what are some elements of current RPGS that you really dislike? btw: i''m not looking for "lacking storyline and characters", thats an obvious giveaway..

I hate how most rpg''s are pointless repetitive exercises. For instance, consider the gameplay of your average console rpg. The battles require such a small amount of thought (sometimes all you need to do is press one button repeatedly) and yet they take up a huge portion of the time playing. If the key to the game is its story, then the story should take up a lot more time than the tedious battle sequences. Now a lot of computer rpg''s, such as the Fallout series, do a lot of stuff really well, but some rpg''s really involve little actual skill usage.
Look at Diablo 2, the main skills here are intelligent usage of skill points and character attribute points. Other than this, Diablo 2''s main draw is the continuous and tedious process of going through millions of enemies to find that next piece of armor. Granted, the story holds some interest, but after a short period the story doesn''t even factor in for the average gamer (by the third replay in a different difficulty level, the average player is more concerned with finding a stronger player to take him/her past all of the tedious process to advance).
Overall, I feel like rpg''s can present a story well, but the lack of any type of direct control (selecting actions from a menu does not equal direct control) makes it ultimately lose interest. Games like Half-Life allow a player to directly control a single person and use their own skills to advance the game. Rpg''s are about characters that learn skills and use them, not the gamer.
Certainly, there are lots of rpg gamers, I happen to like rpg''s and I even got hooked on Diablo 2 for a little while (until the process became overpoweringly boring as I realized the enemies increase in skill with me and there will always be better weapons and armor that I don''t have), but still, rpg''s need to do some things better to allow a player to be more involved in the world. I hold fallout as a great example of this. The player is usually not just trying to find the next place to go and the next thing to do in order to advance the story in Fallout. They can specifically control many aspects of their characters development, and the battles end up taking on a strategy aspect (usage of time units, what skills to utilize when, the basic programming of party members).

One thing I really dislike is in console RPG''s:

The random battles. I realize games need battles, and I realize you can only have so many scripted battles before your save games become humongous, but there are ways of handling enemy encounters that involve a little more stratagy.

Games like Crono Trigger, you can at least see the enemy. Games like The 7''th Saga, you can see if they are close to you and avoid them. PC RPG''s, although earlier than both of them, you can see them and avoid them easily and will only need to attack when ready.

(Most games that boast 100+ hours of gameplay are really 10 hours of game, 90+ hours of battles you can''t avoid.)

Another thing I dislike is the linearity. True, PC RPG''s are linear, but nowhere near that of console RPG''s. PC RPG''s usually let you go anywhere anytime. If you enter a spot you aren''t ready for, you usually will find out with that first fireball aimed at one of your characters heads. Console RPG''s on the other hand usually give a cheap explanation of why you can''t go somewhere (The boat to our neighboring town only comes once a day, and the day only will end once you solve this quest we have given you).

Next, most console games usually lack stratagy. You usually can''t position your characters around a moster to corner it. Console RPG''s usually consist of bashing the attack button. The most stratagy I''ve found is how to cast which spells in the correct order to take down a big boss. PC RPG''s are a little better at stratagy.

Finally for dislikes, and PC RPG''s do this too, the lack of any attempt at reality. Yes, I realize RPG''s are fantasy, but how can 3 6 ft characters kill a whopping 1000 ft giant? The giant should just be able to step on them. Even if you somehow did manage to pluck your sword into his skin, it probably wouldn''t even penetrate deeply enough to even wound him. (Xenogears got this right imho).

As you can probably tell right now, I prefer PC RPG''s over Console RPG''s, but I do find some flaws in PC RPG''s.

One dimensional NPC''s. Play Might and Magic 6-8 sometime, or even worse, Daggerfall, and you will know what I mean.

1) The vast majority of them take place in a cliched midevil fantasy D&D like setting...why not a wild west RPG?

2) Conflict resolution always seems to revolve around combat...this is sad sense there are so many ways to deal with issues of conflict that have not yet been touched on in games

3) the cliched need to ''level-up'' by gaining experience points...I quit playing some RPGs when this happens

4) I hate RPGs with 100 variations on the same theme (sword+1, sword+2, sword+3, etc.)...game variety should be found in Quality NOT Quantity

5) RPGs designed by committe...or designed by asking people what they like/dislike about RPGs (er...this thread would count...if this info is used to make gameplay design choices)...

I''ll put it this way:
a game designer is like a PnP RPG DM/GM...has athority over the game rules...in a RPG the DM describes a specific situation and the players respond accordingly...a game designer will ask others for input on specific rules and play mechanics("will this gamerule work better then that gamerule?")...typicaly someone in Marketing will ask more ''foggy'' questions in an attemp to assertain what will ''sell''("what do you like about FPS?")...I don''t want to offend you or anyone...I can be an opinionated ass sometimes...I just happen to think the best games (reguardless of how well it sold) are the ones where the developers involved were pationate about the game...not about the money it could make or the popularity it could achieve

In console RPGs, random battles and lack of overall freedom.

I used to be into RPG''s big time when I was a kid... since then, they haven''t changed much. I love the network play in Diablo II but there is no sense of roleplaying... as a matter of fact, I have a hard time considering any computer game a real role-playing game. Even in multi-player games, there is no role. You gain experience and equipment in which to slaughter other players or monsters that are as flat as month-old pepsi. Not that it isn''t always fun, I just don''t consider it a role.

What would be a RPG? How about a game envronment where the players can build their own property or business. How about causing the game play to be affected by how the player plays... here''s an example:

Back in ''84 there was a game called Elite. In this game you had to travel from planet to planet and earn money to upgrade your ship. The difficulty of the game depended on how you made your money.

-If you mined asteroids (BORING!!!) noone messed with you.
-If you traded goods, you''d get the occasional pirate.
-If you were a bounty hunter, well, that''s just exciting in itself.
-If you were a pirate, you had the bounty hunters after you and the occasional police ship.
-If you traded narcotics or other illegal materials, you had the pirates, the bounty hunters AND the police all lined up to kick your a$$.

And of course there was me, roleplaying one nasty SOB trading narcotics and battling with the cops... but after I destroyed a police ship, I''d capture the escape pod and sell the cop as a slave! MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Funny thing was... it wasn''t considered a roleplaying game. Hmmm. I guess you''re not roleplaying if you''re not carrying a sword or casting a spell.

- Jay


Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view

Get Tranced!

Derivative battle engines. I know naught of PC games, but I''ve yet to play a console RPG with an actually enjoyable battle engine. Final Fantasy Tactics was good since it required some actual strategy, but it was a bit too much. Grandia has a great battle engine, both for fun and also the way you upgraded magic, levels, weapons, etc. You''d level up in something every other fight. But the engine was a bit unbalanced; get overwhelmed early and it''s impossible to recover. You can also do the same to the enemy (last boss is the easiest fight in the game; I kept knocking down his turn. I think his entire offense was a failed Sleep spell). Paper Mario had a wonderful evolution of Super Mario RPG''s Timed Hits, but lacked strategy. Still, PM, G and FFT are probably the best battle engines I''ve seen. Most others put me to sleep. Action RPG''s on the other hand are great. Zelda anyone?

Chris Barry

Simple, I''ve seen it too many times.
Games like FF are good but I personally don''t like them anymore
,and know a great many people who agree.(FF7''s my fav)
The RPG genre needs a dramatic overhaul in most key elements,
and it needs new ideas and types of worlds.
I mean there''s so much of this stuff,I saw Breath of fire the other day.That is FF ,it''s made by Capcom as well :/.
It''s boring,they''re so good in many ways yet so in need of attention.

"There''s so much too do, and a lot of you are wasting time.
This is ART dagnammit! get creative or get buried."

My problem with console RPGs these days are the battle elements, and the non-battle elements

The battle is generally easy and pointless. The non-battle is mostly talking to people in towns to make sure you don''t miss stuff. I hate the feeling of dread I get when I walk into a new town and realize I should talk to everyone just because *one* of them *might* have something useful to say.

When you take out those parts there isn''t much game left...

What is missing from single player RPG games, as well as "fantasy" games in general, is ACTUAL FANTASY. *Fanstasy* should be fantastic, not mundane. The old red dragons breathe fire stuff becomes a routine after a while.

I don''t think console RPGs or PC RPG''s have gotten worse - fundamentally they have stayed the same but I''ve gotten older and played more. I never played Planescape:Torment but that at least looks like something different. I''m not asking people to re-invent the wheel over and over but I would really like a sense of wonder and immersion in a game, rather than been-there-done-that. Especially for an RPG. In an action game the action and play control and levels might sell you; in an RPG those things are non-existent or pretty basic, so you need something else.

if any of you have played Anachronox, you probably know it is very much like a console RPG, its for the PC.

You seem to make the assumption that all PC RPGS are like diablo, and all Console RPGS are like final fantasy.

Technically you shouldnt refer to them by the system they use, but their style.

But im rambling.

I hate diablo. It was boring, the plot was contrived, enemy AI was weak, all enemies were rather generic.
ie (skeleton, zombie, diablo)
Gameplay was slow, ending was gay, very predictable, dying people who dont die.

The game just wasnt any fun. If i play a game, i dont add everything up, i decide wether or not i like it depending on wether or not it was FUN! F-U-N!

Diablo Wasnt fun, final fantasy 9 was.
Anachronox was fun, Final Fantasy 8 wasnt.
Get it?

You talk about how the game is put together.
I like fun. When i make a game it should be fun, not technilogically advanced, the next step in evolution of the genre, incredibly graphics, or it has a revolutionary new battle system.

Games are for fun, not showing off grahpics or technology.

I still play Super Mario Bros. It is fun