Why developers tend to make their RPGs less complex and simplified when they become older taking out all the edge and what makes them fun?
>>3462427It's a complicated topic, and /vrpg/ isn't equipped to deal with it.People resent change, which makes the discussion harder. And no, you don't have to tell me that you think devs should just make thing better.
Because it sells more and in their old age they probably finished all their passion projects already and most likely just want to make money. But this is true for everything really, not just RPGs.
>>3462431/thread
>>3462427Why are you consuming developers?
>>3462430You are not as smart as you think you are.
>>3462427More complex *anything* will always be for a smaller and smaller niche of customers. Older rpgs and vidya in general, especially in the pc gaming space, had multiple niches of more or less talented genre nerds doing their nifty little passion projects. It was essentially by nerds for nerds.The modern developement model is at its core by stockholders and investors for anyone who might buy *a* product, i.e. the masses.This is why we can't have good things. Unless some autistic indie dev defies the odds as happens every now and then.
>>3462427how the mighty have fallen
>>3462448Still correct though
>>3462453Nta, but no it's not, the issue is not complicated at all, in fact it is so simple it can be distilled down to a single word: money.
>>3462454>dumbing down for casuls for moneyHas been said for decades already, a discussion not worth repeating for anyone above the age of 15
>>3462427Having shitton of skills and atributes can be paralyzing for the player because they just don't know which ones the game might be build around. Building your character to be a fighter just to learn that melee is complete shit or making a charismatic charmer to realise that you can't actually resolve any quests by talking is just not fun.
>>3462459If you're too smart for this discussion then why are you here?
>>3462465He's just hungry for attention, stop replying to lazy shitposts
>>3462465Waiting for you to prove me wrong
>>3462450It's this right here. Target audiences for games shift as a series gets bigger and bigger.Anecdotally, I wouldn't call Fallout 1/2 complicated by any means, but I've been friends with people who would be absolutely dumbfounded by it and didn't pick up the series until 4 because it was "too complicated" and they just wanted to relax after work with a few beers and shoot shit. Same thing goes for TES, they tried Daggerfall, Morrowind, didn't like not being able to just play without thinking about a build (even though again, not that complicated of a game for someone who plays a lot of RPGs) and ended up really getting into Skyrim.Most people don't want to finish up the work day with what they see as some spreadsheet game of a million different synergistic skills, perks, feats they just want to boot up a flashy distraction and do something fun for an hour or two.
>>3462427What gets me is when you look under the hood and find out that your "good/good/yucky" stats barely do anything and which direction you chose to flip your triangle was meaningless.
>>3462480>play without thinking about a build (even though again, not that complicated of a game for someone who plays a lot of RPGs)It's easy to understand, if you imagine having limited time to only experience the game once with one character, and no prior knowledge. And the uninformed choices affect how enjoyable the next 40 hours are. What the fuck is Mysticism?I recently played Skyrim without knowing what sort of playstyle would be the most fun, so it was nice being able to try them all out and then simply gravitate to the preferred style. What I thought would be fun at first was not, so I'm glad I wasn't locked into it and those hours weren't wasted.
>>3462480>they just want to boot up a flashy distraction and do something fun for an hour or twoBut, don't play rpgs then? There's a lot of action games that go straight into the action. They have simpler systems, they're not very long, and the only skill required is mechanical. Fuck even myself finished yesterday the PoP Sands of Time trilogy just because wanted to take some fresh air after completing so many rpgs in a row these last years.
>>3462498>But, don't play rpgs then?That's why they started with 4 and Skyrim
>>3462498They want to play a RPG, just one that is well designed, just see how successful Skyrim was. You don't have to play those if you don't want to.
If your argument is "other people like bad and dumped down games but not me" then the argument is bad anyways. Tim Cain is a fucking hack and nobody wants simple retarded rpgs. There is no casual vs hardcore game, its all bullshit. Everybody loves a good game no matter how complex. Making games dumbed down and easier is just plain stupid like making game for niggers.
>>3462520anon, no one is not saying that a dumbed down game can't be good. It is however a different experience from a more complex game.it's just that when almost all big budget games get dumbed down even in franchises that used to be more complex then there's a lack of options which is sad
>>3462498I think they do like many ideas found in RPGs that aren't found in other games. They just don't like or want build autism in their games because it feels like it "requires" thinking in what's meant to be a fun leisurely past time. The kind of people who replay games to experiment with builds, minmax, are more than likely in the minority so big game companies don't really gain much from catering to them but lose out on a lot of the more casual crowd who see shit like that as too much. >>3462488>It's easy to understand, if you imagine having limited time to only experience the game once with one character, and no prior knowledge.Most definitely. I think anyone who has played a lot of crpgs knows the feel of restarting a game 3-4 times after getting 1-2 hours in to play around with different builds or maybe they realized what they picked wasn't very good or didn't feel right. And that kind of shit puts people who only play an hour or two every other day or so off.
>>3462427When people get too old they get stupid and forgetful. It's really that simple. You need to put people like Tim Cain away.
>>3462427>fallout 4>hardAre they legitimately retarded?
>>3462543Added complexity doesn't equal build autismThe original fallouts 1&2 weren't super complex but did make for more varied and granular character concepts than, say, f3, f4 or god forbid, f76, and it was not only on stat level but the overall questing and gameplay tooDeus Ex was also more complex and granular than its sequels/prequels and is also not really that complexOne of the main arguments is often"well skill X was not that useful and skill Y was useful so it's only good that skill X was cut"This stems from the misconception that all options must be "balanced", in a single player game. And while it's great if all options are somewhat useful and viable this line of thinking can lead to more and more streamlining until you end up with very limited options (like f4). The problem is not really in complex vs. streamlined, but in implementation: it's easier to handle a smaller number of options and design a game around that. More complex options require more work and is harder to implement, added complexity always runs the risk of having more outliers. But if it's pulled of somewhat decently it results in a richer, more varied system and game that allows for more distinct variations in ways to play, which is essential to rpgs.
The numbers porn in rpgs were only ever supposed to be a stand-in model. Some people mistook the mathematical model for the purpose.
>>3462556I agree with you but that's not how the average casual player sees it. Just wanted to give two cents from the perspective of friends I have who have been playing games over the years and like simplicity in newer games in my original post. To the average player (which make up the majority of game sales) they don't want to play the game thinking about how they should build their character out, or feel like they missed out because they didn't take a perk that bars them from some dialogue, or get some cool shiny new weapon as a quest reward and realize they're unable to use it effectively because they don't have enough skill points in that category. They just want to play the game and experience as much as they can in a single playthrough. And since that's how the overwhelming majority of people are developers aren't incentivized to make more complex games because more complexity = less sales.
Simple systems building on top of each other is usually more fun than a single complex system.
>>3462563I mean, why not, but that's such a vague concept on its own. You might as well say "I like good gameplay more than not-good gameplay".
>>3462559No, the point is you have *different* characters.As >>3462560 points out, modern devs are mostly horrified by the idea of not allowing the player access to different features and content. Funnily enough bg3, with all its flaws, kinda went against this and you can access very different content on different playthroughs, even if not wildly so.
>>3462569What I mean is that having 3 stats isn't inherently bad unless thats all the game has to offer for complexity. Easy to learn hard to master beats systems that just throw 10 stats at your face and expect you to understand it or restart if you don't.
>>3462572One of the good examples I can think of is Elden Ring. What stats would allow to use heavier equipment? Strenght, ofc! Yes, but only for weapons, if you want to wear heavier armor, its endurance. Thats juet "eh". I understand that its for balance, but still
>>3462572>>3462580I think this is another example of getting into the weeds of implementation.You can have shitty streamlining and you can have shitty autism simulators that go all over the place. But you can do both well too, although added complexity is inherently harder to pull off.
>>3462582And the "harder to ull of" is the key. Games have budgets, and time constrains. Its simpler to make a simple system, then to fight a war on implementation.
>>3462583Yeah, but even with very flawed implementations many of the classics still retain a depth that the modern school of game design has not managed to capture. Since they don't even try.It's not even some esoteric meme quality that's hard to explain, but a direct result of different characters feeling and playing very differently.A more modern example would be aod, but among other problems it's comparatively very linear, but since the paths can still be very different that same single game contains multiple very different experiences of the world. F4 runs on the other hand basically come down to weapon selection and two different flavours of sarcastic voicelines.
>>3462571>not allowing the player access to different features and content.That's a different matter. Problem is demanding the player to make choices BEFORE they are familiar with the content and features, and before they are aware of whatever requirements there are to access content and features.I don't recall ever hearing complaints about not being able to do everything on one character.And you can have different characters, even if the game doesn't force it.
>>3462597>F4 runs on the other hand basically come down to weapon selection and two different flavours of sarcastic voicelines.That's because of the quest design, not the character systems.
>>3462598can you give examples of this problem in games so I can understand better what you mean by it
>>3462599They might be separate issues, but are both results of the same design philosophy of essentially creating very uniform game experiences
>>3462600My first character in FO1 had max charisma and average agility. After wasting a few hours, I restarted with max agility and had a much better time. Charisma didn't seem to do anything. Then there's FO4, where perks require certain stats, which you needed to allocate before you knew of the requirements.
>>3462597I actually think that the systems of both F4, and now SF, are pretty good. F4 is worse, ofc, but as far as system goes - they are pretty good. What fails is the system usage, and the content around it. To illustrate the point, there is F3 and FNV - they have practically identical systems, but F3 doesnt have use for most of skills outside of combat, while FNV - do. >see explosives check to get free dynamite in the beggining of the game
>>3462601>design philosophy of essentially creating very uniform game experiencesThat very clearly wasn't their "design philosophy"
>>3462604I don't exactly see a charisma build as some gimped noobtrap unless you try to force fights you don't need to fight / can run away from. But it can be a punishing game so I get it.An example I would consider a real noob/buildtrap would be the whole of underrail which punishes unoptimal and unspecialized builds hard.Most of the classics I actually consider pretty forgiving, comparatively. The pathfinder/3.5dnd games are newer and much more laden with traps inherent in the bloated systems.
>>3462606?
>>3462605Your f3 vs fnv is a good example of implementation making the difference, but I honestly consider f4's system so simple it's almost beyond redemption. But I guess some complete redesign of content would go a long way.
>>3462607I could've completed the game, but I think the gameplay is significantly worse with low action points.>>3462608What confuses you?
>>3462613There's been a brain drain at Obsidian, but when it came to tackling Fallout it's clear they ran circles around Bethesda with New Vegas vs Fallout 3. One studio simply understood the property much better.
i really don't care about who jerks off what about design philosophy and theories or anything. show me the games, it seems almost invariable that those who talk can't walk.
>>3462613I think SF system design is the logical next step, so I dont really consider F4 system for that matter. It is quite simple, but elegant in its own way - there is some aspects of the character that is decided upon the game start, but you grow as you play, while also leaving a choice in the matter.
>>3462614did you not learn from that point on though that in games with action economies, having more actions is paramount? that's the thing, you can get better at rpgs, but it seems like people who make them don't play them or at least don't play them well.
>>3462616>It just worksYou might be onto something.
>>3462622it's self-evident. talking heads make their living from talking. all you really have to do is convince people that you know what you are talking about, because these things are so ephemeral. the only real measure is sales, and that can be simple fads or luck or some strange combination of things that leads to an appeal which the developers don't even fully understand. post mortems are cope.
>>3462620>having more actions is paramount?Depends on many things and how they're balanced. There could potentially be interesting trade-offs that aren't too detrimental to gameplay. I remember WL2 handling action points better.
>>3462627They changed it for the sequel because builds that prioritize actions points and initiative are just flat out better than all other.
>>3462631Is that so? I played when WL2 came out, and I remember making a party with diverse stats, and not regretting it. But I confess, I'm not the minmaxing type.
>>3462624>the only real measure is salesuhhuhCoD and fifa sure are great, and I mean Great game franchises. Objectively great. And almost all rpgs throughout history comparatively shit. We should actually just delete this board and go to /v/ and /vg/, where the measurably good games are.
>>3462640>CoD and fifa sure are great, and I mean Great game franchises.Well are they not, for people who are into that sort of games, with large active player bases? Are there better options?
>>3462694By far the most sold flavour of ice cream sold is vanilla. Obviously the market should only focus on catering to more vanilla products, any potential customer wanting something else is obviously just a misinformed hipster cunt who just doesn't understand how objectively great vanilla is. Variation? "Something else"? PERSONAL PREFERENCE? ARE YOU KIND SOME OF A NICHE FAGGOT RETARD WHO JUST DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THAT THE MARKET HAS DECIDED HOW VANILLA IS THE GREATEST FLAVOR AND ANY OTHER OPINION IS OBJECTIVELY WRONG!?If you get the point.
>>3462700There are other products, dude
>>3462717Yes, and their "goodness" for (You) and me is not directly linked to how much they sell to the massess, including (You) and me. Especially in the case of an already niche subcategory like crpgs.
>>3462749Successful titles tend to be good
>>3462431>in their old age they probably finished all their passion projects already and most likely just want to make money.my impression is the opposite, that people do passion projects more in their old age because they care less about meeting the bills due to previous successesan example of what i have in mind is grr martin. to me, it's obvious that asoiaf were just potboilers and now that he has enough money to last him a lifetime he doesn't give a fuck about them and works on stuff he cares about instead, hence no motivation to finish the books
>>3462694please take some humanities classes
>>3462427 a triangle like that for each stat would be betternot that a game with just one triangle couldn't be good, it's just not much of an RPGby his standards, God of War is an RPG
>>3462767The idea here is fairly simple - when you make a char, you dont know how much STR you need, or whatever. Is 5 is good? Average? Or you wont be able to lift your own dick? Thats just an abstraction, to ease this specific point.
>>3462773then why show path of exile? it doesn't have that problem at all?
>>3462640yet this is the measure that these guys care about who make video games, and why wouldn't they? they want money. that's why design theories that allow them to reach the most amount of people and not turn anyone off are seen as "good" and get adopted and spread. to me as the player, my standards are completely alien to them and we cannot ever see eye to eye. hence why i don't care about what they say, but rather what they actually make.
>>3462640I always see this argument about popular game franchises and just don't understand it. It feels like contrarianism for the sake of being contrarian. Obviously if they are making so many sales, and so many people consistently buy their games and play a lot of them, they're doing something right gameplay wise. People don't force themselves to buy and play games that aren't fun. And the goal of a game developer is to make a game that sells as well as possible. They're not doing charity work for RPG-starved gamers in need. So doesn't it make sense that games tend to become simpler or trend towards having more action/interaction over time?>>3462700Think about your own (sarcastic) example more carefully, because sarcasm not withstanding that's almost exactly how the market works. Do you know what flavor you can consistently buy, at any grocery store, ice cream shop, that will be offered in any restaurant menu, that you can ALWAYS count on being there if you want ice cream? Big surprise, it's vanilla, you will never see vanilla missing from a menu, though any one of a hundred other flavors will most likely NOT be served. It's not unusual to go out to eat somewhere and the dessert menu will only have vanilla and chocolate. Most restaurants are like that. Any successful sales based business knows that in most cases you stay successful by catering to the majority of the customers. Making a menu consisting of some weird niche flavors that only a handful of people enjoy and not offering vanilla, or chocolate as a secondary, means that the majority of your customers will simply not buy ice cream. That doesn't mean there's not a market for other flavors, or that people can't have personal preferences. But shops not offering vanilla are always missing out on potential sales.
>>3462913yep, this is why real rpgs will never be AAA or get extensive sales outside of non-rpg factors or a random situation where a game happens to blow up, which does happen and isn't related to quality.
>>3462427Because managers tell them to.As a general rule, managers are:>clueless>unbelievably arrogant>chasing passé trends>mostly immune to the consequences of their fuckups
>>3462913>make an open world action adventure / open world fps>your game has no rpg elements currently>to make it resemble more like an rpg you *must* add choices and options and rpg elements to the game, i.e. complexitychipping away features, "streamlining" and dumbing down removes parts from games that make them rpgs in the first place.
>>3462948>chipping away features, "streamlining" and dumbing down removes parts from games that make them rpgs in the first place.I agree. But that doesn't mean developers will stop streamlining games if they know it will let them sell more copies. Skyrim sold more copies than every other TES game before it combined. Same goes for Fallout 4 and the Fallout games. If Bethesda retained the complexity of the older games in each respective series (or made them more complex) that almost certainly wouldn't be the case.
>>3462952how can you tell if this is due to streamlining or the growth of gaming as a hobby? the sheer numbers comprising the audience are rising. i think it's too early to make such statements.
>>3462952Skyrim has more complexity than Morrowind and Oblivion.
>>3462952BG3 seems to go against that notion.
>>34629660/8 baitAnd I actually liked skyrim's brainless console design
>>3462967again, too early to say. flukes happen.
>>3462970Not really a fluke, it was just a well made game with a good budget that didn't shy away from too much complexity.Most big devs and publishers are just completely removed from understanding what makes games good. They do vaguely understand what sells though, but often take the wrong cues regarding to that.
>>3462973you can't say if it's a fluke or not with one singular instance of a turn-based crpg selling millions. maybe it sold because it was pretty. maybe it sold because of how streamers made it seem cool. maybe people found they do like rpgs and the audience for them is millions strong? making these statements is a waste of time and invariably used to push some preexisting notion about design or people.
>>3462952We might be seeing some signs of dumbed down open world slop -fatigue.Saarfield was a flopBG3 was a major successPositive signs at least.
>>3462988BG3 was still very much dumbed down when compared to Pathfinder and NWN 1&2. And thats because of 5e, which was made to be simplified from 4e, which was already simplified from 3.5. Hell, even the version in BG3 was oversimplified - there was no difference in stats among races. Dont get me wrong, I love BG3, but I am not going to call it the "Hail Mary we need". We need more games like it, yes, but its not the sign that there'll be more change for the better.
>>3462991>there was no difference in stats among racesNot to defend Larian, and I also think 5e sucks, but this was changed for (((political reasons))) late in development due to WotC and Hasbro. The early access did have racial stat modifiers when it came out.
>>3462985I have a hard time seeing it as a fluke simply for the degree of quality and polish the game had. I don't even like 5e gameplay or larian's writing style but I have to admit the game looks and sounds great and the gameplay systems work. It let's you fuck around with its systems quite a bit.
>>3462998Exactly - its not perfect, and its because of those overlords. The same overlords who weren't open to a BG3 until Larian proved they could make it. Then BG3 printed them money and now Hasbro/WoTC will want a BG4, no matter how shoddy it will be.Its all so tiresome.
>>3463002But larian wont make bg4 so we already know it will very likely be shit, just a corporate decision to cater to the market with *a product*
>>3463000but which lessons will be taken from it? the turn-based combat and character building or the polish and visuals and mocap and voice acting? too early to say.
>>3463007>But larian wont make bg4which is a good thing, because fuck licensed games and corporate mandates. if only people could leave franchises behind and not swoon over titles.
>>3463010Bg3 didn't *really* revolutionize polish, mocap or VA. Similiar quality has been done before. What was "revolutionary" (lmao) was that you could make choices and the game reacted to those choices so specifically. So essentially at least a part of c&c and complexity. And it seems gamer masses actually like that when it's polished to such a degree, who knew!
>>3463016>it seems gamer masses actually like thatyou do not know this from one case. you really don't.
>>3463019fair
>>3462427Notice how his design philosophies changed as homofaggotry became more accepted in society, and even pushed as superior to heterosexuality.
>>3462460The solution to this isn't to dumb down your game for people who don't even play them tho, it's called giving players free re-spec/reroll options, especially in the early game where it counts. Nothing is more annoying than finding out my build is completely shit, only to realize i'm being locked into it for the rest of the playthru unless I delete my save. I don't like throwing away hours of progress because devfags think I have ESP powers or something.
>>3463016The average rpg players likes when you can fuck the waifu, see boobs and have le epic cutscene.Nothing more and nothing less.
>>3463011>if only people could leave franchises behind and not swoon over titlesIt's because consoomers hate change/innovation and will only cling to familiar brands to base their identity around. The definition of weak sheep.
>RPG is insanely difficult at the start of the game for 70% of builds>devs intended every player to be a warriorIf the tutorial of RPGs were easier, then they would be more successful. Skyrim did a good job at this because the tutorial throws out weak soldiers and a bear with low health. After that, the player could do whatever he wanted. They also hid the skills very well. Instead of a giant list of skills, it was a view of the sky and it was impossible to see every skill in a single sheet. Levelling up a skill also explained EXACTLY what it does. Nothing overwhelmed the tards so they kept playing.That's why Skyrim won.
>>3463021changed how?
>>3462460that's entirely the fault of the game dev for not balancing the game correctly. all builds and skills should be viable and useful.
>>3463503>game should be flawlessYes
Almost every problem in gaming comes from the consumers.
>>3463460True. It simply allows players to focus on roleplaying and being introduced to the setting, with this civil war and dragon shit going on. They can learn what skills are and how they play out in practice at their own pace.I like character creation build planning way too much, but I believe Skyrim's approach is superior design.There's mods that allow basic character creation stuff, but I never used it because it just doesn't add anything to the game. Maybe it functions as a limit to force some players to stock to their chosen class, but I never had problems with that.
I love making a full custom party in Pillars of Eternity and not using any dump stats. Everyone starts with 10 and then gets two 18s, depending on their class and role. Sometimes, if their race and culture line up (chosen for roleplaying thematically, and not for mechanical numbers, of course), they'll get a 20 in their high stat, otherwise they might get a +2 for a 12 in a tertiary stat.Come to think of it, I think I enjoy doing this more than playing Pillars of Eternity.
>>3462427>>3462427I think it's much more complex than just "why devs like simplifying mechanics"There's the obvious push by higher ups to appeal to the masses by simplifying the mechanics and reducing the depth. It works btw but at the cost of old school fans slowly shifting away from the franchise which I guess is a good enough trade off for these franchises from a profit perspective.Then, there is what Tim is talking about here which is different. I don't think he ever advocated for removal of stats or complexity as the image falsley conveys. In this specific instance he talks about streamlining character creation rules and making it more elegant. Instead of adding an arbitrary rule like no 2 stats can be a 10, and the minimum has to be a 3, he seeks to use geometry to convey these rules using geometry so they don't have to be explained or taught to the player. You just "get it" by rotating the shape. Also he never implemented this system and talked about it a lot in a sort of "this is an idea I had, I could never make it work in my games, here it is if any one else can think of a better way to use it".tl;dr at least in this specific example I think Tim shows how a good developer thinks about these issues over his carreer and seeks to streamline, not the game, but the rules that players must learn. What do you prefer, reading a wall of texts specifying what are the limitation of the stats or have them be conveyed in the design itself. For me, this is not complexity but tediocy.
>>3463503All skills should be useful, but all builds absolutely should not.
>>3463536I like that builds in both PoE games could depend pretty highly on gear as well as stat allocation. Glass cannon dual wielding barbarian with super high perception is probably my favorite in both. Riposte tank rogue in heavy armor is also pretty cool in the first game.
>>3462427weird how they let him and Sawyer design classes even though they don't like emI guess it's better than a company going belly up but it's not really a choice you can make if the guy says he has to close everything down if I don't step in https://youtu.be/YMY5LUNdS-8?t=428https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfX37R0O4a8
>>3465149That hack webm is exactly what it feels like on this board talking to twinks with their womb tattoos about all their edgy competitive vidya power in the game I'm RPing in.I'm talking to them about slowing down and enjoying the harem flowers in harder difficulties they usually can't understand and/or are too lazy/poor to mod. Except in RL I'm the one that can crush their spine easier than him beating up on that pillar.
>>3462427Video games themselves are more and more complex. In 40 years we've gone from games being made by single people, to small groups to near armies. That means that the investment cost (ie risk) is extremely high, and for the game to be at all financially successful, it must sell a shit ton of copies. Therefore it is best to make games which appeal to the most people possible and not gatekeep themselves through complex systems. This is why popular modern games /must/ suck.To paraphrase one fellow: 'Video games for the masses are always bad-smelling video games: the odour of little people cling to them.’
