RPGs are, in my opinion, long dull number experiences for people who have never read anything they liked so don't know what real plots are. And they are invariably about townsfolk and fairies and elves, which is a major turn off for most.

But how good a game is can be measured in the number of hours for which people remain interested, and if you can come up with a system which appears complicated enough to keep people entertained for years even though it is only superficially so, then you have come up with a good game. Look at the undeniable classic Elite - how complicated do you actually think its universe generator is, bearing in mind the whole (original release) game runs in 21kb?

Flecko I agree with you, RPGs put too much emphasis on equipment and stats. I do believe you need these things in RPGs, but as you say today's RPGs have devolved into basically pokemon for big kids. I see player stats as being a form of "crack". Once you start building your character, you don't want to stop because of all the time and effort you've put in already.

But when it comes to shooters, I think stats/weapons upgrades are a must! It makes more sense for a shooter too, since you are driving a shooting machine, and machines are typically upgradable.

Humans aren't "upgradable" in the same sense, and so RPG stats are one way of simulating character growth and development.

Also, having equipment and adjustable stats really adds another dimension to your game engine/world. Just think how boring Bomberman would be if you were limited to the one small bomb. But the addition of more bombs, bigger bombs, trigger etc... these are simple code additions but make the game world so much richer and rewarding.

I guess maybe you guys are right. Play time and character development are what count. I mean, Deus Ex was all about your character development, and despite the x-files story, this game was totally sweet. The options that keep you playing might be more important than the level of innovation. Lords of Thunder for the TG-16-cd has to be my favorite shooter of all time, based on several of its traits. RPG, great sound track, character building, it had it all. Perhaps I should just take inspiration from whats already out there. I mean, there have been tons of good shooters over the years. I think maybe I over-reacted to Progress Quest although I think everyone should still check it out. Just to see what it does at least. Anyways I still am open to suggestion on what makes a good game design.

Thanks all,
-Flecko

Give this a read.

>Imagine how dull it would be if it weren't multiplayer and all you were playing against were some fairly odd balloons.

Hello, that sounds like the game I'm describing, NES Bomberman. Which is still 100% fun, I still play it.

>Or, stop imagining and have a look at Eric and the Floaters.

Hmmm... http://juegomania.metropoliglobal.com/emuladores/spectrum/eric_and_the_floaters.html

Looks like the precursor to Bomberman. So?

Plots definitely took a back seat to other aspects of RPGs in some games I could mention. But I won't, because I have to go to class right now!

That link you put up is a pretty good read Chris. I also have read Game Architecture and Design as well. Despite all this good material to get me going in the right direction, I still get a tad confused. I mean, I sort of know how the game should play without even thinking about it. I mean, we've all played lots of shooters, and we know basically how it works. I could provide a few twists here and there, but thats it. How do groundbreaking games get made? I mean fun or not, Black & White was groundbreaking. A whole new style of game. I also remember playing Military Madness on my TG-16 until all crazy hours of the morning with my brother Mike. We hadn't played anything quite like it before, but now, I don't even play wargames.

I understand that not everyone can write a "new" game, and alot of people don't even aim to, but it just bothers me that my design process is "it'll be like game X with a little bit of game Y thrown in to spice it up." That breaks one of the fundamental rules layed out in Game Design and Architecture. You're not supposed to set out to do whats already been done, only better. Thats what bothers me. Its like a puzzle wrapped in an enigma. I mean, I'm still gonna make this game the way I want no matter what. Oh well. I'm about ready to give up on innovation. I mean, Dungeon Siege is still fun even if its just Diablo and then some. I guess for the time being I'll just assume that game design works itself out through playtesting.

Thanks for the comments though everyone, and if you have anything else to add, I'd love to hear it.

EDIT: Ohh...on the subject of Baldurs Gate, am I the only one in history that doesn't like this game? I mean, is it really a good design decision to build in the need to "pause" the game so you can set up each attack, and then unpause it to watch your characters fall flat on their faces. I really wanted to like it, but it just didn't feel right to me.
RE-EDIT: Oh well, just my $0.02. There ya go kdevil

-Flecko

Ok, my own experience:

I have a japanese NES, so I could only play japanese cartridges. Luckily, they give a lot of importance to RPG there, and thus I could play Dragon Ball, Final Fantasy, Zelda, Princess Bananan and many other RPGs.

Since they were completely in japanese (at the age of 10 I could not understand a word), I just remembered the position of the commands, and played with that. In other words, didn't enter the player history.

Then came SNES. My collection is somewhat big: Zelda, Secret of Evermore, Secret of Mana, Secret of the Stars, Earthbound, The 7th Saga, Robotrek, Might and Magic III, Final Fantasy II and III, Final Fantasy Mystic Quest, Breath of Fire I and II, Chrono Trigger, Lufia I and II, and Super Mario RPG. These all games show you "numbers". And after some time, you just want to see only 9 where there is actually a 2 or 3.

I also play original RPG: especially LoTR, AD&D (especially Dragonlance), Quest, Warhammer (though it is not one), Star Wars, Paranoia (*shudder*) and some others. If you want to build a RPG, try playing some of these games. You will have, after a few campaigns, a completely different view of them.

Nowadays I play a MUD, Genesis, which in its first years showed also numbers, but since five years ago the wizards (or keepers of the game) decided to hide all that information. So, since then you don't know if your character is 210/210hp and 100/100mp. You know your character is "feeling very well", "slightly hurt", "somewhat hurt", "hurt", "feeling rather hurt", "very hurt", "in a bad shape", "in a very bad shape", "terribly hurt", "barely alive" or "at death's door", and about mana, "mentally in full vigor", etc.

The MUD has six statistics (strength, agility, constitution, intelect, wisdom and discipline). Those numbers are also hidden. You just know you are "very far from advancing to mighty", "far from advancing to crushing", etc (strength), and so on. Also skills levels (like animal handling, pick pocketing, spell casting, etc) are hidden (you can be an expert journeyman, novice acolyte, superior professional, etc). There is also a mortal level guide (novice, greenhorne, beginner, apprentice, wanderer, adventurer, adept, great adventurer, veteran, expert, rising hero, hero, titan, champion, legend and myth), but all titles a character can get in any guild is also "string" coded. Weapon and armours statistics are also given only to smiths in just six different steps. You don't know how much experience points killing an orc or finishing a quest gives you. Your progress is measured in "You have made insignificant/slight/little/some/nice/good... progress since you last logged in.". Guild taxes (how much experience you get goes to your level inside the guild, and how much to your character) are not mentioned.

After playing it for some years, I realized this way is much better. You forget about numbers. You don't join a guild because it has the lowest tax and therefore you get more experience points to your character. You know the green dragonscale armour gives you some protection against poison, but you cannot guess if it is better than the protection given by the chain hauberk, or by smearing soapweed (herb). Of course, we all know the mithril-bladed battleaxe is the best axe in the game, but non-smiths have a hard time choosing between a mighty dwarven cleaver and a long-handled steel battleaxe.

When playing a MUD, you usually try to develop your character, giving it a story, an actual background and a somewhat clear future. But this is because you interact with many other players. You need to know a lot of Tolkien to join Rangers of Ithilien or Gondor, or the Morgul Mages. You need to know about Dragonlance to join the Blue or the Red Dragonarmy of Ansalon, the Knights of Solamnia or the Dwarven Warriors of the Neidar Clan (*cheer*). You need to know about the story developed exclusively for the game to join the Union of the Shadow Warriors, the Calian Warriors, Gladiator of Athas or Mercenaries.

Why a video-game usually focus on statistics and equipment? Because there are not many reason for a player to develop a history for its own character. And there is not enough interaction between the player and the NPCs. Let me see... Ever played Chrono Trigger? When Chrono is arrested after coming back from the past for the first time, in the trial witnesses come and tell what you have or haven't done for them. The small girl will cry and accusse you if you could not take back her cat. The ancient one will accuse you if you ate his meal. This is what I call interaction. If you can give a game more interaction of this way, you will be able to let the player choose if he wants to be evil or good.

I am working on a long project, where you are free to do whatever you want to do. The main difference with any other RPG is that there is not a determined goal to reach. You know the king of a castle in some reign is evil, and that the town surrounding it are preparing an attack. But you are free to join the king or the towns, and becoming the hero (later in the game) for one of the sides. Once you join one, the others will always be suspicious at you. That interaction is not enough, of course. So, you are not alone. There are three others characters (chosen when you create your own character), starting at random towns, which will also try to become heroes. They will be given all resources AI can give to them (especially patterns of your own behaviour: they will know if you like running away when having just half of your total health, if you like sneaking, swords or casting fireballs, etc, etc, etc).

This game will try to hide numbers as much as possible, therefore forcing the player to buy each weapon he finds and trying it, comparing with others, and finally choosing one of them. In a page somewhere in the net I read something true: if a player says "the girl who can absorb magic" rather than Celes, or "the guy who can use the slot" rather than Setzer (FF3), you haven't made him/her enter the plot deep enough. However, the most difficult for a game designer is giving each character a personality. An advice is not giving him the chance to change the name of the main character. Or forcing him to spend less time in known areas (in example, giving less experience for a monster kill each time the player kills it). Or bringing "advanced" opponents to the areas where he is at (evil monsters raid a town where the holy player is staying at random time, killing NPCs that are not "resurrected" anymore). Or limiting the number of opponents (why there are infinite monsters in Cyan castle?) to a fixed amount. Once all of them have been defeated, don't let new monsters appear (after some time at least).

Just my opinion.

RB

I tend to agree about the numbers thing. If you know exactly how good a certain weapon is, it totally eliminates the need for other weapons. If more things are hidden, it forces the user to be more involved.

It helps to add hints and stuff into the game then ... As in, a wise old person may be able to tell you that weapon X is the best weapon against baddie Y. I think this makes the game more believable.

Putting numbers all over the place almost makes me think that a programmer designed the game.

I don't think that games need realism...
But I think that the "no numbers" idea fits the (text) MUDs well.
But in a Rougue like game, I'd prefer to have precice stats. I'm not sure why, but I guess it's because the RPG elements in games like Diablo are more like "character management games" (similar to creating buildings in RTS or researching a science in a CIV game).

Having precice stats allows you to create a nice 2nd level economy. Check ebay for diablo items and you see what I mean.
Collecting is one of the real fun things in Diablo and other (graphical) online RPGs.

This might be due to the fact that MUDs allow for better Role Playing, while graphical RPGs are either Hack'n'Slay or Puzzle centric.

But, I think I'm not a hardcore RPG gamer. Like, I prefer playing the game to following the story of a game. I enjoy mini games, while others say that they distract from the game / story.

Thomas: I have no idea what your point is. Are you saying Floaters was not a good game because it didn't have enough enemies, or because it's single player? That's not what we're talking about here.

I made the parallel between RPG stats and Bomberman since Bomberman possesses a form of stats (bomb size, number of bombs). You however seem to be talking about the natural evolution of a game design.

ReyB: well said! I only hope my designs will be 1% as deep and engaging as a good MUD.

A good game is fun.

A really good game is a lot of fun for a lot of people.

Some games are deemed bad by some, good by others. It is rare to find a game deemed fun by all.

A game deemed a lot of fun by all is called THE GREATEST GAME OF ALL TIME. Have you heard of it?

A game is an interaction where after some effort, a reward is given to the player. A good balance between reward and effort results in fun. This balance is loosely referred to as gameplay. Obviously a poor balance results in deletion of the game. Different examples of what different people find rewarding: improvement in character stats and equipment, solving a mystery/puzzle, finding out what happens, conquering the world, beating the other military force / corporation / computer / friends / etc., creating a world / city / persona / universe / etc., forgetting reality, socializing, etc.

A lot of game design articles have rules of thumbs for making games fun. Often times those rules of thumb apply to genres. Two things to look for in these design articles: insights into what different people find fun, and that the rules of thumb are just rules of thumb.

An innovative game is a game that balances interactive effort and subsequent reward in a novel way. “Original gameplay.” Some ideas for gameplay can be found by asking, “What would I (or anyone else) find fun to do (that could be implemented on my intended gaming platform)?” A really good innovative game often gives birth to a new genre (e.g. Castle Wolfenstein, Dune/Command&Conquer). Other times it sparks a new era for a particular genre (e.g. Fallout, Quake & Internet).

Genres that gamers find boring are ripe for innovation.

There’s no shame in us amateurs making clone games. We hone our skills creating games with proven gameplay. We learn hands-on what makes a game fun.

A game without any interaction is called a book. A game with cutscenes without any interaction is called a movie.

The gaming industry is approaching the size of Hollywood in terms of revenue. Imagine big blockbusters from big money production houses, some original dramas that win awards, endless sequels and copycats, and those novel artsy games with nuggets of original gameplay. Sounds like the state of gaming today! But we have an advantage in this entertainment medium: a young Jane can program a game in her room that approaches the designation: THE GREATEST GAME OF ALL TIME.