Gameplay devices that need to stop now

[Madame Adequate]

The idea that a boss with only one weakness, or a lot of HP, or a stupidly powerful attack reasonably constitutes 'difficulty'.

[ljkkjlcm9]

I think difficulty in a game is hard to define. Making an enemy just have more health, or only one weakness, isn't necessarily hard, just more tedious. In Phantasy Star Online and Universe for instance, enemies have Megid, which can instantly KO you. This isn't hard, just annoying as a random ball of megid can hit you after you've been doing fine, it can do 50 damage, you can have 3000 health, and it'll kill you. Making jumps and such in action games have to be perfectly timed, is also tedious.

Enemies hitting harder, having more health, etc, are not challenges. The closest thing I've seen to challenge in a game is needing strategy. That seems to be the only way to add challenge to a game. This is why I love games like Metroid, Zelda, and Fire Emblem. The bosses/enemies in Metroid and Zelda have methods to defeat them. The enemies are obviously easier, and the bosses have methods that you have to figure out to defeat them. They're the closest thing to challenge in an action game I can think of. On top of that, as soon as you learn the method, you can easily beat many of them without getting hit. Fire Emblem on the other hand is a strategy game, and strategy games such as it, and advance wars, have become my new favorite genre. They can truly challenge you. In RPG's leveling can solve basically any difficult problem. In Fire Emblem, you can have a character with everything capped, but employ a bad strategy and they can still die. Hence my love for this genre.

So in summary, I find strategy/puzzles to be the only real difficulty in games, and most of the other things added for difficulty, are just tedious... and probably the main reason I can't enjoy them as much anymore.

THE JACKEL

[Vyk]

I find it rather odd that all the moaning seems to be just about jRPGs and it sounds like nobody even bothers with western RPGs. Hating that RPGs have become interactive movies. Well that's a Japanese thing. They've become obsessed with long dialogue scenes and cut-scenes. Did Oblivion even have any real cut-scenes? Fable had short narratives involving pictures on walls and tapestries. Need a challenge without setting your own restrictions? Most western RPGs have a difficulty meter these days which can be changed in the middle of an adventure. I know Oblivion and Mass Effect both have that. Pretty sure the KOTOR games did too. Bored that turn based battles are just repetitive attack sequences... I know Fable and Oblivion are just button mashing action games at heart. But KOTOR required more than just attack. Actually BioWare's been really good about addressing almost all the problems everyone's complaining about. Even back in the Baldur's Gate days. Yet everyone seems to not really be interested in western gaming. And even still it'd obviously do you all some good if Japanese developers took a few notes from western games. Which makes little sense. Either you want it or you don't. Seems to me you want this stuff but only if it involves pink hair and big blue eyes set in a giant head on a tiny out-of-proportion body :}

[KoShiatar]

Minigames like those in Breath of Fire III (Pull the machine out of the sea... Pull the water out of the well...) supremely annoy me. On the other hand, some minigames are really fun. I used to have a savestate just before the on-stage battle between Zidane and Blank in FF IX because it was such fun.

Effeminate party leaders also need to go. Have you seen the protagonist in Dragoneer's Aria? I was sure it was a girl until I checked out the character's description in the official website, and I was like "w00t?!"

[Loony BoB]

I agree with pretty much every point Dan has made.

I like random battles better than visible enemies, personally. But as Trix pointed out, if they were to mix it, that can work even better if pulled off right. But without random battles at all, I find myself slightly annoyed. I mean, the fact that someone might know where their next enemy is going to be because they've played the game before, that kinda sucks. Maybe they should set it up so that monsters are a bit more free-roaming and don't always spawn in the same place. Maybe make them able to jump out of bushes, too, stuff like that.

I would love it if they were to make an RPG that allows you to move around on an island a la modern FPS games. None of this "Oh, it's a jungle, you can't walk there unless you stay on THIS path..." crap. I want to be able to walk through a forest wondering if some strange, camouflaged enemy is going to suddenly jump down from the branches.

World maps really do need to be brought back. None of the FFX/XII crap where you can go to only specific areas, and to get from one area to another you follow a set path. No, I want to go anywhere I want. I want to be able to grab a car and shoot off through the hills on set roads, but be able to park the car, lock it and go off into the wilderness if I so choose. Maybe get a four wheel drive if I don't want random battles while off road. I want to be able to discover hidden caves, I want to be able to find out where there are some neat enemies, to find secret treasures and to be able to fly through the skies and sail through the seas, watching the world turn beneath me. Yes, a COMPLETE world - spherical, you can see the poles and everything.

I can't wait for the day when you can actually travel a globe in FPS-style detail. I'm always eager to do that.

I want more to the battles. I don't want everyone to be exactly the same, all just as good as each other at whatever. I want people to have roles. Maybe they might not be fixed so that Aeris IS ALWAYS a mage, but fixed by choice, so that when you start a new game or find a new character, you can choose what role they take and they have to stick with it. None of this "Someday I will have all my stats at 255 so I will have a Magical Fighter Monk of Doom" or whatever. Players should always have weaknesses. But yeah, the players should be able to do new things other than just Item, Fight, Steal, Magic. They should be able to work together, combine their magic somehow, etc. Maybe have magic sorted by elements, so that player X has good fire magic but player Y has good water magic, and so on. Try new things! Allow players to interact with the environment they are in when dealing with enemies, hiding behind trees or setting branches on fire and using them to keep enemies at bay, lighting fire to the ground between you and the enemy, all these sorts of things. Give enemies weak points. Not obvious ones - things like "if you attack this enemy from behind, you'll do more damage" ...but, here's the trick, DON'T TELL THE PLAYER. Don't make it have a special target on it's back. Don't have a player shout out "HEY IT IS WEAKER ON THE BACK." Have it a set option for players to focus on certain tactics, such as aiming for neck, feet, anything. All of these things could work.

What else... I dunno, I'm done for now. I'm sure there's loads more but that's just a sample.

[Karellen]

I would love it if they were to make an RPG that allows you to move around on an island a la modern FPS games.

Morrowind

[Loony BoB]

Not nearly as good graphics as you'll get in an FPS, although Oblivion is closer. Also, I should probably rephrase all of my above post to read "JRPG", as to me Western RPG's such as the Elder Scrolls games are so far from JRPGs that to me, it's a completely new genre.

[Roogle]

I want people to have roles. Maybe they might not be fixed so that Aeris IS ALWAYS a mage, but fixed by choice, so that when you start a new game or find a new character, you can choose what role they take and they have to stick with it.

I agree. I think that characters have much better character development and characterization when they have a fixed role in gameplay. It is difficult to relate to someone that, in the storyline, claims that he is helpless, yet he can do anything and everything the second a battle hits the screen.

I think that games can greatly benefit from having their gameplay and storyline intertwined rather than separate. It can lead to the jarring of ideas between developers and players.

[The Summoner of Leviathan]

Enemies hitting harder, having more health, etc, are not challenges. The closest thing I've seen to challenge in a game is needing strategy. That seems to be the only way to add challenge to a game. This is why I love games like Metroid, Zelda, and Fire Emblem. The bosses/enemies in Metroid and Zelda have methods to defeat them. The enemies are obviously easier, and the bosses have methods that you have to figure out to defeat them. They're the closest thing to challenge in an action game I can think of. On top of that, as soon as you learn the method, you can easily beat many of them without getting hit.

You actually touched my gripe with Zelda games. As much as I loved Twilight Princess, anyone noticed Nintendo's love for the number 3? The same thing happens in Super Mario Galaxy. Three hits and the boss is dead. I am sorry but I want more a more epic battle. I found Twilight Princess way too easy. As Jackel mentions, once you know how to defeat them, you can fight them taking little or no damage. I for one think that is making them too easy. I am not a great gamer but if I can fight a boss without taking damage then that means it is too easy in my opinion. I mean, all I had to do was tell my friend where to go and how to kill the bosses/enemies (I did the Dark Nuts because they were the only ones that gave her a problem) and she beat Hyrule Castle thus the game. Just to give you an idea, this was the first time she ever played Twilight Princess. The only "challenge" was the last battle against, surprise, Ganondrof. Nintendo make the next Zelda game a bit more challenging, please!

[ljkkjlcm9]

Enemies hitting harder, having more health, etc, are not challenges. The closest thing I've seen to challenge in a game is needing strategy. That seems to be the only way to add challenge to a game. This is why I love games like Metroid, Zelda, and Fire Emblem. The bosses/enemies in Metroid and Zelda have methods to defeat them. The enemies are obviously easier, and the bosses have methods that you have to figure out to defeat them. They're the closest thing to challenge in an action game I can think of. On top of that, as soon as you learn the method, you can easily beat many of them without getting hit.

You actually touched my gripe with Zelda games. As much as I loved Twilight Princess, anyone noticed Nintendo's love for the number 3? The same thing happens in Super Mario Galaxy. Three hits and the boss is dead. I am sorry but I want more a more epic battle. I found Twilight Princess way too easy. As JACKAL mentions, once you know how to defeat them, you can fight them taking little or no damage. I for one think that is making them too easy. I am not a great gamer but if I can fight a boss without taking damage then that means it is too easy in my opinion. I mean, all I had to do was tell my friend where to go and how to kill the bosses/enemies (I did the Dark Nuts because they were the only ones that gave her a problem) and she beat Hyrule Castle thus the game. Just to give you an idea, this was the first time she ever played Twilight Princess. The only "challenge" was the last battle against, surprise, Ganondrof. Nintendo make the next Zelda game a bit more challenging, please!

Well that sorta defeats the whole purpose if you tell them HOW to do it. I always figured the challenge was actually figuring out what to do, in any zelda game. I have never found any Zelda game to actually be difficult when you know what you're doing. Some people claim Link to the Past is difficult, but as soon as I knew how to get the tempered sword, any replay of the game becomes so absurdly easy. As soon as you know the paths on the invisible floors, again easy. The difficulty is actually figuring the stuff out. Granted I do agree they could make some of the things more difficult to do when you know how to do it, but then you could be doing the right thing, just not perfectly, and think you're wrong, and never get past it.

As for Western RPGs. I hate them, with a passion. They're boring to me. I hated Oblivion. I hate First Person view in any RPG. I really think it only works with Shooters.

THE JACKEL

[Wolf Kanno]

I find it rather odd that all the moaning seems to be just about jRPGs and it sounds like nobody even bothers with western RPGs. Hating that RPGs have become interactive movies. Well that's a Japanese thing. They've become obsessed with long dialogue scenes and cut-scenes. Did Oblivion even have any real cut-scenes? Fable had short narratives involving pictures on walls and tapestries. Need a challenge without setting your own restrictions? Most western RPGs have a difficulty meter these days which can be changed in the middle of an adventure. I know Oblivion and Mass Effect both have that. Pretty sure the KOTOR games did too. Bored that turn based battles are just repetitive attack sequences... I know Fable and Oblivion are just button mashing action games at heart. But KOTOR required more than just attack. Actually BioWare's been really good about addressing almost all the problems everyone's complaining about. Even back in the Baldur's Gate days. Yet everyone seems to not really be interested in western gaming. And even still it'd obviously do you all some good if Japanese developers took a few notes from western games. Which makes little sense. Either you want it or you don't. Seems to me you want this stuff but only if it involves pink hair and big blue eyes set in a giant head on a tiny out-of-proportion body :}

I don't care for Western Rpgs though I agree they do have some wonderful mechanics I feel JRpgs should borrow. But I feel the same way with the two games reversed. Bioware is about the only Western developer who seems to have it almost right, seeing as they have combined some of the best elements form both cultural standpoints on RPGs. More traditional fare like Morrowind and Baldur's Gate I don't care for. Its lack of a centralized plot and massive level of freedom bores me. Its difficult to play a game that doesn't focus on a main objective, especially if the world is nothing more than a stereotypical hack job of Tolkein and D&D. The side quests quickly overwhelm the main story and the games become more about tweaking stats than saving the kingdom from impending doom. This is due to the games lousy attempts at story telling. Playing through these games I feel like I'm in a geeked up cosplaying role playing group that meets up in the woods every two weeks (don't forget your dice!).

If western RPGs could just learn to be creative and move away from Tolkein and D&D or just learn to not take themselves so damn serious, (Once again, Bioware seems to be the only one that understands this) as well as creating a main objective that keeps some level of focus to the game, and finally drop the damn FPS viewpoint cause it always felt tacky in these games; I might play them more.

I love the fact that Western RPGs give you freedom and exploration. I love the fact they give you power to change the story around, but sometimes the freedom is so overwhelming that the games quickly lose focus and generally devolve into tweaking out your character rather than its original intention of playing a hero. I don't know anyone who has played Oblivion or Fable who ever talks about their wonderful stories. They usually only talk about raising their theifing skills so they can rise higher in the ranks of the Thieves guild and get that shiny gauntlet that adds +2 to their dexterity... The lack of a believable characters and a central plot makes your choices in the story seem less than fulfilling and after awhile I begin to ask myself "why bother?". JRpgs have the opposite problem of having little freedom and exploration and the plot is premade so you can't affect it unless you stop playing. Though I do feel that JRpgs still beat out Western ones in terms of character designs. I'll take anime fluff over lame cover art for bad Fantasy novels.

[Roogle]

Wolf Kanno, I agree with you on the clash of Eastern and Western console role-playing games. I think that both cultures have a lot to learn from each other, and I think that a very unique and revolutionary game could be created by taking the best of both worlds to create a new type of role-playing game.

[Bolivar]

I don't really wish for a conciliation between the styles of western and japanese RPGs because they are very much two separate genres, western always being computer incarnations of table top games, japanese releasaes always being about telling a story. They overlap in certain respects, but I don't think there's any formula of synthesis that could make a complete RPG experience. I think they should just do this:

Make good games. It's like the random battle argument. I don't have any problem with random battles as long as their paced well and the mechanics of the battle system are interesting. Also, the "Run" function in Final Fantasy allows the player to skip unnecessary battles or escape from ones. I personally use it to add some challenge to more recent FF's, allowing the enemies to be a few levels higher than my party than they should be. Can they become tedious? Absolutely. But all it takes is a developer to implement it well and it can make for a great game.

I think the one device I would really like to see gone is the super-secret-could-never-find-on-your-own sidequests. When you need to use a guide, I feel the game fails in a way. I mean like the Zodiac Spear, for a current example. Who the hell could have ever figured that one out if it wasn't in an official strategy guide or anything?

[Spuuky]

All I can think in this Western RPG discussion is that it's clear that none of you have played Fallout 2 or Gothic 2. They represent the current peaks of the genre, not Oblivion, even though they're a little old now. Oblivion is good for what it is, but it's also got a very generic/empty/goalless feel to it. You just charge through the same dungeons over and over and "persuade" the same shopkeepers over and over. It's graphically beautiful, there's no way to really deny that, but graphics are not the most important feature in a game. Obviously the D&D world of NWN/Baldur's Gate/Elder Scrolls is going to keep selling because it's popular, but there really are other games out there in the genre, you just have to find them.

Hopefully Gothic 4 will demonstrate this because it's set for console release as well, but we'll see if they're true enough to the series to make a good show of it.

[NeoCracker]

I want people to have roles. Maybe they might not be fixed so that Aeris IS ALWAYS a mage, but fixed by choice, so that when you start a new game or find a new character, you can choose what role they take and they have to stick with it.

I agree. I think that characters have much better character development and characterization when they have a fixed role in gameplay. It is difficult to relate to someone that, in the storyline, claims that he is helpless, yet he can do anything and everything the second a battle hits the screen.

I think that games can greatly benefit from having their gameplay and storyline intertwined rather than separate. It can lead to the jarring of ideas between developers and players.

Xenosaga 3 actually did this. Each character had one of two paths to follow, and for the most part they were all good.

In addition they could do joint attacks with other members. (Though saddly these attacks depended on level, and not the paths you take your characters down.)

People should borrow and tweek that system for future games and expand upon it.