I was never suggesting that combat is removed from the CRPG genre, rather I was suggesting that its importance to character progression is toned down. Most CRPG''s to date basically consist of wandering around a map and clicking on a monster - besides combat tactics there is very little thinking going on. Of course, there are the odd puzzle dotted around, but these usually boil down to killing a few more monsters so you can get a key.

As I said before, there is nothing wrong with the principle of having a character who gets more powerful as the game progresses. There is also nothing wrong with the player wanting to make his character as powerful as possible. These are addictive elements (even if they are essentially aesthetic) and the more addictive elements a game has, the better the game. The problem is that if there is only one method of increasing that power (running around killing everything) then the monotony of that action will play against the hook provided by the progression (I assume this is what Landfish was getting at)

So what is needed is a more vast an array of hooks in the game and less emphasis on the combat side of game addiction. But what makes combat used so much is the level of interaction that this factor brings to a game. This is why it''s so tempting to put so much combat into crpg''s. Plus, if its done well it becomes a crowd pleaser as well.

It would be nice to see agility used more in rpg''s as this element can provide the same quantity of interaction that strength based combat does. This would be good.

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

I''m not much of a pc gamer, but I recently picked up a copy of Diablo 1 for $12 off the bargain rack just to see what all the fuss was about. I was dissappointed by the game play (note: I''ve only played with the fighter), it was so repetitive.. just click on the baddie and wait for it to die. There was absolutely nothing cognitive. There were no interesting level design elements, a level is just a big plane inhabited with more baddies.

So though I didn''t find any of those normal elements of good design that I''ve come to expect (from a Zelda game for example), I did find my self driven to move on and complete the game.

My conclusion is that all of diablo is one big powermaxing quest.

I used to not be able to understand my father-in-law who will sit and play his "50 Casino Games on 1 CD" for hours and hours.. How sad is it for him to sit there and do nothing more than click on the slot machine handle and watch the icons spin down, hoping that the next one brings a reward..

But oh.. wait.. Diablo is doing to same thing for me.. I click the baddie, and hope that he drops something cool. And mabey If I kill enough, I''ll have enough gold to buy some thing cool.

So while I had a good time with Diablo.. its NOT and RPG, Its barely and adventure, its mostly a game of power maxing, where we all kno that bigger numbers means were having more fun.

gran turismo was all about powermaxing getting better cars too...
that''s like adding people to your party..and maxing them up too..is there any other point?

final fantasy tactics, tried to get you more jp''s by jobs...
but that wasnt'' worth it to me...you got more jp''s by killing then the jobs..jobs only got you worthless items(maybe id idn''t know how to use them).

...i dont know exactly what''s beign questioned here..
are you saying games shouldn''t rise in strenght?
or get rid of strength meters and stuff like magic meters?
of that''s the case you have a linear character
if you give him new spells or moves for artifacts or whatever..then its'' like an "adventure" game hehe
like in crash bandicoot when you got a boss defeated you get a new move like jumping higher.
in diablo when completing a quest you get an item...not a "level up"
and stuff like that? is that what games need more?

what''s yoru opinion on collecting coins and stars ala mario..he never gets no level ups...well in rpgs he does..hehe!

-Slight change of topic-
What the sucess of Diablo 1&2 showed me was that there''s still a large crowd of people who like the old arcade style games. I don''t think that the constant powermaxing element of these two games was much of a negative. They were just too well done. One of my golden rules of designing games is "The less you put in the harder it becomes to make mistakes". You don''t always have to complicate things just so it will be more intellectually satisfing.

-back on topic-
Some games need things like powermaxing in order for them to maintain their simplicity (ease of use). That''s probably what powermaxing is "A simplified and easy to understand gaming design". So i guess the real problem is not powermaxing itself but designing easy to use game structures that still promote thought for those keen of mind and a smooth ride for the buttheads.

When someone buys an rpg what are the first thoughts that go through their head when it comes to expectation of the game:
1. Story
2. Accomplishment
3. Compelling
4. Challange

Is there something i''ve missed?



I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

1. Fun
2. Slaughter
3. Story (or maybe just cool videos)

Perhaps you could explain item 3, Compelling, a little bit? I don''t know what you mean by that one.

I buy RPGs because
1) I like exploring complex rule sets. I like to see how everything fits together, and how it all works. This would also include seeing how my choices of stats or skills affect what options I have during play.

2) I have to admit that I like exploring the environment too. Seeing what new eye-candy comes up, finding hidden goodies.

3) The illusion of growing stronger. Yes, I like levelling up. Beep! Good dog! This would also include what you had listed as option 2, accomplishment.

To me compelling means having game elements that provide importance to the player. For example: If you had a time limit to fix a problem then this would provide the player with the need to act. I''m not saying that a game has to be "always" compelling but they should be in there somewhere waiting for the player to open them up from time to time like a pandora''s box. In other words; something that grips the player and squeazes them a little

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!