• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Let's talk about Role-Playing Shooters and why I think they are mostly bad (and greedy) game design

Hulk_Smash

Banned
Let me start off with a definition of what a Role-Playing Shooter (RPS) is so that we can all be on the same page. I've lifted my definition straight from Giant Bomb's wiki.

Role-Playing Shooter (RPS) refers to action RPG (action role-playing game) titles that utilize shooter mechanics (using guns or other long-range weaponry) for the real-time combat. The term RPS was first coined by Borderlands in 2009, but games combining RPG elements with shooter combat can be traced as far back as the 8-bit and 16-bit eras, with early examples including Wibarm (1986), War of the Dead (1987), and Star Cruiser (1988), for example.

Role-playing shooters gained mainstream popularity in the 21st century, with titles such as Parasite Eve II, Deus Ex, Dirge of Cerberus: Final Fantasy VII, Mass Effect, Valkyria Chronicles, and Fallout 3. This has led to even traditional First-Person Shooter (FPS) titles such as the Call of Duty series incorporating RPG elements; though this somewhat blurs the line, Role-Playing Shooters can be distinguished from such games with their greater emphasis on RPG elements.

And before I start in with my criticism of the genre, I do want to add that I have enjoyed several of the games that fit in this sub-genre and don't fault anyone for liking them. I'd be pretty dense to think that these games are going away any time soon.

But, I believe that not only do these games begin to show some lazy game design tendencies, but when they are combined with other elements such as open world, looting (loot boxes), and grinding, they can lead to many of the business practices that many of us loathe.

There are probably hundreds of shooters that have been made since the first Wolfenstein that show us that it takes skill to hit your target. It takes skill to strafe, back up, press forward, use throwables, when to duck, dive, block, and switch weapons. Aside from fighting games, the FPS is the genre that built esports. And they're still around and still popular. The resurgence of the previously mentioned Wolfenstein, Doom, and even Quake shows there's an audience out there for these kinds of games. Third-Person Shooters (TPS) have also joined the ranks of what's now known as twitch-based shooters. Why are they known as that now? Because somewhere along the way, developers took hold of role-playing mechanics that were closely associated with fantasy adventure games like Final Fantasy, Ultima, Elders Scrolls, etc. And the need for fast reflexes and sharp skills with a steep learning curve was no longer vital to the core mechanics of the game.

What makes an RPS and RPS? I think it's several factors. Traditional health bars or shields are replaced with hit points. Crafting is usually a part of many of these games. An emphasis on exploration (which usually means loot-hunting), grinding XP, and those ever-annoying damage indicator numbers. are also usually in the mix. The biggest difference, however, and the one that matters to me the most, is that it is no longer about reflexes, hand and eye coordination, and the overall skills that have been traditionally been a part of shooters in the past. It is more about RPG-like systems.

Skill CAN matter in RPSs. Certainly standing still and doing nothing while the enemy dumps bullets into you or if you miss every single shot you take, you're going to die a lot. But, when you're over-leveled, skill doesn't matter as much. Got that super-duper legendary weapon in a loot drop? Enemies don't stand a chance. In fact, with leveling and crafting or finding great weapons makes game balance almost impossible- as if that's even a goal in RPS development. In all the RPS I've played or seen played, skill with a weapon was not nearly as important as your level versus the enemy's and the number of enemies you're taking on.

So, why do I take issue with this direction shooters have taken? There are several reasons:

1. Introducing RPG like leveling destroys any reason to get good at actually aiming and shooting a gun. It makes shooting so incredibly easy that I can't help but think RPSs were created for the Polygon writers who want to play a twitch shooter but can't... you know... shoot.

2. Looting and crafting take away the uniqueness of most guns. I put 80 hours into Borderlands and can't tell you the name of any specific weapon. Yet, after 30 years, I can still name all the weapons in the original Doom. In a traditional (ugh, I hate that word, but what are ya gonna do) shooter, each weapon is supposed to be carefully balanced to give different playstyles some weight and purpose. Ask me how to take out an Elite on Legendary mode in Halo, I can tell you exactly the steps to walk through to most efficiently take down that Elite. On the other hand, in Destiny, if someone asked me how to take down a boss, I would give them a strategy, but then add "Or you could just grind until your over-leveled". That last part destroys any need to be good at the first part.

3. In a traditional shooter, if I wanted to take on the final boss with bare-bones weapons, I could. In an RPS, level separation makes this impossible. Some games like The Division will warn you that you will not be able to do any damage to an enemy if they were too far over your level.

4. They're not good RPGs. In a traditional RPG, it's not so much about reflex or muscle memory, but more about the system the game is built around. It could be built around finding topple weak points, or it could be built around your mix of party attributes. It also takes into account the strengths, weaknesses, buffs, and debuffs of an enemy. RPSs just don't do these well. It's either going to lean toward shooting skill (The Division) or around something borrowed from RPGs. I've yet to play an RPS that I felt had a great mix of both.

5. It's invading games that don't really need them. Ghost Recon did not start out as an RPS. Neither did Far Cry. The Division doesn't really need it either. And I'd argue neither does Dues Ex. It's also invaded other genres of games that I think have ruined that game. Games like Symphony of the Night turned Castlevania from a skill-heavy platformer into something else entirely. Assassin's Creed has also pretty much turned into a regular ole RPG.

6. It makes enemy AI development pretty standard (AKA boring). Instead of introducing new mechanics later into the game to mix up the challenging gameplay, they just change the color or level number of the bad guys. And it turns every enemy into a bullet sponge which makes it hard to suspend disbelief in games like Wildlands that are more grounded.

7. (This is the "greedy" part) Mixing massive open worlds and looting/crafting with a shooter game leads to the GAAS mess we have with what USED to be considered closed, single player experiences. You can almost see the pitch meeting:

"So, how can we milk this game even more?"
"How about we make this shooter a massive open world? And sell parts of it as story DLC?"
"That's good, but they'll blow through that in like 5 hours. What else you got?"
"Well, we could add RPG-like leveling, crafting, and tons of loot. Make it like an RPG. Then we can sell weapons all day long. Oh, even better. We make the weapons RANDOM! That way they'll keep buying until they get the weapon they want!"
"Wouldn't that break weapon balancing and take away the uniqueness of each weapon?"
"Actually it will be super easy, barely an inconvenience. We'll just make sure there are plenty of opportunities to grind to a point where skill won' t matter."
"Over-leveling is tight!”

Some side issues before I'm done:

  • "You said you've played and liked them. What gives?” Yes, I did mention that I've played and enjoyed several of these games. I liked Borderlands because of the humor and the aesthetic. I play The Division 2 because it's a brain-dead fun way to spend a few evenings with buddies on-line. I rarely have to pay super close attention to the action. But, its NEVER because of the action. I have yet to play an RPS where the action was all that fun and certainly not challenging. If I am to play an RPS, the other elements that attract me to that game better be damn good.
  • "But, even the new Doom has RPG leveling. And games like Resident Evil 4 allow you to "craft" weapons by changing out attachments. You can't escape it!" Skill trees that are unlocked by leveling up are not necessarily traits of an RPS. If you look at traditional shooters that have skill trees, usually they are very specifically and technically defined. And they're called "skill" trees for a reason. They take skill to master them. And usually you don't get new skills until you encounter enemies in the game that you can use them against. And RE4 allows you to modify weapons, but again the modifications are player skill based. This is different than RPGs where leveling and crafting incrementally make you a tad bit more powerful.
  • "Traditional RPGs have had guns in them since forever. Just look at the Xeno Saga series and Final Fantasy." Yes, but you don't have to shoot them. Xenoblade is my favorite RPG of all time and it has guns. But, in terms of gameplay mechanics they are no different than swords or magic. It's the systems you have to learn that make you good at the game. Not hand-and-eye coordination.
  • "I can't imagine Mass Effect or Borderlands or Destiny as anything other than an RPS. If you take away those RPG traits, it wouldn't be same."

I know. It would be better.
 
Last edited:
1.: Gaming journalists still call adding RPG elements to action games "innovation" - as if that was somehow new.

2.: I completely agree, as you pointed out if you're not very good and you practice chances are you'll be over powered before you actually get good, or if you happen to wander on the map (I like to explore before going on the main quest) then when you get back to the main quest it's actually broken because you have all the big guns + high levels + special skills. This is what breaks Far Cry games for me, it's why I don't ever go back to any of them, and this is why after 3 & 4 I just stopped playing them since it felt more like a chore than a game.

I go back to other games that have interesting evlution, at least it doesn't break the game, like the God of War series, The Last of Us, etc.

I don't think these should exist at all in competitive multi-player games - it's akin to be able to buy chess pieces during a match (or depending how many games you played before you can start with some benefits, like resuscitation dead pieces, etc.).

In single player anything should go, it depends more on the implementation than on anything else, there should be active measures put in place to limit progression - maybe bind it to some scenarios events in open world type games. It's not really a problem in linear games, as long as the enemies don't re-spawn.
 

bati

Member
You're painting with very broad strokes here. Immersive sims (Deus Ex, Shock series, etc) have very little to do with the loot shooters that have gained popularity in the recent years (BL series, The Division, etc). A lot of your complaints are aimed at the latter, which is no surprise since immersive sims work a lot like regular RPGs, they just have a different camera perspective (first person vs classic isometric).

And while I do agree that loot shooters are getting a little creatively bankrupt and make perfect vehicles for extra monetization practices, I also have to admit I wouldn't touch many of these games unless they had RPG elements to them. I've pretty much stopped playing pure FPS games because I simply do not find the raw gameplay as fun as I used to when I was young. So RPG elements are the next best thing for me, because if done well they'll introduce stuff like different playstyles (unlockable moves) instead of slowly increasing your stats.
 

Hulk_Smash

Banned
You're painting with very broad strokes here. Immersive sims (Deus Ex, Shock series, etc) have very little to do with the loot shooters that have gained popularity in the recent years (BL series, The Division, etc). A lot of your complaints are aimed at the latter, which is no surprise since immersive sims work a lot like regular RPGs, they just have a different camera perspective (first person vs classic isometric).

And while I do agree that loot shooters are getting a little creatively bankrupt and make perfect vehicles for extra monetization practices, I also have to admit I wouldn't touch many of these games unless they had RPG elements to them. I've pretty much stopped playing pure FPS games because I simply do not find the raw gameplay as fun as I used to when I was young. So RPG elements are the next best thing for me, because if done well they'll introduce stuff like different playstyles (unlockable moves) instead of slowly increasing your stats.

Deus ex certainly doesn’t deserve to be put in the same sentence as looter shooters. It is in fact a more twitch based shooter and can be played that way when you want it to.

But that just proves my other point: The RPG elements are unnecessary. And you can make an FPS immersive without chasing those RPG carrots.

Make the NPCs interesting. Introduce side quests with gameplay that is unique to it. Do like uncharted and have some collectibles.

And if core shooter mechanics don’t do it for you, that’s fine. There’s always Gone Home.
 

petran79

Banned
Reading this reminded me that Cybermage is considered a good fps/rpg hybrid of the mid-90s and is relatively underrated and still unavailable to buy officially
 
My only issue is that they are too easy, no doubt about it. Compared to a pure shooter like Dusk, most RPS's are easy as hell or grindy as fuck which is annoying but it seems people love grinding...so that ain't going to change.
 

Closer

Member
But that just proves my other point: The RPG elements are unnecessary. And you can make an FPS immersive without chasing those RPG carrots.

RPG elements in a FPS are unnecessary. RPG elements in a RPS are necessary. If you want a core shooter, look for a core shooter, not something else. There's enough games for everybody's tastes.
 

Kadayi

Banned
Much love for RPGs, but I kind of despise levelling and loot swap all that it entails in many ways. OP might appreciate a thread I wrote on the subject a while back, though I'm talking about the whole mindset to the RPG as we understand it and its influence on gaming versus Shooters specifically.


I think there is a case in point to look at games like Dark Souls and Kingdom come deliverance which albeit do possess levelling systems, don't necessarily gatekeep progression behind you in terms of who you can fight/kill versus simply limit you in terms of what equipment is available to you. There is a choice there in terms of player agency to a greater or lesser degree, although you're naturally making the game harder on yourself by eschewing level upgrades.

The main issue in large part comes down to levelling systems breaking immersion when it comes to the vulnerabilities or invulnerability of comprehendible opponents. It's a little easier in a fantasy game to forgive an enemy not going down straight away to a headshot because it's not necessarily a known quantity we can relate to, it's a little less so if it's a case of you unloading a Desert Eagle at point-blank range into some geared up mercenary in a contemporary setting and them just shrugging it off like it's an annoyance rather than a danger to their welfare (though I'd cut futuristic titles a break in that regard because you're in the realms of fantasy tech as with Deus Ex or Cyberpunk).

I'm more forgiving of gatekeeping wherein you need to complete A, B & C before you can access D and the stronger enemies therein than the idea that you can roam anywhere, but some opponents are just simply beyond you by virtue of their stats alone. In that regard, I think Open world gameplay can often time have its problems (Witcher 3 definitely suffered from this).

Ultimately I'm all for immersion and game elements that detract from that needlessly such as invulnerable opponents are definitely a bugbear for me. The more a game can keep you in the game space and less in the interface the better as far as I'm concerned, though I recognise that there are limits to what you can do to keep the player in the game space. Farcry 2 did a great job in that respect but it certainly wasn't as complicated a title as a KCD or Dark Souls at the end of the day.
 

shark sandwich

tenuously links anime, pedophile and incels
You make some great points OP. I’ll read through all the responses and post some more detailed thoughts soon.

But yeah I’ve always thought that e.g. Borderlands would never be able to stand on its own as either a shooter or an RPG, and that kind of bothered me. The gunplay doesn’t require much skill and is FAR more dependent on your loot and character level (extreme damage scaling w/level). And the story/NPCs/quests/towns are nowhere near the quality we’d expect from a proper RPG.
 

zenspider

Member
Great write-up. Most lifted "RPG elements" (i.e. watching numbers go up) are used a way to decouple progress from skill. I can't think of a less suited genre than twitch shooters other than fighters. I think fighters more clearly illustrate the divide here, because those kind of "Story Modes" are becoming pre-requisite to capture casual audiences, and are actually detrimental to getting better.

OP is basically calling out these games as casual shooters, and I applaud them. I think it's an important distinction as companies continue to posture as "hardcore".

EDIT: post above mine nails it. The kind of designs expand the audience (which is great!), not cater to the genre hardcore.
 
Last edited:

Belmonte

Member
Your criticisms of the genre are fair. Definitely you have a point and I agree that the RPG elements make a less tighter gameplay in comparison to classic FPS games like Doom, Quake and Duke Nukem. It is an impossible task since the devs can't make optmized encounters when there are so many power levels, weapons, etc.

But those games are made for another type of players. People who are not as interested in challenge and reflexes. They want the power fantasy, to built their character and amass lots of resources. The RPG elements hurt the shooting gameplay but it adds an strategy layer (even if not as deep as it could be) and gives a very palpable sense of progress to the player. It is fun to hunt for weapons in Borderlands.

I wish we had more games in this genre trying to do what Dark Souls and Nioh did for brawlers/character action games, however. They added RPG elements to the formula but not as a power fantasy. The player choices about how to built the character, which weapons and armor to use have a lot of weight and the action part is not forgotten also. They aren't as tight as Devil May Cry or Ninja Gaiden, but they strike a great balance between RPG and action IMO. The player needs to pay attention to both aspects to win.
 
Last edited:

Hulk_Smash

Banned
Cyberpunk will change that.

I doubt it. People I know IRL and here on GAF think I’m crazy for not being interested at all in Cyberpunk. But, I truly believe it will end up being a really pretty, but with a good story looter shooter just like the rest of them.
 

Hulk_Smash

Banned
Your criticisms of the genre are fair. Definitely you have a point and I agree that the RPG elements make a less tighter gameplay in comparison to classic FPS games like Doom, Quake and Duke Nukem. It is an impossible task since the devs can't make optmized encounters when there are so many power levels, weapons, etc.

But those games are made for another type of players. People who are not as interested in challenge and reflexes. They want the power fantasy, to built their character and amass lots of resources. The RPG elements hurt the shooting gameplay but it adds an strategy layer (even if not as deep as it could be) and gives a very palpable sense of progress to the player. It is fun to hunt for weapons in Borderlands.

I wish we had more games in this genre trying to do what Dark Souls and Nioh did for brawlers/character action games, however. They added RPG elements to the formula but not as a power fantasy. The player choices about how to built the character, which weapons and armor to use have a lot of weight and the action part is not forgotten also. They aren't as tight as Devil May Cry or Ninja Gaiden, but they strike a great balance between RPG and action IMO. The player needs to pay attention to both aspects to win.

I could get behind that. As long as it doesn’t dumb down the skill level of the player.
 

Danny Dudekisser

I paid good money for this Dynex!
I agree with you, OP. I think the exceptions to the rule are stuff like the original Deus Ex and System Shock 2, but those are so heavily RPG-focused that I hesitate to call them shooters at all.
 
I honestly don’t feel like I have played a RPS that relied heavily on mechanical skill. I don’t think Division does, I mean unless you really suck at aiming.


I can’t get enough of the genre. Give me action-RPGs and looter shooters until the cows come home.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Isa
D

Deleted member 752119

Unconfirmed Member
I enjoy the genre playing them pretty casually as I like both shooters and RPG mechanics.

I don’t give a shit about playing an MMO type game endlessly though. Variety is important to me and I don’t want to dump hundreds or thousands of hours into one game. So I mostly just do the campaign stuff, play some end game until I get bored and move on to something else until some decent story DLC is out.

Borderlands is best at this as they have more substantive campaigns and sidequests in the base game and DLC compared to things like Destiny or Anthem (haven’t played The Division games).
 
Let's consider what a role-playing game is.

You invest time to reduce the difficulty level.

That's the crux of it. Enemies have weaknesses. Areas have specific weapons and equipment. You can learn the game and take the risk of facing off against more powerful enemies, or you can grind. It's up to you. The RPG mechanics are a buffer to allow lesser-skilled players to reach the end of the game as long as they invest enough time.

What is a shooter? It's a game where you have to accurately aim at targets and kill them before they deplete your health. RPG elements in shooters serve the same purpose they've always served: they are a buffer to allow lesser-skilled players to reach the end of the game as long a they invest enough time.

I don't think the design is bad or greedy. It just... is what it is. Adventure games were swallowed up by RPGs (think Zork) because RPG stories were much "longer". In truth, the RPG mechanics made it easy to stretch out the game's content. That's why they're included. The game industry has steadily moved away from skill-based games into time-based investments. After all, you bought the game for your home console, right? You deserve to beat it. RPG mechanics fit very well with the modern mentality.
 

Hulk_Smash

Banned
That's why they're included. The game industry has steadily moved away from skill-based games into time-based investments. After all, you bought the game for your home console, right? You deserve to beat it. RPG mechanics fit very well with the modern mentality.

I think this mentality is terrible. You are right to an extent though. Gamers do want their games to be longer.

But let’s be honest. Many devs wouldn’t keep rewarding it if they didn’t find a way to monetize it.
 
I think this mentality is terrible. You are right to an extent though. Gamers do want their games to be longer.

But let’s be honest. Many devs wouldn’t keep rewarding it if they didn’t find a way to monetize it.
I don't think there's anything wrong with making games for an audience that expects to beat it.

The problem creeps up when this sort of approach becomes the norm. It is why we have situations where "gamers" demand easy modes for Sekiro or rage-quit when they aren't allowed to play their shooter the way they want (Call of Dutyfication of shooters).

When roguelikes and -lites and hybrids (you get the idea) began to take over, I was happy. At least with roguelikes, the RPG elements are tempered by a non-negotiable punishment for failure.
 
Great thread, OP very thought-provoking.

You say you can't think of any FPS/RPG mixes that worked well. It took me a while to think as well, but I believe the original Bioshock did this the best. It was c losed world game, but allowed you to either run and gun with shooting skill, plant traps with stealth or use powers like magic (the classic Warrior, rogue, mage, trio) What are your thoughts on Bioshock?
 

Hulk_Smash

Banned
Great thread, OP very thought-provoking.

You say you can't think of any FPS/RPG mixes that worked well. It took me a while to think as well, but I believe the original Bioshock did this the best. It was c losed world game, but allowed you to either run and gun with shooting skill, plant traps with stealth or use powers like magic (the classic Warrior, rogue, mage, trio) What are your thoughts on Bioshock?

Probably. From what I’ve seen at least. I’ve never actually played it. Deus Ex comes close too
 
Last edited:

Alexios

Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Let's consider what a role-playing game is.

You invest time to reduce the difficulty level.

That's the crux of it. Enemies have weaknesses. Areas have specific weapons and equipment. You can learn the game and take the risk of facing off against more powerful enemies, or you can grind. It's up to you. The RPG mechanics are a buffer to allow lesser-skilled players to reach the end of the game as long as they invest enough time.

What is a shooter? It's a game where you have to accurately aim at targets and kill them before they deplete your health. RPG elements in shooters serve the same purpose they've always served: they are a buffer to allow lesser-skilled players to reach the end of the game as long a they invest enough time.

I don't think the design is bad or greedy. It just... is what it is. Adventure games were swallowed up by RPGs (think Zork) because RPG stories were much "longer". In truth, the RPG mechanics made it easy to stretch out the game's content. That's why they're included. The game industry has steadily moved away from skill-based games into time-based investments. After all, you bought the game for your home console, right? You deserve to beat it. RPG mechanics fit very well with the modern mentality.
That's not for all RPGs. Plenty are balanced with limited exp as encounters and quests that reward you with such aren't infinite to keep growing while the game content doesn't so the devs always have a rough idea of your given level to match the challenges to it.
 
Last edited:
That's not for all RPGs. Plenty are balanced with limited exp as encounters and quests that reward you with such aren't infinite to keep growing while the game content doesn't so the devs always have a rough idea of your given level to match the challenges to it.
For sure, but most RPGs are not this way.
 

Tomeru

Member
Over leveling in Destiny is not a thing. Never was.

Anyway, some of the points you made are standard claims that can be said for many things, and hense are too generic to adress.

Your issue with games that dont need them: wtf does it even mean? These are the games and tgat is how they were made.

Its pretty obvious that your dislike for this genre has made you unable to look past the top layer. Shooting made easy? You mean I just need to aim rougly towards a target and thats it? Overleveling? Even in a standard rpg with no shooting what so ever you cant harm a lvl 30 enemy as a lvl 5 somehing. Forgatable loot? True. But I can also name quite a lot of weapons from destiny and the division, and from any other fantasy shooter I played.

Its obviously not a genre you think highly of to pay attention. So just don't.
 
D

Deleted member 752119

Unconfirmed Member
Overleveling isn't exclusive to RPSs, it's my standard tactic for pretty much all RPGs.

Same. I play RPGs for the story and characters and actively dislike the gameplay in most of them (especially turn based ones). If there’s no way to drop difficulty I’ll over level and do anything I can to cheese the combat.
 

Yumi

Member
The best role playing shooter I've ever played is Mass Effect 2. The mix was perfect for me. From a role playing game standpoint you had great worlds to explore, memorable character and quests, an interesting story, and a party to choose from with unique stats and skills. From a shooter standpoint, you had to have good aim, positioning was important, and you couldnt just hide behind cover forever/movement was encouraged.

Granted at higher difficulties it turned more into a strategy game having to freeze time and issue orders to your teamates to engage enemy weaknesses, you still had to have good aim, but I can see this being argued as not being a true shooter.

For me it was the perfect blend and I wish there were more games like it. I kinda belive at this point there is a difference between lootet shooters and rpgs with shooting mechanics. Id like to see more of the latter. Outside of deus ex, cant think of any story driven role playing shooters without looter shootet mechanics.
 

Hendrick's

If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
The problem is calling these games RPGs when they are not. Loot and stats does not make an RPG.

Also, loot games are boring AF. I never understood them. So you do a thing in order to maybe get a better version of a thing you already have so that you can do the same thing again? It's insanity.
 
D

Deleted member 752119

Unconfirmed Member
Also, loot games are boring AF. I never understood them. So you do a thing in order to maybe get a better version of a thing you already have so that you can do the same thing again? It's insanity.

Yeah, that’s why I never get very deep into the end game in these things. I’m not big on repeating content and loot gets boring fast when it’s hunting for god rolls rather than unique loot that allows for tinkering with different builds.

I thought Destiny 2 at least had it better at launch with fixed stats in gear so you could just chase specific pieces you wanted bs having to do things AND hope for good RNG. But that wasn’t enough content for the people who love grinding content and chasing godrolls so they put random stats back. Also, having so many Exotic quests requiring playing and doing things in PvP killed it for me to as I hate those modes. But that’s all fine as that’s the base they need to keep for the game to survive and I’m fine with things just not being for me.
 

cormack12

Gold Member
Good OP, I like posts like these because they at least start a discussion. I think even as old as Doom though, the simple way to make shooters harder boil down to:

1. HP
2. adds/spawns
3. DPS




I feel like a lot in the OP is targeted at The Division, but I do feel the Division is probably the closest in terms of balance and crossover you can achieve. Even the multiple headshot mechanic now pervades games like uncharted (armoured helmet guys), whereas a headshot in UT or CS was an insta-kill pretty much. Skill based shooting does exist with 'weak points' to down an enemy quicker or trigger an AoE debuff. You can choose to buff with +dmg to elites or +% reload. If anything it allows you to build your character to support the way you want to play. Are they deeper than necessary, yes probably. The issue with skills and the specialisation rework show that already.

I think it's important to also seperate MP from SP. MP is a skill based competition around accuracy, player reading and efficiency. SP is about enjoyment and flair within set arena's or encounters.

Min/Maxing is not something a lot of people will do in RPS. It takes time and grind, but that's why there are normalised stats as well. RNG systems are meant to level the playing field with regards to the WMD's, but they are limited via talents and stats like dps and rpm. For instance meeting a group of three hyena's in the division for me at WT5 is no different to say 4 enemies on UC in terms of bullet spongeyness - they had better balance between HS and damage in UC4 though.

 

Hulk_Smash

Banned
The problem is calling these games RPGs when they are not. Loot and stats does not make an RPG.

Also, loot games are boring AF. I never understood them. So you do a thing in order to maybe get a better version of a thing you already have so that you can do the same thing again? It's insanity.

I wish we would stop calling them RPGs, too. RPGs borrow heavily from their table top counterparts. If we don’t take that into consideration, then any game can be an RPG since all games are are a type of role playing.

But loot games isn’t always accurate either. So, here we are.
 

Yumi

Member
The problem is calling these games RPGs when they are not. Loot and stats does not make an RPG.

Also, loot games are boring AF. I never understood them. So you do a thing in order to maybe get a better version of a thing you already have so that you can do the same thing again? It's insanity.
I agree, but i dont think its insanity. Its why i find it bewildering why they dont admit that its a gambling mechanic. Gambling is fun for most people, and its a huge part of loot based games. I also think its true that time is money, we are paid this way with our time, any time we use could be used to make money. When you put your time into something for a chance at getting something, that is gambling.

Its not the whole game of course, I enjoyed playing destiny for the short time i played it cause it was fun on its own. Transport me back to being 13 years old woth dispsosable time to waste on trying to get the best gear and look super cool, and i totally get it.

Doesnt mean i like it now, I much prefer games that hold up well on their own, are fun to play, and well designed.
 
Top Bottom