Topic: RPGs: NOT a group friendly genre

[NWR_pap64]

Have you ever played an RPG with a buddy or a small group of friends, then find out that they grow bored of impatient afterwards?

I have created a theory based on this phenomenon. My subject was SB and the game was Dragonquest VIII for the PS2.

He was interested in watching how the canon DQ games worked (considering that he is excited for DQ Swords on the Wii and DQ IX on the DS), so I showed him the first hours of the game. An hour later, he grew bored with it and nearly fell asleep. The thing is that I too began to feel sleepy to the point where I had to take breaks in order to concentrate.

After this happened, I realized that RPGs are NOT meant to be played with a friend or a group of friends. Its a very personal, intimate genre where the enjoyment is higher if you are alone with no one else to comment on your experience. The only way this can work is if you friend has the same amount of enthusiasm as you about the game, and even then there's a good chance he or she will grow bored.

Here are a few reasons why this happens:
1. Lone player experiences: RPGs (save for MMORPGs) tend to be a direct, straightforward, one player experiences, leaving very little chance of anyone else joining in on the fun. So when a second player just sits there and watch, it can be very boring.

2. Long, tedious gameplay moments: Grinding. It is inevitable. In order to fully progress through the story you MUST power level your characters before taking on the challenges that lie ahead. Even online RPGs have this problem. So that means that you will likely spend more than one hour grinding so that you can reach the desired level or obtain what you were looking for. Again, this can grow boring in the eyes of others. This can be handled if you are alone and focused entirely on winning the game.

So combine this, and add the chance of the friend not being an RPG freak like you and the game will become boring.

True, you might say 'What about other one player games? Those suffer from the same problems as RPGs!". True, but it depends on what type of game it is. For example, a Zelda game can be endured since the gameplay is very fast paced and even offers some moments where other players can participate (me and SB helped each other solve puzzles and clear dungeons in Twilight Princess).

So agree, disagree? Anything else you might want to add to the theory?

[Sir_Stabbalot]

I've noticed it. I think it really does have something to do with the basic design of the system, not so much the genre. A turn-based game tends not to be the most impressive thing to watch for an extended period of time unless you're playing.

Western-style RPGs, however with real-time battle systems like Oblivion, are much better crowd pleasers. Perhaps its just that I'm on the PC version and have modded the hell out of my game and most of my friends own the un-moddable 360 version, but no one can ignore the good old explodie fireball of doom that wipes out all life within two kilometers of the bast center.

[NWR_pap64]

Quote
Originally posted by: Sir_Stabbalot
Western-style RPGs, however with real-time battle systems like Oblivion, are much better crowd pleasers. Perhaps its just that I'm on the PC version and have modded the hell out of my game and most of my friends own the un-moddable 360 version, but no one can ignore the good old explodie fireball of doom that wipes out all life within two kilometers of the bast center.

The funny thing? I traced my findings all the way to the time SB and friends played Oblivion and nearly all thought the game was boring as hell. They mentioned a lot of technical issues the game had that may have hampered the experience for them. I wasn't there when it happened, but when SB told me that DQ "put him to sleep" it reminded me of his claims that Oblivion was so boring that it put him to sleep, leaving me to wonder if the game was truly a boring one or they tried to make a group experience of a game that doesn't allow it.

The other thing that sets my theory forward is when they ALL said the game was boring. This fuels my theory that RPGs will bore a large group of friends, but will likely keep the main player entertained.

[Smash_Brother]

Oblivion was a chore to watch, I found, but it might depend on the audience.

I had Ouendan at the time and it kept me awake, luckily.

[NWR_pap64]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Oblivion was a chore to watch, I found, but it might depend on the audience.

That's the thing. RPGs, no matter how great of a storyline they boast are a chore to play. The minute you start to grind in order to reach the next part of the story the game becomes a chore.

Seeing someone playing an RPG is like watching someone do chores, it grows boring rather quickly.

[Smash_Brother]

That's the inherent problem with most RPGs: the entire premise of the RPG is that there is a storyline before you but you have to raise your level high enough through hours of incessant grinding in order to see it. In this way, the game holds the storyline for ransom. The ransom is the time put into the game.

I'd probably fall asleep even PLAYING the average RPG these days. The only exception was Tales of Symphonia which had an excellent fighting engine but one of the silliest and most mockable storylines I've seen in a while.

As for watchable games, Dead Rising, MGS, Zelda, Red Steel, Excite Truck...all games which rely on real gameplay instead of confirming actions in a menu tend to hold the attention of my gaming audiences far better.

[SixthAngel]

I've played a lot of rpgs and I can't remember the last time I had to grind or power level.  Just moving through the game and exploring has almost always been enough for me to keep going.  When a boss beat me I never went to level up again, instead I would buy new weapons or items and give it another shot using what I learned the first time.  The only times I think it is usually necessary is when completing the extra things, like the emerald weapon in ff7 who I never beat.  Totally optional stuff.


RPG's not group friendly, you mean that wasn't already completely obvious?

[WuTangTurtle]

The last time i needed to "Grind" was for Pokemon...

Answering SB's original question I would say its true, especially ppl who don't already show interest in RPG's anyway.  Does FF:CC, or Four Swords count, probably not.  However I have gotten a handful of entry level gamers (lol) who have never played RPG's into ChronoTrigger.  Tales of Symphonia definitely is the exception though.

Oh and once during a Lan Party among work buddies and friends while getting things setup I turned on Gladius (think Final Fantasy tactics Advance) for awhile, some ppl seemed interested until one of the d@mn enemies shouted a warcry.  They kind of laughed at that.....such terrible lines "I....caaann't goo ooonnn, ughhh)  It's still right up there with Fire Emblem/Advance Wars and FF: TA for me though.

I guess ur right though, but it is nice when you can chat with a buddie about RPG's though.

[Sessha]

Oh I don't know about that, when I finally found Earthbound, me and my friends sat around playing that.  And getting bored in that game is kind of hard.  Although it's fairly common to level grind around Onett.  

Most RPG's are meant to put you into the Main Character's shoes, so for the most part they are meant to be a one player experience.  Sometimes people really like the story of the game.  My girlfriend loved Fatal Frame 2 and it's story but hated the gameplay it scared her too much.  But another problem is that there are sometimes a lot of sidequests which deviate from the main plot and lose people's attention.  

[S-U-P-E-R]

I really don't think most console RPGs really need any grinding, not that I remember... but that might only be if you know how to pre-plan, I guess. Which is why I think I beat FF7 my first try without a single game over - I figured out the materia system in five seconds and had them perfectly arranged for maximum learning at all times.

But yeah, not group friendly. I totally agree. And they're not really meant to be, either. Like, even ones like FF6 that have token two-controller options, it doesn't really deliver, it just makes you a little more uncoordinated and unable to maximize your command buffering.

Pokemon is a little bit neat in that you just assist each other as you go along with trades, while still being independent single-player games.

Exception to tha rule: Secret of Mana. And how was Tales of Symphonia or whatever GC one that was 4-player?

[Flames_of_chaos]

Tales on Cube is fairly engaging since the 1 - 4 players are only in play during battles, and while your in the overworld/towns/dungeons its just player 1. I wonder if thats the reason why S-E made DQ:IX into an action RPG to keep everyone involved.  

[Sir_Stabbalot]

Wait, now I'm confused. Pap64, do you mean multi-player RPGs or just having people watch?

[NWR_pap64]

Quote
Originally posted by: Sir_Stabbalot
Wait, now I'm confused. Pap64, do you mean multi-player RPGs or just having people watch?

I meant just having people watch.

Multi player RPGs are an exception since the game allows others to join in and play. When you have a one player RPG, the rest of the group just sits there and watch, making it a boring evening ( as SB proved me).

I personally never played Crystal Chronicles, but I thought 4 swords was an engaging group experience since everyone did more than just watch...If only it was easier to do. The DS could've been perfect for this. No extra wires, just DSs and games (which is easier to pull off than, say 4 friends with GBAs and cables).

[Smash_Brother]

I'd kill, and I mean watch my victim draw final breath, for a four player RPG done RIGHT, and by that I mean an RPG which features a full-length story which all four players participate in at the same time and is so immersive that you feel the warmth from the fireplace when the four of you stumble into the inn barely alive.

ToS did an alright job, but the sh*tty cel-shading detracted from the game for me and the fact that only one player moved across the overworld meant that the other three players were left twiddling their thumbs for most of the game.

[Arbok]

RPGs are not a group friendly genre if others aren't playing... period, really. I can't think of an example to state otherwise, except perhaps strategy RPGs if the other person is involved and wants to add input as to where to move next.

I have played a number of group player RPGs that were addicting though, the best example being Diablo and Diablo 2 which kept me and my friends busy for a long time. Crystal Chronicles was also semi-interesting, but having a player forced to carry around the urn in the game was just piss poor planning on Squarei-Enix's part as it's no fun at all to be forced to do that.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall SB deriding traditional Japanese RPGs quite a bit, so I wouldn't be surprised if he enjoyed them even less when watching them.

Quote
Originally posted by: SixthAngel
I've played a lot of rpgs and I can't remember the last time I had to grind or power level.  Just moving through the game and exploring has almost always been enough for me to keep going.  When a boss beat me I never went to level up again, instead I would buy new weapons or items and give it another shot using what I learned the first time.  The only times I think it is usually necessary is when completing the extra things, like the emerald weapon in ff7 who I never beat.  Totally optional stuff.

Same. Hell, playing the original Final Fantasy on the GBA right now for the first time and I'm not running into the grinding problem at all... however, the amount of "random battles" is truly annoying.

[NWR_pap64]

Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall SB deriding traditional Japanese RPGs quite a bit, so I wouldn't be surprised if he enjoyed them even less when watching them.

Well, SB really wanted to see how the canon DQ games worked because of the reasons I stated on the first post. I warned him that the game is a traditional, old school, Japanese RPG and that it might turn him off but he still wanted to see it for a bit. And I was correct in my assumption, it really did put him to sleep, and it was contagious since it got me too.

Also, I want to mention that I've seen this happen not just on SB. Back in the day when some of my friends and relatives wanted to see X RPG, they would ask if they could watch me play it. After a while they grew bored because they wanted to see the next part of the story, but I needed to do something first before getting there (like going through the mission before seeing the great dance sequence in FFVIII).

[JonLeung]

I wish that ALL games that are FMV and/or cutscene-heavy (especially the long ones, and this includes many RPGs, naturally) should allow you to re-watch scenes you've seen before, even if it requires disc-swapping.  Stupidly, very few of them AT ALL have that option!

It'd be easier to show off "the cool parts" to people without you keeping a bunch of saves just for that purpose or having them watch you play for hours on end.

(Of course, we're disregarding the point that if you're just showing scenes, you're not actually showing the game.)

You'd think Square-Enix would do that so that graphic whores would be enticed to get a copy of the game themselves after seeing a few scenes at a friend's house.  Since most actual story-telling (ie. not just stuff blowing up) takes place in-game it's not like it would totally spoil the game if they watched every scene.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall SB deriding traditional Japanese RPGs quite a bit, so I wouldn't be surprised if he enjoyed them even less when watching them.

True, but the reason I tend not to like them is fact that most RPGs are basically just level grinds which hold a story hostage to encourage you to play it. It's gaming masochism.

I make exceptions for games which have exceptionally fun gameplay (ToS) or a branching story which can end differently depending on how you decide to play it out, but games which have a set beginning, a set end, but all gameplay consists of navigating menus and allowing random number generators to decide how the battles play out grew old for me back during the 16-bit era.

[segagamer12]

well I play RPGS withmy friends and sister, we take turns playing and everyone gets to stay into the story. tahst hwo we play DQ and FF games.  

[Sir_Stabbalot]

Quote
Originally posted by: pap64

Quote
Originally posted by: Sir_Stabbalot
Wait, now I'm confused. Pap64, do you mean multi-player RPGs or just having people watch?

I meant just having people watch.

Multi player RPGs are an exception since the game allows others to join in and play. When you have a one player RPG, the rest of the group just sits there and watch, making it a boring evening ( as SB proved me).

I personally never played Crystal Chronicles, but I thought 4 swords was an engaging group experience since everyone did more than just watch...If only it was easier to do. The DS could've been perfect for this. No extra wires, just DSs and games (which is easier to pull off than, say 4 friends with GBAs and cables).

Ah, now I understand. I can understand SB getting bored with it. After all, I dislike grinding levels a lot too, so I can easily see how that watching someone grind levels wouldn't be his cup of tea.

And I should have said this before, but I only spent at most a half an hour showing off Oblivion to my friends. After that we got back to playing the Zombie gametype on Halo 2.

[Magik]

Hasn't it been obvious since the NES days that traditional RPGs have always been a single player genre?  I'm kind of surprised people are finding this out now when its been very clear for quite some time.

[Louieturkey]

Secret of Mana for the SNES is a lot of fun with another player.  Of course, that is a multiplayer RPG.  So it's a little different.

I must be one of the few then because I love watching others play RPGs.  If I see someone else play, I want to pick up the game afterwards and play.  Or I might have played before and enjoy watching the game be played again.  I've always been a watcher first though, so that may stem from this.