I mean...he isn't wrong. That's how it's been for decades if you do an honest appraisal.
You can argue that it shouldn't be what defines it, but it's what has defined it. Mostly because it all takes its roots from D&D and its leveling system, right down to the stats that are used and critical hits. There was initially a very strong coupling between system mechanics and narrative archetype(for lack of a better term) for literal decades. It's come apart in more recent years, but it was there and it determined how the terminology got used.
RPGs = stats and level ups.
Diablo arguably started us on the path to decoupling the two as it focused more heavily on the mechanics and the narrative was largely secondary, but it was thematically similar enough to what had come before(high fantasy) that it wasn't obvious at the time, only enough to spawn a new term: ARPG.
My issue is that so few devs have even tried to come up with something besides basic level and grinding systems.
You don't NEED 'stats' in a RPG it is just what they've all decided is the norm based ib past success and nobody wants to do anything different because they are afraid of failure.
That's why indie games that don't have that fear are the only ones who try to do things different. The big studios are so risk averse that they will repeat what works until it stops making money.
I thought the concept of Sifu forcing you to age as you fail was super cool. Likewise Hotline Miami and Super Meat Boy allowing you to throw your character into the meat grinder just to see what works with no punishment.
Granted those aren't RPGs but the point is that right now nobody WANTS to change the formula. Not at the Bethesda level.
Personally, I'd rather devs focus on what works and then make something good with that as a baseline, than be trying to constantly "experiment" and 2/3 the games they make end up terrible.
Like, FFX had a great combat system, X-2 refined it. Then it was never used again. FF13 had a great combat system (once you got to actually use it), 13-2 refined it. 13-3 discarded it (and also "stats and leveling") and it was offensively bad and it was also never used again. They are constantly experimenting and changing the game up, but nobody likes more than a handful of the Final Fantasy games because of it.
I'd rather each company focus on what works for them, than try to have every company try to do everything. If I want low brain power open world slop, I can count on Ubisoft for it and I don't think that's a problem. Bethesda is there if I want to play Oblivion but in the Apocalypse or in Space, and that would be fine if they were functional. But they aren't, which is the big issue.
The FF series seems like an outlier, they just throw shit at the wall since the series has so much built in lore and rabid fanbase that they can't do much else. It is like pokemon they will ride that cash cow into the ground and try to 'adapt' to modern players with various tweaks to the same formula.
I think I played the ones you mentioned but they all blend together, I am a huge fan of the original FF7 and the earlier ones so I always preferred it turn based. Not sure if it is more popular now that it is more hack and slash.
I'd rather each company focus on what works for them, than try to have every company try to do everything.
That'd be awesome in theory but in practice they always seem to want to go 'bigger' in the sequels which means adding more mechanics and often changing the setting. In a way it makes sense since they want to improve on their original product but it is a fine line.
I think that is why Bethesda is finding such a problem with this release, they tried to do too much and forgot what made their games addictive in the first place. Probably because it is easier to monetize this way.
That'd be awesome in theory but in practice they always seem to want to go 'bigger' in the sequels which means adding more mechanics and often changing the setting.
Which is fine, if they are keeping it to what works. If they don't need to reinvent the wheel every single time, then the chances of the "bigger" being good is a lot higher (though not always, as shown by Tears of the Kingdom earlier this year).
Bethesda's problem isn't losing sight of what made their games good. Its that people are finally looking at them in real time instead of years later in hindsight with a bunch of DLCs, patches and bug fixing mods in place. Like, everything I hear wrong about Starfield is how I felt about Skyrim and Fallout 3/4 (sans some of the woker elements) on release too.
I mean...he isn't wrong. That's how it's been for decades if you do an honest appraisal.
You can argue that it shouldn't be what defines it, but it's what has defined it. Mostly because it all takes its roots from D&D and its leveling system, right down to the stats that are used and critical hits. There was initially a very strong coupling between system mechanics and narrative archetype(for lack of a better term) for literal decades. It's come apart in more recent years, but it was there and it determined how the terminology got used.
RPGs = stats and level ups.
Diablo arguably started us on the path to decoupling the two as it focused more heavily on the mechanics and the narrative was largely secondary, but it was thematically similar enough to what had come before(high fantasy) that it wasn't obvious at the time, only enough to spawn a new term: ARPG.
My issue is that so few devs have even tried to come up with something besides basic level and grinding systems.
You don't NEED 'stats' in a RPG it is just what they've all decided is the norm based ib past success and nobody wants to do anything different because they are afraid of failure.
That's why indie games that don't have that fear are the only ones who try to do things different. The big studios are so risk averse that they will repeat what works until it stops making money.
I thought the concept of Sifu forcing you to age as you fail was super cool. Likewise Hotline Miami and Super Meat Boy allowing you to throw your character into the meat grinder just to see what works with no punishment.
Granted those aren't RPGs but the point is that right now nobody WANTS to change the formula. Not at the Bethesda level.
Personally, I'd rather devs focus on what works and then make something good with that as a baseline, than be trying to constantly "experiment" and 2/3 the games they make end up terrible.
Like, FFX had a great combat system, X-2 refined it. Then it was never used again. FF13 had a great combat system (once you got to actually use it), 13-2 refined it. 13-3 discarded it (and also "stats and leveling") and it was offensively bad and it was also never used again. They are constantly experimenting and changing the game up, but nobody likes more than a handful of the Final Fantasy games because of it.
I'd rather each company focus on what works for them, than try to have every company try to do everything. If I want low brain power open world slop, I can count on Ubisoft for it and I don't think that's a problem. Bethesda is there if I want to play Oblivion but in the Apocalypse or in Space, and that would be fine if they were functional. But they aren't, which is the big issue.
The FF series seems like an outlier, they just throw shit at the wall since the series has so much built in lore and rabid fanbase that they can't do much else. It is like pokemon they will ride that cash cow into the ground and try to 'adapt' to modern players with various tweaks to the same formula.
I think I played the ones you mentioned but they all blend together, I am a huge fan of the original FF7 and the earlier ones so I always preferred it turn based. Not sure if it is more popular now that it is more hack and slash.
That'd be awesome in theory but in practice they always seem to want to go 'bigger' in the sequels which means adding more mechanics and often changing the setting. In a way it makes sense since they want to improve on their original product but it is a fine line.
I think that is why Bethesda is finding such a problem with this release, they tried to do too much and forgot what made their games addictive in the first place. Probably because it is easier to monetize this way.
Which is fine, if they are keeping it to what works. If they don't need to reinvent the wheel every single time, then the chances of the "bigger" being good is a lot higher (though not always, as shown by Tears of the Kingdom earlier this year).
Bethesda's problem isn't losing sight of what made their games good. Its that people are finally looking at them in real time instead of years later in hindsight with a bunch of DLCs, patches and bug fixing mods in place. Like, everything I hear wrong about Starfield is how I felt about Skyrim and Fallout 3/4 (sans some of the woker elements) on release too.