317 réponses à ce sujet

[hawat333]

Brrr.

[TeaCokeProphet]

Twisted logic.

[Terror_K]

I like shooters too. In fact, my favourite game of all time is the original Unreal Tournament. But that doesn't mean that I want to see the same aspects and the same type of gameplay and style seeping into the RPGs I play, because I play them for a different reason and a different experience.

I honestly think there are too many of these hybrids these days, and that we're getting a whole bunch of samey games that are all encroaching on the same or similar territory now rather than more diverse games that are what they are and are a little more individual and original for it. Everything just seems to be becoming more of this story-drive, action-oriented brown mush with RPG elements these days to me. That would be all fine and dandy in small doses because the basic concept is fine, but it just seems to be far too common now, and there's not enough that simply sticks to being one genre and doing a great job of it so much.

I personally think that BioWare's current attitude of "let's make our games for as big an audience as possible" is why I'm feeling rather betrayed and why their games are starting to appeal to me less, and it saddens me that the current MO for the company now seems to be more "appeal to as many as possible for $$$!" and less "let's make fantastic, rich RPGs that are more than the sum of their parts and something different and unique." It happened with Mass Effect 2 which seemed to go from "epic sci-fi RPG made for fans of classic late 20th Century sci-fi" into "over the top action sci-fi TPS game made for the Gears of War Generation with Lite RPG elements" and it seems Dragon Age 2 is heading down the same path.

I go to different types of games for different things, and that just seems to be harder to do these days than it used to be. Yes, I like shooters too, as I've stated. I also like more action-oriented games like Golden Axe and God of War, etc. But that's not what Dragon Age, Mass Effect or any other so-called BioWare "RPG" is to me, and that's not what I came to them for. And at the moment it just seems like BioWare is doing a horrible bait-and-switch on me by drawing me in with these fantastic first-part-of-the-series games that appeal to me on a great number of levels only to be "retooled by the network for our new target demographic" with the second entry, and then be somewhat surprised when I get a little annoyed.

To me it's about consistency within your own series and your own IPs. If you --BioWare-- want to make more action-oriented titles, then go ahead... by all means. But do it with either original IPs designed to be that way in the first place or with spin-offs rather than hollowing out the main series that started off as something else just to try and appeal to a different audience and bring in more fans and thus more money.

The thing is, the very tactics and things you're doing to bring in these new fans who might not play an RPG usually are the same factors that are putting some of your more old-school, hardcore RPG fans off. You can't just change things up like that and automatically expect to have your cake and be able to eat it too. Has it ever occurred to you that in the past the very reason that most of these players don't normally touch RPGs is for the very same reasons that those of us that really enjoy RPGs play them in the first place? Has it occurred to you that by making the game appeal more to a more modern, mainstream audience that you may also be making it appeal less to those of us who were already into the game. People are quite often big fans of things just as much for something not being something as they are for what it is. I personally became a big fan of Dragon Age Origins because it was a breath of fresh air in a time of few deep RPGs, and now it just seems to becoming the very thing that wasn't entirely fresh.

Finally, it's also all very well to say that "by appealing to a greater audience and bringing in people who don't normally play RPGs, we can then wean them onto the more hardcore stuff" and all, but when there isn't any proper, deep hardcore RPGs any more because all you're doing now is making these "transitional Lite RPGs" to bring them in, then what exactly is there for them to be weaned onto in the end? I could accept the concept of Mass Effect appealing more to the mainstream gamer of today --the CoD, Halo, Gears of War, etc. audience-- than DAO, and then perhaps it being a means of opening their eyes to BioWare and RPGs as a whole more, which might lead them to seeking out Dragon Age Origins. But now Dragon Age 2 seems to have become another Mass Effect, and gone from the first game that was supposed to really be a hardcore RPG made for fans of hardcore RPGs into a sequel that's merely another "transitional Lite RPG" affair. So unless you guys are actually planning to take Dragon Age 3 back to its roots, where exactly are these "transitional Lite RPGs" that you only seem to be making now taking them?

Or is the real answer far more simple: that you're slowly trying to shift your audience permanently like so many other companies and IPs have done, but you're trying to do it in a manner that happens so gradually and carefully that you're hoping most of your old fans who aren't entirely happy with the way things have been going lately won't notice. If that's the case, you clearly don't give this group enough credit. This may sound cynical and even insulting, but that's just how things look to me given the signs and what I've seen, based on prior experience.

I'd love you to prove me wrong, but it really does seem like as time goes on more suspicions are confirmed than debunked. I've been burned by IPs and companies before for investing an interest in things only to find it changed on me for the sake of more profits and a bigger audience, and it just seems at the moment that unless things change in the next year or two I'm going to be uttering the phrase, "Et tu, BioWare?"

Modifié par Terror_K, 09 février 2011 - 11:50 .

[Sjofn]

I don't ... I don't think the original Mass Effect was supposed to appeal to the hardcore RPGers. I mean, they all played it, because zomg Bioware game, but even the first one seemed a lot less... traditional, shall we say. I played it after I played DA:O, though, so maybe the change back (for me, I know ME1 came out first ) to KotOR type party futzing instead of the Baldur's Gate type party futzing made me think that. Plus, like. Vehicle segments.

As a result, I didn't feel betrayed by Mass Effect 2 in the least. The combat, which I don't think was ever supposed to feel even mildly turn-based, was much better, and the characters were better. The structure was much better, too, because it finally broke out of the Here Are Your Four Planets Also Here Are A Metric Ton of Unrelated Sidequests formula. I liked "build your team, secure their loyalty, now go shoot the problem in the face" as a nice change of pace.

All this said, I kinda feel like Mass Effect is Bioware's better gateway drug to RPGs, not Dragon Age. And I would be really sad if Dragon Age gets too far away from what made me love it, especially if it was to chase after people that wouldn't give Origins the time of day.

Modifié par Sjofn, 09 février 2011 - 12:00 .

[Terror_K]

I do agree that Mass Effect was kind of a transitional game too, but also made for those who were RPG fans. I think primarily it was made to be something that also wasn't either, and was very much a unique experience. In many ways it was more "interactive 1980's era-esque sci-fi movie" than either a full on RPG or TPS, especially with stuff like the exploration element and its cinematic stylings. The second game, however, just seemed far more of a game and less an experience, and seemed to throw away a lot of what made the original unique and many of the RPG elements for more tried-and-true shooter game elements, while also seeming to shift it's style, tone and presentation overall to a more bombastic, action-oriented and overall modern approach, both gameplay wise and non-gameplay wise. In many ways it disappointed me more in the overall style and presentation alterations than it did in the gameplay ones, feeling less like a game made for sci-fi geeks who grew up in the 80's and more for today's modern teenagers.



I definitely agree with your last satement there, Sjofn: it really would be sad to see Dragon Age get too far away from what made me love it. Especially for those very reasons. And it seems that that's the case judging from what I've seen and read of DA2. I suppose I'll give the demo a go later this month and get a taste, but it's not as if feedback is going to change the game at this point if I end up being disappointed with it. We'll see though.

[Mercurious]

The same debates have boiled and bubbled since Baldur's Gate. People were shrieking "sellout" at Bioware when they saw BG II. I had faith then, as I do now, that Bio will create a game I love.



They have yet to miss with an RPG for me.

[Felfenix]

Mercurious wrote...

The same debates have boiled and bubbled since Baldur's Gate. People were shrieking "sellout" at Bioware when they saw BG II. I had faith then, as I do now, that Bio will create a game I love.

They have yet to miss with an RPG for me.

People have been complaining about change and fondly talking of how perfect things were in the "good ol days" for CENTURIES. The mentality applies to more than just video games. It's really no different than the people who talk about how much "better" the world was in the 1950s, apparently forgetting about or actually despising all the social progress made since then.

Modifié par Felfenix, 09 février 2011 - 12:39 .

[Terror_K]

Mercurious wrote...

The same debates have boiled and bubbled since Baldur's Gate. People were shrieking "sellout" at Bioware when they saw BG II. I had faith then, as I do now, that Bio will create a game I love.

They have yet to miss with an RPG for me.

They didn't miss with me until Mass Effect 2. I still think it's a good game, but it's a lacklustre RPG that deviates too much from the original, IMO. There were admittedly some good ideas and even some improvements over the original, but in most cases it was overkill, and overall it had a feeling of being almost rebooted. Jade Empire was probably their most "RPG-Lite" RPG, but that wasn't really trying to be anything other than what it was, as opposed to Dragon Age and Mass Effect which started out rather different than their sequels tended to be. It's not necessarily about RPG depth as much as it is about consistency. Had Mass Effect 2 been essentially the same game in style and gameplay but been based on an original IP rather than being the so-called sequel (or, even worse, second part of a trilogy that's supposedly one big story) then 80% of my issues with it would be gone. Similarly, had Dragon Age 2 not been Dragon Age 2, most of my issues with it would be gone.

As it stands, it seems to me BioWare can't make a consistent sequel these days. I actually get the feeling I'd prefer Obsidian to make the sequels to BioWare's games than BioWare themselves. Despite their issues with finishing things properly, massive bugs and a seeming lack of good QA testing, I think NWN2 and KotOR2 both did a far better job of remaining true to their predecessors in style, tone, feel and gameplay than Mass Effect 2 did or Dragon Age 2 is appearing to by a long shot.

[TheMadCat]

Brockololly wrote...

It just pains me when I see developers moaning about high budgets for games and how they need to sell several million to be successful. Why not try some more mid range game? Not some dinky facebook game, but have BioWare make some more old school iso view BG style RPGs, that sacrifice some of the mainstream bells and whistles and VO- but present an experience that while maybe viewed as "niche" wouldn't need to sell a billion copies to break even.

Its like every game made by a big developer needs to be the equivalent of some summer blockbuster movie and as a result, they end up playing it safe and doing whatever it was the other big selling game did. I think in trying to reach out for some mythical "mainstream" audience, devs might be leaving behind other groups of gamers whose money is just as viable as Mr. Call of Duty or World of Warcraft. Sometimes it would seem best to just make a damn good game for one audience instead of spreading it too thin in some attempt to capture everyone and satisfying no one.

This is the thing that's bothered me with mainstream development since the turn of the decade. Development budgets have just become so bloated over the years which has forced these developers/publishers into a corner and cater to as many people as possible. The end result unfortunately is more often then not a watered down product that is meant to be as diverse and appeal to as many demographics as possible in a desperate attempt to reach the insanely high quota set for themselves due to the massive budget they implemented. Developers are forced to search for, using a term David likes to use here, MOAR!. And to top it off the final product is rarely better.

Yet I look at games like Sins of a Solar Empire, several of Valve's games, some of the Eastern European games, I look at a few Indie titles which have struck gold, I look at Paradox's model and I wonder why developers choose to corner themselves with these massive budgets when success is proven beyond a shadow of doubt at the mid-level area which actually caters to niche audiences. What is so special about that AAA status, what is there to gloat about when Ironclad and Stardock manage to make a game that has a higher profit percentage then three quarters of the AAA titles released. It makes me wonder how well a modern day iso-RPG truly going back to the BG, Planescape, and Icewind Dale days created by BioWare would do, how it's core audience receive and how it's brand name would be effected. I don't buy the notion that it wouldn't be successful, (Unless you notion of successful is multi-platinum), there are plenty of companies which survive off of niche audiences of plenty of games which have been successes and turned a large profit relying on a niche market. But the reception, that I'm curious about.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 09 février 2011 - 01:11 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

We haven't try all-round genre RPG+FPS+Adventure+Board Game+Simulation+Racing+Action+Beat 'em up+Strategy+Tactical yet.



It might work.





or not.

[Collider]

BioWare's a business. Wanting are a larger audience for their games isn't ridiculous.

[Sjofn]

I really guess I'm missing what you thought was so different in ME2. I felt it was, well, a sequel to ME1. I feel the combat served the setting far better (and I am not ... a shooter sort of person. I play TF2 - poorly - and that's it.). Your followers, while still not as developed as I would like, were better characters all around. I learned way more about them. I didn't feel like it was vastly more "bombastic" than the first one, as the first one was pretty silly too. In a good way, but still.

I dunno, maybe what I got out of ME1 was way different than what you got out of it, rather than what we got out of ME2, and that's what's causing my confusion.

Modifié par Sjofn, 09 février 2011 - 01:11 .

[Felfenix]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

We haven't try all-round genre RPG+FPS+Adventure+Board Game+Simulation+Racing+Action+Beat 'em up+Strategy+Tactical yet.

It might work.


or not.

I've seen some RTS mods that more or less cover those, technically.

Modifié par Felfenix, 09 février 2011 - 01:37 .

[TheMadCat]

Collider wrote...

BioWare's a business. Wanting are a larger audience for their games isn't ridiculous.

But spending more the necessary is. Could BioWare still be as successful on smaller budgets, relying more on a core audience rather then crafting a product to be as diverse and cover as many demographics as possible as quite a few other developers/publishers do. It's an interesting question.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 09 février 2011 - 01:13 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Felfenix wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

We haven't try all-round genre RPG+FPS+Adventure+Board Game+Simulation+Racing+Action+Beat 'em up+Strategy+Tactical yet.

It might work.


or not.

I've seen some RTS mods that more or less cover those, technical.

Yes. That should cover all audience instead of just COD. 

[brownybrown]

It really feels to me that Bioware is trying to make two games in one, the dividing line being the difficulty setting, one game set on casual is a Diabloesque action adventure slasher and the other game on nightmare mode is a hard boiled RPG pause and play tactical planner game.

can they achieve it? time will tell but im optimistic.

[Icinix]

Meh. I love games.



All games.



A little genre blending here and there doesn't do any harm, in fact, I like it. The only time I believe there is an issue is when instead of genre blending, they just change the genre. That's not happening though. If they can make an RPG just Dragon Age appeal to a broader fan base - THIS IS A GOOD THING. Means more sales, means more money, means more RPG games.



Bring it on I say. MOAR!

[Sacred_Fantasy]

I think Bioware want to create something new and revolutionary. But seriously, if they just target CoD audiences based on CoD features, then IMO, they're just limiting their options.

[Felfenix]

brownybrown wrote...

It really feels to me that Bioware is trying to make two games in one, the dividing line being the difficulty setting, one game set on casual is a Diabloesque action adventure slasher and the other game on nightmare mode is a hard boiled RPG pause and play tactical planner game.
can they achieve it? time will tell but im optimistic.

DAO was already faceroll on casual/normal. They're basically just saying "Yeah, if you don't know how to play an RPG, you can set it on easymode, spam the A button, and pretend it's an action game: pewpew!" but said in a more appealing way to the audience that's aimed at.

[Terror_K]

Collider wrote...

BioWare's a business. Wanting are a larger audience for their games isn't ridiculous.

That's true. But that doesn't mean that their current titles need to suffer from mainstreamlining in order to do that. If they want to start branching out, then do it with new IPs or spin-off titles, rather than rebooting and retooling your existing ones part the way through to simply branch out.

Titles like ME2 and DA2 no longer feel like they were interactive works of art made with love like the originals and BioWare's previous titles did; they feel like cold, methodical products engineered for the sole purpose of bringing in the bucks and being as popular with as many people as possible. It's like they're trying to make their games with the sole purpose of being the absolute perfect Frankenstein's Monster of game elements connected together for everybody rather than making something that's more natural for a smaller audience.

Most of the changes made to ME2 weren't revolunionary or fresh, they were just the culling of most RPG elements in favour of the same rehashed mechanics we've seen in a dozen games before. It didn't feel organic and crafted, but instead hollow and manufactured. And I can't help but get the same vibe from DA2 at the moment, and BioWare as a company overall.

Modifié par Terror_K, 09 février 2011 - 02:00 .

[Walker White]

TheMadCat wrote...
This is the thing that's bothered me with mainstream development since the turn of the decade. Development budgets have just become so bloated over the years which has forced these developers/publishers into a corner and cater to as many people as possible.

But there have always been independent studios to cater to the niche markets.  If you want this type of stuff, there are plenty of indy games out there (there are many old-school RPGs in the indy space).  But if you want to play a AAA game, then it has to be something that is guaranteed to sell at least a million units.

The problem was that, for a while, it looked like the barrier of entry had gotten too high for the indies.  However, with things like X-Box Live Arcade and the like, we have appeared to turn a corner.  Indies are thriving again and this is where we are seeing a lot of the innovation these days.

[Walker White]

Terror_K wrote...

Most of the changes made to ME2 weren't revolunionary or fresh, they were just the culling of most RPG elements in favour of the same rehashed mechanics we've seen in a dozen games before. It didn't feel organic and crafted, but instead hollow and manufactured. And I can't help but get the same vibe from DA2 at the moment, and BioWare as a company overall.

Can we please not turn this thread (which is not in the ME forum) into another "ME2 is not an RPG" thread.  What is and what is not an RPG is a very complicated question, particularly if you go back to the 80s with its quirky RPGs like Toon. There is no definition of an RPG that everyone here is going to agree on (I certainly disagree that the computer RPGs of the 90s and Baldur's Gate era are somehow a pure representation of the form)  and this will just sidetrack the thread.

[MKDAWUSS]

You're better off creating your own audience rather than stealing someone else's.

[Captain Sassy Pants]

Shadow of Sparta wrote...

i doubt it.i hope this doesn't mean they'll start dumbing down successive games to try and snare a part of CoD's audience.i was a dragon age convert.heard it was crap.bought it for 10 quid.couldn't believe how good it was.

They already did. It's called Dragon Age 2.