same time this completely discourages grinding without resolving the underlying issues you mentioned.
It's easy to see what happens when devs attempt to solve this problem with a mechanic rather than fine tuning the game. You get FF8's junction system, Oblivion's level ups, or worse.
There are also games that handle this very well, some of which were already mentioned. I want to call out Paper Mario and Paper Mario: TTYD as a couple games that make this work very well.There is no grinding required and any extra grinding you so slowly slips away to nothing as you won't gain exp from certain enemies if you are too high a level. There are also few stats and things to manage, and damage in the game is largely skill based as you press times commands to do extra damage or reduce damage taken.
I don't think JRPGs, especially long ones, work well with these ideas without making levels completely irrelevant. The whole point is to have levels and have them mean something, otherwise it's just another kind of game.
Hey there guys.
I don't like this genre of game, therefore I want them all gone.
Well see ya
~flies away~
I don't like this genre of game, therefore I want them all gone.
Well see ya
~flies away~
Seriously though, why is it so tough for people to get that some games are just not for them and that's okay? I don't like MMORPGs but I don't think they are inherently awful and should be abolished. I don't think I'll ever get into Dark Souls but I'm not going to demand Dark Souls to cater to my whims.
You guys realize how many games there are right? They don't make like 5 games a year and that's it, there's literally hundreds made every year of all types and kinds, why does every single game ever made have to appeal to everybody?
If some people here were listened to all games out be ACTION FUNTIME MAGIC HOUR, a game where you press a button once and then the game ends.
You guys realize how many games there are right? They don't make like 5 games a year and that's it, there's literally hundreds made every year of all types and kinds, why does every single game ever made have to appeal to everybody?
If some people here were listened to all games out be ACTION FUNTIME MAGIC HOUR, a game where you press a button once and then the game ends.
OP has a point. Level up is a poor and artificial way of simulating enhanced skills.
The problem is: how can you incorporate the skill progress into a game mechanic?
I think it is still possible to use the level, but they could be better incorporated into the gameplay.
For example, a system where heavy weapons make you slow at first, but the more you use them the better you get at moving with them.
An ability fails at first, but the more you use, the better the hit/fail ratio.
All of this would make the stats better up to a limit, and after that is your own ability as a player that makes you better.
The problem is: how can you incorporate the skill progress into a game mechanic?
I think it is still possible to use the level, but they could be better incorporated into the gameplay.
For example, a system where heavy weapons make you slow at first, but the more you use them the better you get at moving with them.
An ability fails at first, but the more you use, the better the hit/fail ratio.
All of this would make the stats better up to a limit, and after that is your own ability as a player that makes you better.
But that's just power increase via another means. It's fundamentally still the same underlying mechanic - the numbers are getting bigger to represent an increase in character power. That's not the same as performance being dictated via player skill, which is what the OP was originally asking for.
I like the bias in the options. I doubt many people actually play jrpgs like this.
let me grind up to level 100 and destroy everything in front of me
let me grind up to level 100 and destroy everything in front of me
My favorite progression system is getting gear that aren't straight upgrade or downgrade but rather offer their own specific advantages or even allow you to access unique skills at the cost of lower defence/whatever and skill choice customization with a skill tree or just a list of skill like in gw1. That and being able to enchant gear with stuff like cards in Ragnarok Online. I honestly think a tough as nail fully open mmo with no level is the way to go for this genre.
No, getting a new ability (among other things) isn't fundamentally the same as leveling up stats. They can be. And they are if you're only thinking in terms of numbers, but that's the inherent issue isn't it? I didn't mention numbers, and they don't necessarily need to get bigger. And I didn't mention player skill either as I know that's not what we're talking about at the moment.
Going from a mage that only knows one basic fireball projectile spell to a mage that knows the fireball projectile, a firewall terrain effect, a "sunburn" damage over time, a steam attack that obscures vision, etc. etc. isn't fundamentally the same as going from a mage that knows Fire1 and has 15 MP to a mage that know Fire3 and has 50 MP.
Now, of course you can achieve those more diverse abilities via leveling up. But it isn't an inherent necessity. And that's not even counting every other potential aspect of character progression that games can and have done.
Leveling is fine, but it absolutely is not the only way for games (RPGs included) to show meaningful character progression.
What you are asking for isn't even consistent with the rules of the fictional world you are saying has 'ludonarrative dissonance'. The pokemon series (all conceptions of it in media, not just games) has Pokemon that are not evolved being able to defeat bigger, more evolved pokemon through having more experience, a more competent trainer, a better strategy that takes advantage of their type differences, small size, or speed or agility. Even in the games evolution is a tradeoff due to non-evolved pokemon learning moves earlier than evolved pokemon, or sometimes having different movelists/types than their evolved forms.
You literally don't know what you are talking about here.
But you already have games that incorporate that.
Fire Emblem, for example - try giving a heavy weapon (a steel one, for example) to a low level unit. Even though his average attack will be higher he'll be doubled due to his strength and speed not being enough to compensate for the weapon's extra weight. Either you accept the penalty for the moment or change to a weaker weapon.
However, when you start leveling up that unit maybe he'll have enough strength to use the weapon without being doubled. Or if it goes the way of a tank, it will be able to take more hits from the enemy due to having more HP.
Most games that have stats have some mechanics associated with them, they aren't just for show.
Love good stories but don't like playing RPGs? I have good news, you can turn to 100s of other things. You don't need to label an entire genre's design bad and clamour for it to end...just go play/watch/read something else.
I understand op's points, but the type of rpgs they want can exist alongside traditional rpgs. Since it sounds like they just want a different kind of battle system.