Vampyrelord
10-12-2007, 06:34 PM
I've often wondered what it is that makes some RPGs good and some bad. Some factors are obvious, others less so, and (of course) some are down to the individual gamer's opinion. What follows is merely my rambling thoughts trying to reach some conclusion on this matter.
I recognize though that my views are not always in tune with everyone else's - I hated Neverwinter Nights (poor character interaction, boring gameplay, a terrible main plot and nothing that really made it stand out) and I didn't really like Morrowind (as far as I could see it merely comprised of me running around and hacking stuff), but on the whole I think RPGs I like are the popular ones (KotOR, BG, Jade Empire etc).
Some people are of the view that a good RPG should be like Final Fantasy or Jade Empire, which is like "Playing through a movie" and you have a clear role to fill. Other players (I am closer to this view) think that freedom, flexibility and a good plot and quests are the most important.
I. Plot
A good comparison we can make is between a very successful RPG, Knights of the Old Republic, and it's sequel, Knights of the Old Republic II, which was also successful, but less so than the original. Why? Well, the developers changed, which meant that rather than the experienced Bioware team, KotOR II was designed by Obsidian, who lack Bioware's experience.
Some of the mistakes they made, in my view, were:
a) Plot problems. The continuity of the game was shit. Unlike in KotOR original, where everything was well explained and you always knew what was going on, KotOR II's plot was mainly focussed around Force theory, rather than something straightforward like beating Darth Malak and the Sith, as in KotOR original. Some of the things in KotOR II are very badly explained, if they are explained at all (I once found a corpse on the Ebon Hawk after fighting some Red Eclipse slavers and I was clearly supposed to know who he was, but it wasn't explained and I had no clue), and equally when Visas joins you, you don't really get any explanation (one minute you're fighting, the next, she's with you). The game also doesn't bother explaining how your fatal Force Bond with Kreia is broken (I assume it must be broken because when she dies at the end, you don't die too), or what really happens at the end.
The lesson? Gamers don't like not knowing what's going on when they feel they *should* know what's going on. Generally, complicated plots, like in KotOR II or Sword of Mana do not work unless the plot is clearly explained. By the end of Sword of Mana I was fairly confused as to what the whole adventure had been for, given how little explanation I got. KotOR original and the Golden Sun Series, or the Baldur's Gate series (all successful RPGs) *all* have stronger, slightly simpler plots, which are properly explained. Baldur's Gate II was better than Baldur's Gate original primarily, in my view, because the plot was explained better. Jade Empire (another Bioware RPG) was good because although the plot was fairly complex, it was easy to follow.
b) They screwed up swoop racing, and made some races impossible to finish. Although it's just a minigame, this sort of thing annoys gamers.
c) This one is subjective, but...I think KotOR II was a break from the more traditional Star Wars 'feel', and at times it didn't really feel like Star Wars at all - not necessarily bad, but I didn't like it.
II. Quests
There are other elements to RPGs, of course. Missions and Quests are another major feature of any RPG, and what made me hate Neverwinter Nights was the TEDIUM. As far as I could see, your character was just some errand boy; given that the first plot missions were "find the ingredients to make the cure" and "recover the stolen cure", the next 4 were "find the cult who started the plague by searching these 4 really obvious places", the next 4 were "recover the 4 words of power"...see what I mean? A better name would have been "Neverending Nights spent doing tedious little chores rather than real missions".
It's worth mentioning though that the expansion to NWN Hordes of the Underdark was much better, because you got a clear and interesting plot, better quests, and more freedom.
Baldur's Gate II had some very good quests, as did KotOR and Fable (Fable's were probably the best, though the overall plot wasn't as good).
III. Freedom
In Neverwinter Nights, you're always restricted to a few areas, whereas in Fable, Baldur's Gate and KotOR you have more freedom to "do your own thing". Fable is the most extreme of these, giving your character massive personalization options, as well as plot freedom.
Another problem with NWN was that it was heavily scripted and your actions had little real bearing on how the game played.
Interestingly enough, Jade Empire did not give you anything like the freedom of the other RPGs mentioned (very little character customization, rigid adherence to the main plot, no way of returning to previous areas) but somehow made up for it with a great plot (which didn't move too slowly) and generally awesome gameplay.
IV. Character interaction
Another major factor in the quality of a game is the character interaction - probably why Baldur's Gate is better than Icewind dale, even though they run on the same engine with the same interface. In Icewind Dale, your characters are all made by the player and have no real personality - in BG they are premade and have their own opinions, views, and...character, which allows for interaction. Character interaction is a major theme in Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Knights of the Old Republic and Final Fantasy.
On the other hand, Fable was immensly popular and had almost no character interaction, what it had instead was plot, style and freedom. In a way, it was more epic than other RPGs as you played the life of a Hero, from boyhood to old age.
V. Style
If an RPG has no style, people don't get into it. I hated the NWN style but loved the Baldur's gate, Star Wars, Fable and Jade Empire themes, which made me want to play them more.
KotOR II could be a bit lame or odd in places, which made it less fun (Malachor V looks so shit, it's like they tried to make the last level as unrealistically over the top as possible).
VI. The little things
Stuff like visuals, sound, minigames etc. These little things can be of bigger importance than you might imagine. Everyone has they own pet likes and hates. My pet hate is repetition, and sadly NWN and Morrowind both score high on that scale.
Another irritating thing is when RPGs have a really boring start that takes forever to finish so you can get on with the plot proper. Baldur's Gate II has a good beginning, unless you want to play it again, in which case Irenicus' dungeon (which takes at least 2 hours to go through) will drive you mad with boredom. KotOR II is the worst offender though, the start on the Peragus mining facility is great the first time, but being around 4 hours long (at least) it's mind numbingly boring if youve done it before.
Fable is a good example of what a beginning should be like, it's no more than an hour and a half and has no annoyingly difficult bits.
Okay, rant finished.
That's my thoughts on the matter, I'm interested to hear anyone else's take on what makes a good RPG :)
I recognize though that my views are not always in tune with everyone else's - I hated Neverwinter Nights (poor character interaction, boring gameplay, a terrible main plot and nothing that really made it stand out) and I didn't really like Morrowind (as far as I could see it merely comprised of me running around and hacking stuff), but on the whole I think RPGs I like are the popular ones (KotOR, BG, Jade Empire etc).
Some people are of the view that a good RPG should be like Final Fantasy or Jade Empire, which is like "Playing through a movie" and you have a clear role to fill. Other players (I am closer to this view) think that freedom, flexibility and a good plot and quests are the most important.
I. Plot
A good comparison we can make is between a very successful RPG, Knights of the Old Republic, and it's sequel, Knights of the Old Republic II, which was also successful, but less so than the original. Why? Well, the developers changed, which meant that rather than the experienced Bioware team, KotOR II was designed by Obsidian, who lack Bioware's experience.
Some of the mistakes they made, in my view, were:
a) Plot problems. The continuity of the game was shit. Unlike in KotOR original, where everything was well explained and you always knew what was going on, KotOR II's plot was mainly focussed around Force theory, rather than something straightforward like beating Darth Malak and the Sith, as in KotOR original. Some of the things in KotOR II are very badly explained, if they are explained at all (I once found a corpse on the Ebon Hawk after fighting some Red Eclipse slavers and I was clearly supposed to know who he was, but it wasn't explained and I had no clue), and equally when Visas joins you, you don't really get any explanation (one minute you're fighting, the next, she's with you). The game also doesn't bother explaining how your fatal Force Bond with Kreia is broken (I assume it must be broken because when she dies at the end, you don't die too), or what really happens at the end.
The lesson? Gamers don't like not knowing what's going on when they feel they *should* know what's going on. Generally, complicated plots, like in KotOR II or Sword of Mana do not work unless the plot is clearly explained. By the end of Sword of Mana I was fairly confused as to what the whole adventure had been for, given how little explanation I got. KotOR original and the Golden Sun Series, or the Baldur's Gate series (all successful RPGs) *all* have stronger, slightly simpler plots, which are properly explained. Baldur's Gate II was better than Baldur's Gate original primarily, in my view, because the plot was explained better. Jade Empire (another Bioware RPG) was good because although the plot was fairly complex, it was easy to follow.
b) They screwed up swoop racing, and made some races impossible to finish. Although it's just a minigame, this sort of thing annoys gamers.
c) This one is subjective, but...I think KotOR II was a break from the more traditional Star Wars 'feel', and at times it didn't really feel like Star Wars at all - not necessarily bad, but I didn't like it.
II. Quests
There are other elements to RPGs, of course. Missions and Quests are another major feature of any RPG, and what made me hate Neverwinter Nights was the TEDIUM. As far as I could see, your character was just some errand boy; given that the first plot missions were "find the ingredients to make the cure" and "recover the stolen cure", the next 4 were "find the cult who started the plague by searching these 4 really obvious places", the next 4 were "recover the 4 words of power"...see what I mean? A better name would have been "Neverending Nights spent doing tedious little chores rather than real missions".
It's worth mentioning though that the expansion to NWN Hordes of the Underdark was much better, because you got a clear and interesting plot, better quests, and more freedom.
Baldur's Gate II had some very good quests, as did KotOR and Fable (Fable's were probably the best, though the overall plot wasn't as good).
III. Freedom
In Neverwinter Nights, you're always restricted to a few areas, whereas in Fable, Baldur's Gate and KotOR you have more freedom to "do your own thing". Fable is the most extreme of these, giving your character massive personalization options, as well as plot freedom.
Another problem with NWN was that it was heavily scripted and your actions had little real bearing on how the game played.
Interestingly enough, Jade Empire did not give you anything like the freedom of the other RPGs mentioned (very little character customization, rigid adherence to the main plot, no way of returning to previous areas) but somehow made up for it with a great plot (which didn't move too slowly) and generally awesome gameplay.
IV. Character interaction
Another major factor in the quality of a game is the character interaction - probably why Baldur's Gate is better than Icewind dale, even though they run on the same engine with the same interface. In Icewind Dale, your characters are all made by the player and have no real personality - in BG they are premade and have their own opinions, views, and...character, which allows for interaction. Character interaction is a major theme in Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Knights of the Old Republic and Final Fantasy.
On the other hand, Fable was immensly popular and had almost no character interaction, what it had instead was plot, style and freedom. In a way, it was more epic than other RPGs as you played the life of a Hero, from boyhood to old age.
V. Style
If an RPG has no style, people don't get into it. I hated the NWN style but loved the Baldur's gate, Star Wars, Fable and Jade Empire themes, which made me want to play them more.
KotOR II could be a bit lame or odd in places, which made it less fun (Malachor V looks so shit, it's like they tried to make the last level as unrealistically over the top as possible).
VI. The little things
Stuff like visuals, sound, minigames etc. These little things can be of bigger importance than you might imagine. Everyone has they own pet likes and hates. My pet hate is repetition, and sadly NWN and Morrowind both score high on that scale.
Another irritating thing is when RPGs have a really boring start that takes forever to finish so you can get on with the plot proper. Baldur's Gate II has a good beginning, unless you want to play it again, in which case Irenicus' dungeon (which takes at least 2 hours to go through) will drive you mad with boredom. KotOR II is the worst offender though, the start on the Peragus mining facility is great the first time, but being around 4 hours long (at least) it's mind numbingly boring if youve done it before.
Fable is a good example of what a beginning should be like, it's no more than an hour and a half and has no annoyingly difficult bits.
Okay, rant finished.
That's my thoughts on the matter, I'm interested to hear anyone else's take on what makes a good RPG :)