General News - The Future of RPGs

I see. Well, my idea is that the base game is built around the harder difficulties with no hand-holding. Then add the easier difficulty modes and a la carte options.

To use your quest markers example, the game should be built without them and playable without them. However, for those who want it easier or more casual, they can turn on quest markers. Just because you add these options as a toggle does not mean the game needs to be built around them.

Another example. Build the difficulty and game balance to require much thought and tactics, however, the Normal/Easy/Story Modes should remove most of the advanced features that you have balanced for and built. Harder difficulty options will add these things back in for those who want them, and the features are stripped back for the casual players.

In other words, building a game around the casual experience means the hardcore players will be out of luck. Building around the hardcore RPG experience means everyone will be taken care of since the easier options can be added later and are easier to account for. Addition by subtraction. You subtract the more hardcore elements from the game to make the easier modes easier. Give the player certain options to further tweak it (Ironman Mode, Hardcore Mode, Story Mode, Limited Saving vs. Save Anywhere, etc..) and you are essentially going to please more people in the long run. IMO.

Fluent said:

To use your quest markers example, the game should be built without them and playable without them. However, for those who want it easier or more casual, they can turn on quest markers. Just because you add these options as a toggle does not mean the game needs to be built around them.

Click to expand...

The game is built around most common denominator because of the need to prioritise and budget features according to demand. Some quests will not work to their potential if you make quest markers a thing in the first place. Its lose, lose all the way. You get simplification in quest design and poorer rpg design because of the need for a toggle.

Fluent said:

In other words, building a game around the casual experience means the hardcore players will be out of luck. Building around the hardcore RPG experience means everyone will be taken care of since the easier options can be added later and are easier to account for. Addition by subtraction. You subtract the more hardcore elements from the game to make the easier modes easier. Give the player certain options to further tweak it (Ironman Mode, Hardcore Mode, Story Mode, Limited Saving vs. Save Anywhere, etc..) and you are essentially going to please more people in the long run. IMO.

Click to expand...

You are talking about tweaking the experience in terms of difficulty modes again. I wasn't talking about this and have no issue with it. You are confused about what I mean about toggles? Here is a definition: Any toggleable option that impairs the design of the core experience regardless of difficulty level.

P.S The things you are talking about are just additional challenge options not core rpg design things.

You aren't quite understanding me. What I'm basically getting at is let the players decide what the core experience is for them. Give them options to tailor the experience to their liking.

A la carte options the player can turn ON/OFF a long with other features would let them do that.

I explained how the example of quest markers would work. If someone wants the suspense taken out of a quest that has multiple solutions, for example, then so be it. Park big quest markers next to all the NPCs they need to talk to. If they want to turn on a toggle that shows exactly what percentage chance they have for persuading an NPC in a quest, let them do it. As long as the game functions properly without these options then there is no reason not to include them. There is no simplification needed in the design.

Look at the NBA 2K series for a series that lets players customize the heck out of it, and that game has more complex analytics, options and calculations being made than any RPG. It is not simplified in any way, designed for "hardcore" gamers, yet gives the players the options to make it their own experience. Players who want to turn the 3 point accuracy slider to 100 so they make 90% of their 3 point shots (which is entirely unrealistic) can do so. And so on.

I am talking about a mixture of difficulty levels and a la carte options. More examples of the customizable options could be:

Saving Option - Only in Town/Save Anywhere
Mini-Map Option - On/Off
Map Option - Must Buy Map/Always There
Map Marker Option - Show Current Position/Off
Inventory Space - Limited By Weight/Unlimited
Fast Travel - Anywhere, Anytime/Anywhere, Outdoors Only/Services Only (Mages Guild, Boats, Carriages, etc.)

Yes, this does change the core experience, but only for those who want it. The game is built and assumes you want to buy your maps, as the exploration in the game is more "natural", a la Gothic or Risen, and this is the "core experience" they are going for. There may also be a spell in the world that shows you your location on the map instead of a constant map marker. Yet those who say, "That sucks! I want a full map showing exactly where I'm at all times!", can have that. Why not? It's only affecting their game, not mine or anyone else's, and it would not be all that difficult to implement.

I think of Skyrim and the Clairvoyance spell. It really doesn't have much of a point, since map markers already exist. Yet if one could turn off the map markers and the quests were written in a proper way, the Clairvoyance spell all of the sudden has a real impacting meaning in the game. Yet those who don't want that can just switch on the markers.

I don't think this is beyond reach. As I said, the developers should program and build the game with the assumption that people want the most "true" core experience. But give them the options to change that experience as they see fit.

The same song keeps coming back every x years.Started in the 1990s.
Kind of a promise renewal, you must keep customers hooked.

The future of RPGs is clear and bright: most vid products released these days and to be released are RPGs.

The future is RPGs.

Fluent said:

You aren't quite understanding me. What I'm basically getting at is let the players decide what the core experience is for them. Give them options to tailor the experience to their liking.

A la carte options the player can turn ON/OFF a long with other features would let them do that.

I explained how the example of quest markers would work. If someone wants the suspense taken out of a quest that has multiple solutions, for example, then so be it. Park big quest markers next to all the NPCs they need to talk to. If they want to turn on a toggle that shows exactly what percentage chance they have for persuading an NPC in a quest, let them do it. As long as the game functions properly without these options then there is no reason not to include them. There is no simplification needed in the design.

Click to expand...

With quest markers there is no point to having multiple solutions. Your map would be spammed with quest solution 1, 2 and 3 destroying quest design and leading to the removal of multiple solutions. This is the very reason such a toggle was not added to Divinity Original Sin despite some people asking for it. I feel like you are talking in circles and refusing to acknowledge the points I am making so I'm going to stop discussing this with you now.

I guess I don't understand what you're saying, sorry. I don't see how quest design would be ruined by adding an option that you don't have to use.

Oblivion had options in quests with quest markers.

rjshae said:

For me, the drive to reach the widest possible audience is a big part of what is causing this supposed stagnation in cRPGs. It leads to simplified mechanics, a reduction in choice, and an emphasis on eye candy rather than creativity. MMORPGs in particular can't afford to stray far from the norm of mass appeal, or else they risk not drawing a large audience for a lengthy run. The element of creativity needs to be returned to the small group, rather than depending on massive conglomerates to crank out AAA titles.

Click to expand...

Agree with this - and am hopeful about the future in this regard. We're seeing more smaller studio/indies who are making games in the RPG vein with their own unique take - whether that be different mechanics, worlds, cultures, etc. I'm thinking of Tahira, Masquerada, Banner Saga, Age of Decadence, NeoScavenger, among many others. None of these games would likely have been made even 10 years ago (unless Jeff Vogel could make many clones of himself, each with their own unique agenda). But they are getting made now - and selling enough (usually) to encourage more such indies to make their own unique RPG.

On a side note… ack, is this a real quote?

Inquisition wasn’t bad, but it was such a shallow, toothless game compared to Dragon Age II

Click to expand...

Wow… alright, have fun with DA 2… knock yourself out.

The future of RPG is basically a visual novel with some button smashing combat between questions. Oh wait, that's the present of RPGs.

Even with all the VR talk, I still like this bit the best:

“I’ve always found the definition of a ‘roleplaying game’ a bit frustrating myself, because the actual mechanic that defines the ‘genre’ doesn’t reflect what makes a great RPG to me,” Katherine Holden says. “The actual definition of an RPG seems to be: you have numbers that represent your abilities, you gain a resource called experience for doing things—usually, for making stuff die—and that makes your numbers go up. I’ve always felt this is a million miles away from the actual experience of playing a role, stepping into the shoes of another person.”

Click to expand...

I feel that tension in definitions a lot. I think it points to our genre definitions being totally outdated - almost random. Got a lot of shooting? OK, you're a shooter but is it first or third person? What do you mean you can switch!? Fine, you're a first person shoo… wait, what are all these quests?? Does your character train skills as they do these quests because then you would be an RPG? Oh… you're character's ARMOR gains skills… fine, you're not an RPG, just a first person shooter with RPG elements. Ummm… so you don't have a lot of puzzles in this game, right?

Sheesh.

Silver said:

Any toggleable option that impairs the design of the core experience regardless of difficulty level.

Click to expand...

Might and Magic VI even had a toggle for turn-based/real-time combat. How crazy is that?

To me, the RPG genre is fine. There are plenty of interesting RPGs out there and everyone has choices. I'm not just talking about the latest RPGs to be developed, but with hundreds of older RPGs that are updated to work on modern systems, etc., the choices you have now for playing an RPG are staggering. Even someone with a laptop from 2007 could be playing dope RPGs today with minimal effort, so it's really a good time to be playing them.

Fluent said:

Might and Magic VI even had a toggle for turn-based/real-time combat. How crazy is that?

Click to expand...

So did Arcanum and neither option is particularly enjoyable IMO (Game still has some very interesting aspects but combat isn't one of them unfortunately). Sometimes when you try to please everyone you end up really pleasing no one.

“I feel like in spite of what some people have been saying, there’s been a lack of really amazing RPGs for a few years now,” says Katherine Holden

Click to expand...

Very strange thing for an indie developer to say. But I'm guessing she only plays JRPGs and AAA "RPGs" from the likes of Bioware... A weak 2016 notwithstanding, the past few years have seen the release of some of the best CRPGs we've seen since the 90's / early 00's.

I liked combat in both of those games. Might and Magic VI was enjoyable. Turn-based for tough fights or when they close in on you, real-time for easy fights. And I'm still trying to figure out why people hate Arcanum's combat.

But my point was that many toggle options could be considered. Not just combat but many more minor features as well. Broader appeal can also mean deeper gameplay for those that want it, not just simplification.

And ask yourself this about having options - Would you rather be forced to use quest markers? Since the idea is to attract gamers who want a more casual experience, if we don't ask for options in games RPGs will likely streamline more, thus we have a Skyrim situation where we're all forced to use them. Options, man, options.

In theory, I'm all for developers giving us options for everything under the sun. It's just that in reality most RPG developers have limited resources and they can't possibly cater towards every preference in their game..

To use the ex of quest markers… Well you can probably code the option to turn them off easily enough but then in order to make the game still playable you'll have to make sure that there are still NPCs can give hints about where to go… Just because I hate quest markers doesn't mean I want to stumble around in the dark either. However, If I can, say, bribe the weapons merchant to tell me where the crossbow wielding assassin went that's cool. Ideally multiple paths to the solution exist in some cases. So it requires the developer putting considerably more work into it which is probably another reason we see so many RPGs that just flat out tell you exactly where to go... It's easier to design and test and apparently many players are fine with it.

Difficulty settings is another thing. in theory it's great, but the problem is altering how smart the enemy AI is is hard. Thus the most practical way to up difficulty is to either increase the number of HP enemies have (boring), increase the number of random enemies you encounter (boring), or otherwise gimp your character / enemies accordingly (feels cheap / unfair). IIRC HBS nixed the "very hard" difficulty setting in Shadowrun: Hong Kong because they found in testing that players experienced too many missed attacks (lower accuracy) / enemies taking more damage, etc. and it just wasn't fun… Well, personally I would have preferred a harder base difficulty for combat as I found it was really too easy even on hard. Unfortunately in their attempt to please more "casual" players who don't enjoy some challenging combat they disappointed those of us who do.

Of course, if a developer can somehow give us all sorts of options without compromising things for one set of players then I'm all for it. But I'm OK with Age of Decadence just having one difficulty setting and people who find it too tough can just learn to deal with it or play another game.

I believe it's possible. I'll post more about it tomorrow. Or maybe make a video better explaining my ideas. Cheers!

Fluent said:

I believe it's possible. I'll post more about it tomorrow. Or maybe make a video better explaining my ideas. Cheers!

Click to expand...

Its possible but not likely. Resources are limited so unless you have Disney money you are unlikely to fund the completely game changing toggles that have major implications for the game design. Not to mention the iteration work needed to make sure all toggles deliver a good experience. You effectively double the amount of testing you have to do with every additional toggle that majorly affects game systems. Its impractical.

Just to be clear I'm only talking about large system toggles here. Things like having quest markers or not, real time/turn based combined systems. If you watch the Matt Chat video JVC basically confirms that the only reason for the real time/turn based combat in later Might and Magics was because he pushed for it as a CEO and was prepared to invest a lot of time and money to get it feeling good. Contrast that with the combat in Arcanum which most people concur sucks badly because Troika did not have the resources and testing time needed to do it properly. Toggles are marketing material. The type of stuff that looks good in a promotional video but can really dilute the rpg experience in reality, especially for small indies. Bravo when developers get it right but 9 times out of 10 its a warning sign, even coming from large developers.

I'm not even really talking about real-time/turn-based toggles. I'm talking more about smaller features that are easy to implement yet still greatly alter the experience of the RPG.

Example - fast travel. Toggle it as "Fast Travel Anywhere, Anytime vs. Use "Real" Transportation Only". So, with one simple toggle, the game now has more meaningful resource management for those who want it (fast travel Morrowind style), yet for casuals who don't care about that they can turn on Fast Travel Anytime. Very simple yet changes the core experience.

Again, the game would be built on the premise that the gamers will use these features. I.e. the developers build the travel system like Morrowind's system to begin with, thus there is no extra effort involved. Yet there will be an option to turn it off for more casual players. That does not seem like a breaking the bank change yet it would go a long way for the overall experience. Because not only does limiting fast travel make you have to physically plan your movement in the world, you have to then manage your resources more (camping supplies, food, inventory weight, how many potions you're carrying, your combat abilities, etc..) Again, for those who don't want that extra layer of RPG nerdcore stuff, they can just turn it off. No harm, since those elements were already in the base game. You are just giving the casual players the options to scale back the already-present options.

Another example - limited saving. "Save Anywhere vs. Save Only In Town". Again, not a breaking the bank feature, yet goes a very long way to the overall experience. Saving only in town means there is more risk to your adventure, a feeling of tension, and that you have to plan the trip more. So now you have that turned on with limited fast travel. Small options that greatly change the experience. Yet for those who don't want that type of investment, just flip it off. See what I mean?

And I don't concur that Arcanum's combat sucks badly. I played it on turn-based and it seemed fine. There was resource management with ammo, a dice-roll to-hit system, plenty of weapon and magic choices (to say the least!) and more. It seemed alright to me, but that's beside the point.

Another example - Core rules vs. Scaled back rules. This would be a toggle that is already present in some games (Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Lords of Xulima on Hardcore difficulty, etc..), that would scale back or add in parts of the ruleset based on your options. Turn on/off Attacks of Opportunity, or extra management based options that not everyone likes.

I think they can go even further and offer slider implementations that sports games have been offering for 10+ years, and thus let players craft even more of the ruleset options to their liking. Again, the game is built as the core experience being the whole shebang turned on, but gamers can customize and tailor it to their liking.

There are plenty, and I mean plenty of little things developers can add here or there to change the experience without breaking the bank and while also appealing to different audiences. They could even offer Manual vs. Auto leveling up, for those who don't want to scour over every small detail in a heavily PnP-style system. They could offer things like Pillars of Eternity, where you can choose to see the various skill-checks in dialogue vs. not seeing them. Simple things like this change things dramatically in the hardcore vs. casual experiences, and IMO we should see many more of these types of options going forward.

Here's an example of sliders from NBA 2K, another thing RPGs should eventually implement -



They have pages and pages of sliders like these, and while most don't delve too deeply into them, there is a whole community based on tweaking the sliders, uploading sets for others to share and spending dozens, sometimes hundreds of hours tweaking the sliders to make a perfect set.

Some RPGs have already started to do things like this. I feel there is a great opportunity for even more of these types of things going forward. Think of it this way, if they don't start adding many options to tailor the game to your liking, what do you think will happen to RPGs as they gain popularity? Chances are they will scale down the RPG elements. So, I say build the RPG as a "true" RPG in the first place and then let the players scale back the design to the level they are comfortable with.

Just some random thoughts but I hope whoever is reading this is getting something from it. I made a video I will have to upload where I Yammer on about this stuff. Sorry for walls-o-text but eh, this has been something I've been tossing around a bit lately. Cheers.

I can certainly see the appeal of having a huge amount of settings that can be tweaked how the player sees fit. I think very few people would dispute that it would be great if you had the option to customize everything in a game to make it how you enjoy it.

However, what I have been talking about is the practicality of something like that is. I don't know how complex it is to code a sports game vs a tactical RPG (I assume coding an RPG with a good combat system is harder than a sports game but I don't know). Regardless, I'm assuming that a NBA game has a massive budget…. Probably larger even than the majority of AAA RPGs, so they have the resources to add all of these options…. I suppose if Bethesda was so inclined they could afford to create dozens of different slider settings that players could tweak… although it would seem that the majority of their audience is fine with their games as they are and ones who play their games on PC rely on the modding community to improve the games so there's little incentive for Bethesda to go in this direction since people keep buying their games anyway.

I don't think you can expect the average RPG developer to implement anywhere near that level of customization. Even inXile / Obsidian probably can't really justify devoting that much time to it with their multi-million dollar RPG budgets. If you find that only 5% of your player base want a feature in the first place it is a feature that is likely to get cut.

Now I'm sure there's some little ways developers could add options and there's plenty of ways they can improve their games that don't necessarily even require more complex coding. For instance, I think most CRPG developers could do a better job with the rulesets… whether they adapt an existing pen and paper RPG ruleset for their game or make up a new one like Whalenought is doing for Copper Dreams / Banquet of Fools… There is a lot of room for improvement; we need more CRPGs with interesting rulesets where it actually matters how you build your characters & ideally not just one right way to build an effective character either. (Of course I'm not sure how many players would want this vs those who would complain the rules are too complicated).

Anyway, again I'm not at all opposed to giving players options, but I'm not a coder. From what I've heard sometimes things that sound so simple to implement can actually be a tremendous amount of work. I wish I could turn every RPG into a choice & consequence heavy CRPG with frequent skill checks in dialogue and relatively rare, but challenging turn-based tactical combat and minimal hand-holding… Unfortunately I'm not sure if there's any amount of sliders that can make casual action RPGs into that

As for budget, 2K had advanced sliders before they were a big company. Back in 2K6 or 2K7 they had very advanced options and sliders, and they were still a minor player then. Nowadays they are enormous, yes.

I don't know if coding an RPG is harder than a sports game. I am an avid basketball video game player and the amount of advanced stats, analytics and calculations happening in those games is staggering. Very, very staggering. The stat and attribute systems they use in these games now is incredibly deep.

As for creating slider sets, a lot of that is largely left up to the community. Again, since 2K6/7, I've seen first hand an entire community emerge that is dedicated to sliders. Much like the mod community evolved, so did the slider people, and nowadays you have tons of people making them and sharing them. The download process is very easy as well and has been streamlined, so anyone can download them.

As for making casual RPGs into challenging/interesting RPGs for us, I believe that the key to that is coding the game as an interesting/challenging RPG to begin with. Then, use the options to scale back the things you've already built. So Normal or Easy mode would use 50% less restrictive ruleset, or something like this. Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale already does this to an extent. You can turn Attacks of Opportunity On/Off, and so on. The game would be coded to assume you are going to use all available challenging options, i.e. coded as your typical hardcore and challenging CRPG, but if the casual players don't want that they can scale them back, thus making the game easier. I think that could be the start of a solution for keeping interesting rulesets in RPGs yet giving the player the option to activate the things they want from the ruleset.

Thanks for the response.

HiddenX said:

Some developers discuss how RPGs could evolve on PC Gamer:

Thanks henriquejr!

More information.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing