@Icarus said:
Thanks for the advice Somnivore I feel the same way about Godot. And I absolutely agree about RPGs. In my time in game development, Ive been thinking about which mechanics to reinvent and which to keep as some are very stale. And I'm moving away from UIs that add complexity and towards mechanics that just make the game fun and give it depth. A good example is games like Binding of Isaac. It has very in-depth mechanics but the game doesn't have unnecessary complexity because of the good game design.
Simplification to make the game more fun is a very good philosophy. Take for example classic adventure games, where you needed to pair a verb with a noun to get anything done. It made it more of a guessing game than anything, and there was little feedback. Later the range of verbs and nouns was limited, to make it more obvious what needed to be done, but then it became annoying to specify what you wanted to do with the object you were trying to interact with, since it was usually obvious what you wanted to do; why would I do anything else but climb stairs, or take key? Finally we figured it out: one button activates, how it activates is implicit; sometimes you don't even need a button, you just walk into the thing you want to interact with, like doors and stairs. Nobody but nostalgists miss the old days there. Also why I think classical adventure games struggle so heavily to break into the modern market. One could say they're from an age where the control schemes were broken. Ahem.
Binding of Isaac did do a good job with keeping it simple, however I have other problems with it like how it relies too much on getting lucky with your items rolls and doesn't rely enough on merit. That's actually a big problem I have with traditional RPGs, too. If you can grind and level up your characters, the game can become stupidly easy; virtually no merit involved, just a test of how long you're willing to stick with it. I feel like the entire concept of leveling up was a mistake and only exists to extend an otherwise short game. It also turns your game into a difficulty-balancing hell that's impossible to reconcile due to the grinding phenomenon. I feel that it makes far more sense to put full control into the player's hands, which is what traditional arcade games exemplified; you can't get far in Donkey Kong or Galaga by getting a lucky drop or grinding for twelve hours, you just have to become competent at the game. In many ways this same principle applies to arena shooters like TF2 (even despite its drop system; thankfully the items there just change your character, rather than making them objectively better, though the meta is still there regardless.)
I suppose it's subjective, however. Not everyone likes games that demand skill. The Sims and Animal Crossing are more there just for fun, and don't get me started on the mountains of "walking simulators" getting churned out in the indie scene. It's unfortunate that many RPGs get thrown into that pile due to their combat simulation choice but one could argue people are there for the story and feeling of progression than any challenge.
