So having set that up, let's get to it:
First, BioWare is in a corner, but a rather large and tidy one, because with DA2 they have released what is a complete game with a great story, considerable length and production values, with marked improvements in both electronic role-playing and combat, and full of great choices to make. (And though you many not like the game, I do). So what's the big deal, you say? Well, it's just that BioWare still can't shake themselves from the single-shape main storyline. A shape that in no way can be altered by your role-playing or the choices you make.
In DA2, your role-playing as future Champion of Kirkwall seems to get off to a great start. The dialogue and influence on companions gets better and more involved as you go. But as the game progresses, you begin to realize that there are too many extremist characters whose actions nullify any possible input by the role-player to the overall main storyline. Furthermore, the time skips during the game nullify the possibilties you may have considered to role-play by thrusting you forward into points in time where it becomes too late to shape the main storyline. Then, when you finally get to the pinnacle of the role-playing in DA2, the final question, your answer neither shapes the ultimate reactions of the "antagonists", nor does it shape the nature of the final battle. It does affect the immediate outcome of the battle, but it doesn't affect the outcome of the overall story at all. And since at the end you are rushed off to battle and the end of the story, you really have no final view of any possible differing consequences to the overall storyline. I think the journey through the story is still very worthwhile, with lots of choices to be made that impact your experience during the game, just not the overall main story.
The same thing ALMOST happened with Dragon Age: Origins. Much of what I said about DA2 can be said about DA:O. The final battle is ultimately just a party configuration applied to the battle system of the game, against the same enemy, with a few scant options for assistance made available by some player choices. No other role-playing choices really matter to the main story, as there is really just one role (Grey Warden) and one goal (defeat the Blight by slaying the Archdemon). But the real difference between the two games, and the glimmers of role-playing hope that exist in DA:O, lie in the outcome of He/She who slays the Archdemon, and whether you opt for the option someone gives you late in the game. Only near the end of DA:O do we really get to see that shaping the outcome of the main storyline, beyond merely who is left standing at the end, is possible. And this, and nothing else, is the one consumer expectation of RPGs that was left out of Dragon Age II that has BioWare stuck in a corner.
Now, disgruntled BioWare RPG fans are in their own corner because a) they've decided that companies bringing "their" games to a wider audience is bad, and
they can't decide what is really more important to them in RPGs - the combat or the role-playing. So much of their RPG experience in the last decade has been with games built around increasingly-accessible battle systems, with tacked-on "skills" or "good/bad scales" that have less to do with the roleplaying and more to do with being a "good-natured" combatant or an "agressive-evil" combatant, or more to do with completing only very specific quests. So when the player is disappointed by the limited role-playing options in a game that may also overrule their prior decisions, they tend to seek solace in the combat experience.And while some fans insist that games like DA2 possess a worsened combat experience, some of the combat features are simply here to stay (like a "Normal" difficulty level that is easier now than in games from 7-10 years ago). So I don't think games will really get better in the minds of these RPG players unless the actual role-playing begins to improve. But since with DA2 they're not able see past certain aspects of combat or RPG elements, and the sameness of maps, they're not likely to move out of the corner in this regard to ask for the one thing that might really rescue them - better roleplaying.
This is a shame, because better main story role-playing CAN make a difference, and BioWare can make it happen. Just look at Mass Effect 2. ME2 is an example of a game that lost some traditional RPG elements, but made up for it by having the player affect the overall storyline, even one as bare-bones as ME2's storyline. In ME2 the life or death decisions join up with the narration of the final battle, especially since you can't fight the entire battle with just one party while leaving the others chilling on the ship. Because the main storyline is so bare-bones, your gang, your leadership, and who lives and who dies BECOMES the story worth telling.
Also, look at what BioWare has done inside DA2. The Friendship/Rivalry and dialogue aspects allow for great variaion in affecting your companions and NPCs beyond just life or death, and beyond your Hawke merely being in a romantic relationship with them. You just have to play the game and seek them out, the possibilities and the mechanics are there. It's just too bad that none of these systems have an impact on the shape of the overall main storyline.
Now all the games mentioned do have something in common, RPG elements aside - they are all great games. But as gamers become increasingly jaded, and combat in games trends towards greater generalization of features, there has to be something that both RPG gamers and devs can look to and say, "Yes, this can make these games stand out above all others." And that something, I believe, is great role-playing that can shape the overall main story into a satisfying topology for both gamer and developer. But until the disgruntled fans are willing to move beyond combat features to seek out role-playing, and BioWare is willing to move beyond an immutable story shape, they will remain huddled up in their respective corners without being able to meet.
Thank you for your attention.
Retour en haut
