This Forum has been archived

Visit Discussions
Forums: Index > Game Discussion > Your ideal RPG?
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2001 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.

So I was bored and was looking for a good RPG to play and then I thought how all the RPGs I've played felt kinda empty (KOTOR, DA:Origins non included) so after that I went to thinking why... Then I saw how everyone sees RPGs differently (At least from what I've seen).

Some people think it is all about the loot drops and stats (Which in my opinion has nothing to do with RPG) So I would like to hear what you think would be the IDEAL RPG for you?

For me it would be something like...

No Karma system.

Good, Bad. Ok? Now that system is BROKEN. The evil choices rarely ever make sense and as an evil person myself I find them offending! As an example you get a quest to save a cat from a tree. Good character saves it, asks for no reward. Logical yeah. An evil character would kill it then still ask for money. Why can't there be more choices for evil? As in. Save the cat and keep it hostage and ask for 200% more money, then once you get the money you kill the cat in front of the person and leave. Now THATS evil.

As for an indicator to your evil. No stupid bar. A color wheel would do better with something like Chaotic Evil, Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil etc(Correct me if I got those wrong). That would work as a much better indicator of who you are instead of evil or good, since there are many types of both evil and good.

Game Focus.

Combat? HAH As if. My ideal RPG would be all about the choices you make and conversations. I don't mind if the game is 99.9% choices and conversations and 0.01% combat. Heck I don't even care if combat is in the game if the ROLEPLAYING aspect of the game is great. Most games miss this point. DA: Origins kind of hit my sweet spot. The conversation choices weren't very clear on whether they were evil or good and you know what? I liked that. I like choosing what I personally think is the best choice. Because the lets be honest. In Mass Effect almost everyone only clicks evil or good so they get max evil or good points. Same thing happened to me in DA2 and that was partly why the game felt kinda empty and soulless to me. Oh and the choices would also be meaningless if they had no effect on the game. So in my ideal RPG the choices would make all the difference. Although I bet this would be a very hard game to make and take years... Yeah it would be worth it though.


No good/evil karma.

Alignment system (Chaotic Evil, Neutral Evil, Lawful Evil)

No karma bar. If you must have an indicator. Use a color wheel or something.

Focus on conversations and choices.

Sorry 'bout the wall of text I have here (Which is why I added a summary). Tried to organise it as much as I can but I failed. So anyways, What would your ideal RPG be? I would really like to see what other people want in their RolePlaying games.

PS: I know I included DA2 in here and said some bad things about it. And from what I have seen that usually starts a flame war or the like. So please don't do that.

--BLazerules (talk) 14:39, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Considering your username is BLazerules, I find your last sentence to be ironic. Anywho, I'm not opposed to a karma system on principle, just every way I've ever seen it implemented. It would be great if you weren't reminded all the time of where your karma was (ie with a "bar" or appearance change.) Instead, i'd like to see some NPC's reactions to the character altering slightly depending on karmic alignment, and have some alternate quests and endings to the game based on karma. Again, the game doesn't just tell you your karmic alignment, so you wouldn't be sure which quests were specific to a certain alignment until after you had gone through and replayed them from a different side of the coin. Middle of the road quests and rewards would be nice to, as it usually only the left and right wing karmic nutters that get anything good out of it. Hm... I suppose while I'm at it I should ask EA to give out kittens to children... ----Isolationistmagi 14:49, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

My name being ironic. Yeah I guess it is. I have been using that username for like 11 years so I was like what? 6 when I made it? Yeah, I am just so used to it by now that I just keep using it.

Just as you said about the Karmic system. Yeah I dislike it very much too. I would love if it didn't throw the whole +10 Good! or +10 Bad! In my face every time after a conversation. Which is also why I would like the conversation system to be sort of like in Origins, you know. It doesn't tell you if what you are saying is good OR bad.

As for the bar that indicates if you are good or evil. Yeah replace it with a Color wheel thing and keep it under the hood. Something NPCs will use to react to you. Maybe if you are a Chaotic Evil character a Lawful Good character wont be very pleased to speak to you to say the least. And you probably wouldn't have a good time talking to a Lawful Evil character either.

Alternative quests, rewards mid game all effected by the choices you do in the game... Ah... If someone makes such a game. I will donate 5,000 euro to them. And I probably wont be the only one.

Sadly EA would never make a decision that makes sense so I guess on an alignment wheel they would be considered Insanely Stupid. Something no other character can possibly be. --BLazerules (talk) 14:57, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

I also dislike karma systems strongly, but I do like reputation systems. New Vegas is a good example of this and is something that could easily be adapted for Dragon Age. If, for example, I treat mages like dirt, that could be recognised and any mages I interact with could say something along the lines of, "Wait...I know you. You're the one who killed those enchanters!" And thus it would be more difficult to interact with mages or get them to help me out. Adversely, if I say, helped the carta, they could show their thanks by giving us access to a safe house or supplying us with jobs like Athenril or Mistress Selby.

I think that combat should be a part of the game, but it needs to be balanced well, and I do enjoy conversational plot movement to fighting all the time. DA:O did this pretty well, but DA II was too hack n' slash IMO with far too much combat (there were also very few non-combative methods of problem-solving in DA II). I'd also like to see different ways to approach the game (e.g., in a combat-heavy fashion, using subterfuge, gaining political influence and allies), and if the recent leak we've seen proves to be true, it could be the case that we may indeed be able to experience that.

Choices are also very important to me, but I don't think either game handled them particularly well. Origins created a very convincing illusion of choice, but we saw at most cosmetic changes or varying epilogue slides. DA II didn't even try to create that illusion. What I'd like to see in the future is choices which we see the impact of in-game, which alters the narrative and creates a truly branching story. Chantry symbol King Cousland | Talk   16:12, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Just on the issue of choices and branching stories, it'd be great if they managed to do a little better than the customary stark, binary options. Origins got away with simple dichotomy by virtue of it being necessary to the Warden's mission (and therefore plot). However, forcing Hawke to side with Mages OR Templars lacked much justification other than a cheap "you're the Champion, you have to help"; and even then, most Champions would have tried to fix the situation as a first preferance. I did just make this point in another thread, but I think it's also pertinent here so apologies for repeating myself. --Duranic (talk) 16:31, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. As many others before me have said, one of DA II's problems was that Hawke had no real drive or purpose, no goal to work towards beyond becoming wealthy, which they accomplished in the first act. Hawke was very passive and inactive IMHO, little more than a vocal bystander, while The Warden was always working towards something. Chantry symbol King Cousland | Talk   17:23, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

A perfect RPG to me has to be primary story / character interaction drive (why is why I love the Dragon age Series).

Or it has to give me a clean slate and a great world to make my own story in (that’s why I love the Elder scrolls).

That being said, while combat in not the first thing, it’s always welcome if it’s not at the expense of the two things above.

So if Skyrim and or Dragon Age felt like instantly improving their games, I’d say take combat and part intelligences from Dragon’s Dogma, and you are getting quite epic.

Hell, if they can combine the story and character interactions of Dragon Age, the open world interaction and exploration of Skyrim, and the combat of Dragons Dogma, you will have the perfect RPG.

And just to through something else into the mix. If you can have city population, graphics and character avatar movements like Assassins Creed added, you have not only the perfect RPG, but perhaps the Perfect Game.

As far as class and leveling, either skyrim or dragon age would work for me. if its party based, dragon age would work better.

and some type of karma system would be welcome. dragon age or fallout new vegas or a combination of such would work. Erinvecna (talk) 18:07, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you King Cousland. A reputation system would work and make a lot of sense (Not to mention make it more realistic. I doubt Templars for example would like you if you always sided with mages and killed templars. Yet they never seem to care.) although I would like it if characters interacted with the player with the help of 2 different things. The reputation and the alignment. The reputation would obviously have a greater effect than alignment since they could say something like "You set the orphanage on fire then demanded money to save it, but you always help us so I guess you aren't that bad" or something along those lines.

Well yeah the combat should be in the game. But after what they did in DA2. I am extremely sick of combat... Just when you think you killed them all, even more warp in out of nowhere. That was the main reason I didn't want to replay the game. And the only reason I even passed it once is because I used the kill all command. And even with that it was unbearable for me. I dunno it might be just me though. And yeah I wish you could solve problems with either bashing their skulls or bashing their logic (talking to them). That would make it a great game.

As for the illusion of choice created in Origins. Yes, it was the greatest illusion of choice in any game I have played so far. That slideshow helped as well and left the rest to my imagination which was GREAT. Loved that. DA2 was suppose to have actual change in it but I didn't notice it at all. I think if they used the illusion of choice in DA2 it might have worked out better. But you know what would be the best option? Combining the illusion of choice along with real impact. Leaving your imagination to wander 50% and seeing how you impacted the world the other 50%. Seems like a well balanced thing to do.

As for Hawke having no real drive... Yeah, from my playthrough of DA2 I understood that Hawke is some failure who never manages to fix any situation and is just one of the random people standing there. And always getting the short end of the stick. I guess the main problem here is the over arching goal. I always had a sense of urgency that the darkspawn are closing in and I had to hurry up and gather my troops. I clearly knew what my goal was and felt like I was in the shoes of the character. As Hawke? Ehh first I needed some money? Then stop an invasion (Failed at that too. If all those guys attacking me in the streets joined the Guards then the invasion would have never even gotten close to damaging the city) then something about stopping the mages and templars from fighting? Which Hawke failed at as well. Heck the last 2 bosses felt like Bioware was just lazy. They could at least include choice. So lets see. I always helped the mages and managed to hold off the templars. What does the mage leader do? Resorts to blood magic and attacks me... Then the templar lady too... I help the templars and kill all the mages, even chose the templar class. What does the templar lady do? Attack me. Seriously why!? Such poorly justified reasons... In the end I just felt like I was playing as a failure.

--BLazerules (talk) 18:35, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Lets have a fusion between the East and West. In Japanese RPGs you get specific characters that look a specific way no matter what armor or weapons you equip. You fight in turn based battle, often during a screen transition to a new battle area. In Western RPGs you get to make your characters fromo scratch, equipment and armor make you look unique throughout the game, fighting is often real-time combat. So...Let me make my party with characters that change their appearance through the game as I loot, but keep the turn based fighting as seen in FFX, Lunar, Grandia (these are examples of a 'faster' style of turn based fighting). That would be sweeeeet. --Elshiro (talk) 23:24, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

As we already have an alignment system in place with AD&D games, I see no reason why DA has to do that as well. A person isn't "just" evil; sometimes you're bad, sometimes you're good, sometimes what you do has no impact. The reason D&D has alignment systems is mainly for clerics and paladins, and since most of Thedas is monotheistic, that's kind of a moot point. You won't have Fen'Harel expelling you from his clergy because you did something lawful.

As for turn-based... um, why? I played some FF games and I thought that was rather stupid. Enemies IRL will NOT wait for you as you do a limit break dance. -Gabriellesig 00:26, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Turn based represents a battle in slow motion, its not supposed to be a literal translation of a fight. Its how Dungeons and Dragons is played. Its similiar to how Dragon Age/Neverwinter Nights/Baldurs Gate/Icewind Dale are played via pausing. The idea is you give commands to each party member at the start of the round, the round is then played out based on initiative scores..--Elshiro (talk) 02:13, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm..... my ideal RPG? Let me think for a minute. Well first off, I would like intricate character customization for both appearance and gameplay. It would also be a massive open world game, heavily populated. Another thing I would like to see is a deep and well written story with plenty of player choice. then all it would need is a great arttyle, soundtrack, all that jazz, and it would be my dream RPG.

[The paragraph above this isn't me, it's an unsigned post from someone else.] Chiming in on the issue of a karma system, I also think they're mostly discredited as a consequence mechanic. Dragon Age's Approval/Friendship-Rivalry systems were both steps in the right direction but they still committed what I see as the mistake of including stat bonuses, rather than meaningful character development, as rewards for maxing out one end. While that kind of reward is present, the temptation will always be there for an apostate blood mage Hawke to support Fenris' rants against magic, or a fervently atheistic Warden to smile and nod at Leliana's "vison from the Maker" stories. I do like the idea of an approval/friendship mechanic, just not one that's tied to stat bonuses; the way I'd like to see it done would be to have companions' personalities subtly shift according how they feel about you/what you say to them. They could still ask you to help them with their companion quests, but with perhaps some form of "compensation quest" made available if you tell them you're too busy....this part is still a bit hazy in my mind, but I'm adamant that as long as there is some tangible, in-game profit for getting pally with your companions (even if it's just XP/loot from doing their quests) there will always be ulterior motives at play, which hampers the role-playing quality of the interactions. The "click to shag" romance system is a whole new kettle of mistaken fish, but something of a digression.

As for the reputation system, I like it in theory but it needs to be done properly or it just turns into a de facto karma system. So rather than a clumsy overall reputation, there could be a myriad of smaller reputations that interact and contribute to your overall in-game standing (so for example, Hawke could have a reputation among apostates, which is influenced by her interactions with them, with Circle Mages, with Templars, with other outlaws. The "Templar" reputation is in turn decided by Hawke's dealings with moderates, zealots, recruits, ranking officials, Meredith herself, etc.) This sort of system could be tricky to implement, but I see it as the ideal way to make sure one's reputation isn't simply clumped into a pseudo-karma "nice, nasty or neutral". --Duranic (talk) 07:52, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Fusion between JRPGs and RPGs? No, no, NO. I HATE turn based combat in RPGs. RTS games? Fair enough. RPGs? No, get out of my RPGs you horrible outdated combat system. Thats one of the main reasons I hate JRPGs.

Well the reason I am saying it is best to use an Alignment system is for 1 reason. Because the evil options in DA2 made no sense at all. At least to me. I am a very evil person to say the least, and what the "evil" Hawke did just looked like he was making fun of evil people. Mainly because you can do a lot eviler things but he does the least evil thing you can possibly do. + as long as there is such a stupid thing as a Karma system that only says you are good or bad. Karma systems will never work. You are either super bad or super good, cant be in the neutral since usually the games reward you for being very evil or very good. Same in DA2 if I remember correctly, you can't be neutral because you won't get any benefits for it. If there was an Alignment system it would make more sense AND there would be more dialogue choices. Which in my book. Is always a good thing.

Yeah the Approval and Rivalry systems bugged me a lot. Wish they didn't give you stat bonuses because you know what happens when you do that? Players MAX them all out to get the bonuses whether they like the character or not. And whether their character would do so according to the personality the player gave him. Which breaks the whole ROLEPLAY part of the GAME. And that is bad. As long as such a system didn't give stat bonuses but maybe a few more dialogue options and they would just talk differently with you. It would work fine.

As for the Reputation system. Yeah it has to be done right. If it is done wrong there could be trouble and it could ruin the game by a lot. For example. The devs are too lazy to interlink the "factions". So if you are like good buddies with blood mages the templars don't see you any differently. But if they were interlinked they would say something like "He is in league with the blood mages! GET HIM!". But this is Bioware we are talking about. They have been going downhill lately so I don't expect them to do anything good lately. Something so tricky to implement would probably take them 10 years and even then it would be horrible. Heh I guess my approval rating of Bioware has decreased to a dangerously low point. I guess Bioware should make a VERY good RPG game in order to raise my approval rating to 100 and give them some stat bonuses.

--BLazerules (talk) 11:27, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

In my ideal RPG I'd see:

1) Expanded version of D&D alingment system. The world is not about being good or bad but about what you do and how. For example you can be good but still either merciful or vengeful, faithful (as believe in common faith) atheist or even profane (you know, kill priests, desecrate graves just coz you hate Gods), honorable or tricky (killing a bad guy is usualy good but you can fight him in open or backstab, both is good but in different way), soft (cant really find better word) or cruel ( if you kill someone, you can choose how, is it painful or not, if something goes wrong, you may say sorry or laugh in the person's face) and any other slider that fits in to story like in DA2 your liking to mages or templars. Certainly I'd want those choices both in gameplay or conversations. For example, if you are merciful you could choose in combat to use dulled sword, so that people dont die and instead are jailed or smth, or you may use special weapon thats meant not only kill them but also make them suffer (salt coated katana?), something can be honorable but slightly evil and irrational: you challenge Archdemon to a duel instead of fighting in group, honorable but you put lives of innocents at risk if you fail, but even if you are vengeful and cruel, you may be not exactly evil person, you'd still do the right thing and for example be mean only to those who attack you while caring for friends. I'd see that possibly as multiple bars or sliders, so that you could check your character tendencies, choices you make affect multiple of them making it not as simple to know where your character's personality goes in the end. Effects on the gameplay would have to be seen in relations with your companions, each with different values and their own tendencies, basing on their trust their choices might be different in key events of the game. As for quests, I don't think limiting them to some certain alingments is a good idea, only when it makes sense that is, if companion doesnt like you, he wont ask for something for example but still i'd be more into letting everyone take any quest and just solve them in his own way and get changes in own character tendencies according to solution. Some solutions (or their efficiency) would demand specific alingments tho, like if you want to pray for God for help its better if you're not atheist or profane. Ending would be such that would fit to character's tendencies in a way that they would have to SATISFY the kind of character you played. If friends were more important for you than yourself, you may die but your friends will live happily, if you didnt, you may survive but some friends wouldnt (as such there should be hidden stat showing how much you care about each of them), that sort of thing. If you believed in God, you will get a chance to see him, if you were atheist, you'll see emptiness just as you expected (just a free thought here, could be done much better basing on the story).

2) Leveling system: characters have their own skill sets, some are mixed. You learn new things when it is the right time to, as friend or someone else trains you in that. You increase what you know after gaining experience but in all skill trees equaly (assume you got sword, magic and social skills, you get a point in everything in each level up so that all tactics are still viable throughout the game). Magic and weapon power would depend on your tendencies.

3) Quests: I'd be more into branching main quest with very little and short side quests. Your choices affect how you do main stuff and low number of side quests allow game developer to still have some control over how the plot progresses. The main quests would be similar no matter what character you play but solutions and results would differ depending how you do stuff. As side quests, I'd see them as additional goals to the main quest (like defeat enemy but do not resort to trickery! - defeating enemy with trickery finishes that quest but fails side one, no special reward in exp or gold but tendencies and people's reaction to you might and will, you also might get additional dialogue with companion who approves this choice that way). Other side quests could be more like - you know your friend feels bad, it would be good to buy him a gift, like a nice pendant for a girl or sword for a knight, whatever you'd find the friend's liking, or taking him somewhere nice - like his hometown, even if it means slight detour. Again, reward would be the friend might react differently in some cases but no exp or gold. Other quests would be filling personal needs - your good and merciful character might want to feel charitable, it would be a great idea to give 5 coins to each beggar you meet that day: effect - perhaps someday that begger will help you somehow...or not but your character will feel satisfied. To sum up - game would be mostly about main quest, side quests would have to be done at specific time and rewards would be spiritual rather than substantial, most of the time.

4) Combat: Combat is important, I'd be into controling main character and companins controled by AI (like ME), fighting similar to something like Dark Souls (you have to actualy swing sword and dodge, not just activate skills), possibly with cover based system if there is ranged combat. Bosses would be huge and scary, difficulty based on what you pick in main menu. I'd be very into demanding from player to mix tactics, sometimes you preffer to shot, sometimes magic, sometimes sword depending what you fight, often a mixture of everything. Basing on which companion you pick they'd be either tank, mage etc, each with their specific tactics and strenght (it wouldnt be balanced, some people are just better soldiers than others: assume you got powerful demon and normal soldier rookie, its obvious demon will almost always be stronger, thats just how it is, still it may be a bad idea to carry demon arround with you...) your hero would be more or less jack of all trades.

5) Setting: I'd preffer something mixed, like warhammer 40k or final fantasy series games. Swords and guns, magic and technology. There are little games about it.

6) Damn I wrote so much again.--Astenan (talk) 14:00, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

For leveling system I'd like something more Elder Scrollsy. I just don't like the idea of magically getting better at something for no reason whatsoever. Try playing this game: now the first thing you will probably say is "it is really unfinished" well yeah pre alpha the world wont even be a desert when its done. But the 2nd thing you will think is "god its hard" I like the idea this guy has. You are no hero and you aren't stronger than anyone. I like that. Although I guess thats a personal preference, you know. I simply hate the idea of being stronger than everyone JUST coz i am the hero or the chosen one like it just about any game. Heck Mount And Blade does the whole difficulty thing really well.

--BLazerules (talk) 14:26, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Mount and Blade allowed you to decide if you want to be hero or normal by adjusting damage modifier. It was a good idea and perhaps a way to go. Still it lacked storyline for me to consider it serious RPG. To me it was a nice action game with strategy and RPG elements. Also, it could be difficult to fit the deciding if you are hero or normal into the story and boss encounters. I suggest looking into Dark Souls, player character feels there a bit like a hero but still seems limited by being just a human. I think thats the best solution for the most RPGs (skiping the die and respawn idea and turning it to normal save system i suppose though).--Astenan (talk) 14:59, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Never said Mount and BLade was an RPG. To be honest its only RPG element was talking and that is it. And even if you could adjust the difficulty sliders. You could still be killed very easily. And yeah heard of Dark Souls. And Demons Souls. Never played the 2 though, Just never seem to find them in shops at all. Sad thing is most games need the character to be a hero because its easier to make stuff happen around the character than in other places without him. As in a dynamic world. Most RPGs do not have a dynamic world and use the excuse of "you are the hero" and thats why stuff happens around you. Find it kinda boring, would be funny if you played a game and noticed that there is already a hero in the game and you are one of the NPCs. That would actually be a great twise hahaha

--BLazerules (talk) 15:28, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

I disagree on this one. With 1/4 damage to player, decent level and quite combat oriented build you could easily kill 100 people or conquer a castle on your own, without actualy doing anything that looks like ability that should allow you to do so. Your attacks are just one hit kills while they barely scratch you. In opposite, in Dark Souls you can beat alot without getting hurt, if you are damn pr0 but if you do take hit, it hurts. A lot, still you somehow manage, if its not too much of geting hurt. When you dodge attacks properly, you see you do, your character does insane things like rolling between enemy swords and spears, yes I can believe a human can do it, not like I can but I can accept that someone might and if you set damage to normal in M&B and still conquer castles or kill irrational ammount of enemies then you certainly have to be extremely skilled in blocking so yeah, thats also how I can belive human might be able to do it, just I can't but not just taking close to no damage. Thats sort of what I had in mind, character should be human but by doing something extremely skilled but possible, you overcome the overpowering enemies and it makes you a hero. You dont take hit by swords and just laugh at it all the time (still if story suggests you play a God, perhaps you should xD but we talk about ordinary human protagonists here). It doesnt have to be extremely difficult, just a matter of making animations and stuff feel you do heroic stuff still possible for humans. Shepard in ME would often fit in. Sometimes not. Neverwinter Nights hero who has 3 arrows in his head and doesnt give a damn about getting stabed with 20 swords while one hitting everyone totally doesnt.--Astenan (talk) 15:46, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Well ye difficulty sliders are pretty stupid IMO. Trying to play Mount and Blade on max difficulty... Well trying to take a castle on your own would result in you dying horribly. But ye I wish Play Characters were just as weak if not weaker than everyone else. But the game wont let you start 10 times weaker than the weakest enemy in the game. And thats a shame. --BLazerules (talk) 16:11, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.