Support NeoGAF

[Some Nobody]

Not everything has to be popular or try and expand its audience. Sometimes having its own little niche space is the best way forward.

You just said there don't need to be anymore D-RPGs. If they can't make money, publishers aren't going to keep churning them out. There's a line between appealing to the LCD and being so obtuse only hardcore fans care about what you're doing. And the road between those lines is an eight lane highway.

 

[PensivePen]

You just said there don't need to be anymore D-RPGs. If they can't make money, publishers aren't going to keep churning them out. There's a line between appealing to the LCD and being so obtuse only hardcore fans care about what you're doing. And the road between those lines is an eight lane highway.

Publishers can still make money by making low-budget games that target a smaller, hardcore audience. This style of dungeon crawling rpg has been around for almost 40 years now and new games continue to be released every year. It's not in danger of suddenly disappearing just because those games don't see gigantic mainstream success.

 

[vall03]

One of the biggest problems imo is that this genre is difficult to market. A trailer won't do since a gameplay video walkthrough is boring to watch (Please forgive me but I still love the genre). Showing the first person dungeon crawling, character progression systems, slow gameplay/general gameplay repetitiveness, and even the battles are considered not "flashy" enough for most people. Heck, as much as I love them, I never ever recommend them to my friends and acquaintances as these are very niche and an acquired taste imo.

I also see a lot of people mentioning the Souls series as an evolution of the genre, which is true considering the gameplay concepts, but I really can't get into the series.

 

[Renekton]

I also see a lot of people mentioning the Souls series as an evolution of the genre, which is true considering the gameplay concepts, but I really can't get into the series.

Erm... Souls came from King's Field but not its genre.

 

[vall03]

Erm... Souls came from King's Field but not its genre.

Aw, I guess I misused the term "genre" here. Since I mentioned gameplay concepts, maybe that fits better? haha

 

[HeatBoost]

Combat isn't interesting
Traversal isn't interesting
I don't like having to map things out myself
Usually not a ton of story or flashy presentation to work with
Seems to be directed at those same folks who enjoy grinding, and a lot of people have an EXTREMELY low tolerance for that sort of thing

That about covers it from my stance. These games are closer to Dwarf Fortress than they are to the original Legend of Zelda in terms of the abstraction/experience metric. And for a lot of people, no matter how rudimentary and numbers based a game's systems might be, they can't enjoy it unless the illusion is dressed up with a convincing and compelling illustration.

 

[Nachos]

I feel like a big problem is that despite so many being mechanics-heavy, DRPGs like hiding pretty vital information and tend to promote grinding just for the sake of it. Tell me exactly what a skill does before I invest in it, and if I need a new class and am 3/4 of the way through, don't make me grind them up from level 1. By extension, they can be really punishing if you make a wrong decision (that was often made with incomplete information), which most of the time, involves further grinding. It's so easy to fall into a pitfall that completely kills your progression.

I like Etrian Odyssey so much because the games usually discourage grinding. You can usually get through every encounter by exploring everything, and respeccing your character at the cost of 2 levels often results in a far stronger character.

But the presentation of most of these games isn't too hot, either. They're working with limited funds, but a lot of them have the most barebones, cumbersome UI, when that's the thing you'll be looking at the most.

Just having extra tooltips that pop up when you hover over things would be great.

I'll say it again!

The pedo and ugly art style is holding EO back. Lots of people give it a pass because of how it looks.

Himukai is a genuinely great artist, and the art style isn't the problem. It's the things he chooses to draw with said art style that put people off. I think he hit it out of the park with the dragoon designs:

 

[Elaugaufein]

Combat isn't interesting
Traversal isn't interesting
I don't like having to map things out myself
Usually not a ton of story or flashy presentation to work with
Seems to be directed at those same folks who enjoy grinding, and a lot of people have an EXTREMELY low tolerance for that sort of thing

That about covers it from my stance. These games are closer to Dwarf Fortress than they are to the original Legend of Zelda in terms of the abstraction/experience metric. And for a lot of people, no matter how rudimentary and numbers based a game's systems might be, they can't enjoy it unless the illusion is dressed up with a convincing and compelling illustration.

There aren't that many modern DRPGs where you have to map for yourself. Actually Etrian Odyssey (and some particularly annoying parts of teleport trap dungeons because see User Hostile above) are all I can think of. In fact even Etrian Odyssey gives you a very lightly sketched but functional enough to get by if you hate mapping auto-map in it's last couple of entries.

(This is one of those things where a reputation for being user hostile actually makes people perceive the genre as worse than it is)

 

[Graciaus]

Building a party from scratch that all links together so you don't die is pretty hard and time consuming for newcomers. Even if you do manage that the games can be tough and tedious. This is a very niche genre.

Some of them are just boring as well.

 

[gogosox82]

They are very long and quite grindy and very light on story and presentation. There's a heavy emphasis on gameplay and leveling which is off putting to people who aren't familiar with the series.

 

[WORLDTree]

It already happened it's called Persona 3.

• You do not explore the world, but rather only interact and move around in the few key areas of one town.
  
• You continuously go back to explore a large mega dungeon of many floors.
  
• You form your party from a larger pool of varying party members.

This is basically the core game-play structure of most DRPGs. Persona then evolves this by making everything 3D and adding in more story and gives your party members characterization beyond their class and a name. Whoa look, it addressed all the things everyone is complaining about! Further entries after this built on this base, such as breaking up the main super dungeon into multiple, smaller, more context-friendly dungeons and then sticking that with a traditional mega dungeon. And now its second refinement has achieved what can reasonably be called some kind of mainstream success, especially when compared to the top of the classic DRPG sales range like EO.

If this isn't an evolution, then the supposed definition of DRPG which excludes Persona is so constrictive that the answer to evolution is "Nothing", because any change significant enough to actually have an impact with new audiences will make it "not a DRPG".

 

[Callibretto]

Dungeon crawler is those first person view rpg where you move in squares and create your own party member right? I played Demon Gaze and do enjoy it, but I wish my party member have personality and more involved with the story.

Rather than giving me option for 8 job/class, give me 8 characters with personality to choose from. Give it Mass Effect / Persona style relationship meter so the more you use a character, they get closer open that characters quest.

 

[spiritfox]

Dungeon crawler is those first person view rpg where you move in squares and create your own party member right? I played Demon Gaze and do enjoy it, but I wish my party member have personality and more involved with the story.

Rather than giving me option for 8 job/class, give me 8 characters with personality to choose from. Give it Mass Effect / Persona style relationship meter so the more you use a character, they get closer open that characters quest.

But you can role play yourself. All my party members have unique personalities and quirks, and they have relationships not restricted by the game. That's the cool part about making your own characters.

 

[Eusis]

Personally, I want them to be more "modernized." Not in that they follow popular trends so much as going "hey, we can do THIS with technology now!", namely not being bound to a grid and QOL improvements. Wizardry 8 seemed an example of this, and Bard's Tale 3 sounds like it too albeit with optional grid play. I'd like to be able to play a phase based first person RPG that had cities you could explore freely too. As is you'd have to go to Elder Scrolls and you'd get janky real time combat instead.

We at least got the QOL improvements with the other games that came out in modern times though.

 

[Renekton]

Rather than giving me option for 8 job/class, give me 8 characters with personality to choose from. Give it Mass Effect / Persona style relationship meter so the more you use a character, they get closer open that characters quest.

Developers have experimented with this since the 80s, from individual class quests in MM2 to colorful hirelings in EotB and so on. In the end most concluded it's easier to treat the party or its leader as a singular PC.

 

[Sinatar]

Instead of endlessly cloning Wizardry 1, why not evolve and look at Wizardry 7, or Bards Tale or Dragon Wars or my favourites: Might & Magic.

World map. Multiple cities, multiple dungeons, npcs, quests, puzzles, etc.

Oh you just want to make a giant featureless maze full of random battles for the millionth time? Ok.

 

[Hupsel]

I really really wish we have a Legends of Grimrock 3. My fav type of dungeon crawler so far, cool combat and amazing exploration.

 

[spiritfox]

Instead of endlessly cloning Wizardry 1, why not evolve and look at Wizardry 7, or Bards Tale or Dragon Wars or my favourites: Might & Magic.

World map. Multiple cities, multiple dungeons, npcs, quests, puzzles, etc.

Oh you just want to make a giant featureless maze full of random battles for the millionth time? Ok.

So Etrian Odyssey IV?

 

[orborborb]

so many genres and companies have their roots in what were essentially Dungeon Crawlers, and they all became successful by abandoning those elements

Zork -> King's Quest/Quest for Glory/Shadowgate/Myst -> Lucasarts style adventure games

MUDs -> Everquest/FF11 -> WoW

Bungie's Pathways into Darkness -> Marathon -> Halo

id's Wolfenstein 3D -> Doom -> Quake -> Quake 3

NES Zelda 1 & 2 -> Wind Waker

Shin Megami Tensei -> Persona

Xanadu/Brandish -> Legend of Heroes

Final Fantasy 1-5 -> 6-10

Shining in the Darkness -> Shining Force

Might and Magic -> Heroes of Might and Magic

Arx Fatalis -> Dishonored

Ultima Underworld -> System Shock -> Thief -> Deus Ex -> Bioshock

 

[Sinatar]

So Etrian Odyssey IV?

A baby step in the right direction, but the half assed airship exploration doesn't compare to anything I mentioned at all.

 

[Phu]

Oh great, this floor is even bigger and even more convoluted, just what I wanted!

^You can apply that to a lotta types of RPGs, it just appears to be more prevalent in DRPG.

I can dig a dungeon crawler. The various Mystery Dungeons, Necrodancer, jank-ass Fatal Labyrinth, etc. Sure. But a dungeon crawler RPG? It's like they set out to make me, specifically, bored out of my skull. Moving around isn't fun. The battles aren't interesting. Story moves at a dying snail's pace. Marking stuff on the map feels like busywork and I end up asking myself if I should even bother or just hope I remember where something is. Similarly to what I said in the SRPG thread, it doesn't actually feel like you get to experience the world within the game. They just draaaaaaggggg.

Above all else, though, I can't stand first-person grid-based movement. To me it feels like a deadass gameplay relic, like single-stick FPS or required grinding. I know people will disagree, but I'd just rather play a different kind of game.

 

[Glitter and Gold]

But you can role play yourself. All my party members have unique personalities and quirks, and they have relationships not restricted by the game. That's the cool part about making your own characters.

Yeah I think this is one of the few genres still emulating table top RPGs. True role playing experiences where almost everything is manual and player defined.

It already happened it's called Persona 3.

If this isn't an evolution, then the supposed definition of DRPG which excludes Persona is so constrictive that the answer to evolution is "Nothing", because any change significant enough to actually have an impact with new audiences will make it "not a DRPG".

I'd argue the opposite. I think an "evolution" implies developing the core mechanics and identity of the games into something "better" or I guess more palatable to larger audiences.

I think Persona kind of does the opposite. It simplifies everything and dilutes it with elements from other games (traditional RPGs, dating sims) to the point where it's barely recognizable as a game of the genre and not really comparable to its peers.

If that's constrictive, so be it. But I think the games have more value in existing and developing within these constraints than they do blending with other genres chasing mass appeal. I think it's important that certain games strive to preserve these very specific types of experiences for as long as possible for the players that do enjoy them.

and again using your specific example, a lot of those elements that it shares with DRPGs(randomly generated dungeons) were criticized to the point that they've been eliminated almost entirely in its latest sequel lol.

 

[jdstorm]

Zelda just single handedly launched a console and most agree it would be better with dungeons.

Assasins Creed Origions is bringing them back.

I would say people like DRPGs there just havent been any notable ones recently that have popularised them recently.

 

[Exentryk]

I randomly picked up Etrian Oddyssey (4?) on 3DS thinking it was a regular JRPG, but it turned out to be some weird nonsense. Drawing your own maps in dungeons, first person view in battles, created characters, weird setting... etc.
I dropped the game after 30 mins.

Worst game I bought.

 

[veloxStrix]

I'll say it again!

The pedo and ugly art style is holding EO back. Lots of people give it a pass because of how it looks.

I don't know how changing the art style would make it magically work when (very likely) literally no dRPG has broken into wide appeal in the last 15 years or more.

 

[Glitter and Gold]

I don't know how changing the art style would make it magically work when (very likely) literally no dRPG has broken into wide appeal in the last 15 years or more.

If anything the art style is what draws people in. At least domestically.

 

[Lork]

I don't understand the appeal of the grid based movement and arbitrary, featureless mazes these games have. How is that in any way preferable to the smooth movement and more naturalistic level design found in games like Ultima Underworld and King's Field? I can at least get why somebody would prefer combat and character building to be the way it is in these games, but why not do it in something that looks and feels like an actual place and let you move around it like you can in any other video game?

 

[kagamin]

Drawing your own maps in dungeons, first person view in battles, created characters, weird setting... etc.

Conversely, this is why I love the games. I love making my own maps, I love the first person battle view, love creating characters, and love the varied setting.

 

[CloudWolf]

Does Darkest Dungeon count as a dungeon RPG? That game is amazing.

 

[spiritfox]

I don't understand the appeal of the grid based movement and arbitrary, featureless mazes found in these games. How is that in any way preferable to the smooth movement and more naturalistic level design found in games like Ultima Underworld and King's Field? I can at least get why somebody would prefer combat and character building to be the way it is in these games, but why not do it in something that looks and feels like an actual place and let you move around it like you can in any other video game?

Grids make a defined board when dealing with on field puzzles and enemies. You can easily see how far you are from, say, a rampaging boss, how far it can move, and where you need to move to avoid it. It's more like board games of old than an actual representation of a place.

 

[Strings]

They're generally super low-budget / samey, and there are just sooooo many mediocre-bad ones that do absolutely nothing to stand out.

They generally iterate extremely poorly too, with most devs seemingly okay with releasing the exact same game again if the first does well (recent example being Dungeon Travelers 2-2, where I noped out after ~12 hours, when it became apparent that it was going to be the 80 hour first game all over).

I think the main two paths forward for the genre are...

1. Change nothing, but do it far better than anyone else i.e. the EO model (and to give them credit, they are sloooooowly adding to that series with better 3D models, actual stories, and addictive meta-games (restaurants, etc)).

2. Tell a good story i.e. the Coven and Labyrinth of Refrain path. This un-localised NIS Vita game may be the only DRPG I've ever played (roughly two dozen of them) with a story that isn't serviceable at best. Game was a blast just because I cared about what everyone was saying (compared to something like Dungeon Travelers 2, which is mechanically strong, but extremely long-winded and annoying).

There's also a third path, but I don't think it actually works:

3. Better production values, or, what Persona Q did. Game looked and sounded ace. It was otherwise just okay, but it was real nice playing a DRPG that didn't feel so aggressively budget.

 

[Phu]

I don't understand the appeal of the grid based movement and arbitrary, featureless mazes these games have. How is that in any way preferable to the smooth movement and more naturalistic level design found in games like Ultima Underworld and King's Field? I can at least get why somebody would prefer combat and character building to be the way it is in these games, but why not do it in something that looks and feels like an actual place and let you move around it like you can in any other video game?

"Arbitrary, featureless mazes" got a chuckle out of me. That's a great way to put it.

 

[Kudo]

They're "low presentation" games, if that makes sense.
Basically it's hard to get people interested in them if they weren't fans of the genre as the trailers for the genre can be only that interesting to see, they're not flashy or anything.
Also doesn't help that the good games are exclusive to handhelds with limited audience.
I think it's very hard to evolve the dRPG genre itself without it becoming something else, I feel like. dRPG games could be "evolved" to Action(Ys), Exploration(Souls), Turn-Based RPG(FF) but then it wouldn't dRPG anymore.
Etrian Odyssey is best effort in the genre and I'm holding my hands they bring the series to the Switch, maybe with 3D models like in Mystery Dungeon but 3rd person, you would see your party members and fights would turn to sprite vs. enemy 3d models like usual, maybe have some flashy specials that use your characters 3D model too. 3D models could be used in more creative ways of exploring the dungeon - and this goes back to the issue I had before in this post, is the game dRPG at this point or just turn-based JRPG?
I don't know, maybe it needs to be first person and you cannot evolve the genre from that without breaking it roots.

 

[Strings]

Etrian Odyssey is best effort in the genre and I'm holding my hands they bring the series to the Switch,

I'm curious if they'll go with a new IP or just re-purpose EO for their Switch DRPG series, seeing as mapping out the dungeon yourself was their original 'thing'.

 

[Sarek]

I really really wish we have a Legends of Grimrock 3. My fav type of dungeon crawler so far, cool combat and amazing exploration.

LoG was completely ruined by the combat for me. Faux real-time combat limited with limited movement was just unbearable.

 

[Gattsu25]

I made a thread asking why SRPGs aren't very popular but people addressed that DRPGs are the least popular of the bunch in the RPG subgenres.

With that said, we've seen some cult hits like Etrian Odyssey, Wizardry games, Experience Inc. games like Demon Gaze, but they never seem to attain a decent amount of popularity nor are they frequently talked about when discussing the RPGs (from what I've observed). That said, what makes the DRPG subgenre not so attractive to the market or to even you?

Adding to that, how can developers evolve the dungeon RPG subgenre to make it more attractive and interesting for others to check it out? Do you believe that the DRPG genre has evolved in many ways from the start that it doesn't need to evolve or do you believe an overhaul can make it a much better experience for others?

They can be evolved by taking a look at Wizardry 8 and trying some of those changes.

These games are stunted and can't move past Wizardry 6 feature-wise. I loved Wizardry back in the day but I when Wizardry evolved I welcomed it.

Most people can only play a repackaged Wizardry 6 so many times.

 

[duckroll]

There's nothing to evolve really. The only way to make Dungeon RPGs popular is to strip away the RPG and dungeon parts of it, replace it with random generation and loot pinatas, and call it Diablo or Torchlight. Those are popular because they're easy to play and almost never "end" for those chasing the perfect loot.

Proper Dungeon RPGs are largely meant to be play once affairs which are a test off patience and tenacity, and appeals most to those who like creating their own parties, customizing skills, and then progressing through mazey but similar looking locales via trial and error, and some careful observation.

 

[Lork]

Grids make a defined board when dealing with on field puzzles and enemies. You can easily see how far you are from, say, a rampaging boss, how far it can move, and where you need to move to avoid it. It's more like board games of old than an actual representation of a place.

I suppose, but if that's what these games are truly about, there are better ways of representing that information than a first person view. It seems like a very awkward compromise between trying to make a "board game" and an "immersive experience" that doesn't really accomplish either to the fullest extent. If the grid based map is the most important part, is the first person view absolutely necessary? I think these games might make more sense to me if they found a more fitting way to present themselves.

 

[Quasar]

I assumed the issue was people no longer care for turn based combat, doubly so with a first person game.

 

[duckroll]

I suppose, but if that's what these games are truly about, there are better ways of representing that information than a first person view. It seems like a very awkward compromise between trying to make a "board game" and an "immersive experience" that doesn't really accomplish either to the fullest extent. If the grid based map is the most important part, is the first person view absolutely necessary? I think these games might make more sense to me if they found a more fitting way to present themselves.

There are two main reasons why Etrian Odyssey games are presented as such:

a) mimicking old dungeon rpgs done in this style was nostalgic and fit well within the limited hardware specs of the DS system back then

b) it makes the technical ruleset simpler to implement and keeps development costs down

 

[120v]

i always thought any RPG that wasn't super narrative driven, like say Souls or Diablo, is more or less an evolution of the formula. and of course traditional dungeon crawlers are still alive and well in the niche market

if you really want to get into the weeds the genre reached its zenith with Ultima Underworld and that evolved into "immersive sims" like bioshock, dishonored, ect. should be interesting to see how that Underworld kickstarter turns out

 

[Nachos]

3. Better production values, or, what Persona Q did. Game looked and sounded ace. It was otherwise just okay, but it was real nice playing a DRPG that didn't feel so aggressively budget.

I agree with pretty much your entire post, but Q didn't sound that great. The audio quality of the voice acting was really bad, and for some reason, it got noticeably worse in battles compared to during the story scenes. Still, it's got the highest production values of any game using an Etrian engine, and I wish it weren't such an outlier on that front.

 

[MoonFrog]

IDK, I just tried EOIV last year on a whim and loved it. I loved the party-play and the mapping. But I love turned-based and party-based battle systems and so many leave something to be desired with respect to character roles and party play, so EO really hit the spot.

It was such a fun battle system and I am really looking forward to the localization of EOV.

...

I would love to see a cooler setting and core story premise. But I don't think that brings people in. Presentation that makes a setting or story seem cool might (whether or not it is) .

 

[Tarextherex]

I only played EOIV and while it's very much a budget game it does a lot of things right to hook the player by being much more than a monotonous grind(the main turnoff people have). On top of the gameplay/balance being top notch, you got several other interesting aspects. There is an overworld, it is basically a dungeon itself with many sub-dungeons. There is a day/night system. There's a good quest system. The dungeons have points of interest linked to the quests(btw map drawing/marking is great). There's minimal story but the storytelling is actually great, like it's text based but it has that novel-like prose. Great UI/art overall(the only "disgusting" design is the dancer girl smh). Amazing music.

Basically people expect DRPGs to be simply grinding through dungeons with a bunch of floors while lacking in everything else that traditional RPGs have. You want your game to give you more than the player expects.

 

[ULTROS!]

Here's some that I can think of that can be added:

1. Make the perspective 3rd person but in a fixed camera. Think of like what you see traditional DRPGs, only you see the party's backs.

2. Allowing auto-battle or placing in something like FFXII's gambit system.

3. Fast paced battle or allowing 2x/4x speed.

Not sure if other DRPGs have done these.

 

[Acorn]

Do action rpgs like diablo count?

 

[spiritfox]

Here's some that I can think of that can be added:

1. Make the perspective 3rd person but in a fixed camera. Think of like what you see traditional DRPGs, only you see the party's backs.

2. Allowing auto-battle or placing in something like FFXII's gambit system.

3. Fast paced battle or allowing 2x/4x speed.

Not sure if other DRPGs have done these.

Autobattles and speedups have already been done for many games.

 

[HeeHo]

I secretly support Etrian Odyssey (keep buying them!) even though I have only played and beat EO1. I really like these types of games actually. They do kind of stress me out, but they get right to the point with the combat and exploration, which I appreciate.

Maybe what the genre needs to be noticed again is either a dungeon rpg with a significantly updated presentation, or the inclusion of some more modern elements. Maybe something like the Souls games where your experience gets left on the ground if you die and like someone else sarcastically posted, adding rogue-lite elements.

 

[ULTROS!]

Autobattles and speedups have already been done for many games.

Ah yes, I remember Demon Gaze having those two, but it doesn't help since the battles aren't particularly easy. I guess setting the difficulties to Ray Gigant style would help? I know that's one of the easier (if not, considered as baby's first) DRPG.

 

[redcrayon]

I assumed the issue was people no longer care for turn based combat, doubly so with a first person game.

Turn based combat is still popular enough in RPGs and strategy games in general, so I don't think it's necessarily the reason why Wizardry-style dungeon crawls aren't more popular in comparison to those.

I think it's down to the games using relatively simple visuals and tilesets, focusing entirely on the mechanics. They pretty much invite the player to create the characters and story in their head, which is great for old-school tabletop roleplayers like me who prefer to create their own guild of adventurers rather than lead the developers creation of 'thrandor the grumpy guy' and could happily talk about the relationships and exploits of the party that only exists in their head, less so for people who want more direction and (perfectly reasonably!) want that stuff included. Seeing as narrative, game characters and visuals are often discussed here, I'd say they are widely desired and the relative simplicity of them in drpgs works against them even amongst some players that should be their core user base.

RPGS are one of the more popular genres of computer games, but ultimately just because players like what most computer game rpgs have become to attract them (and I love them too), doesn't mean they are also in love with the trappings, heritage and imagination required of the tabletop games that set Wizardry down a different path.

Aside from budget, I think there's also a bit of a strict idea of what such games should be in the development stage, risk is hard to manage when you only sell a few thousand copies and moving away from the template might make your only core customers ignore it as that's presumably what they want.

Having said all that, I enjoyed Stranger of Sword City at least as much as the EO games. Cool art and a barebones story that at least offered something different from the usual 'great evil at the bottom of the dungeon'.