RPGs can become much more “radical” but hardcore players are “resistant to change”, says Obsidian

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Draemos

I don’t really get what argument he’s trying to make. Traditional stat progressions do not stand in the way of character choices impacting the story or world.   It isn’t an either/or game design choice, so why are you trying to pawn it off as one and shift blame to the gamers?

MadFrenchie

I enjoyed the insight, but I have to consider Draemos's position: what about my PoE character having HP or DPS precludes being able to create story-telling systems?

PoE even has a story mode where you really don't even have to worry about combat stats, combat encounters are intentionally easy so one can focus solely on enjoying the story.  Of course, you can also adjust that to include your traditional stat metagame while maintaining the same story choices.

I say: wow us.  Show us what you mean, don't just talk about it.  Because as good as it sounds, I'm having a tough time seeing what's stopping them at this point.  Kingdom Come marries stats and story-telling intimately.  It's one of the largest features that has driven it's popularity.

Maybe I'm just not interpreting his words correctly.  But I feel like if Obsidian wanted to experiment, their playerbase would gush support for them over it.  They've bought themselves that cred with their past few releases.

I know I'd check it out.

laserit

I think the biggest roadblock is always having to feed the insatiable need for continual and everlasting progression.

Iselin

Make good changes that are more fun to play than what it replaces and you'll see that "hardcore traditionalist" roadblock melt away. OTOH, make changes just for the sake of being different without improving on what you changed and you'll get a lot of resistance... and then you can call the detractors hardcore traditionalists

Gdemami

Shocking news....

ConstantineMerus

Gdemami said:

Shocking news....

Shocking comment....

Phry

looked more like excuses than reasoning tbh. I think he drastically overlooks why games have evolved the way they have, perhaps that is one of those inconvenient truths, either way it is not that players are resistant to change, its that they are becoming more resistant to BS if anything, good games always do well, on the other hand it doesn't matter how much you pretty up a bad game because it won't sell, these days no amount hype will sell a game unless there is a significant amount of substance to back up that hype.

cheyane

Phry said:

looked more like excuses than reasoning tbh. I think he drastically overlooks why games have evolved the way they have, perhaps that is one of those inconvenient truths, either way it is not that players are resistant to change, its that they are becoming more resistant to BS if anything, good games always do well, on the other hand it doesn't matter how much you pretty up a bad game because it won't sell, these days no amount hype will sell a game unless there is a significant amount of substance to back up that hype.

Hallelujah to that I say. We should become more discerning in our choices indeed.

pantaro

MadFrenchie said:

I enjoyed the insight, but I have to consider Draemos's position: what about my PoE character having HP or DPS precludes being able to create story-telling systems?

PoE even has a story mode where you really don't even have to worry about combat stats, combat encounters are intentionally easy so one can focus solely on enjoying the story.  Of course, you can also adjust that to include your traditional stat metagame while maintaining the same story choices.

I say: wow us.  Show us what you mean, don't just talk about it.  Because as good as it sounds, I'm having a tough time seeing what's stopping them at this point.  Kingdom Come marries stats and story-telling intimately.  It's one of the largest features that has driven it's popularity.

Maybe I'm just not interpreting his words correctly.  But I feel like if Obsidian wanted to experiment, their playerbase would gush support for them over it.  They've bought themselves that cred with their past few releases.

I know I'd check it out.

I agree. most of the games on kickstarter or fig i have supported were mostly studios that have delivered before.

Distopia

MadFrenchie said:

I enjoyed the insight, but I have to consider Draemos's position: what about my PoE character having HP or DPS precludes being able to create story-telling systems?

PoE even has a story mode where you really don't even have to worry about combat stats, combat encounters are intentionally easy so one can focus solely on enjoying the story.  Of course, you can also adjust that to include your traditional stat metagame while maintaining the same story choices.

I say: wow us.  Show us what you mean, don't just talk about it.  Because as good as it sounds, I'm having a tough time seeing what's stopping them at this point.  Kingdom Come marries stats and story-telling intimately.  It's one of the largest features that has driven it's popularity.

Maybe I'm just not interpreting his words correctly.  But I feel like if Obsidian wanted to experiment, their playerbase would gush support for them over it.  They've bought themselves that cred with their past few releases.

I know I'd check it out.

First I'd say the issue is the basic instinct to bemoan something ( essentially not get it) because on first glance the game isn't designed around a deep stats building system. We've seen it from the changes in mass effect 2, Oblivion onward into today.

 I think his overall point is that devs can only focus on so much and in turn offer a complete within budget game. All of those building systems take a huge chunk of that budget and development time. SO to focus more on worlds and intricate game-play advancements, would require ditching those traditional elements in order to offer broader options elsewhere. 

Makes perfect sense to me, because you cannot deny that any RPG that has deviated from that traditional approach even slightly ( like the above cases) has received some serious backlash from purists.  

It's the same issue many MMOs have faced, essentially on the same grounds. 

MadFrenchie

Distopia said:

MadFrenchie said:

I enjoyed the insight, but I have to consider Draemos's position: what about my PoE character having HP or DPS precludes being able to create story-telling systems?

PoE even has a story mode where you really don't even have to worry about combat stats, combat encounters are intentionally easy so one can focus solely on enjoying the story.  Of course, you can also adjust that to include your traditional stat metagame while maintaining the same story choices.

I say: wow us.  Show us what you mean, don't just talk about it.  Because as good as it sounds, I'm having a tough time seeing what's stopping them at this point.  Kingdom Come marries stats and story-telling intimately.  It's one of the largest features that has driven it's popularity.

Maybe I'm just not interpreting his words correctly.  But I feel like if Obsidian wanted to experiment, their playerbase would gush support for them over it.  They've bought themselves that cred with their past few releases.

I know I'd check it out.

First I'd say the issue is the basic instinct to bemoan something ( essentially not get it) because on first glance the game isn't designed around a deep stats building system. We've seen it from the changes in mass effect 2, Oblivion onward into today.

 I think his overall point is that devs can only focus on so much and in turn offer a complete within budget game. All of those building systems take a huge chunk of that budget and development time. SO to focus more on worlds and intricate game-play advancements, would require ditching those traditional elements in order to offer broader options elsewhere. 

Makes perfect sense to me, because you cannot deny that any RPG that has deviated from that traditional approach even slightly ( like the above cases) has received some serious backlash from purists.  

It's the same issue many MMOs have faced, essentially on the same grounds. 

I don't, but I also included an example of a largely unknown team doing something different and putting themselves on the map for it.

Clothing affected the way people reacted, cleanliness too.  That's unique, and it's merely one of the chances they took.  It paid off.

The idea that you will please everyone is foolish.  If you think you can change the industry with an idea you have, copping out by blaming the consumers seems strange.

Shaigh

I'm getting tired of the need to make RPG open world games, my favorite parts of witcher 3 had nothing to do with the game being an open world game, it was the narrative I loved about the game. Then again the only parts of fallout 4 I did enjoy was exploring the open world but that had to do with the narrative and story being the weak part of that particular game.

I liked pillars of eternity 1 because it was the game that I wished dragon age inquisition had been and while it would probably benefit obsidian to make the game after poe2 different I hope its because they have a genuinely good idea for a game and not because they want to make a bethesda open world game like so many others started doing.

MadFrenchie

pantaro said:

MadFrenchie said:

I enjoyed the insight, but I have to consider Draemos's position: what about my PoE character having HP or DPS precludes being able to create story-telling systems?

PoE even has a story mode where you really don't even have to worry about combat stats, combat encounters are intentionally easy so one can focus solely on enjoying the story.  Of course, you can also adjust that to include your traditional stat metagame while maintaining the same story choices.

I say: wow us.  Show us what you mean, don't just talk about it.  Because as good as it sounds, I'm having a tough time seeing what's stopping them at this point.  Kingdom Come marries stats and story-telling intimately.  It's one of the largest features that has driven it's popularity.

Maybe I'm just not interpreting his words correctly.  But I feel like if Obsidian wanted to experiment, their playerbase would gush support for them over it.  They've bought themselves that cred with their past few releases.

I know I'd check it out.

I agree. most of the games on kickstarter or fig i have supported were mostly studios that have delivered before.

Which, quite honestly, may be the absolute best use of crowdfunding video games possible.  Folks like Obsidian want to provide an experience that hearkens back or is unlike any other, this gives an avenue for fans to directly support the attempt.  The dev has credibility they can deliver a polished game, fans get to help them take chances on innovative ideas.

Tz31mave7x1

I truly believe that the RPG genre will always remain a polarized niche as long as developers are hellbent on digitizing DnD style of game play.

The truth is that it just doesn't translate well, and games where it does work, such as PoE, remain niche and no amount of critical acclaim will give that type of game play widespread appeal.

There is no level of innovation that can be made without RPG fans screeching.

cameltosis

I would agree with the developer in question. 

Ultimately, I think this boils down to your classic sandbox versus themepark discussion. 

Telling a scripted story - which is what the traditionalists consider a pillar of an RPG - mandates restricting the player's actions so that it fits within the story. This is most easily achieved with a themepark design and standard vertical progression, resulting in a lot of very linear, very similar RPGs. 

If you want to start offering more freedom within RPGs, it gets harder and harder to tell a good story because the player's actions often conflict with the story (it is for this precise reason that I hate stories in computer games). Balancing becomes a bigger issue. Lets say you face a boss half way through the game. In a typical RPG, you can pretty much guarantee a player's power because you've tightly controlled their progression so you can balance the fight for that power level. In a more open game, the player might be massively over- or under-powered due to earlier choices, resulting in a bad experience. 



So, I believe that if developers really want to open up the potential of the RPG genre (which I hope they do), I think they need to reduce the reliance on story as the primary content, and this is where I believe the developer is referring to hardcore traditionalists. An RPG with minimal story?! Most people wouldn't understand. The traditionalists would argue it's not an RPG. 

This is why even some of the more popular "sandboxes" like The Elder Scrolls and GTA are not actually sandboxes, they are still primarily themeparks with the majority of content coming from quests. You can still go off and treat the games like sandboxes, but the reality is the devs haven't provided you with enough tools to do much in the world. 


I think this is also where Josh is referring to finding a proper scope to a project. When you start removing the traditional RPG aspects (linear story and progression), what do you have left? You have these interesting worlds that have been created, but pretty much nothing to do except kill stuff. It'd be pretty boring to just kill stuff without context. So, you need to start adding tools - proper crafting, political systems, housing, factions etc - and that is all risky and expensive. 



I hope the genre gets there. I know personally that I hate story-driven RPGs and I want more open world / sandbox designs to be given a chance. 


For example, I would love to be able to build a city in an RPG. I would start out just building my own house. Over time, I'd need to build facilities (like a well), attract new villagers, attract tradesmen, establish trading routes with associated agreements with other villages / towns. Eventually build a wall, and a keep, then larger walls etc. Defend my trade conveys from bandits, or train guards that defend them for me. 

Or, an RPG that lets me establish my own bandit faction. Recruit some thugs, setup a base in the woods, establish stalking grounds, rules for engagement (don't attack if the wagon protected by 4+ guards for example), find fences for the stolen loot etc. This would then lead to the sort of emergent gameplay that keeps games interesting for a long time - having to re-establish bases when "the good guys" destroy mine, or breaking out bandits from the local jail, or bribing officials to remove a bounty. 



Thats the sort of thing I want to see in my RPGs, but all I ever see is story and gear progression. 

Deddmeat

UO a stat based game, still mostly a sub game if you want house, decent banking etc .. AO another stat based game, driven into the ground by Funcom and has large amount of fans just hoping that a miracle will happen and they get an AO2 or Funcom actually do 'something' 

So whilst he bemoans gamers wanting stat based games, 2 of the best games i've played are stat based, both still going though AO is arguably in survival mode lol

Scorchien

    I dunno man , i hear Josh and think there is something  to what hes saying , but ive never looked at games like POE , NV, Witcher, Divinty for a Hardcore RPG experience , because he right there not . Hardcore experiences are available in games like ROK Star Trail for ex .. But hes also right in that it is a smaller audience ...

https://store.steampowered.com/app/288860/Realms_of_Arkania_Star_Trail/

  Or Drakensang ..https://store.steampowered.com/app/12640/Drakensang/

  Kenshi ...

https://store.steampowered.com/app/233860/Kenshi/

 

  So the experiences are there , for the Hardcore , those other games are time fillers and fun to fool with , bit no Hardcore fan takes them seriously

jimmywolf

change just to say you made something new is not required to shift a entire genre to make it happen then blame fan base for not excepting your new idea.


i got a great idea let make a first person shooter game  like CoD into a turn based rpg's but fans are " resistant to change " so my great ideas cannot be achieved.


no you can  make a great game open world, sand box, shooter or whatever an fans will help it grow, if a genre is getting stale with copy paste it's not fans " resistant to change " it's you trying cash in on what players have already  been their done that.



they want and are looking for a different take on the same thing they enjoyed, not a new  turn based FPS with epic 40 hr story MMO that f2p with optional cosmetic cash shop.

Scorchien

cameltosis said:

I would agree with the developer in question. 

Ultimately, I think this boils down to your classic sandbox versus themepark discussion. 

Telling a scripted story - which is what the traditionalists consider a pillar of an RPG - mandates restricting the player's actions so that it fits within the story. This is most easily achieved with a themepark design and standard vertical progression, resulting in a lot of very linear, very similar RPGs. 

If you want to start offering more freedom within RPGs, it gets harder and harder to tell a good story because the player's actions often conflict with the story (it is for this precise reason that I hate stories in computer games). Balancing becomes a bigger issue. Lets say you face a boss half way through the game. In a typical RPG, you can pretty much guarantee a player's power because you've tightly controlled their progression so you can balance the fight for that power level. In a more open game, the player might be massively over- or under-powered due to earlier choices, resulting in a bad experience. 



So, I believe that if developers really want to open up the potential of the RPG genre (which I hope they do), I think they need to reduce the reliance on story as the primary content, and this is where I believe the developer is referring to hardcore traditionalists. An RPG with minimal story?! Most people wouldn't understand. The traditionalists would argue it's not an RPG. 

This is why even some of the more popular "sandboxes" like The Elder Scrolls and GTA are not actually sandboxes, they are still primarily themeparks with the majority of content coming from quests. You can still go off and treat the games like sandboxes, but the reality is the devs haven't provided you with enough tools to do much in the world. 


I think this is also where Josh is referring to finding a proper scope to a project. When you start removing the traditional RPG aspects (linear story and progression), what do you have left? You have these interesting worlds that have been created, but pretty much nothing to do except kill stuff. It'd be pretty boring to just kill stuff without context. So, you need to start adding tools - proper crafting, political systems, housing, factions etc - and that is all risky and expensive. 



I hope the genre gets there. I know personally that I hate story-driven RPGs and I want more open world / sandbox designs to be given a chance. 


For example, I would love to be able to build a city in an RPG. I would start out just building my own house. Over time, I'd need to build facilities (like a well), attract new villagers, attract tradesmen, establish trading routes with associated agreements with other villages / towns. Eventually build a wall, and a keep, then larger walls etc. Defend my trade conveys from bandits, or train guards that defend them for me. 

Or, an RPG that lets me establish my own bandit faction. Recruit some thugs, setup a base in the woods, establish stalking grounds, rules for engagement (don't attack if the wagon protected by 4+ guards for example), find fences for the stolen loot etc. This would then lead to the sort of emergent gameplay that keeps games interesting for a long time - having to re-establish bases when "the good guys" destroy mine, or breaking out bandits from the local jail, or bribing officials to remove a bounty. 



Thats the sort of thing I want to see in my RPGs, but all I ever see is story and gear progression. 

Try Kenshi.........https://store.steampowered.com/app/233860/Kenshi/

Mendel

How did I miss this topic?  Thanks to whoever necroed it.  I'll give you an awesome when I find your post.

I've said it before.  RPGs are stuck in the 1970s.  If D&D didn't do it, developers haven't really tried to expand or redefine that formula.

I get it.  Business are risk adverse, it's safer to develop a known formula than to try something different.  So we get clone games which do nothing for the genre except deepen our appreciation for the games that did take a risk.  Innovation isn't some kind of corporate poison.

But, the D&D model is almost 50 years old.  I refuse to believe that D&D is some kind of pinnacle of gaming perfection.  Is that all we really want from our games, a combat system with magical overtones and an indifferent crafting system?  Because that's all we're getting.

I'm totally disappointed that no game has tried to abstract a political system or make religion meaningful in-game or catering to the social side of game life.  Those are my three big 'concepts' that games have missed out on for almost 20 years now.

The company that does step up and present some new idea, well thought-out and implemented well, stands to govern the next 50 years.  They don't want to.  They aren't risk takers.

Scot

So he is saying that RPG's can be more than they are now, more story driven like say the Banner Saga? Well there is an example of how to do it then, get cracking.

But RPG fans are supposedly resistant to change, all change or just certain elements? He seems to focus on stat tweaking, well I am not sure that is at the heart of what most people think a RPG is about. But lets just say it is, I am not sure that needs to be removed to add story?

Stat tweaking has largely gone anyway, in how many RPG's do you now add stats to individual attributes as you go up each level. Often much of "level change" is done for you.

Finally I have some concerns that if you remove mechanics and just add story you end up with an interactive story, not a game.

But this is the guy who gave us PoE so rather than read to much into this, just going to wait for his next great RP game.

Kajidourden

No, players are not resistant to change at all.  What they're resistant to is garbage.  If change was the issue you wouldn't have game like destiny that marry RPG elements with being an FPS being nearly as popular as it is.  That is certainly not "traditional" in any sense of the word for RPGs.

Breath of the wild is another great example.  The absolute zealots of Zelda purity were the only ones who disliked the game and they probably never even actually tried it simply out of stubbornness.  Eschewing the "traditional" is only bad if you do a shitty job of it.

Last example I can think of is Fallout.  They basically Elder-Scrolls-erized it from the first few games.  Sold better than it ever has in history of the franchise.

Make better games, stop making excuses. (referring the devs in general, I enjoy his games)

Sephiroso

Okay..and how often is something made for the 'hardcore' audience in mind? If you want easy success, you cast a wide net. You don't just build something for the niche hardcore audience. Very few games in recent history has done this and been very successful. 

Maybe me and this guy just has a different viewpoint on what constitutes a 'hardcore audience' but i disagree with his statement that they dictate the way RPGs are developed. He said it himself, he is complicit in the problem because he's the one designing the games same old same old.

He says stats and combat systems shouldn't define rpgs, but you'd be pretty fucking hardpressed to portray some type of progression without some kind of stats. Combat systems have never defined rpgs period. They are most commonly used in RPGs but they've never been part of the definition.

Harvest Moon games has been around for decades and is one of the most fun RPGs i've ever played. That style of gaming has only recently added combat to it(through the likes of Rune Factory and Stardew Valley). But combat or not, it was still an RPG. You tracked your relationship with the villagers, how much money you were making, progressed your farm as you got more buildings and animals to care for, and as the seasons changed did more and more events.

tl;dr Combat has never defined RPGs, and there is no progression without stats. Even in Harvest Moon, how many buildings and tools you've unlocked can be thought of as stats in a way, just a visual representation of it rather than writing it out for you in number format.

Wizardry

IDK if the term "evolve" is the right way to put it.

The core basic ideas are sound for the mmorpg genre,it is how they are implemented that is cheap and lazy.EVERY single system,area of design in mmorpg's can easily be improved,we don't need super high tech or a bazillion dollars.

When mentioning Pillars 1/2,we are talking about BUDGET gaming.Budget gaming is NOT the developers best effort and that is where the real problems lie.
99% of the developers cannot afford to make a AAA game and what is left of the other 1% are also trying to cut corners in every aspect of the design.
Point being,it is not about change or evolving,it is about devs being able to financialy do the genre justice,to put forth  their best effort,NOBODY is putting out their best effort.

Scot

Torval said:

Scot said:

So he is saying that RPG's can be more than they are now, more story driven like say the Banner Saga? Well there is an example of how to do it then, get cracking.

But RPG fans are supposedly resistant to change, all change or just certain elements? He seems to focus on stat tweaking, well I am not sure that is at the heart of what most people think a RPG is about. But lets just say it is, I am not sure that needs to be removed to add story?

Stat tweaking has largely gone anyway, in how many RPG's do you now add stats to individual attributes as you go up each level. Often much of "level change" is done for you.

Finally I have some concerns that if you remove mechanics and just add story you end up with an interactive story, not a game.

But this is the guy who gave us PoE so rather than read to much into this, just going to wait for his next great RP game.

Stat tweaking has largely gone away. I'm doing an impressions piece for Shadows: Awakening and it has stat tweaking. It's also "hardcore" in that I don't see a way to modify any changes unless you reload a previous save.

Even when there is stat tweaking it's often just token interaction. A game will favor stat stacking or a specific stat/party lineup. Most of the CRPGs have this flaw and maybe that's what he's really referring to - he feels locked into providing familiar systems and can't try to evolve or mature them.

If that's the case I can understand that because, as a demographic, gamers are generally unkind to experimentation while still "verbally" requesting innovation.

What happens if Anthem takes off and EA decides to make a Far Cry 5 style FPS narrative out of Mass Effect? I think there would be revolution, yet it would take a stale franchise and offer a new dish. Look what has happened with Bethesda trying a survival style game with their Fallout franchise.

These games are crowd-funded. That's a double-edged sword because if they disenfranchise their funding demographic they're dead and would have to go crawling back to private funding which they've spurned. It's reasonable to acknowledge there is considerable pressure for them to churn out "high quality familiar" titles. Stagnation.

Well from my point of view D&D is a creakingly old system that was updated with others in table top RP decades ago. So why computer RPG's stick with it I have no idea, are players really hardcore about that? I can see them being hardcore about having things to tweak with their character, that's about it.

The pressure you talk about to produce familiar titles effects the whole of gaming, gaming studios more than indie. Fans are never going to be happy, even when they really like the game. In some ways Josh seems to have just woken up to that.