What makes a good RPG?

[Cysma]

For a while I've been wondering just exactly what is it that separates the good RPGs from the bad. The Story? Characters? Battle System? Extras?

Since I've aspired to make a certain RPG of my own, this subject has never been more important. Tell me: Why is your favorite RPG...your favorite?

Is it the story? An extensive background of all the things that happened in the past of the game's imaginary world, and those shocking plot twists that eventually happen, where the good and evil characters switch sides, a main character dies, the face of the world is altered, etc.

Battle system? Would you still be willing to play a brand new RPG even if it still used the traditional turn-based battle system with no frills?

[Codiekitty]

The first thing that comes to mind is speed. Nothing turns me off to an RPG more easily than getting into a battle every three steps, then spending the next three minutes pummeling a droplet of green snot (especially if the thing actually only takes three hits to kill and you're just waiting for the special effects to end and the characters to get on with their moves).


Where are these lemmings going? The Super Nintendo Super Shire! Hop in line and follow them there!

[PK FIRE!]

ahh yes, FFVI my fave RPG, to me it had everything, chariters, you cared about, a villan who was so dispicible that you loved to hate him and a compleling story with good plot twists, Not tomention some great music that often helped set the mood of the sen, and great extras as well. What other RPG Let's you be in an opro? That battle system is good, despration attack can be a real life saver and the magic system is good and add alot of stratigy to the game, not to mention that each chariter had a skill all thier own that further added to the deapth and stratigy of the game, plus a couple of hiddon chariters that could add an extra bit of umph to a battle.

[Ace Mercury]

Originally posted by CodieKitty:
The first thing that comes to mind is speed. Nothing turns me off to an RPG more easily than getting into a battle every three steps, then spending the next three minutes pummeling a droplet of green snot (especially if the thing actually only takes three hits to kill and you're just waiting for the special effects to end and the characters to get on with their moves).

I concur. This sort of nonsense is what made me stop playing Septerra Core (ridiculously slow and tedious RTS battles), and just made Star Ocean 2 ridiculous (Celine can't cast some spells without a little fifteen-thirty second animation of stars falling to Earth).
My favourite games, Final Fantasy VII for example, also have a little of this to some degree; long summon animations, boring waiting games. But, at least with those games you can get away without using time-wasters every round.

What I like in a game is a good sense of what needs to be done and how I'm going to do it. As much as free-play, sandbox type gameplay is touted around, I'd also like a clear objective to guide me. Something immediate, like "destroy the reactor", not general and vague like "save the world from evil". If the objective is something that I care about, all the better. For example: I tried playing Legend of Mana for a little while, which I understand as the epitome of free, open-ended play, but I never felt that it was fun. I got a 'running around maybe I'll find something, but likely not' sort of vibe. More traditional RPGs can also fall into this trap; the old RPGs especially. Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy were about wandering about, and hopefully you'll encounter an objective, maybe.

On the other hand, there are more recent games which have what's referred to 'pretty line syndrome', wherein it's a linear romp from point A, your hometown, to point B, the enemy lair. Along the way, you stop and talk with some people, kill some monsters, collect some items, and become a stronger person for it. Maybe there's some branches off the main path, but they all are dead ends or lead back to the main path. There's a menu where you can fiddle around with some items or skills and tweak stuff in general. That's pretty much any console RPG made in the past few years. As far as I'm concerned, this is a good framework for a potentially good RPG. It's not revolutionary, but it's a safe bet. A good scaffolding to build an encompassing story and satisfying character development. For someone as easily amused as me, it can make for some fun gaming.

[Erdawn Il Deus]

A villain with actual motivation would be nice. Kuja comes to mind easily.

[Omni_Link]

story, speed, being able to level up reasonably. for the last one ffX comes to mind. it was pretty easy to level up on a certain point of the game.

[Deepfake]

Well.. having a decent battle system is one of the most important aspects of an RPG to me. I think control and function is where most RPG makers cop out completely. It's just a slightly involving story, otherwise. If it has to be turn-based, at least keep it on location, otherwise the interruption just gets on my nerves too much.
I love the feeling of both vastness and hands on control that you could get from both Chrono Trigger and Secret of Mana.



[ October 18, 2005, 04:18 AM: Message edited by: Ange Mecanique ]

[Foxfire]

Easy.

Interesting/Exciting Storyline.
Good/Creative Battle System.
Speedy game. [Not slow, like really boring battles, etc.]
Ability to level up.
Jobs, such as Mages, Warriors, etc.
Ability to equip weapons and items.
Ability to learn new Magic as you level, etc.
A GOOD Rival, not a dull/crappy one.

That's a basic overview of what I might find interesting in an RPG

[celebi134]

What makes a good RPG? Well....

</font>

• It has to be original. "Cookie-cutter" RPGs are very, very boring. If Sweet Home, EarthBound, or hell, even FFX can make an original idea, so can any other.</font>
• Slow battles or crappy special effects in battles butcher a game for me. Seperate animations, not just reused animations with different colors.</font>
• Interesting characters, not dumb stereotypes.</font>
• An engaging plot with a few plot twists here and there, but not too many like Tales of Symphonia did.</font>

[zepatient]

My qualaties are: Speedy gameplay fast,eccentric and neverboring. but not to much that you have a seizure from the pure awesomeness.
Flare,style, magic spells and attacks have to look beutiful! have stars and rainbows and fire and explosions and skulls flyin outta nowhere! from a prick of a knife a time distortion comes. Maybe even a screen flare!
Music, gotta have good beats and tunes. stuff you can just jump up and dance to. and some you will just fall asleep with controller in hand.
Mages! gotta have mages! Blue,Red,White,Black,! even through a new orange one in.
Breasts, girls have to have breasts. not flats.
Gotta have special moves. Different ones that do different things from each character.not the move that has a really cool name that does the same exact thing as your lvl 3s attack.Has to be familiar! needs to make you comfortable with your surrondings. not a tundra in 1 place and a desert three steps away. (that is allowed in the last stage if its in a dream/mysterious world things like memoria in ff9.
And thats it.
P.S. the last stage has to be made up of all the other stages.

[ October 30, 2005, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: zepatient ]

[Prince Toad]

I guess I'll use my favorite RPG (and game), Morrowind, as an example. I'll point out its strong points and weak points, and then if I feel like it I'll take a crappy RPG and see what it did wrong.

Strong points:

1) Freedom-- with direction. What I mean by that is that you're started off with a main quest, so if you want to go do that right off you can, but you never have to if you don't want to. Or if you do want to, and then you want to stop in the middle and do other stuff, you can. For example, the first time I played I asked around and found that the Imperial Legion was recruiting in Gnisis. I decided to go do that instead of the main quest, and ended up doing a lot of stuff for them. I'm not sure I did more than the first couple of the main quests with that guy. Let the player do what he wants, but also make sure he knows what he's supposed to do next at all times, should he choose to do that.
2) Vastness. The Elder Scrolls series is famous for this. You get a gigantic, content-intensive world to play around in. After all, if you're free to wander around but all you get is a big field with some generic towns, it's not much fun. But if you're free to wander around and you know you'll end up finding a unique dungeon, maybe stumble upon a treasure or artifact, maybe find a new town-- that's cool. But yeah, this ties into the freedom thing. If there's a big world but you end up having to explore it linearly, then it's no good; likewise, a tiny world that you're free to roam around in will get old fast. If you're making an RPG by yourself, you probably can't make a big world in any reasonable time frame, so I recommend making a relatively small but interesting place.
3) Immersion. I can't even comprehend the amount of lore behind Morrowind alone, let alone the entire Elder Scrolls world. There are so many stories, and most of them are quite well told. There are even what must be hundreds of books, all containing some kind of story within them. Each guild and House has all this lore behind it, as do several of the characters. It's really a different world. I guess you could also put the storyline here-- unlike in many other kinds of games, it's very important to have both a good background/setting and a good plot in an RPG.
4) Auxiliary stuff-- graphics, music, sound. (Actually the sound's not fantastic, but it's okay.) In an RPG, graphics and music help out with immersion, but as long as they aren't distractingly bad, they don't need to be the main focus. They should just help to further the sense of another world. There aren't very many tracks at all in Morrowind, but the few that there are set the tone pretty well. The graphics in Morrowind happen to be beautiful (and the ones in the new Elder Scrolls title, Oblivion, are unbelievable), but that's kind of an added bonus.

Weak points:

1) Combat. It's sort of tough to handle combat in RPGs. If you make it turn-based, which they wanted to avoid in Morrowind, you have to make sure it's not bogged down in tedious waiting times, menus, special effects, etc. For instance, I remember Golden Sun's battles being pretty fast-paced. Fire Emblem's are too, but FE has a lot of its own problems, so I won't go there. On the other hand, if you make real-time fights, then you should try to avoid sacrificing too much depth. Morrowind failed at that-- melee combat was basically just hitting a button several times and hoping you hit, occasionally turning if the enemy strafed. Combat magic and ranged combat were a little cooler, but not all that much. So basically, turn-based combat tends to be tedious, and real-time combat tends to be shallow. If it's turn-based, make it quick; if it's real-time, make it deep. Of course, don't go so far to either extreme that turn-based becomes shallow or real-time becomes tedious. I already pointed out Golden Sun as a good example of turn-based; I guess Ocarina of Time is a good pick for a real-time game that had interesting and fun fights.
2) Speed. Now, Morrowind did include fast-travel options-- without which I might have just gotten frustrated and stopped playing-- but a lot of the quests involved walking into the wilderness to get someplace, which could take ten, fifteen minutes, sometimes even more. Eventually I figured out ways of moving faster on land (go 100-point Jump for 2 seconds spell!) but it should not have been that difficult. If you make people walk around in big fields, at least don't make them do it that much, or include ways of moving around faster. (The first example that jumps to mind is Pokemon's Bicycle.) Also, make sure they can get between the towns pretty quickly.

Uh... I could probably come up with more, but those are what really jump out at me. Turns out I don't feel like reviewing a terrible RPG, but I guess I'll point out two things that sucked ass about Shadowgate 64, which is close to the same thing.

1) Don't have puzzles that are so difficult, you could not solve them without a guide or by anything but sheer luck. It's okay to make people think hard, but it's not okay to have them need to just happen to click on the right place, or happen to spot a tiny key on the floor or something.
2) Don't-- oh God. There were so many things wrong with that game, it's hard to pick one. Please do not buy it. I guess I'll say don't put in any items that have absolutely no purpose, unless they're really funny or relate to the plot/background. What the **** am I going to do with a broken lance with no way of repairing it, and if I can't even fight anyway? ...don't do that.

Okay then. Hope that helps.

...****, I just remembered one other thing: if you can avoid it, do NOT set up artificial barriers that the player can't go by for no reason. Almost every RPG does this (Morrowind happens to not). It's okay if you're entering a walled fortress and you can't bypass the walls, or if you're in a valley and you can't climb up the sides, but if you're walking around and can't climb over a tiny fence or a small patch of rocks, that's ****ing annoying.

...oh, and random fights piss me the **** off, especially if they're too common. In Golden Sun it was bearable, but in, say, Final Fantasy 1, it really started getting irritating. Paper Mario handled that kind of thing extremely well, although I imagine that's somewhat complicated to implement. If you have to have random fights, which I figure you probably will, then don't make them too common, or at the very least make them fast.

...k. I, uh, still hope that helps.

[Codiekitty]

...****, I just remembered one other thing: if you can avoid it, do NOT set up artificial barriers that the player can't go by for no reason. Almost every RPG does this (Morrowind happens to not). It's okay if you're entering a walled fortress and you can't bypass the walls, or if you're in a valley and you can't climb up the sides, but if you're walking around and can't climb over a tiny fence or a small patch of rocks, that's ****ing annoying.

You forget invisible walls. Invisible walls make tiny fences seem as awesome as a wheelbarrow of tacos.


Where are these lemmings going? The Super Nintendo Super Shire! Hop in line and follow them there!

[The Yoshimaster]

Story-wise, a good RPG is one that develops the storyline (and characters, since well-rounded characters are crucial to a storyline) in a way that you are actually into it. Usually, there's just a 10-minute intro scene that summarizies this fantasy world's history, and then drops you into the game at the exact point in time where something important will happen involving that history.

[OcarinaMan]

Combat, story, and sidequests. These are a must for every RPG. If done well, the RPG is good as long as the smaller elements are done well. If done badly, the RPG will suck, despite how pretty it is.

[Sim Kid]

There also should be some decent AI, especially in games like Tales of Symphonia and Kingdom Hearts. Nothing's more annoying than it being pretty much you vs the world because your allies are idiots who get themselves knocked out alot. It's really annoying to have our mages waste all their mana within the first few seconds of a boss fight so then they're running in and hitting the enemy because they don't have anything else to do. Now as a result, if our enemy hits them they'll get hurt alot so our cleric will have to throw a bunch of healing spells on them to keep them alive and then s/he'll waste all of their mana on them while our warriors are getting killed.


Also the final boss should be a worthy opponent. Not just someone who can be taken down easily by anyone like Mithos Yggdrisil(sp) or Kefka or so hard the only way to beat them woul dbe to overlevel drastically. No final bosses who are hard because their super-ultra-powerful-technique deals alot of damage and they spam it or parts that are hard because you are put up against 20 enemies at the same time.

[Wicked Witch of the Crest]

Games with really bad Final Bosses almost always has an uber hard Side-Boss to fight. Kingdom Hearts 2 has Sephiroth, and Tales Of Symphonia has Abyssion. Ocarina Of Time has no really Side-Bosses, so therefore, that one's worth complaining about.(Ganon was pathetic)

[SwampDog82]

A good RPG revolves around a good plot. If the game is too difficult, something that you have to try over and over and over to beat, then it's no fun to play. Also, turn based is a lot more fun than normal fighting.. it involves more strategy, in my opinion. A game has to have good music in the background, too. Nothing too repetitave.

[Cysma]

Here was something else I was wondering: How long should you have to wait until plot twists are revealed? If most of them are at the end of the game, The middle would seem boring. If they were introduced too early, the rest of the game would be boring.

[Star Road]

i say a good time for a twist would probably be right before the middle of the game. the story is one of the most important things. and i would like the villain to have more motive than to just "take over the world". cant it ever be just to take over a country or something? conquering the world is getting old. an original name for the game would be nice instead of like "the shadow dragon" or something. the battle system just HAS to be fast. slow battle system=crappy RPG. magic. you have to have great looking magic, but not so long so that it takes like a half minute to see, like summoning on ff7. the characters have to look cool, of course. and there has to be a variety of monsters or it just gets repetative killing the same thing over and over with no effort every 5 seconds. creators of rpgs have to be very careful because with almost all of the things i just said, one wrong move could end up with a bad RPG or a just "ok" rpg. i like super Mario RPG best.

[Sim Kid]

It also helps to have characters you can get attatched too like some of Fire Emblem's characters. (Sain, Nino, Denning, Lute, Ross, Artur, Joshua)

The game gets boring if only just one or two characters get developed (Fire Emblem at least has Supports and you can talk to party members you use in Shining Force: Resurrection of the Dark Dragon, though quite a bit of them don't have anything useful to say) and everyone else just sits in the background and help make sure that the plot revolves around those specific one or two characters. We deserve to know about the other party members who join, not just the hero and his annoying girlfriend who gets kidnapped. Mysterious pasts and amnesia are just lazy writing. This is a flaw of Final Fantasy Tactics, once some special people join that's essentially the last you ever hear of them outside of battle.