Can A Good RPG Avoid Being "Dumbed Down"?
Rampant Games’ Jay Barnson poses a difficult question: can game developers make it easy to learn an RPGs systems and controls without dumbing the game down and alienating players who want a bit more of a challenge?
As examples of dumbing down, he cites three examples which are becoming increasingly common in RPGs today: the opening tutorial, the elimination of complexity (e.g. in narrative structure, plot openness, etc.), and the cloning or borrowing of gameplay mechanics from other game genres, especially action games.
He laments that better approaches to the problem of introducing new gamers to an RPG must exist, that people can be brought into a game and learn its ins and outs without the need to resort to tightly scripted, fourth wall-breaking introductions, excessively streamlined level design and narratives, and/or a control scheme that fears to deviate from WASD.
What say you, Dragons and Dragonettes? Can it be done?
When did Leisure Suit Larry become an RPG? I’m sure that’s where that woman is from…
It’s a stand-in image while I search for one that will do as a generic representation of the RPG concept.
Can you make traditional RPGs more accessible without dumbing them down? Sure. Will they sell as well as dumbed down RPGs like Skyrim or Mass Effect? Heck no.
How bad is Skyrim dumbed down?
Arcania: Gothic 4
“Arcania has been dumbed down into a generic action role-playing game, so it isn’t a Gothic game in anything but its subtitle.” – Game Spot
I think the solution for RPGs should be to give the same game an ‘action mode’ and a ‘hardcore mode’, with non-trivial differences between the two.
And by that, I mean that the hardcore mode should literally unlock an entire substrata of the game with stats, tactical planning, etc, which was completely invisible to the action mode player.
This would be an incredible challenge to balance properly, but I think it would be rewarding.
“When did Leisure Suit Larry become an RPG?”
It is an RPG in a very loose sense. The player is playing the role of Larry Laffer and interacts with the game world provided as well as pursues quests. It’s the same way GTA: San Andreas is an RPG (which I’m currently playing right now not having ever played a GTA game in my life). In my opinion, I find GTA: SA to encompass most of the criteria mentioned by the author of the article. It’s been awhile since I’ve been enthralled by an RPG, even an action RPG like GTA:SA, but here’s what I’ve noticed about it:
1) The manual is mostly fluff and is used as a reference for control keys (if you haven’t already remapped your key binds) and
information of key settings.
2) The game throws you right into the game with only salient pointers given as tips displayed during specific missions. The controls aren’t difficult to learn, but they require a bit of skill which one can practice before attempting proper missions.
3) Although the plot is linear, there is plenty of room given for exploration, sub-quests to discover, stat-raising mini-games ( like working out in the gym), stat-raising through physical actions (running, shooting, appearance enhancing, clothing changes) — all done in a manner that isn’t at odds with the immersive quality of the game world.
4) Even in linear quests, what is ‘suggested’ by accompanying characters is not always the best way to solve the mission. An example would be the National Guard Depot heist, where Ryder asks C.J. to just shoot the front gate’s keypad in order to open the front gate so you both can steal weapon crates. I tried the mission several times in that manner and kept failing because I was either too bad of a forklift operator or Ryder would get overwhelmed by soldiers. What I ended up doing was blocking spawn points as best I could with extra crates (some Guardsmen did slip through) and lining up the crates I needed for the quest before opening the main gate to let Ryder into the depot. That saved me plenty of aggravation on my mission and required thinking past the general instructions for solving the mission.
5) Missions are generally short enough to complete within 15 – 30 minutes and offer a sense of urgency during their execution.
6) The characters felt more authentic than any I’ve experienced in an RPG game of the classical sense. They felt real and I personally felt immersed in the game, even to the point where I was enjoying listening to the rap songs and even throwing around some of the more colorful vernacular while playing the game which I would never do in any other circumstance (eg. using the word ‘nigga’ as the characters would use it while killing a rival gang member).
7) It’s a game world one can relate to more than some fairy elf land or the cold reaches of outer space which have been rehashed ad nauseam.
I realize in rereading this post, that I’m probably combining the topics of the value of immersion to the changing nature of RPGs, but I think immerison is a factor that is important to making games fun and can make mechanics sink back into the background where they belong. In my opinion, it is the lack of immersion, credibility of characters and setting, interactive nature of stat improvement that makes a modern RPG seem like a dumbed-down game. It’s why I can’t get into any Bethesda or Bioware games without getting bored with them. It is also why I can’t go back and play the old AD&D CRPGs, Wizardy series, Bard’s Tale series, or even *gasp* some Ultimas which enthralled me when I was a kid.
Hah, neither Larry nor GTA games are RPGs. No need to redefine genres when the only thing that has changed is your taste (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
Here’s the comment I left there:
Why does something have to be easy to learn to be fun? What happened to the days of our youth when we’d button mash until the wee hours of the night, failing again and again, and enjoying every minute of it?
Too late, the genre has already been redefined (Mass Effect, Deus Ex, etc). Apparently any game that involves talking to people between shootouts is now an RPG.
@ Infinitron
Maybe the genre that you’re supporting should be called a “Roll Playing Game” since all it is a statistics based game of rock, paper, scissors powered by a random number generator and presented with some window dressing. It works for table top games because you have a DM to apply those statistics and provide proof as to the success or failure of a dice roll. In a CRPG, it shouldn’t be accessible to a player character.
That is to say, if I stab a person in the neck with a knife or a knife with a glowy +1 engraved on it, I’m pretty sure a person is going to bleed either way regardless whether the victim is an emo elf or not. The distinctions are designed to offset that RNG, and it shouldn’t exist as something for a player to be aware of or to manipulate. This fanatical adherence to the mechanics of table top gaming is even lampooned in an Ultima game. Hoe of Destruction anyone? It is the adherence to these arbitrary mechanics that enables artificial distinctions such as the ‘action RPG’. Is there a ‘passive, sloth-like RPG’ out there in contrast? Should LARP be redefined as ‘Action-based-Table-Top-Gaming-That-Doesn’t-Necessarily-Require-A-Table-Unless-You’re-Smashing-It-Over-Someone’s-Head’?
Perhaps my taste in game worlds might have changed, but I’m definitely sure that what I want from a CRPG should involve interactivity with the game world, character improvement based upon that interaction, and not choosing skills from a skill tree or being in constant pursuit of items or item sets that do no more than offset a random number generator.
@ Matthew
All CRPGs involve doing the very same i.e. the PC talks to quest giver and then proceeds to kill things as a self-righteous mass murderer or gather items as an OCD-afflicted hoarder. The Fallout games and Ultima VI are the only games I’m aware of that don’t require wholesale slaughter and can generally be played from a pacifist’s perspective. As for the hoarding, I doubt there’s a game that doesn’t rely on a bit of FedExing.
Not so much the killing that’s problematic: more the idea that, for this gen, Call of Duty shooter + Talking + Minor Character Progress = RPG.
Yes there were always action RPGs, but that’s basically all we get from the major publishers now. At what point is the term so watered down that it loses all meaning? I played the role of a pilot in Asteroids, is that a role-playing game?
Kindbud:
I’m not even going that far, man. I can accept the likes of Deus Ex, Mass Effect and Skyrim as RPGs, in a sense, but you say that you don’t even like Bioware and Bethesda!
BTW, I can see the attraction of GTA. After a lifetime spent in the “genre” ghetto (fantasy and science fiction), a real world narrative is indeed incredibly refreshing.
You see this a lot with nerdy types who grow up and realize that there’s a literary world out there beyond their beloved Dragonlance novels. And, lo and behold, here comes a game series that can combine their new interest in real life drama with their gaming hobby.
For me, though, the opposite has happened. I’ve realized as I’ve grown up that most videogames, real life or genre, just don’t have very good storylines – which has given me more appreciation for games that are more about pure gameplay.
I think this discussion then begs the question of what is an RPG.
@ Matthew I haven’t played Call of Duty, so I can’t speak to it’s level of quality as a game. But to the question of Asteroids, I think it’s a matter of perception. Do you perceive it as a game of a spaceship shooting asteroids or do you perceive it as a user-controlled-pixel-based-vector-displaying device?
@ Infinitron I don’t like Bioware games because they are formulaic. I enjoyed Jade Empire, Baldur’s Gate series, and the first KoTOR, but then I’ve seen the same narrative formula repeated in Dragon Age and Mass Effect and I raised up my arms and said “Enough!”
Bethesda games are bland and uninteresting because the PC is a paoerdoll-like tool that traipses around the gameworld killing things and collecting things. I tried, really tried to enjoy Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, and Oblivion. I can’t; sorry to say.
I would really appreciate it if you could cite examples of CRPGs that are pure RPGS and do have that quality of gameplay and passable narrative.
I would really appreciate it if you could cite examples of CRPGs that are pure RPGS and do have that quality of gameplay and passable narrative.
Heck, there aren’t many of them. It’s not for nothing that we’re congregated here on a blog dedicated to a 30 year old RPG franchise! 🙂
This comment:
…is made of win.
I am hoping for an explanation to how Skyrim is dumbed down since I will not purchase it if it is too far removed from Morrowind. What I like about Oblivion is the improved world simulation, but I need a serious RPG experience.
Also, I will never consider Arcania a Gothic game & JoWood is a company of sillies for even putting the Gothic name anywhere near it.
Ultima is pure RPG (albeit light one the stats) because you gain experience, raise levels, play a role & the game makes you feel like you are there. The outside real world just does not matter when you are playing an Ultima. Ultima is the only series on earth that made me fall in love with it from game pics & reviews alone before I ever played one. Also, the NPCs in Ultima are a lot more fleshed out with the only generic things to ask are “name”, “job” & “bye.”
Re: Skyrim
Apparently they’ve removed the primary stats, and replaced them with a (very) extensive perks system. I’ve read that the perks are ultimately better at expressing character development, so this isn’t such a bad thing.
It’s my understanding that they’ve also cut down the magic system. No more custom spell creation, for instance.
I honestly wouldn’t call Skyrim dumbed down by any means, if anything it’s a much improved Oblivion. Some features being cut, does not necessarilly means the game was “dumbed down”.
That being I really don’t care about all these dumbing down discussions and what. When I play I game all I care is whether I’m having, whether the story is good to follow and so on… if I begin wondering if the game has been dumbed down or anything well… it means the game just mustn’t be that fun to begin.
But here, to take an exemple that with cited on this topic:
Arcania.
Sure, it’s been dumbed down (hell I’d argue it went into a different genre of actually, it’s more of an action/adventure game than a RPG per se). Sure, it’s probably a poor Gothic.
And yet it’d argue any day of the week that it was a much better *game* than that boring and plotless disaster of a game that was Gothic 3. I certainly had much more fun with it in any case and I strongly believe had this game been presented as a brand new IP rather than a Gothic game it would have gotten much better reception all around (Hell, do you see the reviews Fables are getting ? :P)
Ultima VIII is also a good exemple of this. Dumbed down? Certainly. Poor Ultima? Most likely. Good game? Definitly!
On a side note I think all the the talk about what is a “true” RPG is just nonsense. Everybody have its own definition of what it is, and nobody is right or wrong because there isn’t ONE proper definition. (We have a saying in France which goes like “Opinions are like a–holes, everybody got one!” :P)
I know a guy who actually consider the Ultima VIIs are more adventure game than RPGs actually, because there is little focus on character development, no choices whatsoever in dialogue and plot and so on. I think this is crazy of course, but I think he has a point in that if you’d released a game that’d worked exactly like Ultima VII nowadays you’d probably hear people saying it’s not a RPG. Hell we’ve seen happening with Arx Fatalis (which by all account was Underworld redux) where I saw tons of people saying it was a FPS and not a RPG. -sic-
“When I play a game all I care is whether I’m having [fun?], whether the story is good to follow and so on… if I begin wondering if the game has been dumbed down or anything well… it means the game just mustn’t be that fun to begin.”
Witcher 2 is a fun game with a good story… that doesn’t do me much good if I’m looking for a stats-based, party-based RPG. The issue isn’t so much that one particular game or series has been dumbed down, but rather that all RPGs are essentially streamlined action RPGs now.
It just seems to me that a hobby which once offered such a wide variety of genres and play styles is becoming increasingly homogenized. Few if any big publishers are making flight/military sims, turn-based strategy games, adventure games, space shooters… it’s all some variation on the third person action genre, and becoming very tiresome. (e.g, Oblivion and Fallout 3 are essentially the same game with different settings, whereas Arena and Fallout offered completely different game play experiences)
That’s a good argument about San Andreas. I wouldn’t argue gta 1 – Vice City were rpgs. But San Andreas had a lot of different stats. You could work out to improve your str and run to improve your stamina. Ride your motorcycle to improve your skill, etc etc. The more you did something the better your stat would be in that area. Sound familiar? If SA isn’t an RPG neither was Oblivion.
You could dress Carl up and make him eat to get fatter. There’s character building, character development, memorable characters, and a pretty good storyline. You have multiple equipable weapons, progression of skills, quests and side quests. It has all the elements of an rpg.
KINDBUD_DRAGON You know what’s up.
The term “RPG” should be renamed “Adventure Game”, meaning you have to always dig deeper mechanically to realize full control over the system. The term “role playing” to me means you’re imagining playing a role. You’re invested. You’re having fun, just pretending. It’s an archaic term that needs to be adapted to modern gaming attributes and genres without losing compatibility with its elders. What games get us lost, intentionally or otherwise?
“I played the role of a pilot in Asteroids, is that a role-playing game?”
If it happened in your mind then it happened in real life, just like D&D. I played Ultima Exodus on NES like an RPG (same with Dragon Warrior/Quest and Final Fantasy). The Legend of Zelda was the ultimate first RPG.
“For me, though, the opposite has happened. I’ve realized as I’ve grown up that most videogames, real life or genre, just don’t have very good storylines – which has given me more appreciation for games that are more about pure gameplay.”
Pure gameplay. If gameplay came first and story came second, most games would be decent. The story first games with the suck gameplay are the ones that waste our existence.
“I think this discussion then begs the question of what is an RPG.”
Any game that encourages introspection and creation over destruction (while still allowing the most base of physical wounds) should suffice as a playground for assuming a role.
“I honestly wouldn’t call Skyrim dumbed down by any means, if anything it’s a much improved Oblivion. Some features being cut, does not necessarilly means the game was “dumbed down”.”
One way it’s dumbed down is that it’s not multiplayer, much less massively so. All the procedures that share data between the game rules and your input decisions have to be reprogrammed to support real multiplayer.
MATTHEW SEIDL The hobby still offers these genres. There’s just a lot of platform fragmentation. Running Linux and having a dumbphone reminds me I have limitations, despite my jailbroken Wii and Internet connection.
One way it’s dumbed down is that it’s not multiplayer, much less massively so. All the procedures that share data between the game rules and your input decisions have to be reprogrammed to support real multiplayer.
Huh? Not multiplayer, as opposed to what?
Well personally I’m a story first kind of a guy. Doens’t mean I don’t care about gameplay, but you can offer me the best gameplay in the world if the story suck ass I’ll just get bored and quit. I never feel I’m wasting time when I’m playing through a good story however, even when the gameplay isn’t top notch.
Regarding Skyrim – how is not having multiplayer dumbing down? Wha? But there’s a TES MMO coming at some point so you should be happy 😛
Coming out of left field with multiplayer tes! That’s a good question. Why hasnt bethesda tapped into the mmo space?
Well… word on the street is that Zenimax Online is working on an unannounced TES MMO.
What I mean by that is that multiplayer offers an infinitely more complex experience than whatever canned stuff a story-driven game can provide. The best AI and scripted “intelligent” dialogue in the world can never replace the actions, reactions and motivations of living human beings. With a scripted story the options are more limited, like a “choose your own adventure” book. These days I think not having multiplayer at all is a bit of a cop out, a bit shallow.
Valid points all, but…to paraphrase Eddie “Donkey” Murphy: you know, not err’body likes the multiplayer, including (for the most part) yours truly. Yes, I’m playing The Old Republic, and yes that’s an MMO…but I’m playing the story through, and it’s essentially a single-player game from my perspective. And that’s the only reason I’m playing it.
That SUCKS about the removal of custom spells from Skyrim. The ability to create custom spells is as realistic as magic can get in a game. Can you still enchant items?
I remember creating some artifacts of ridiculous power in Morrowind. I can’t remember the spell names used, but I had boots that allowed me to jump insanely high & an amulet that launched a spell of destruction with a vast kill radius. These items had no practical use but were sure fun to make & play with. I could jump about 25% of the entire maps distance (I never knew wear I would land). So I went to Balmora, jumped to the sky, used the amulet aimed at the approximate center of the city & saw a giant, dome shaped flash. Upon landing, everybody except for a couple of guards on the edges of the city were dead. That was fun.
What if while playing through the story 50% of the people you interacted with along the way were other players, also playing their own stories? What if one of your missions was to steal an item, transport it to distant compatriots and along the way other players in intersecting storylines would attempt to stop you?
There are many roles in this example that could be filled better by players than NPCs. Your enemies could have intelligence officers who canvas the crime scene speaking to possible witnesses. If they identify you as the thief they could report this to the bounty hunters, always looking for a new target. The bounty hunters could then pursue you, perhaps competing with yet another party who wants the item for themselves now that it’s left its heavily guarded roost in is in free play.
I think it’s possible to have a multiplayer experience that is story driven and plays very much like a single player game. The trick would be creating strong and enjoyable enough reasons (classes, belief systems, factions, governments, whatever) for other players to perform the role of NPCs. Truly boring NPCs could be controlled by the computer, while more dynamic and exciting roles could be filled by players.
Has anyone done that in a game and executed it well? It’s absolutely not what I’m doing in my game, but I would play a game like that.
When you put it that way…yeah, it definitely doesn’t appeal.
Different strokes, different folks…that old chestnut.
Didn’t quite expect that response.
In what ways to you prefer AI interaction to human interaction then, in the same context?
Because I don’t care about AI characters. I do, on the other hand, care about human players.
I was mopping up a lengthy side quest in SWTOR last night, and one of the sub-objectives was to kill an area boss. A Sith player (I’m a Jedi) was attacking him when I got there, and was getting stomped. So I threw a couple ranged powers at the boss, bailing said Sith out.
I could’ve let the other player die…would’ve saved me having to wait for the boss to respawn. But that’s not how I play.
And I wouldn’t enjoy a game where succeeding at MY objectives meant I had to find a way to make the other guy fail at his.
Just thought of something. Maybe a single-player game could be thought of as a private endeavor, meaning you don’t want it broadcast over networks or seen by other people. Like quietly reading a book in your room versus going out and having a few pints at a pub. Sometimes it is good to be alone, just to think clearly.
There might be an element of that as well. Sorta like a movie…I like to watch a movie once in a while, even in a theatre. I don’t necessarily want my ability to complete the plot of the movie tied in some way to the actions of everyone else in the theatre. I don’t necessarily want — don’t want at all, really — to have to compete with other moviegoers to ensure the outcome of the movie that I would like to arrive at. Sometimes, I just want to sit back and enjoy a story.
Like I said to a guy on Twitter last night: tell me a story in a setting I both want to and can adequately explore, and leave me be. That, above all else, is what I enjoy in a game. Anything which limits either element takes me out of the game and vastly reduces my enjoyment.
AI interaction is better than human interaction in videogames, because humans are assholes while scripted NPCs won’t become an annoyance that prevents me from enjoying the game and the story.
You idea of other players taking the roles of NPCs and every players living their own soties that cross itself is nice… in theory. But in fact, the vast majority of online gamers don’t care at all about this kind of stuff, even less about roleplay anything, so that’s not even remotely possible.
And I think they way they tend to impose multiplayer in games nowadays more often than not tends to hurt the single player experience and this sucks. I wish they’d let single player games be single player games and period.
As for the “private endeavor”, yeah of course. I’d argue single player game, that’s an experience, it’s about immersiveness, living through the game, its universe, its story – this is not something you can do in multiplayer. Period. If I may bring the comparison, it’s like the difference between watching a movie alone, in the dark, cut from the rest of the world for 2 hours, completly immerged in it… and watching a movie with a group friends and a six pack, laughing and commenting on it the whole. The later might be fun from time to time, but I’d take the former everytime nonetheless. And multiplayer? Yeah that’s definitly the later except ten times worst.
This, also.
Might I suggest you read up on the multiplayer model of the game Dark Souls? You may find it interesting.
All good points. Sometimes I beat the square peg into the round hole because I want it to fit so badly. I can see there are very good reasons for a completely single-player experience.
Dark Souls does look interesting. I remember reading up on its predecessor a bit.