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.
Now 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?
Veterans to the rescue!
Maybe I’m not a ‘true’ veteren but I’ve been writing in for over a year now so I’m starting to fall into that category, I guess.
Anyway, I’m waiting for the plane to leave after a week’s vacation in Sicilly which I used to relax on the beach and at the pool but also to give Metal Gear Solid another go (hurray for the Vita!). I played through MGS3 (19.5 hours – embarrassing) and I really enjoyed it despite my two previous unsuccessful attempts to get into the game. Do you guys have any experience with the series?
@qotw
You mentioned Red Dead Redemption in the episode. I played tens of hours of the game, including MP (Platinum, yo!) and I had to play in the violence-less mode because it was impossible to focus on anything else with people riding around and shooting each other in the other mode. I tend not to play MP games a lot but when I do I try to get together with people from specific communities from podcasts and message boards. This decreases the number of unpleasant encounters.
Hey guys, I didn’t comment on the last two because I felt that I had answered the QotW and didn’t have anything to add.
@Dungeon Keeper: I think the Mobile version of the original is very poor with these arbitrary time restraints. I agree that players get very tired of being nickeled and dimed. It doesn’t feel like a real game with these limitations.
@Bartle: I’d like to second Jordan’s comments that your segment on this was so through that I can’t really add anything myself without being a broken record on this topic. I really do feel that the Free-to-play games need to change and find a different way to work.
@QotW: I have to second what Pawwel said, I tend to stick with a close nit group of people who I know relatively well. I remember once trying Red Dead Redemption in MP and got sniped three times by the same person in the starting area, I quit MP of that game right there. I feel like Paul in that I am getting older but also been quite content to play single player. I found the WoW experience to be “Too many people in the pool”. I’m not very comfortable even with the anonymity of the internet with just talking with random people. Perhaps because I never forget these are real people I am talking to and never just a handle and avatar.
There was also a StarCraft II custom Map game called ‘Mafia’ that my Polycast group played. In it you are a Town trying to find the Mafia members before they kill all the Towns people during the night. There was a number of trolls going on with that game, those not taking it seriously and just trying to ruin it for everyone that did cause me to quit a few times.
So yes the few times I have done Online MP where random strangers were involved I have quit. Hence why I stick to people I know well enough.
I wanted to add a question:
You talked about Rockstar Games in a previous episode and how the hero dies no matter what. I remember at the time it upset many people that this happened. It also happened in other Rockstar Games, *spoiler* LA Noir *spoiler* and I’ve been told each GTA protagonist dies by the time you get to the next game. So I wondered why when people don’t want the “cliché” happy ending and they get the Hero dies ending instead, that they get upset about. They can’t seem to make up their mind if they want a good ending or a “bad” ending (by that I mean the Hero dies or something similar).