• Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. PlayStation 4
  3. Why do mist RPGs, even the beat ones, have mediocre gameplay?

User Info: Nihenna

Nihenna
4 weeks ago#1
I love RPGs, but lets be real. Even the absolute best ones often have, at best, "okay" gameplay. No game really stands out, and it's often just sufficient for you to want to play through.

Witcher 3, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, Deus Ex 1 and Greedfall have some of the best roleplaying in gaming, but their actual gameplay are... serviceable at best (Greedfall DOES have a good excuse in budget restraints.).

Why is this? Why are RPGs (I'm talking actual RPGs and not RPG light like new Assassin's Creed or action RPGs like Bloodborne) often lacking in the actual gameplay, no matter how good they are in the roleplaying?

User Info: leeman3104

leeman3104
4 weeks ago#2
tbh i also assume you mean like, real hard role playing games, than other possibilities, like jrpgs and whatnot, cause unless you just hate jrpgs, or wrpgs, feel like most of them nail the combat, at least more than say, the witcher.

kinda feel that, it takes a lot of effort to make a really wide, balanced potential for role playing, and it can take away from other areas. the actual gameplay kinda IS roleplaying, combat and whatnot's there to add conflict. there's only so much they can focus on, and usually making a REALLY solid combat thing means they have to be a lot more focused and limited in what your character's doing. the more options you have, and limitations in how you can make your character, sorta the more bland they've got to make the possibilities.

it's a s*** analogy, but like, terrain, if the game devs allow you to go from point A to point B in a vehicle, what kind of vehicle kinda matters as to how they make the terrain, (more likely the other way around, not gonna put a meadow in a desert themed game, but bear with me) like, let's say this is even an out of bounds, traveled through in a cutscene, sort of thing. if it's a basic car, truck, minivan, whatever, they pretty much need roads, even if it's just dirt roads. some all terrain vehicles or something, they don't need roads, but they still need a reasonably clear path. if you're flying, the terrain doesn't matter at all except for scenery porn, put streams of lava for all it matters.

the character idea sort of has to fit the gameplay, too. if you've got a character system that allows them to do half a dozen different things, show up at semi wildly different 'strength' levels and combat readiness, it's harder to make a really balanced combat system. whereas if it's something like, nero, from the devil may cry series, his attack potential's always static, his capabilities pretty much at any point in the game, aside for 'extra' moves are already known, you can tailor s*** specifically to that, it doesn't need to be this 'cater to the lower denominator characters that might come by' sort of thing.

also maybe you just don't really like roleplaying games that much. they're not focused on gameplay, specifically so they can focus more on roleplaying aspects. kinda like being mad that in chess, pieces can only move a certain way - well, that's semi deliberate to create this style of game. try to judge it more on roleplaying aspects, rather than whether it nailed combat or not, or lower your expectations for it, in favor of other things. like, don't play a puzzle game and expect some amazing story, for example, could they have possibly done both, sure, but it's not meant to be an amazing story game, it's meant to be a great puzzle game, so that's what they worked on.

tbh this is mostly my thoughts on the matter, than me saying "this is how it is" or anything. presumably they could hire some other potential devs to handle the combat stuff a little better, though i feel like it might just get a platinum ish gameplay feel, then.
https://imgur.com/a/cZzvkKn jrpg is referring to a genre, not the location it was made.
https://imgur.com/a/QjeVqSD me versus sjw/antisjw/censorship stuff

User Info: Doober2

Doober2
4 weeks ago#3
Simply because it's not where the money, time and passion goes I'd imagine.
Currently Playing: Assassin's Creed 2
Bona fide Monafied

User Info: Nihenna

Nihenna
4 weeks ago#4
leeman3104 posted...
tbh i also assume you mean like, real hard role playing games, than other possibilities, like jrpgs and whatnot, cause unless you just hate jrpgs, or wrpgs, feel like most of them nail the combat, at least more than say, the witcher.

kinda feel that, it takes a lot of effort to make a really wide, balanced potential for role playing, and it can take away from other areas. the actual gameplay kinda IS roleplaying, combat and whatnot's there to add conflict. there's only so much they can focus on, and usually making a REALLY solid combat thing means they have to be a lot more focused and limited in what your character's doing. the more options you have, and limitations in how you can make your character, sorta the more bland they've got to make the possibilities.

it's a s*** analogy, but like, terrain, if the game devs allow you to go from point A to point B in a vehicle, what kind of vehicle kinda matters as to how they make the terrain, (more likely the other way around, not gonna put a meadow in a desert themed game, but bear with me) like, let's say this is even an out of bounds, traveled through in a cutscene, sort of thing. if it's a basic car, truck, minivan, whatever, they pretty much need roads, even if it's just dirt roads. some all terrain vehicles or something, they don't need roads, but they still need a reasonably clear path. if you're flying, the terrain doesn't matter at all except for scenery porn, put streams of lava for all it matters.

the character idea sort of has to fit the gameplay, too. if you've got a character system that allows them to do half a dozen different things, show up at semi wildly different 'strength' levels and combat readiness, it's harder to make a really balanced combat system. whereas if it's something like, nero, from the devil may cry series, his attack potential's always static, his capabilities pretty much at any point in the game, aside for 'extra' moves are already known, you can tailor s*** specifically to that, it doesn't need to be this 'cater to the lower denominator characters that might come by' sort of thing.

also maybe you just don't really like roleplaying games that much. they're not focused on gameplay, specifically so they can focus more on roleplaying aspects. kinda like being mad that in chess, pieces can only move a certain way - well, that's semi deliberate to create this style of game. try to judge it more on roleplaying aspects, rather than whether it nailed combat or not, or lower your expectations for it, in favor of other things. like, don't play a puzzle game and expect some amazing story, for example, could they have possibly done both, sure, but it's not meant to be an amazing story game, it's meant to be a great puzzle game, so that's what they worked on.

tbh this is mostly my thoughts on the matter, than me saying "this is how it is" or anything. presumably they could hire some other potential devs to handle the combat stuff a little better, though i feel like it might just get a platinum ish gameplay feel, then.
I guess.

I love roleplaying games, my favourite games are RPGs and also mentioned at the top, but I would also like for them to more often also have a bit tighter gameplay.

User Info: user-2

user-2
4 weeks ago#5
Fallout has great gameplay

User Info: Revenanced

Revenanced
4 weeks ago#6
Personally, I think turn based combat is what makes a game boring. And the only way it's made entertaining is by making things excessively difficult. Or adding mechanics that cause a game over from "basic" encounters. Turn Based combat is the kind of gameplay people like because it's mind numbingly easy, it requires absolutely no brain power. Furthermore, it rarely rewards you for playing well aside from taking less damage. There's no "high risk, high reward" or decisions that you make on the fly, which can add to the flavor of a game.

And yet... people love Turn Based combat. I've always assumed they just have low standards.
[PS4 Pro Owner][XB1 Owner][Switch Owner][Final Fantasy][Tales][Overwatch][Mass Effect][Elder Scrolls]!
T>10>7>9>8>15>6>1>2>13>12

User Info: Evan_Forever

Evan_Forever
4 weeks ago#7
Revenanced posted...
Personally, I think turn based combat is what makes a game boring. And the only way it's made entertaining is by making things excessively difficult. Or adding mechanics that cause a game over from "basic" encounters. Turn Based combat is the kind of gameplay people like because it's mind numbingly easy, it requires absolutely no brain power. Furthermore, it rarely rewards you for playing well aside from taking less damage. There's no "high risk, high reward" or decisions that you make on the fly, which can add to the flavor of a game.

And yet... people love Turn Based combat. I've always assumed they just have low standards.


Possibly the worst post I've seen on this site

User Info: user-2

user-2
4 weeks ago#8
Evan_Forever posted...
Revenanced posted...
Personally, I think turn based combat is what makes a game boring. And the only way it's made entertaining is by making things excessively difficult. Or adding mechanics that cause a game over from "basic" encounters. Turn Based combat is the kind of gameplay people like because it's mind numbingly easy, it requires absolutely no brain power. Furthermore, it rarely rewards you for playing well aside from taking less damage. There's no "high risk, high reward" or decisions that you make on the fly, which can add to the flavor of a game.

And yet... people love Turn Based combat. I've always assumed they just have low standards.


Possibly the worst post I've seen on this site


Turn based combat is ancient and has no place today

User Info: KotomineKirei

KotomineKirei
4 weeks ago#9
For role-playing games, focus is usually given to role-playing (e.g. the dialogue, the story and the choices).
The combat and movement aspects of the gameplay are probably more of an afterthought most of the time.

For example:
Fallout 3's FPS aspects were lacking, though its role-playing aspects had more polish.
In Fallout 4, the FPS aspects were refined, but the role-playing aspect diminished somewhat.
The same happened with Mass Effect; the first game had role-playing elements that were removed in later games in the series, while the TPS elements were improved.
Any message above this may be some odd attempt at satire. Whatever that is.
"Saith the Preacher, 'Vanity of vanities. All is vanity.'"

User Info: Sasquatch462

Sasquatch462
4 weeks ago#10
Because more priority and resources get put into the story and RPG elements. If you want to play a Western RPG that actually has good gameplay, I suggest picking up Kingdoms of Amalur Reckoning.
  1. Boards
  2. PlayStation 4
  3. Why do mist RPGs, even the beat ones, have mediocre gameplay?
  • Topic Archived