edit: Nvm, both have save anywhere, thats probably what you meant.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Western RPGs are casual as hell.
- Thread starter GayForMaster
- Start date
edit: Nvm, both have save anywhere, thats probably what you meant.
partyphone
Banned
That mode shames your family for 3 generations. : (
Meicyn
Member
No, I mean an absurdly easy mode. We're talking Bayonetta very easy mode. Seriously, you'd be surprised at how bad some people are at games.
AcceptableGhost
Member
Ninja Gaiden Black handles this elegantly too. If you do miserably (die many times in a row on the first chapter) it will prompt you to reset the game on Ninja Dog. Now what is great about Ninja Dog is that the entire time it is hinting that this is not the proper mode to be playing on (you wear a ribbon the entire time, the mode is called NINJA DOG, etc) trying to urge you to eventually progress onto a higher difficulty upon completion. Now I would still argue that this is kind of bad because at the end of the day it allows the player to play in a sub-optimal difficulty, but is still better than usual.
Bayonetta/Vanquish/etc very easy mode are worthless and really should not exist. They don't even exist on the difficulty curve - they are a flat line. There is no progressing from very easy to normal.
More Fun To Compute
Member
It's not totally wrong to say that what are called western rpgs these days are as casual as hell but it wasn't always that way and how they got here is the story of PC game development as a whole.
Originally when the Japanese started creating RPGs for their domestic market they were just copies of western games. But they were so worried that their market would not understand or tolerate the difficulty and complexity of the games that they simplified them to core concepts and made them more story book in nature. They were not wrong to do this. When they started to refine and export these games back over to the west these games found a much larger and more enthusiastic young audience than the hardcore titles.
And in turn when PC and other computer game developers switched over to console development with the playstation and had to compete more directly against these multimedia titles they had to beat the Japanese at their own simplification game. To this day the main development strategy of most western developers is aggressive simplification of gameplay and media content to attract larger audiences.
But in terms of the RPG as a concept there was another trend that was outside the computer gaming industry. Originally role playing games were seen as a type of war game with dungeons & dragons being very successful due to it being a very nerdy and combat heavy game. Which leads in translation to computer games to developers making hardcore combat simulation games with adventures. But one thing changed all this. Women. In order to broaden the appeal of video games outside nerdy war gaming men the story telling and play acting elements of the RPG were played up in importance.
Games were made about vampires who talk their way out of problems and people acted like a game where you could just pretend to be someone and not have to do any boring dice roles or game play was the ideal form of role playing game. LARPING became a thing. At the same time in computer games the idea of immersion became a thing. So the direction of the western role playing game became shifted in the direction of being an immersive LARP session where any form of "dice rolling" or consequence for making a bad decision was seen as being wholly regressive.
But it's not clear that moving away from combat is either the recipe for success or something that appeals to women especially. Combat heavy games like World of Warcraft and DotA are very popular.
Originally when the Japanese started creating RPGs for their domestic market they were just copies of western games. But they were so worried that their market would not understand or tolerate the difficulty and complexity of the games that they simplified them to core concepts and made them more story book in nature. They were not wrong to do this. When they started to refine and export these games back over to the west these games found a much larger and more enthusiastic young audience than the hardcore titles.
And in turn when PC and other computer game developers switched over to console development with the playstation and had to compete more directly against these multimedia titles they had to beat the Japanese at their own simplification game. To this day the main development strategy of most western developers is aggressive simplification of gameplay and media content to attract larger audiences.
But in terms of the RPG as a concept there was another trend that was outside the computer gaming industry. Originally role playing games were seen as a type of war game with dungeons & dragons being very successful due to it being a very nerdy and combat heavy game. Which leads in translation to computer games to developers making hardcore combat simulation games with adventures. But one thing changed all this. Women. In order to broaden the appeal of video games outside nerdy war gaming men the story telling and play acting elements of the RPG were played up in importance.
Games were made about vampires who talk their way out of problems and people acted like a game where you could just pretend to be someone and not have to do any boring dice roles or game play was the ideal form of role playing game. LARPING became a thing. At the same time in computer games the idea of immersion became a thing. So the direction of the western role playing game became shifted in the direction of being an immersive LARP session where any form of "dice rolling" or consequence for making a bad decision was seen as being wholly regressive.
But it's not clear that moving away from combat is either the recipe for success or something that appeals to women especially. Combat heavy games like World of Warcraft and DotA are very popular.
Meicyn
Member
Who said anything about progression? It lets an individual play through the game, if that is all that individual desires. Not everyone plays their games for a challenge.
It sounds to me like you're a bit too invested in how other people play their video games.
AlimNassor
Banned
Ninja Dog wasn't that easy. I still had a hard time on many bosses. Alma made me bust a few controllers.
Manmademan
Member
0/10 for that troll attempt. at least put some effort in.
AcceptableGhost
Member
If you aren't there for the challenge that the combat in Bayonetta provides why are you there at all? Why not just watch the game on Youtube or something instead of going through and one shotting enemies. Appealing to content tourism leads to lazy games.
Manmademan
Member
not sure I agree. some genres (GH/Rockband, and Fighters specifically) get the opposite complaint more often than not- that they're not hard ENOUGH, and difficulty of songs or AI needs to be bumped up. This results in high end play being way, way out of reach for the casual gamer in both.
partyphone
Banned
Great. Thanks. I just hurt my eyes because I rolled them so hard. I hope you're happy.
High end play is out of reach for casuals in every genre. It hasn't changed the fact that these genres have been made easier over the years and yes that does include stuff like fighters and strategy games.
Also some what relevant to the whole difficulty setting discussion:
Your argument is laughable, I just said I look forward to challenges thrown at me, but it has to be proper and legitimate. Why is why I'm not willing to force myself to enjoy any videogame with artificial difficulties when I know for a fact the game was not built to play like that by its creators.
Its the job of the designers to design a challenge for me which I will intend to overcome. Sounds to me like its you who is afraid of seeing more games built around genuine challenge. Limiting yourself from health portions the devs have given you is a shitty, non-immersive way to play games.
Manmademan
Member
High end play is out of reach for casuals in every genre. It hasn't changed the fact that these genres have been made easier over the years and yes that does include stuff like fighters and strategy games.
Also some what relevant to the whole difficulty setting discussion:
I don't agree with this at all. Tekken Tag Tournament 2 is MUCH more difficult than Tekken 1, 2, or 3, and Rockband 3 is MUCH more difficult than Guitar Hero 1 or 2 were.
you can even go further back- is street fighter II a harder or more "hardcore" game than street fighter IV:AE? hell no.
both genres have hit a point where it simply isn't feasible to make them any more difficult to play, lest they only end up selling copies to the professional or tournament crowd. Rockband has the advantage of niche bands being able to self publish some absolutely impossible tracks through RBN that demonstrates this point as well.
Those who flip the save anywhere complaints into a self control issue are hilariously fronting by saying that they are completely above playing a game in the way the game's rules suggest.
I guarantee we would be hearing a different tune from them if their preferred save structure was less the norm and every game made them go out of their way and enter cheats or some shit to enable it.
I guarantee we would be hearing a different tune from them if their preferred save structure was less the norm and every game made them go out of their way and enter cheats or some shit to enable it.
Who the hell cares how a game is intended to be played? I paid for it and will derive enjoyment from it in anyway I see fit. That includes everything from save scumming to self imposed rules. I control my experience in the end.
Yes and I can respect that, but one side wants an optional feature disabled because they lack self control or have their own hang ups/ideals, at the expense of other gamers convenience. I simply don't understand this mentality. If you don't like quick saving, stop using it. The fact that people complain about it just seems irrational to me.
Meicyn
Member
Like I said, it sounds to me like you're a bit too invested in how other people play their video games. Why do you need a reason? What difference does it make why someone is playing Bayonetta on very easy mode? It's their money. It's their game. Their experience doesn't affect yours in the slightest.
Also, your last sentence is reinforced by absolutely nothing. Pretty sure having a very easy mode in Street Fighter 2 didn't make it a "lazy game". Same goes for Bayonetta.
Either works!
No, it doesn't. I mean, if we really want to argue in this manner, I can utilize similar logic and claim that making your game too difficult by not having a user-selectable super easy mode prevents a nice chunk of your audience from experiencing the entire product, and undermines all of the work put into the artwork, music, story, characters, graphics, and so forth.
Oh please. I've played all sorts of challenging games from Dark Souls to Baldur's Gate 2 to The Last Ninja on the Commodore 64. Hell, I logged a ridiculous number of hours on oldschool MMOs like FFXI and Everquest. My belief that there's nothing wrong with having easy modes available or having the ability to control where you save your game does not somehow equate to a fear of playing challenging games.
Not really. We're simply saying that the user is empowered.
The mere suggestion that you don't have to eat those donuts sitting on the table doesn't mean I'm a better person than you, or that I'm not going to eat them. I may be on a diet. Maybe I'm not. But it really doesn't matter. If you're on a diet, then don't eat them. If you do, then the problem is you.
Not only that, but the games are designed around the use of such features. Sure I could decide not to use fast travel, but that doesn't magically bring silt striders back so I can travel between towns somewhat quickly. Then I have to modify the rules so I only fast travel from town to town and drop some money on the ground to simulate the act of buying passage and fuck it I'll just fast travel.
Jake Tower
Banned
Some posts in this thread should be read in Whiskey Nerd's voice.
I'll let you decide which.
I'll let you decide which.
Seeing criticism about quicksaving (clarification: this is not suspend saving) as "we want to take existing games with quicksaving and remove that option from them" is misunderstanding things. That would be looking at a single element of the game's design in isolation. In most cases, a game with the ability to quicksave and quickload freely has been built around those abilities. I can't think of a reason to want most of these games to have these options removed because what would be left? A shitty autosave structure that nobody enjoys the pacing of.
Instead, I think it's safe to say that those who criticize quicksave games would be fine with games that work well with limited saving (please note: this has nothing at all to do with developer intent), with the ability to save anywhere being an extra concession like an easy mode. And they would like some way of knowing that limited saving is a reasonable option up front! Some transparency. This is a huge deal! Hard Reset does all of this excellently by having quicksaves accessible via cheats. Surely nobody has a problem with that, right?
To find out whether the room would be better or worse without the donuts we would need to consider how the donuts fit into the rest of the world. Regardless of what the developers put the donuts in there for. Maybe donuts would look silly sitting on a table in some room in darkside Silent Hill. Hardcore donut fans could always enter a cheat to make the donuts visible, I figure.
Instead, I think it's safe to say that those who criticize quicksave games would be fine with games that work well with limited saving (please note: this has nothing at all to do with developer intent), with the ability to save anywhere being an extra concession like an easy mode. And they would like some way of knowing that limited saving is a reasonable option up front! Some transparency. This is a huge deal! Hard Reset does all of this excellently by having quicksaves accessible via cheats. Surely nobody has a problem with that, right?
Parn said:
To find out whether the room would be better or worse without the donuts we would need to consider how the donuts fit into the rest of the world. Regardless of what the developers put the donuts in there for. Maybe donuts would look silly sitting on a table in some room in darkside Silent Hill. Hardcore donut fans could always enter a cheat to make the donuts visible, I figure.
It doesn't though. To argue this is to encourage content tourism. Difficulty and structure are part of the game as much as anything else you listed. Things shouldn't be looked at in isolation.
You're not empowered if you have to artificially restrict yourself to not ruin the game instead of fully utilizing the options that the developer has given you.
Not Spaceghost
Spaceghost
Yeah this is so fucking true, limiting yourself to only using certain features in a game is like putting a really big band aid on a bullet wound. It might look like it is helping but it's really you're just trying to pretend the problem isn't there.
not having save points/quicksave option is archaic game design. It works for some games, sure, but in general you want to avoid any situation that could lead to the player losing hours of progress because more often then not it's just frustrating and unnecessary. And as you get older you value your own time more and are less likely to put up with bullshit design decisions. This is especially true for roleplaying games that usually take 30+ hours to complete.
Fuck difficulty settings! That shit is casual! How can we trust people not to just pick easy. It should be impossible or nothing! If people don't like it, they can just get better at the game.
In fact, fuck choosing a class! People could pick a class that makes the game easier, and we want them to experience the truly hardcore experience. The game is balanced for one class, and players should play the game the way we designed it.
why not just balance all the classes instead of being lazy and bad at your job, Mr. Developer
I can't imagine I'd have as much fun in a game like Fallout without quicksaves. It's definitely the way to go with some games. Especially if the game has random elements prohibiting you from replicating the exact same conditions after dying. I recall playing Skyrim and forgetting to save. I did a dungeon, found a useful weapon in a treasure chest, and died while fighting a dragon. My last save was very far back. A different weapon was in the treasure chest this time and the dragon wasn't there. That's no fun.
Ya the combat is the worst part about skyrim. I wish it had mount and blade style combat.
This is pretty similar to my take on save structure. People talking about quicksaves in games like Skyrim are, in my opinion, misidentifying what's causing the problem. Saying that the save is the root cause of a problem with, say, being able to reload and keep attempting to pick a lock or successfully steal an object should instead be asking themselves why in a game with save anywhere success or failure is based on chance to facilitate that process at all. If the player would instead need some kind of opportunity cost to perform the action at all (i.e. skills or perks) and failure/success is unaffected by any number of attempts, the issue is resolved without affecting the rest of the game.
In a game like this, there isn't actually much value in leveraging progress as a penalty for failure/death. There's nothing to be gained by making a player repeatedly attempt to, say, kill a room of enemies that he already defeated to get to whatever killed him after that, because you're already going to ask them to overcome the exact same challenge many times over in content that they have yet to get to. In a different kind of game, like a FPS, the whole point is that most of your "important" content is unique and serves as sort of a skill check that tells you the player has learned whatever you needed them to learn so that they can actually complete the content that exists on the other side of that wall. You do want them to have to do this content until they can get it "right" because you generally need to know they can do so for the purpose of being able to create even harder or more complex content afterwards.
This isn't the kind of assumption that serves you very well in a huge, open world game like a lot of "WRPGs" and why the "save anywhere" system has persisted for so long within them. Any time you get to make a design assumption where you'd need a player to learn some particular thing from an individual setpiece implies that you know they're going to need that skill or knowledge after and not before it happens, which is the kind of assumption they're trying to avoid creating out of necessity since non-linear progression is a large selling point to the type of game they're creating. Obviously they still need to use this in all kinds of ways, but it becomes employed in micro situations rather than your entire line of progression and thus generally exists outside of teaching within systems that you employ nearly everywhere.
Dark Souls is often brought up a lot, and for good reason; it's one of the best cases for looking at how your design focus is what drives your save system out of necessity and it absolutely cannot happen the other way around without compromising the quality of your content. Thinking that a game like this is some kind of example of how a very different game such as Skyrim should not employ the ability to save anywhere is to very much misunderstand the entire question of how to implement your save structure.
Games at their core are designed with difficulties in mind. The combat mechanics, and the map, the mobs, etc everything has values and ideas that dictate a certain difficulty.
Yeah, you can just simply ignore fast travel, but that alone won't help, since you're got a compass telling you exactly where to go all the time. Okay disable that, but now there is simply not enough information on where to go and what to do because the Developers designed the game with the thought in mind that players will use fast travel + radar, so they simply didn't bother to put in the work in the subtexts with supporting information.
This is just one example out of many.
I think instead of getting ALL games to appeal to easy crowd and hardcore crowd, developers should just specialize and pick a mentality to satisfy. Bethesda doesn't have to make Elder Scrolls hardcore again, they can stick with the casual gameplay, but it would be nice to see more companies producing new franchises like Dark Souls.
fatgamecat
Member
After looking into that boss, it's not as complex or difficult as Satan in SMT: DDS2.
Sure you can try to restrict yourself in a game, but as people have already pointed out, there are many issues with doing so. Difficulty modes like ironman, no quicksaves, or no quick travel are more functional when coded and balanced by the developer, rather than a band-aid salvage attempt by the player for a game that was never designed or tested for those things.
It's ultimately the developer's responsibility to adjust their game's balance and difficulty or add difficulty modes that appeal to a wider range of player skill. In practice that typically means Easy and Normal mode and no Hard, since so few players care for it. Or Hard ends up being not particularly difficult, or easily broken by the player, etc. It takes a lot of time and effort to craft a challenging skill based RPG, so Hard modes or Ironman modes and such are usually the first thing to go.
I thought I was pretty good at rpgs, having grown up on JRPGs and played modern wrpgs. I was so wrong lol. Booted up Baldur's Gate 2 and felt completely overwhelmed had no idea what I was doing. Still going to hop back on later after I give the manual a once over.
Oh noes you can save anywhere, no sudden death attack that destroys hours of play, no useless backtracking when the only save point is miles away, no useless save related items.
Instead you can only save whenever you want, such limitation.
I feel like people mistake bullshit design for difficulty.
Instead you can only save whenever you want, such limitation.
I feel like people mistake bullshit design for difficulty.
Everytime I see this thread have grown by one more page, I die a little inside.
Why is a saving system so important to you? Most games I played, ever, let you play whenever you want. In fact, I hate it when games don't let me do it - I mean, if I want to go piss or quit the game, I should be goddamn able to!
Also, why the fuck are people still using "casual" as a derogatory term? Are we back in 2006 and I didn't notice?
Why is a saving system so important to you? Most games I played, ever, let you play whenever you want. In fact, I hate it when games don't let me do it - I mean, if I want to go piss or quit the game, I should be goddamn able to!
Also, why the fuck are people still using "casual" as a derogatory term? Are we back in 2006 and I didn't notice?
This absolutely drives me insane. It ruins any sense of progression in my opinion. Why would I still be struggling against bandits that I was able to kill when I was weak when I have became so much stronger. I really hate games that do this.
I fail to see how it is "stupid". If you dont have the self control to follow it through, and weren't enjoying it, why would you start in the first place?
I am not saying all games should be like this. But what I am saying is that games which allow the player freedoms to make these choices are not inherently bad.
Meicyn
Member
A fair argument. But I still contend as an example, that Itagaki could have added an absurdly easy mode to Ninja Gaiden Black ala Bayonetta's very easy difficulty, and the game's quality would still be fully intact. Both easy and hardcore players would have been satisfied.
Reminds me of the Dark Souls easy mode debate. An easy mode would be missing the point of the experience... but I don't see the problem with having one as an option, since anyone who's in it for the challenge and experience can play as intended, and scrubs could have their easy mode.
It wouldn't. The mere existence of a lower quality difficulty lowers the game's collective quality.
Are you encouraging developers to make games that are worse?
Meicyn
Member
How is the game worse? The rest of the game's content is exactly the same. The only difference is the existence of an easy mode that you never have to play.
Collective quality. As long as it exists, the game is worse.
i was looking at it in my backlog after reading op thinking " well that's never getting played."
Manmademan
Member
no it doesnt, this is silly. skill based games (going back to fighters and music games, again) NEED lower difficulty levels to teach new players the game mechanics.
you can argue whether or not ALL games need a difficulty slider (most jrpgs don't), but saying that just the existence of a difficulty select lowers quality across the board is incorrect.
That doesn't refute anything I'm saying. I said lower quality, not lower difficulty. At some point, the difficulty bar goes so low that nothing is being taught.
I have no issue with Ninja Dog, but Bayonetta is definitely worse with the braindead easy mode it has.
Yeah man I totally feel like my day is ruined when I see a handicap ramp. Fucking casuals.
Edit: Extreme reach, but it's kind of the same point. Just because something exists doesn't degrade the quality of your experience if you don't use it. Some people are really terrible at games and don't want to bother with difficult encounters and just want to experience the story.