New account registration is temporarily disabled.

YOUR TOP FEATURES IN GAMES

Posts

Pages: first 1234 next last
Greetings all,

Lately I've been reading a lot about what people think makes for a 'good' RPG. During my quest to objectify the unobjectifiable, I've come across a number of games which tried new things that didn't really work out, for one reason or another. One such game was Nippon Ichi Software's, "Last Rebellion", a 2010 PS3 exclusive that appears to have received universally bad reviews. You can read one such review here
, which is definitely one of the harshest reviews for an RPG that I have ever read.

Reviews were so bad, in fact, that NIS America's president, Haru Akenaga, stated that the game was, "not the kind of title we should release in the United States because of its quality", and that he felt, "really sorry for our customers because we released that title." What? An apology just for releasing a game that wasn't considered up to current standards? Say what one will about the criticism on RMN, but I don't think that has ever happened.

A better review for the game can be found at Destructoid here, which goes into why the game didn't work as well as it could have; it was unpolished, and the new mechanics, while containing a lot of good ideas, weren't implemented well, causing the final product to look under produced.

This got me thinking; is there a way to avoid these kinds of pitfalls, without just making a generic game and without having to spend much of the playtesting correcting fundamental problems with design? Is it possible to come up with a solid list of dos and dont's that apply to pretty much every game, and that can serve to facilitate the proper implementation of new and daring RPG concepts? I don't know that such a thing is possible, as every game is different, but I do know what things people have been complaining about for years. At the very least, we'll end up with a handy reference list of things people do and don't like about RPGs.

Please note that this is not a thread for talking about new concepts or debating whether one system is superior to another. Rather, it is designed to list features that are presently considered to be 'must haves' or at least strongly desirable in the court of public opinion. I realize that no such list can be entirely objective, but I think it would be useful for myself and others to know what people consider are pitfalls before a large amount of time is spent making said fall. The points brought up in this thread are only suggestions based on what essentially amounts to market research; they are based solely on popular ideas, and are not a substitute for knowledge of game design and creativity.

I'll start the ball rolling with a list of common criticisms put forward by "Vysethedetermined2" in his "Pier Solar" review, which you can check out here, with a few additional points that I have seen come up quite a bit on forums and in text reviews.

1. Save Anywhere Feature: I think pretty much everyone can agree on the appeal of this one, to the point where I know people who won't play an RPG Maker game without it. Originally, the idea of a save point or check point was to prevent the player from getting into an unwinnable situation. However, this problem can usually be corrected with appropriate design decisions, meaning that the convenience of saving anywhere is pretty much demanded these days.

2. Non-Random Encounters: There are still games being made today with random encounters, but the consensus among gamers seems to be that this is an archaic system that should be replaced with visible enemies. Non-random encounters cut down on the amount of time players spend in combat, and makes exploring hostile areas less of a chore.

3. Tree Dialogue and Story Impact: People seem to really dislike very linear storylines, especially if the story and the characters are 'generic'. Tree dialogue systems make for a more customizable story experience, similar to those seen in recent Bioware games. A system where players can more directly interact with the story appears to be far me preferable and is considered far more engaging. Personally, I'm on the fence about this one, but it is something I've read a lot in reviews critical of a game's story.

4. Non-reused Sprites: This one isn't really a big deal, but it's a pet-peeve I've seen come up a lot; gamers can sometimes feel 'cheated' if sprites are reused often in a game. If, for example, all the towns look the same or if the same monster sprite is recoloured four or more times, the game starts to look a bit cheap. Again, I don't think this is a game breaker by any means, but I've seen it come up enough in criticism to be worth listing.

5. Unique Abilities: Swords and spells are fine, but one of the things used to measure a game's quality are 'unique' abilities that change up the game; things like stealing, blue magic, and other non-standard features are now, ironically, considered pretty much standard. These features may not be for everyone, but including them shows a diversity and complexity in a game that critics seem to appreciate.

6. Clear Story Progression that Avoids Meandering: Basically, don't pad out a story with pointless busywork, or feel as though the story needs to be a certain length. Really good stories in games, such as the story of Final Fantasy VI, will easily fill a full-length RPG. Conversely, nobody seems to want to run around town collecting miscellaneous items anymore.

7. Optional Minigames Only: Mini games are fun, but if the player is forced to enage in them as part of the story, they quickly lose their charm. RPG players want to play an RPG, not necessarily a space shooter or a puzzle game. Again, this is a bit of a balancing act, as most RPGs feature things like puzzles which are mandatory.

8. Avoid 'Grinding' for XP: Everyone hates grinding, it seems, but there are many different points of view on what an acceptable alternative is. MMOs, for example, are quite popular, and yet most are based around some kind of grinding. The main criticism of grinding seems to be whether or not it is pointless. Players quickly become frustrated if they are grinding for levels so that they can 'get on with' the game, but grinding for item components or optional features seems to be far more acceptable. Again, this point is hotly debated, but the main criticism remains.

9. Pause Anywhere Anytime (Added by Kentona): "So fuck off Diablo III and your no pausing. That is a gamebreaker for me these days."

10. Unique abilities/classes (Added by Kentona): "If every one of party is too same-y, it kills the satisfaction I get from building up my party. This is why I stopped playing FF7 (all the skills were tied to materia, that you could just swap out)"

11. Challenges that test the investments I made in my character builds (Added by Kentona): "I get dissatisfied when the points I poured into Disable Traps are wasted if there aren't any traps ever."

12. Quest/Plot resolution (Added by Kentona): "Unless there is a plot-specific goal to resolve, I quickly lose interest. Which means that for me "post"-game content is pointless and wasted. As are MMOs, in general. Fuck PvP shit."

13. Item Gathering (Added by CyrusBlue): "Used reasonable, this can be quite fun for crafting items or even just salvaging items from the environment or battles to sell later for extra cash. I feel it adds more depth to the world you create and you get an idea of what it's like actually living in that world."

14. Duo/Party Skills(Added by CyrusBlue): "Perhaps through a close relationship or some form of compatibility, two or more active party members can activate a skill that involves them acting together or simultaneously. Not only does it provide some decent eye candy, but it also encourages the player to form strong relationships between party members and makes battles more fun."

15. Bestiary(Added by CyrusBlue): "I'm one who enjoys collection. It's pretty useful to keep track of enemy strengths and weaknesses as well as what kind of loot you can pick up from them. Plus it also encourages exploration and fighting of optional bosses. There could be a reward provided for a complete library."

16. Remappable Keys (Added by Shinan): "I like remappable keys and help text that recognises that I did, in fact, remap these keys.

As a leftie (not only politically) remappable keys are a must in almost any game that has even a slightly more action bent. Sure it's not always applicable in RPGs, in fact it's somewhat rare it comes up. But if the game is using a mouse+keyboard (rather than mouse only or keyboard only) remappable keys must be there.

I'm talking to you lazy console ports."

17. Skippable battles (Added by Shinan): "Godsdamn you games! Let me skip the shit and get on with the fun!"

18. Skippable cutscenes. (Added by emmych): "Like holy fucking shit, modern games, this is a thing you have done right. My least favourite part about playing Golden Sun back in the day was having to button mash my way through every fucking cutscene whenever I died. It was painful. I hated it. Also, like... FFX, the goddamn Yunalesca fight? You get this epic scene right beforehand, but NOPE IF YOU DIE YOU GET TO REWATCH IT 50 TIMES and it is considerably less awesome the second and third and fourth and fifth and FFFFUUUUUUUU-- time."

19. Difficulty Levels (Added by Dyhato): "If a game is too hard, casual gamers complain. If it's too easy, people who enjoy regular Game Over screens complain. This option will keep all demographics happy.
Easter eggs for beating the harder diffs are cool. Just don't do the "Game ends at level 6 instead of 8 on Easy" shit."

20. Character customization (Added by calunio): "This rarely fails in making me interested in games."

21. Removal of Random Chance from turn-based battle systems (Added by slashphoenix): "Randomization plays a part in nearly every turn-based battle system, and its role can range from very small to very large. All in all, the mechanic is archaic and *usually* does nothing but detract from the game. A miss at the wrong time means the player dies, but it's not their fault - they just rolled poorly. A critical hit may guarantee them a victory - but instead of being rewarded for playing well or being clever, it was due to random chance, and this feels less fulfilling."

Not that all randomness should be removed from all games and that it doesn't have its place, but holy hell it does NOT need to be in every game."



So, those are seven to start with. No doubt some of you will disagree, and have your own points about what makes for a good base on which to build an RPG. I look forward to reading what you guys have to say.



1. Save anywhere - I need this feature in my life.
2. Pause anywhere anytime - I need this even more. (So fuck off Diablo III and your no pausing. That is a gamebreaker for me these days.)
3. Unique abilities/classes - If every one of party is too same-y, it kills the satisfaction I get from building up my party. This is why I stopped playing FF7 (all the skills were tied to materia, that you could just swap out)
4. Challenges that test the investments I made in my character builds - I get dissatisfied when the points I poured into Disable Traps are wasted if there aren't any traps ever.
5. Quest/Plot resolution - Unless there is a plot-specific goal to resolve, I quickly lose interest. Which means that for me "post"-game content is pointless and wasted. As are MMOs, in general. Fuck PvP shit.

I don't understand the hate for random-encounters. Most systems that replace it give you the illusion of being able to avoid battles, and fruitless "running away" from monsters is more tedious than actually fighting the battle in the end (since 90% of you end up fighting the battle anyway, except now you are running along the edge of the map trying to avoid them like some dingus, instead of going in a straightline. The possibility of a random battle also cranks up the tension in the game).

I don't mind grinding. Years of Dragon Quest has trained me well.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
The problem is that every one of these things has a down side. There are reasons you like them, but there are also reasons why designers sometimes need to not do them. For instance, non-random encounters would ruin Wild ARMs 3, which has a brilliant and fun system of getting in random encounters. Save anywhere would ruin several of the Dragon Warrior games, where damn near the entire challenge of the game is getting through dungeons without running out of resources, and so saving mid-dungeon would be like saving mid-battle in a tactical RPG. "Suspend" style quicksave data solves this problem, but still would ruin... something, presumably. An exercise game? It would be pretty bogus to quicksave in the middle of your fifty reps and come back the next day to finish.

I don't really feel like there are any specific features that are always a bad idea. There are probably mindsets that are always or nearly always a bad idea, and they lead to bad implementations or bad combinations of features. It's not about individual features, it's about how the game's features combine together to create a whole experience. There weren't any bad core features in Last Rebellion, it was just unpolished and they didn't make good use of the key features they based the game on.
1) I'm a little bit against the save anywhere feature because, while there are those who can use it effectively to avoid tough situations, there are those who won't. I'm very cautious with saving, no matter what the feature is, because I want to make sure I don't end up in an unwinnable situation or miss important parts that I won't be able to revisit later, but there are other people who only function on 1-3 save files. A save anywhere feature could trap you in an inescapable room with an unbeatable boss. I think maybe save points should appear more frequently, or be placed effectively to avoid excessive terror and nail biting when running through tough dungeons.

2) AGREE. Random encounters can be a pain in the ass. I like combat, but I also like the ability to outsmart/outrun/sneak past enemies. It seems more realistic than running through an empty map and all of a sudden, ENEMIES OUT OF NOWHERE. It also makes it easier to assess your situation and know which zones are safer than others.

5) These are really fun. I love the ability to mix up battles with stealing/enemy control/scanning etc..

8) I think there still should be some grinding element, just not a heavy grinding element. It'll give you a slight advantage. Either that or EXP should come easier.

Some features I enjoy

Item Gathering: Used reasonable, this can be quite fun for crafting items or even just salvaging items from the environment or battles to sell later for extra cash. I feel it adds more depth to the world you create and you get an idea of what it's like actually living in that world.

Duo/Party Skills: Perhaps through a close relationship or some form of compatibility, two or more active party members can activate a skill that involves them acting together or simultaneously. Not only does it provide some decent eye candy, but it also encourages the player to form strong relationships between party members and makes battles more fun.

Bestiary: I'm one who enjoys collection. It's pretty useful to keep track of enemy strengths and weaknesses as well as what kind of loot you can pick up from them. Plus it also encourages exploration and fighting of optional bosses. There could be a reward provided for a complete library.
Save-anywhere and Pause-anytime are compromises between game life and real life.

Trust me, those features are critical.
You guys have brought up some commonly desirable features that I missed, such as item gathering and duo party skills as well as skill-appropriate challenges. I also agree with Locke Z completely; these aren't lists of features I necessarily think will result in a 'good' RPG, as knowing how to put together a worthwhile gaming experience is a lot more involved than reading off a grocery list of dos and dont's. The purpose of this thread is to get a feel on what features 'laymen' (in this case people who play games but don't make them) think makes for an enjoyable experience. It is up to every designer to ignore or use these lists as he or she sees fit.

Sometimes what a person thinks they want isn't what they really want, but in order to give them what they really want, one first must know what it is they think they want, if that makes sense.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I admit it's really hard to come up with valid reasons not to include save-anywhere as at least a suspend style save, where it deletes the data when you load it. Even when it's not feasible to let the player reload from any point in the game infinite times, it seems like you should at least be able to not lose your work. Like an exercise game is literally the only situation I can think of.

Pause-anytime is a little easier to come up with plausible problems with. Mostly they involve timed riddles or timed trivia questions or puzzles, where pausing the game gives you infinite time to solve it. Also, pausing in online multiplayer is bullshit. In most RPGs though I definitely agree this feature probably shouldn't ever be a problem. ...I'm not sure I've ever seen a single player RPG where you can't pause, in fact.


I changed my mind about this list. Even if there are exceptions, I still like it. You have to know what the rules are and why they matter before you can know when you need to break them.
Diablo III is designed not to have pausing, I hear. (I hope that stance changes)
author=kentona
Save-anywhere and Pause-anytime are compromises between game life and real life.

Trust me, those features are critical.



THIS.THIS.THIS.
Please spare my soul and add save anywhere unless it's absolutely critical not to have one on a specific area!
I like remappable keys and help text that recognises that I did, in fact, remap these keys.

As a leftie (not only politically) remappable keys are a must in almost any game that has even a slightly more action bent. Sure it's not always applicable in RPGs, in fact it's somewhat rare it comes up. But if the game is using a mouse+keyboard (rather than mouse only or keyboard only) remappable keys must be there.

I'm talking to you lazy console ports.
Ocean
Resident foodmonster
11991
I don't understand the hate for random-encounters. Most systems that replace it give you the illusion of being able to avoid battles, and fruitless "running away" from monsters is more tedious than actually fighting the battle in the end (since 90% of you end up fighting the battle anyway, except now you are running along the edge of the map trying to avoid them like some dingus, instead of going in a straightline. The possibility of a random battle also cranks up the tension in the game).
Actually it's not about the "avoiding encounters" so much as it is being able to clear out a dungeon for me. So if I kill a monster, there's less monsters around to bug me. Clear all 10 (for example) and I can go around the floor without having to worry and just take my time to look around. Or just have the satisfaction of having cleared the dungeon.

Random encounter systems can do this too, like say you have an encounter gauge and when you fight enough encounters, it fills up and you stop getting into encounters (unless you use an item to bring them back or if you leave the area). But a standard random encounter? The monsters will be there always and will continue to bug you and make you just want to get through the place instead of checking it out.
I suppose, in the end, it isn't so much replacing encounters, as it is just making a realistic number or frequency of encounters. In the Deist Cave in FF2 DOS, I would save every five steps and avoid trying to get chests, and pretty well take the most direct route. The reason for this is, in the dungeon, you encounter Hill Gigas, either alone or in pairs. One hit from these guys was already enough to take out one of my party members in one blow. Of course you need challenging monsters, but when you have constant encounters every 10 steps that either heavily take from your supplies, or cause you to game over, it kind of discourages you from exploring the dungeon and in the end you try to find the shortest route possible.
Skippable cutscenes.

Like holy fucking shit, modern games, this is a thing you have done right. My least favourite part about playing Golden Sun back in the day was having to button mash my way through every fucking cutscene whenever I died. It was painful. I hated it. Also, like... FFX, the goddamn Yunalesca fight? You get this epic scene right beforehand, but NOPE IF YOU DIE YOU GET TO REWATCH IT 50 TIMES and it is considerably less awesome the second and third and fourth and fifth and FFFFUUUUUUUU-- time.

Also, yes, I am becoming a believer in the "save anywhere" feature, as well as healing spots in the middle of dungeons (or at least places where you can use a tent!).
author=emmych
Skippable cutscenes.

Speaking of which.

Skippable battles

Godsdamn you games! Let me skip the shit and get on with the fun!
Difficulty Levels - If a game is too hard, casual gamers complain. If it's too easy, people who enjoy regular Game Over screens complain. This option will keep all demographics happy.
Easter eggs for beating the harder diffs are cool. Just don't do the "Game ends at level 6 instead of 8 on Easy" shit.
I remember, even not an RPG, that some Phoenix Wright games only had the moments where you could save at the start of investigation or a trial and of course the suspended save (at least my version. a friend says otherwise) and I hated that. On the other hand though, the court trials became more intense since there was a lot of progress made at stake if you lost.
author=Shinan
author=emmych
Skippable cutscenes.
Speaking of which.

Skippable battles

Godsdamn you games! Let me skip the shit and get on with the fun!


I just want a cheat code that lets me skip to the end credits. Fuck playing the whole game; I have a life, thank you very much.
My life needs a Skip Battles option...
I do a reaction prompt when a field enemy touchs hero, click it in time and the battle is skipped.

Something like that oughta work, right?
No, Messi. That doesn't work.

The point of on-touch encounters is that you can avoid them by running around them. If you are then given a second opportunity when they touch you, that is redundant and non-sensical. Unless it was a special ability of a character or item you have equipped, then maybe.

A quick-time event (QTE) for random encounters to be able to avoid them, or get a first-turn advantage, would work but it is so... fourth wall breaking. Any time a meter, bar, menu, etc. comes up you are ripping the player out of the game world. The reason that fully voiced games are such a rage right now is that you aren't breaking a fourth wall for dialogue sequences. The reason that a lot of the time HUDs also function as a menu, and are considered part of your first-person view visor, is so that you aren't breaking a fourth wall for menus.

Obviously this isn't always the case but this is the direction RPGs are going in, and with huge success. Immersion in RPGs is at an all time high, for sure, and QTEs have always been met by harsh criticism. Either they are done too often, and are overly gimmicky and action-breaking (Force Unleashed is a good example of this,) or are done so infrequently that you almost always fuck it up the first time round (Bayonetta is a good example of this.) God of War/Darksiders do QTEs fairly well, but they are still considered taboo and a low point in the game's design.

In terms of features that I think every game should have.. well. I'm in agreement with a few other people in this thread.

Nothing.

These features and 'systems' and what not should always be game specific. They should always be tailored to the game.

Save Anywhere works great in games where the content isn't designed to be repeated, or where the gameplay isn't fun enough to be worth playing through twice. Pokemon is like this, because the content isn't as important as the progress. On the other side, Resident Evil needs save points because the game wouldn't feel dangerous or tense if you saved after every corner you turned.

Random Encounters/Not Random Encounters again, completely tailored to the game. If your game has lots of narrow corridors, and the movement system isn't quick and responsive (like many early jRPGs), touch encounters just do not work. However, if you have freedom of movement and can manoeuvre in interesting ways, then by all means don't use random encounters. Citing Pokemon, their game needed Random Encounters and Touch Encounters, but both are not done in the classic way and are tailored to the game itself. Random Encounters are usually not forced, or if they are, just for a small amount of time (and there are ways around it.) However, Touch Encounters are usually forced, but some can be avoided so you don't feel forced to do too much. The Random Encounters work the way that they do because their primary purpose is to find and catch Pokemon, which is something you would be doing by choice. Touch Encounters work the way that they do, because you can't always not be fighting and the premise of Pokemon is people train these little monsters to fight for them.. Of course people are going to be looking for a fight all the time.

Linear/Non-Linear Story, again; if your game calls for them then use them. The classic jRPG style of game doesn't use non-linear story telling because there is one ultimate goal. Most wRPGs use Non-Linear story so that you can build and mould your character in your image or the way you want. The lines here are blurred, lately, but the premise is still the same. If your characters have set personalities, set backgrounds, and their motifs are defined and solid; why should your characters be able to make choices that aren't their own? If your characters are blank canvases to build how you see fit, why should they ever not have choices for you to make for them?

Reused Graphics.. well. It really depends on certain things. I mean, region graphics (tilesets, environmental effects, etc.) will end up being consistent if the regions are consistent. If all the towns have the same architecture, why would you use different town graphics? If all the forests have the same trees, why would you use different trees? Hell, even character sprites. Fashion has always been a staple in modern AND ancient civilization. People wear what is in Fashion. Two people wearing the same clothes? Completely normal and believable. Some games even use the exact same sprite to indicate the function of the character. Neko in Secret of Mana, Nurse Joy in Pokemon, etc. They have a specific function and by making them look the same, the player can identify them easily.

Skillsets and Abilities are definitely on a game-to-game basis. I will beat a dead horse here, but Pokemon! Every Pokemon game has had the exact same set of abilities. The specific moves/actions that a Pokemon can perform: they aren't any different from the skills that a character can learn in a Final Fantasy game, they aren't any different from the Magic I learn in Baldur's Gate, there is nothing different about it. Using the same terminology (Magic, Skills, Abilities, Moves, etc.) is so that a player can start playing your game and know instantly what something is. How you make them unique to your game is up to you, but the premise is still the same. For example, in a game idea I was recently working on, Elemental skills cost MP while physical skills cost Stamina (or more specifically, increase exhaustion.) Yet every character had a unique ability that cost nothing that gave them something extra (Steal, Blue Magic, that type of stuff.)

Could a game exist without skills, magic, etc? Sure, but it would probably be boring. Even if you made a game set in the historically accurate Middle/Dark Ages, the different fighting styles of particular groups.. access to different levels of technology, etc. would end up being a skill system of some sort.

Fetch Quests and straying from action, well yeah. If you have the saviours of the world running errands all day the world probably won't get saved. But if a party member gets injured and you need to collect some hydra venom, a dragon's fang, and some behemoth's fur.. well. Fuck, either they die or you do it. Either way it progresses the story. I mean.. that's gameplay. That is RPG gameplay. That is how it works. If you want to have side quests where you have to collect items and just get gold/item/exp rewards, well, that's fine too. Those are side quests. If people want to do them, they can.

Hell, one of the most well received RPGs of our time (Skyrim) based an entire game off this. The main storyline specific quests are mostly fetch quests, and will run you maybe 8-12 hours gameplay. The other 300-400 hours of gameplay is 'pointless' side quests. You get rewards, but none of it is necessary at all. Yet its one of the most played RPGs and its part of a series where the last 3 games have all been massive successes based on the exact same model.

Optional Mini-Games only for fucks sake NO. The Snowboard and Motorcycle mini-games were absolutely necessary for me to complete Final Fantasy 7. There are literally two kinetic gameplay aspects to that game. Combat, and walking. GIVE ME MINI-GAMES AND GIVE ME LOTS.

Avoid Grinding EXP... Do I need to mention Pokemon again? The point of that game is to grind EXP. You can plow right to the end of the storyline with a handful of Pokemon and just doing the mandatory fights, but its impossible to complete your PokeDex without grinding EXP to level your Pokemon.


AND SO ON.

Different strokes, different folks. Make the game that your game has to be.
Pages: first 1234 next last