Octopus Overlords

In voting in the old school vs. new school RPG gaming thread, it got me thinking about what I like in my RPGs. Here is what I came up with. Bascially the only thing I can't deal with in old school gaming is mapping. I just do not have the time to do that now adays.

BUT

I can deal with crappy graphics
I can deal with text for speech
I can deal with turn based fighting
I can deal with super stong monsters that can overwhelm you in the early game
I can deal with Spawning monsters
I can deal with 1 party member or more

But I can't deal with:
Mapping, (I'm repeating only because I mean it)
Non divergent landscapes (I need forest, snow, towns, cities, lakes etc),
Puzzles that make you run back and forth multiple times,
no music (well if the game design is good then I will suffer through: see Helloran),
Spawing monsters (hey, I'm complicated),
Save locations (and its varients like minimal save slots, save times),
your character has to eat during game.

OTOH

I can just barely deal with multiple party configs (Kotor or Anachronx)
I can just barely deal with spawning monsters
I can just barely deal with hugh dungeon locations (keep em small but plentyful)
I can just barely deal with having to sleep during game (although health restore is great)
I can just barely deal with create you own weapon or spell.
I can just barely deal with crappy interfaces (it better be a good game)
I can just barely deal with weak plots and chracter goals (again, it better be a good game)

A note about spawning monsters: Sometimes they are good when you need a monster to beat to advance a level but if the spawing monster is placed in a area you can not avoid then you are dealing with true tedium. some of the early Might and Magics had some great out of the way spawning areas that you could get a lot of experience (100 berserkers anyone) but Sacred (a game I liked) had a spawing area in a heavily traveled area and it became quite the chore to battle it out.

Plot overrides about everything else for me. Unless the gameplay is particularly bad, as long as the plot is good I'll finish.

Anyway, my biggest annoyance about old-school RPG's is random encounters. I think we've moved past that in this day and age, yes?

ChrisGrenard wrote:Anyway, my biggest annoyance about old-school RPG's is random encounters. I think we've moved past that in this day and age, yes?

One of the best parts of Fallout were the random encounters. And it was even greater that when you had good outdoor (or whatever) skill, you could choose to avoid them.

I'm not really sure what this thread is about , but I'll give my opinion anyhow.
Most important thing for me is the internal consistency of the world and plot. It can be simple saving the world plot if it has enough meat on it, side-quests that are meaningful and so on. What I usually dread are generic and stupid fed-ex quests (you can fetch a hammer for the smith only so many times).

--> Non divergent landscapes (I need forest, snow, towns, cities, lakes etc)

I can deal with this. The entire campaign of an RPG can be set in a wooded area, maybe throwing in a swamp. But there's no need to add in a random landscape just for diversity. You should be able to beautify and be creative enough in the landscape that you're exploring rather than have to say 'hey, now we're teleporting you to the snowy mountains'. If I'm in icewind dale, why the hell would I randomly be teleported to Chult?

--> Puzzles that make you run back and forth multiple times

I have no problem with this, as long as the path is interesting and changes. If it's just 'random encounters in between', then that's bad. It can be interesting.

--> no music (well if the game design is good then I will suffer through: see Helloran)

I remember back when games had no music (pool of radiance) or music so bad that you wanted to turn it off. I could always put my own CD on while playing, so that was always cool.

But if I'm telling that kind of a story, then I sound like i'm 50 and I had to walk to school barefoot uphill both ways. If a game doesn't have sound as a part of the experience these days, something's wrong. Ambience is huge in gaming.

--> Save locations (and its varients like minimal save slots, save times)

There's no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to save wherever I want, whenever I want. At the very worst, save points should be 5 minutes apart.

--> your character has to eat during game.

I actually don't mind this, depending on the goal of the game. If it's an MMORPG it makes more sense. If it's a hack and slash game like diablo, then it's retarded.

--> I can just barely deal with multiple party configs (Kotor or Anachronx)

Hate this personally, but I can't think of a balanced way to fix it. If I have a team of 10 members that I can switch between, why wouldn't I bring more than 3 out with me at a time?

What I want is something like in the original Baldur's Gate, casting animate dead 5 times. I don't want an adventuring party. I want an adventuring ARMY.

Not being able to save when I want is my biggest problem with my XBox. The thing has a harddrive, and my wife often wants to watch something when I'm in the middle of a gaming session, so save points are a big no/no.

These days I enjoy old school RPGs a lot more, because I'm beginning to regard the likes of Baldur's Gate 2 and Planescape as old school. These type of games are not being developed any more, and with the loss of Troika I cannot see any developers being brave enough (or allowed to by publishers) to make these type of games. Irrational seem to be one of the few premier old school type developers left, and I hope that FF2 is a big enough success for them to fulfull their turn based rpg ambitions.

Only 2 things I cannot tolerate. No save anywhere and spawning monsters. They are kinda related. I hate playing the same scene over and over again.

Larraque wrote:--> Non divergent landscapes (I need forest, snow, towns, cities, lakes etc)

I can deal with this. The entire campaign of an RPG can be set in a wooded area, maybe throwing in a swamp. But there's no need to add in a random landscape just for diversity. You should be able to beautify and be creative enough in the landscape that you're exploring rather than have to say 'hey, now we're teleporting you to the snowy mountains'. If I'm in icewind dale, why the hell would I randomly be teleported to Chult?


--> I can just barely deal with multiple party configs (Kotor or Anachronx)

Hate this personally, but I can't think of a balanced way to fix it. If I have a team of 10 members that I can switch between, why wouldn't I bring more than 3 out with me at a time?

What I want is something like in the original Baldur's Gate, casting animate dead 5 times. I don't want an adventuring party. I want an adventuring ARMY.

Icewind Dale is one thing, I would not like to see a sand desert setting in that game (unless its a ice desert). Still, I like it when I'm exploring a game world and there are a number of different type areas to explore. (Might & Magic, Gothic, and Morrowind are excellent good examples). But to many game designers are too liberal with the brown pallet and I find a lot of games visually uninteresting (Beyond Divinity)

As far as adventuring army, have you tried Rome Total War? (I know its not an RPG)

ChrisGrenard wrote:Plot overrides about everything else for me. Unless the gameplay is particularly bad, as long as the plot is good I'll finish.

Anyway, my biggest annoyance about old-school RPG's is random encounters. I think we've moved past that in this day and age, yes?

By random do you mean "without warning," or just creatures wandering the map like in the old Ultimas? Wandering creatures are of course a staple of MMOGs for the same reason I suppose as they once were in single player RPGs -- they provide a fluid "economy;" you can always go kill more random monsters if you need cash and experience. Later single player CRPGs did a better job of carefully "funneling" you so that the scripted battles were always sufficient to provide you with the XP and loot you need.

I like games that give you a more open world, so I am not opposed to wandering monsters in theory. Depends how it's implemented. I would like to see more attempts to do real monster "ecosystems." I.e. instead of just spawning and wandering around, they have meaningful purposes. Orc bands are actually patrolling from their orc base and will battle with other bands of creatures or humans if they cross paths. Wild creatures prey on other wild creatures (there was some of this in the Gothics, I know).

A game like Freelancer can teach us about this. You wouldn't just see Red Hessians or corporate freighters wandering around for the hell of it, waiting to be killed. They were going somewhere, on patrol or on a trading route, etc. These are useful design devices that I would like to see implemented more in CRPGs. Living world baby, living world!!

What I want is something like in the original Baldur's Gate, casting animate dead 5 times. I don't want an adventuring party. I want an adventuring ARMY.

One of the coolest things about Gothic 1 (maybe 2 as well, dunno) was the fact that there was no limit on the number of creatures you could summon. For the final boss I summoned maybe 2 dozen skeletons to help me. Seeing them all standing there expectantly, waiting for me to lead them into battle, is one of my greatest moments in gaming -- though I don't think they actually helped much in the fight itself. 8)

ChrisGrenard wrote:Plot overrides about everything else for me. Unless the gameplay is particularly bad, as long as the plot is good I'll finish.

Anyway, my biggest annoyance about old-school RPG's is random encounters. I think we've moved past that in this day and age, yes?

I second that. For me, plot is the most important component of a good RPG. Indeed, it's a ideal that has, from time to time, lured me to the adventure game genre (as long as the game doesn't contain too many out-of-context puzzles).

Yet, there seems to be a strong contigent of RPGers that regard the mechanics and tactics of the engine as most important. While nice touches can be made and complexity added by the developer, it should be an "optional" aspect if desired. All of the critically acclaimed RPGs seem to adhere to this principle(ie Morrowind, KOTR, BG, PT, etc). Games like TOEE, FO:T, and IWD are good examples of games that I don't like because they're essentially tactical wargames..

D.A.Lewis wrote: As far as adventuring army, have you tried Rome Total War? (I know its not an RPG)

If you'll indulge my (futile) attempt at classification, I suspect many gamers are adventure gamers disguised as RPGers. They tend to play games like Planescape Torment, Knights of the Old Republic, and Morrowind (adventure games with an imagination, that is) for the story. At the other end of the spectrum are the wargaming RPGers. These are the powergaming RPGers that revel in the tiniest technical details of the engine.

bluefugue wrote: By random do you mean "without warning," or just creatures wandering the map like in the old Ultimas? Wandering creatures are of course a staple of MMOGs for the same reason I suppose as they once were in single player RPGs -- they provide a fluid "economy;" you can always go kill more random monsters if you need cash and experience. Later single player CRPGs did a better job of carefully "funneling" you so that the scripted battles were always sufficient to provide you with the XP and loot you need.

I like games that give you a more open world, so I am not opposed to wandering monsters in theory. Depends how it's implemented. I would like to see more attempts to do real monster "ecosystems." I.e. instead of just spawning and wandering around, they have meaningful purposes. Orc bands are actually patrolling from their orc base and will battle with other bands of creatures or humans if they cross paths. Wild creatures prey on other wild creatures (there was some of this in the Gothics, I know).

A game like Freelancer can teach us about this. You wouldn't just see Red Hessians or corporate freighters wandering around for the hell of it, waiting to be killed. They were going somewhere, on patrol or on a trading route, etc. These are useful design devices that I would like to see implemented more in CRPGs. Living world baby, living world!!

With all of the industry's technical innovations, why has the dynamic world aspect of it remained completely stagnant (or even taken several steps backwards). Sure, stories (in some cases), graphics, and sound have all steadily improved, but where are our improvements in the dynamic world concept? Don't tell me the answer is the MMORPG. Many of us play RPGs to get away from "real" people.

I suspect many gamers are adventure gamers disguised as RPGers

there definitly is some truth to that. Whenever I want a change of gaming pace I just about always go to an adventure game. Surprisingly, to some, the genre is far from dead and there are more Adventure games on the shelf than RPGs.

As far as innovated game play, Gothic 2 was probably the most innovative single player RPG I have yet played. Smart enemies and smart NPCs in a living world. I hope more RPGs move towards that type of game play.

For me, plot is the most important component of a good RPG.

Not me. Plot is definitely important, because it adds context to the gameplay, but IMO it is not the gameplay. The core of CRPGs for me still are combat, exploration, quest/activity prioritization, and loot-level hooks. My favorite RPGs are those where these gameplay elements are well executed and given extra style & meaning by the story. Games like BG2, Gothic 2, Avernum 2, Ultima V, etc.

philosophist wrote:

bluefugue wrote: By random do you mean "without warning," or just creatures wandering the map like in the old Ultimas? Wandering creatures are of course a staple of MMOGs for the same reason I suppose as they once were in single player RPGs -- they provide a fluid "economy;" you can always go kill more random monsters if you need cash and experience. Later single player CRPGs did a better job of carefully "funneling" you so that the scripted battles were always sufficient to provide you with the XP and loot you need.

I like games that give you a more open world, so I am not opposed to wandering monsters in theory. Depends how it's implemented. I would like to see more attempts to do real monster "ecosystems." I.e. instead of just spawning and wandering around, they have meaningful purposes. Orc bands are actually patrolling from their orc base and will battle with other bands of creatures or humans if they cross paths. Wild creatures prey on other wild creatures (there was some of this in the Gothics, I know).

A game like Freelancer can teach us about this. You wouldn't just see Red Hessians or corporate freighters wandering around for the hell of it, waiting to be killed. They were going somewhere, on patrol or on a trading route, etc. These are useful design devices that I would like to see implemented more in CRPGs. Living world baby, living world!!

With all of the industry's technical innovations, why has the dynamic world aspect of it remained completely stagnant (or even taken several steps backwards). Sure, stories (in some cases), graphics, and sound have all steadily improved, but where are our improvements in the dynamic world concept? Don't tell me the answer is the MMORPG. Many of us play RPGs to get away from "real" people.

I won't tell you the answer is the MMORPG. Or, at any rate, that's a different answer to a different question. I wholeheartedly support living-world/dynamic-world elements in single player CRPGs. They were all but dead between Ultima VII and Gothic. I'm eager to see how the hyped NPC AI in Elder Scrolls Oblivion will pan out, and if it will be the first real step forward in this direction since oh, say, 1992. And I think CRPG designers should take closer looks at Elite-style space sims and also strategy games (Majesty, for instance) for clues as to dynamic world design.

I'm all for real dynamic worlds, but I suspect it would cause a lot of resource problems. I mean part of the reason corpses fade away in many games is because it's too resource intensive to keep them around. Now if the computer has to track an orc band wandering around, what it might run into, dealing with it's combat while you're fighting nearby, etc I guess it's going to ramp up the system requirements quite a bit. My machine probably couldn't cut it, but if I had a machine that could I'd love it.

For me, the attraction of RPGs are those elements that set them apart from other games. The interaction with other character. The diversity of the environment. The quest-driven adventuring. Gaining levels, abilities, skills, and items over time that allow you to play the game better or (more intriguing) differently. The combat elements are good, too.

What I'm looking for the industry to do going forward is to continue to move in the direction they've been heading, as quickly as they can. I want a well-written story. I want to be able to solve problems any way I want to (stealth, murder, betrayal, etc.). I want the NPCs to act as much like people as possible without detracting from the game. I don't want them all just standing in the same place, but I don't want to spend hours and hours hunting for every quest-related character. If I could learn, however, that he worked at the mill, liked to drink at the tavern, lived at 12 Cobblestone path and was betrothed to the maiden at 22 Pinetree Lane, I wouldn't have a problem checking those four places to find him.

If you hold to the fun aspects of yesterday's games, eliminate as much tedium as possible, then add in the extras like graphics, music and voice acting, you're on the right track.

Sith

Ultima 7 was brilliant in that regard. I loved going to the tavern in the evening, and knowing that most of the NPCs were there. Those that weren't would be in the local church, so it was very easy to keep track of their whereabouts. I don't think any game since has done scheduling as well.

I hate elves. I don't much care for magic or swordplay, either. Even if you call it The Force and light sabers.

Needless to say, I don't play many RPGs. I can hold my nose if a game is otherwise stellar, like BG2.

Sith Lord wrote:For me, the attraction of RPGs are those elements that set them apart from other games. The interaction with other character. The diversity of the environment. The quest-driven adventuring. Gaining levels, abilities, skills, and items over time that allow you to play the game better or (more intriguing) differently. The combat elements are good, too.

What I'm looking for the industry to do going forward is to continue to move in the direction they've been heading, as quickly as they can. I want a well-written story. I want to be able to solve problems any way I want to (stealth, murder, betrayal, etc.). I want the NPCs to act as much like people as possible without detracting from the game. I don't want them all just standing in the same place, but I don't want to spend hours and hours hunting for every quest-related character. If I could learn, however, that he worked at the mill, liked to drink at the tavern, lived at 12 Cobblestone path and was betrothed to the maiden at 22 Pinetree Lane, I wouldn't have a problem checking those four places to find him.

If you hold to the fun aspects of yesterday's games, eliminate as much tedium as possible, then add in the extras like graphics, music and voice acting, you're on the right track.

Sith

I think finding this balance between immersion and convenience is key. I want scheduled NPCs but as you say, there needs to be a reasonable information-dispersal system so you can find them without too much trouble (perhaps by simply asking other NPCs). In fact I think Outcast had a system like that. You'd ask some random NPC where to find such-and-such a person. It wasn't perfectly implemented but it worked reasonably well.

edit: also, having the schedule be logical (JayG's example of most folks going to the tavern in the evening, whatever) obviously makes the whole thing more intuitive.

IceBear wrote:I'm all for real dynamic worlds, but I suspect it would cause a lot of resource problems. I mean part of the reason corpses fade away in many games is because it's too resource intensive to keep them around. Now if the computer has to track an orc band wandering around, what it might run into, dealing with it's combat while you're fighting nearby, etc I guess it's going to ramp up the system requirements quite a bit.

No doubt this is true, but as long as those CPUs keep getting faster...

bluefugue wrote:No doubt this is true, but as long as those CPUs keep getting faster...

Yes, I agree - just bemoaning my lack of upgrade possibility Also, just threw out a possible reason why this aspect wasn't improved upon over the years.

The immersive world aspect wasn't improved upon because when the genre was fading badly a few years back it was brought back by Diablo and Diablo type clones. The game makers go where the money is. And for a long while the money has been in action hack and slash.

I'm hoping all those action fans have grown up (or got tired off) and now want something with more substance. If Oblivion builds on what Gothic had, and succeeds (both critically and financially) then we may be in for a new age in RPGs.

Even the "highbrow track" of the CRPG renaissance -- Fallout/Baldur's Gate and their ilk -- didn't put much emphasis on dynamic stuff or NPC scheduling. They chose instead to advance the genre more in terms of interface, narrative, party NPC personalites, and quest trees. (Which wasn't a bad place to put their effort, mind you.)

Here's something I cannot forgive: the bottom third of the gaming screen taken up by a palette that I can't hide.
Against Rome is an RTS (not an RPG) but it illustrates the point (to its own detriment) the best. It also compounds the problem by having tiny characters, huge buildings, and really crappy mouse movement.
It's only saving grace (and the reason I rescued it from the bins) is that it is one of the lonely few RTS that I can play as a Hun(garian) tribe. That alone might be enough to rescue it for very much longer, however.

all this reminds me that i really really need to get back into gothic 2 and finish that one up. a great game that got lost in the shuffle of some big name games that overshadowed it.

all in all, when i picture the perfect rpg, i go back to ultima 7. that game had so much done right that the little things didn't drag it down. sure, food and rest requirements were a pain, and party management was sometimes impossible, but there was a lot of great ideas there. it makes the travesties of 8 and 9 all the more painful.

I even enjoyed the annoyances of U7. Having to carry all the spell ingredients meant that it was special when you got that ring. (At least I think it was a ring, I really should replay it soon). The game had so much depth, so many hidden surprises, and I always ended up ignoring the main plot and going from town to town on my magic carpet. Serpent Isle was a little too linear for me though, but it's still a classic. The complete Ultima 7 was the 5th game I brought for the PC, and at 10 dollars it has to be best value game I've ever brought.

Another game with good NPC scheduling was Fable. While not quite as well done as Gothic it still added a lot to atmosphere, and I always enjoy having commoners cheering me on.

The problem with a randomness-driven live world is it doesn't make much sense.

Games can have a TON of details behind it, but most people don't WANT to know the particulars.

Let me give you an example... Any one remember XCOM Interceptor? The enemy starts with two bases, each of them controls a bunch of mining outposts, refineries, and factories. The convoys have to move from outposts to refineries, then refineries to factories, then from factories to bases. Based on your probes and your scouting, you MAY find a few of those convoys to attack... and maybe the installations. The idea is to stop the aliens from deploying the ultimate weapon, of course.

Except most people can't seem to understand the whole thing! They simply attack what they can see, and complain that they lost because they didn't scout enough and/or guess where the enemy is coming from.

It takes a LOT to generate a "living" universe. I don't want to start a flame war, but I think the Battlecruiser series does a pretty admirable job of it. Each of the ships flying around actualy has a purpose, be it from fighting, fleeing, kamikaze, law enforcement, interdiction, and more, they all move around on their own...

The problem isn't in the weath of detail, it is in dissemenating the information to the player at the right time.

Might and Magic, an RPG series I absolutely loved, had some problems with this in 6 -9. The game had trainer that could raise your skill set. These trainers were needed to advance your character but they were so hard to find and there were so many of them. Actually what saved the game was that because there were so many of them you could alway find one that could raise one of your skills. I always felt the game should have utilized the various town halls they had in most towns. If the town halls had listed the various skill merchants and where they lived that would have relieved some of the tedium.

I never played Interceptor but I can think of one way to dispense tactical information and that would be through some kind of briefing that would tell you what are the critical targets.

Morrowind has been criticized for its openess (which is sort of like randomness) but the last time I played I centered just on the main plot and got through the whole game just fine. I didn't let all the other factions deter me from what I had to do and they game moved along just fine.

So, I think what I'm saying with all this is that a random driven world can make sense if the game design properly disburses the necessary information.

Agreed, that's a design challenge in itself... making it clear to people why things happen when they do. Transparency is important.