Evolution of RPG’s – Gamers Don’t Want an End?

I remember a day when old RPG games had either a level cap or a definite ending. From Pool of Radiance to Secrets of the Silver Blades to Final Fantasy the game had a final boss or stage and often had some type of level cap. Today, gamers don’t want it to end, they’d rather have the option to wonder around aimlessly or completing minor quests in order to soak up every ounce of money they spent on the title.

linkNow even Bethesda is saying “we’ve learned our lesson” from the whiplash of ending their game title and capping levels. Gamers want to go back and re-try content they missed, they want to run side quests and talk to everyone in the world they want to grind themselves to über powerful levels and become a god in their fantasy world. Can you blame them?

You can’t really blame them for wanting to maximize the content, although it’s slightly more evolved than RPG’s of old. Perhaps it was World of Warcraft and other MMORPG’s that brought us to the stage in life where we all want to squeeze every last RPG dime out of the title. As a kid I wondered the world of Hyrule and covered every tile of graphical color, burned every bush, bombed every stone looking for all the content. However, even Zelda had an end with scrolling credits – you didn’t just land on a platform with your master sword and a dream.

Other titles have used level caps to limit you and draw you into the next release of the game. This was popular in the D&D world because the game is designed to target specific levels of difficulty. They may only allow you to gain level 10 because the enemies are no tougher than level 13, allowing the challenge to be good but not overwhelming. If they allow you to get to level 50 they’d have to design the game so all the enemies grow powerful along with you — that’s not always a desired result.

Final Fantasy is a popular franchise that typically allows you to grow infinitely powerful depending on how much time you want to spend repeat killing the same enemies. Gamers aren’t always into the grind, they just want to grind “enough” to make the challenges a little more do-able.

Today, however, with larger storage capacity, larger development teams and the desire to build more value into your gameplay experience titles have dozens of side quests and sub-plots that are totally optional. The result of so many sub-quests results in a player who is much more powerful at the end of those quests compared to a player who sticks to the narrow path of the main plot. So, games much grow dynamically challenging to keep the fun per dollar high.

Do you like your RPG’s to have a definite end and a high but capped level?

0 thoughts on “Evolution of RPG’s – Gamers Don’t Want an End?”

  1. For me it depends entirely on the nature of the RPG in question. IF it’s something “sandbox-ish” (which not every RPG is) then a level cap seems forced. But if the creators are not just testing/promoting a new toolset, and are looking to create a story arc in which the player can participate, then for a degree of satisfaction there should be a conclusion of some sort. It’s still usually in the hands of the player, in that they don’t HAVE to do the end portion (yet) if they don’t want to. I went months without doing the final 4-6 “main story arc” hours of Oblivion before finally finishing it, and even though that particular game lets you continue afterward, any leftover side quests (of which there were few since I’d done almost all of them already) were anti-climactic by comparison. I mean, after you’ve saved the known world from unspeakable evil, who cares if you find the slaughterfish scales for the guy down the street?

    And when it’s a hybrid adventure/RPG like the Knights Of The Old Republic series, or Jade Empire, it would make little or no sense to continue playing after the game’s ending, as your character has “fulfilled their mission/destiny/goal”, as it were.

    But then, I’m one of the heretics who thought there was too much that happened after The One Ring was destroyed, so what do I know? ‘:P

  2. For me it depends entirely on the nature of the RPG in question. IF it’s something “sandbox-ish” (which not every RPG is) then a level cap seems forced. But if the creators are not just testing/promoting a new toolset, and are looking to create a story arc in which the player can participate, then for a degree of satisfaction there should be a conclusion of some sort. It’s still usually in the hands of the player, in that they don’t HAVE to do the end portion (yet) if they don’t want to. I went months without doing the final 4-6 “main story arc” hours of Oblivion before finally finishing it, and even though that particular game lets you continue afterward, any leftover side quests (of which there were few since I’d done almost all of them already) were anti-climactic by comparison. I mean, after you’ve saved the known world from unspeakable evil, who cares if you find the slaughterfish scales for the guy down the street?

    And when it’s a hybrid adventure/RPG like the Knights Of The Old Republic series, or Jade Empire, it would make little or no sense to continue playing after the game’s ending, as your character has “fulfilled their mission/destiny/goal”, as it were.

    But then, I’m one of the heretics who thought there was too much that happened after The One Ring was destroyed, so what do I know? ‘:P

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

Sony’s 10-Year Vision: Graphics or Games?Sony’s 10-Year Vision: Graphics or Games?

Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have great visions for their consoles, they all strive to stand out from their competitors. Nintendo’s key initiative is to get non-gamers on board and provide the world with something a little different while Microsoft’s concept is to get a 360 into the hands of all gamers and build a huge community. Sony’s selling point? Graphics.

When it comes to standing out amongst the other consoles, Sony cannot compete with the Wii‘s quirky cuteness and Xbox 360‘s one-year lead on sales, games and overall functionality. They were late to the game because of technological advances in Blu-Ray and overall graphic horsepower. They’re providing a console that will still look “teh awesomes” ten years down the road, similar to the attack plan of the PS2 product which still sells today.

Sony’s Scott Steinberg, Vice President of Product Marketing for SCEA had nothing but great things to say about the console he’s marketing…

“I think that we’re seeing, graphically, PS3 games starting to create some distance and some of the other competitors are going to feel that they’re getting long in the tooth, looking quite dated, because they haven’t created that ten-year vision from a horsepower standpoint” (psu.com)

Really? Does anyone look at the Xbox 360 and say “this thing looks dated.” Each new title release continues to look more advanced and more graphically appealing than the last. Sure, Resistance 2 looked graphically epic, but the title isn’t on the shelves yet. As a matter of fact, very few PS3 titles are on the shelves when it comes to graphically appealing titles everyone wants.

As Nintendo has proven, it’s not always about the advanced graphics but the fun value and access to many titles across many genre’s of gaming. We’re happy about a nice 10-year vision but there is a reason classic games like Pac-Man, Missile Command and Galaga are still talked about and played by gamers: simple and fun.

Microsoft may not have a ten year vision, this is true, but I’d rather have a hot console I can play for the next six years than own a more expensive console with few games until its third year of life. The PlayStation 3 has been beating the Xbox 360 sales in 2008, is this too surprising given the fact that the Xbox 360 was out a year ahead? Sales aren’t always going to be rosy and over the top (unless it’s the Wii).

Rather than concentrate on how many more consoles the PS3 has sold compared to the 360, look at how many Wii consoles have sold to the graphically superior PS3. Perhaps Sony should speak less to the gamers about how awesome their console is and speak more to the developers so we can get titles worth buying for the console. Gamers only win when a console has games for them to play.

Fanboy Turf Wars and Metacritic’s The TurfFanboy Turf Wars and Metacritic’s The Turf

Gamers are passionate about gaming, love their games, follow the industry all while living and breathing all things game. This is the green pastures upon which fanboys are born. As we’ve seen at gamingpodcast.net, where we were hit hard by fanboy rage a few days ago the blood boils with hate and rage.

Although our site only received 30+ comments, other sites whom picked up the article have 100+ comments on the article about Blu-ray and my opinions of it. PS3 fanboys ran wild telling me how my name has been “dragged through the mud” followed (and preceded) by many curse words and name calling, many of which I simply refused to post because of the vulgar content.

They have moved on to larger more popular platforms to voice their opinion, by dinging Gears of War 2 prior to the games release on metacritic.com dolling out a 3.5 user submitted review (which has since gone up upon the release). Why did they target GoW2? Because the 360 fanboys nailed LittleBigPlanet with crappy reviews, says smashpad.com.

The response was to hit Resistance 2 for another bad user review score all while forcing metacritic to change their user review process to only allow users to post reviews after a game has hit store shelves. Metacritic isn’t to blame here, although it is sensible to only allow reviews prior to a games release, the fanboys have found a way to hold their turf wars.

Who’s next? Amazon.com allows reviews as well and, as we saw from Spore, it can get pretty dirty there too. Now that Metacritic is altering their review process will gamers wait until they’re allowed to spam with bad reviews to do so, or will they hunt for new social networking proving grounds to give games a bad name?

Perhaps they’ll compete for google keywords to rank #1 for a fraud review of a title to beat out other sites or they’ll find another popular user-generated review site to scar the name of a to-be released title.

There is a gang war on the Net and it involves fanboys finding social media outlets to spread their hate and deception on the opposing consoles. For us, we’ll stick with gaming and leave the rage to someone else.

Episode 258: New BloodEpisode 258: New Blood

Because you asked for it, the podcast features four guys, including Jonah Falcon, Paul S. Nowak, Jordan Lund, and Dan Quick. This is the no frills edition, however, as due to travel to PAX East, there’s no Gaming Flashback, and only a few news items.

They include:

We also include Reader Feedback. We’ll have a Question of the Week next week, we promise.