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.
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:
I know. It would be better.
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:
