Do RPGs really need combat?
Some days ago I tweeted about RPGs without combat. What would be left if [insert random rpg here] would not have combat?
Combat in RPGs is fine if it serves a purpose. For many gamers, the purpose of combat is leveling up, beating bigger monsters over and over again. Many gamers enjoy those things and decisions the combat offers. To me, games need to provide interesting decisions. Combat can be interesting. Choosing whether to attack good guy is an interesting decisions. Choosing best weapons for the next fight and planning attack can be interesting. Many things can be interesting.
But hitting a giant scorpion, running away and then hitting again that scorpion over and over until it dies is not interesting. That’s boring hit’n'run tactic where (1) I know I win if I do this and (2) I know I die and game is over if I don’t do this.
In Fallout 1, combat for me was most often only a roadblock. Combat kept me away from enjoying the story and seeing new things. In Fallout 1, combat wasn’t often so interesting. Seeing new guys, using some drugs that made your guy “combat drug addicted” during combat was pretty cool… but overall I didn’t really need all that combat.
In some games, combat is the very essence of the game. Monster Hunter series for example is built around the combat and is the meat of the game. In MH, I liked the combat.
In Fallout 1, the story and decisions were much more interesting and combat (to me) felt unneccessary.
In Battlefield 1942, combat was definitely okay. The whole game is about combat, and training your own skills in the combat field.
But what about RPGs? When we check top selling RPGs, I can almost bet that there’s 7 out of 10 some sort of “Diablo” clones. Those hack’n'slash games to me aren’t rpgs…
Why RPGs require you to combat & grind so that you can then progress with the story?
Why not progress & enjoy the story and decisions without combat?
Thoughts? |
No comments:
Post a Comment