Should RPGs incorporate more action elements in the future?

MigRib said:

Maybe that's not what you are saying, but the expression itself is quite clear. Anyway streamlining is not a bad thing, it makes games much more fluid, cinematic and entertaining. Too much rules just slow things down and, in my case, break the immersion completely..

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how many people would agree with that, but you're definitely entitled to your opinion.

JDR13 said:

I'm not sure how many people would agree with that, but you're definitely entitled to your opinion.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not trying to win a popularity contest... Anyway, just to make sure I was understood, I don't take any offense at the dumbing down thing. I just feel that the expression is devoided of real meaning, because games didn't move from being highly intelectual to moronic dumb, they just lost some of the complexity of rules, the mechanics are now lighter, you have less (low quality) text to read, and the only thing that might appear as clever in an RPG - puzzle solving - was never really that mind bending inside the genre, and still isn't. So I'll go on appreciating games from 2005 to 2013 (the last year was clearly devoted to the old-scholl revival, and this one appears to be on the same track).
And I'll be waiting for the return of the trend mentioned by the original post, because right now there's nothing much for me to play. At least in the cRPG genre. Nowadays good adventure games (e.g. Telltale's games and those that copied the recipe) are much closer to my ideal role playing experience than cRPGs.

Fluent said:

Everyone complains about Morrowind's system, but in all reality it is one of the most complex, in-depth, rich combat systems we've ever seen in an RPG! Yet because it's an abstraction and you miss your shots even though you see them hit, people scoff at it.

Click to expand...

I love Morrowind, and it's still probably my favorite open-world game of all time. But I have to respectfully disagree about the combat system being anything remotely close to "complex, in-depth and rich." And being abstract has nothing to do with it. The entire combat system boils down to chance to hit. That's it. Make numbers go up, and you can hit things more often! That is a far cry from being able to, say, have to decide between different attack types, positioning, etc. The magic system somewhat makes up for this though - spell-crafting is great!

Games like the Infinity Engine ones get away with having the same problem by allowing the player to have a diverse party at their disposal, allowing different tactical options to be used in a variety of ways. In that case, abstract works on some level. If BG wasn't party based, combat would be dreadfully boring and awful. Just like Morrowind.

Fluent said:

Would these people honestly prefer Skyrim, which has almost no depth to the combat at all? I wouldn't. But hey, if you would, then more power to you. You're in the majority it seems, and I'm a bit saddened by that.

Click to expand...

Oh please, just stop. Coming from the same person who considers Kingdoms of Amular an all-time classic, which is the pinnacle of RPGs being made action and console oriented for the masses, I don't appreciate your condescending remark. Funny how you suddenly became the champion waving the banner for old-school RPGs, eh? I love your enthusiasm, and we need more of that, but please tone down the hypocritical rhetoric and condescending jabs if you want to actually have a discussion.

There's nothing really to discuss. Facts are facts. Morrowind was a million times more complex than Skyrim, even if the end result is just increasing or decreasing hit chance.

Did you watch the video I posted? I could make a similar one myself and state the absolute staggering amount of factors that play into Morrowind's abstracted combat. That's what makes that game great.

Newer games aren't as complex because they want to appeal to more people. Back in the day it was a thing to appeal to hardcore nerds and people who loved role-playing. Now it's about appealing to the mainstream and the game has to be as streamlined as possible in order to do that.

It's not rocket science. These are all facts.

By the way, Amalur was a game crafted by a team of geniuses who genuinely wanted to make the next greatest thing in the RPG world. They largely succeeded in making a great game, but it's a shame their vision was never fully realized. I followed it closely, unlike you, and I know the ins and outs of the ideas behind that game. Curt Schilling wanted to create something amazing, and poured everything he had into making it happen.

Just go watch the video I posted and you'll see how complex Morrowind's combat is. Once you figure that out, you'll see why games today can't hold a candle to it.

Fluent said:

Newer games aren't as complex because they want to appeal to more people. Back in the day it was a thing to appeal to hardcore nerds and people who loved role-playing. Now it's about appealing to the mainstream and the game has to be as streamlined as possible in order to do that.

Click to expand...

This wasn't directed to me, but anyway I feel the need to reply. Old school cRPG do not appeal to everybody that loves role playing. I loved in the past, and still do love role playing (taking the concept as a whole, including cRPG and p&p RPG) but I loath most old-school games because they rely heavily on rules, mechanics, time consuming number crunching, time consuming just about everything, and a tactical view of RPG that I never liked. As I said on another post, as long as a played pen & paper RPGs I didn't pay much attention to cRPGs because I believed (I still do) that most of them didn't acomplish what was supposed to be a video game version of pen & paper games. In my point of view, one of the first that did that well was Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines. Then there was a gap, later appeared some games that felt the way I (and this is a personal opinion, of course) always imagined what should be role playing. Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, Mass Effect, Dragon Age Origins are among them. Nowadays, as I already posted, with the revival of the old school style, the only real RPGs I find are adventure games from Telltale or that copy the Telltale style. I'm waiting for Witcher 3, the next Mass Effect and several other, but this last year was a desert from my kind of RPG...

I will avoid the whole semantics and thing and just say I prefer lots and lots of choices when it comes to designing a character and playing. I would prefer assigning my points to 6 different stats, choosing skill, trait, and other abilities, etc. over having next to no choice (like DAI where your only choice is really via crafting). I prefer Morrowinds system to Skyrims (where you have just health, mana, or stamina) even if I adore Skyrim I prefer the mechanics of Morrowind. I like the sense of depth to character building in the older games.

So I am not big on more action elements in an RPG at all. I don't like twitch games where how well you can play is dependent on your age, health, and reflexes. I prefer strategy, skills in the game, etc.

I think Action-RPG's (as they are called) should have plenty of action elements. So on the fence where I think there can be both.

For me, an rpg is much more about thinking before leaping, and sound tactical decisions. Something like a Nintendo-jumping game isn't likely to be on the top of my list, and for the most part, most of these non-tactical offerings tend to be way too simplistic. Harder games for the win, man up or gtfo.

I think it is very difficult to do both competently.

To do the action competently requires the appropriate world design, npcs, character skills, armour and weapons, and world interaction that integrates and enhances the action and combat which is difficult on its own. Perfect working examples include the Dark Souls games.

Focusing on the action aspects of the game might also take away from other rpg elements like crafting and companions which would destroy the game balance. Which would probably explain the reason behaind the choice of simplistic combat in DA:I (and two worlds).

There are, however, success examples of combining decent action and other rpg elements and maintaining balance (at least in the fantasy and historical genres) including the Gothics, Risen games, Kingdoms of Amalur, and Mount and Blade.

Fluent said:

What people don't seem to understand or appreciate about combat systems like Morrowind and Vampire: Bloodlines, is that they are approximations of a real-time system. They are abstracts. Just because you physically see the attack hit means nothing in those games.

I don't understand why people can't enjoy abstracts that easily. Everyone complains about Morrowind's system, but in all reality it is one of the most complex, in-depth, rich combat systems we've ever seen in an RPG! Yet because it's an abstraction and you miss your shots even though you see them hit, people scoff at it.

Would these people honestly prefer Skyrim, which has almost no depth to the combat at all? I wouldn't. But hey, if you would, then more power to you. You're in the majority it seems, and I'm a bit saddened by that.

Click to expand...

I agree with you there. I played Alpha Protocol and loved their implementation. To me it's the character the one with 91% (or 10%) chance to hit, not me. It breaks the immersion for me if, because I as the player am good with my reflexes, my supposedly clumsy character never misses a shot.

Personally I'd like to see RPGs emphasize more social connectivity. That's kind of the opposite of action, I suppose, and more challenging to implement, but it makes for a more personal, emotional experience that lets me feel connected to the environment.

wolfgrimdark said:

I will avoid the whole semantics and thing and just say I prefer lots and lots of choices when it comes to designing a character and playing. I would prefer assigning my points to 6 different stats, choosing skill, trait, and other abilities, etc. over having next to no choice (like DAI where your only choice is really via crafting). I prefer Morrowinds system to Skyrims (where you have just health, mana, or stamina) even if I adore Skyrim I prefer the mechanics of Morrowind. I like the sense of depth to character building in the older games.

Click to expand...

Since the talk has shifted to systems and not strictly combat like earlier…

The systems in Morrowind are fantastic and what makes the game worth playing, just like the other examples I used, Vampire Bloodlines and Alpha Protocol. I would much rather play a game with interesting systems and depth than one with a lack of these things and great combat - which is why I don't play many AAA games outside of RPGs and strategy games.

That being said, I see no reason why a great RPG can't have interesting systems, complex character creation/skills/attributes/etc. and also good, engaging combat, whether it's player-driven action or tactical. Very few RPGs ever seem to accomplish both, although there have been a few.

I see no reason why a game with Morrowind's depth has to have such dull, boring combat. The systems and mechanics are there - it just needs to be delivered better and engage the player more. The abstract delivery could actually work and not need to be action-based - just having more attack options then just standing there clicking until you hit the target would make it far more engaging. If the various attacks actually mattered, or if different attacks had different effects, that alone would increase the level of engagement without compromising any depth.

So, if I had to choose between Skyrim and Morrowind based purely on combat, leaving everything else on the table, I would choose Skyrim's combat because it's simply more rewarding and enjoyable. If I had to pick between the two based on everything else, it would be Morrowind.

All I can say is look at the game of the year D:OS. Enough said.

I hate this trend with a passion personally. Micromanaging that kind of stuff annoys me to no end. The controls often don't feel overly fluid either. That kind of combat tends to be more about pattern recognition than tactics. Simply not engaging in any way, shape, or form for me.

I think RPGs where an action combat system is the way to go should, perhaps, incorporate "more" action elements, but it really depends on what they're going for.

Personally, as a big immersion freak - I love feeling like I'm responsible for my performance in the world I'm pretending to be in, so I tend to enjoy "action" combat if it's handled well.

But that only really works for a certain kind of game, and I'd hate it if games like Original Sin or Wasteland 2 incorporated action elements, as they don't belong there.

Games like Witcher and Skyrim could, potentially, benefit - but I don't enjoy arcadey spam-fests like Amalur turned out to be. I want a more deliberate pace - and if I'm supposed to be acrobatic, I want to feel like I'm in control of that, and not at the mercy of an "intelligent" system that does all the cool things for me, and I also don't want to feel it's random. Hard to explain, I guess.

Dark Souls has a fantastic and weighted combat system. My only real complaint about the combat is that it's too melee oriented and archery is boring. That's why I prefer something like Skyrim, because I'm always playing a stealthy character - and I just love the combination of sneaking and archery.

So, if a game could have the love and attention to detail that Dark Souls has, in terms of combat, and it could add a wider and more freeform arsenal - then it would be an absolute dream in a specific kind of RPG.

But as some kind of overall mission, I have to say - no - there's no reason to add action elements just because. That would likely hurt most games more than it would benefit them.

One important thing that I think a lot of people forget when talking about streamlining, "dumbing down", complexity & depth is the fact that removing elements, or making elements clearer does not automatically make the game less deep. One problem that a lot of older CRPGs had was that they had a lot of poorly explained numbers. You did not quite know what each stat did and how everything worked together, so while the game system might have been very complex, due to the fact that the game did not present enough information to always give the player informed decisions meant that they were not deep. Complex, yes, but not deep.
And removing useless rules that don't really give the player any more interesting choices to make also does not remove depth, it just removes unneeded complexity.
The way I see it, streamlining is when you remove things & make things clearer and easier to understand, without it impacting depth to a major degree.
"Dumbing down" is when you remove complexity and at the same time make the game considerably less deep.


If you want a clear example of streamlining, compare Europa Universalis 2 & 4. EU4 is a lot easier to understand, to get into, but they also at the same time added a good amount of depth to the game. I know that EU is not an RPG, but I still think it serves as a good example.

I think there's room for both "streamlined" and "hardcore/old school RPGs", just like there's room for both TB and RTwP combat. Both have their audiences and pros/cons. What I don't like is though, it seems most of developers tend to "focus" on what seems to be "in". If streamline gain popularity, all of sudden, every title coming out is streamlined. As soon as Kick Starter gains popularity, here comes massive number of old schools. I think each company really should think about what they are passionate about/do well and focus on that, regardless of what current trend look like - would probably give them higher chance of succeeding in whatever they are working on (imo).

blobby, You bring up a great point, one that I've thought about myself a lot recently. It seems about 98.5% of people just follow the current trends, whether it's music making, game making, you name it. I'd love to see more people, not only game developers, break from this mold and try new things. We need some unique thinkers in the game industry, and in the world in general.

Lemme go an offtopic since I read the title totally wrong.

It sounds to me like "should future RPGs… go action".
Should RPGs become Action RPGs aka Diabloclones?
No.