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?
@Gaming flashback: did any of you played Mission Impossible on NES?
@“Linear is not a dirty word for an FPS”
Well, what can I say, if you wan to push for a very specific story/experience, then linear is the only way to do it.
However, you get better replay value from sandbox games. Heck, I still love playing all STALKER games.
Jonah, good point on building a climax easier on linear games. I harp back to STALKER: the first game was a sandbox game up until reaching Chernobyl. Afterwards, it turned linear, and it didn’t feel bad at all.
I feel so sorry for GSC having to shut down. I hope Vostok Games (the startup from the former GSC games) will do better.
@Pachter decries on-disc DLC as “just plain greed”:
You know, this time I agree with the dude.
@Crysis 2 returns to Steam:
Hmm, lemme guess, Origin didn’t work that great? Or is it that money has no color, so Steam customers are just as good as Origin customers?
Did Valve lower their demands in the cut from DLC?
@The Old Republic still has one of the biggest dev teams in industry:
It’s hard to sell 3 mil. of copies of anything, never mind a new IP. It’s a risky bet.
@QOTW:
What do you guys think of “Amnesia: The Dark Descent”? That is, if you played it.
i am sorry i disapeared but i do not have much time…
@qotw how long does it take to make a single episode of a podcast from early planning to final editing?
Not much interested in the news, so I’m going to comment on E3.
Plenty of games have been added to my list of games I want to play, among them are:
-Need for Speed Most Wanted
-Epic Mickey 2
-New Super Mario Bros. U
-Pikmin 3
-Rayman Legends
-Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell: Blacklist
-Tomb Raider
-Watch Dogs
Worst E3 conference was Microsoft, best was Ubisoft. What I don’t get is how many people are “disappointed” by Nintendo’s conference, expecting huge releases such as Zelda, Metroid, F-Zero or even Smash Bros. I think that many people do not understand how long it takes to make the great games Nintendo makes, and expect them to churn them out like Call of Duty. I also think that it’s a smart move by Nintendo, releasing quite a few good titles at launch, and then pace the awesome games one by one for the future. Maybe this way the WiiU won’t run out of first-party games as soon as the Wii did.
2 questions, both for Paul:
So, did you shit your pants when Nintendo announced the WiiU will come out Holiday 2012?
Have you finished Skyward Sword yet?