Well, I hope that Witcher 2 is illustrative of the fact that one can still make a successful RPG of traditional depth which is still pretty kinetic and exciting. Bethesda, for instance, also produces content which is action-oriented and deep. Mass Effect 2 was a good example of how Bioware CAN make an RPG which is very action oriented and still retain the charm of its predecessor. Having said that, it overcompensated for ME1's junk problem by riping out character managment and decreasing one's options for customizing character stats. The same could be said of DA2, where the combat when from being plodding but deep to, well, Dynasty Warriors. ME should not be Gears, DA should certainly not be dynasty warriors, but there is no reason there can't be a balance.
The point of all this is to say that action and excitement are not incompatible with depth in the modern RPG. Still, I'm not overly optimistic that any of that will have an impact on EA/Bioware. The problem is that EA wants, NEEDS, to show its shareholders that it is either making money or that their product has the potential to do so. It doesn't matter what Witcher 2 or Skyrim do; it won't matter to the EA execs who seem to be influencing Bioware's dev choices. What matters to them is EA's bottom line.
You're right about EA's mind set, Nithrakis. They want yearly returns on an IP, often to the detriment of many of their games, including Madden which is usually the same game every year with one or two new/changed features. But people buy it, EA makes money, their shareholders are fat and happy, and the cycle continues. There's a conflict though: you can't produce a good RPG with a one- or two-year turn around as you can with a FPS or sport game. DA2 is a perfect example how this model fails. They applied the turn around time of a 5-7 hour FPS with a multiplayer system to the RPG genre which has to run from 40-100 hours.So, the dev team just used the ME tech rather than making a new engine or updating the old one. The restraints placed on them caused them to cut corners, like with the recycling environments.
EA has learned to be cynical about their markets: the core will buy the product anyway, so lets change it so that others will like it too no matter if it will alienate Bioware's "base" or produce a crappy product. The thing is, I don't think a action-only gamers will EVER really care about RPGs or Bioware they way the core does, no matter how simplified and action-oriented the games become. I don't think they will come out and buy with the sort of loyalty that you find from guys like myself whose played everything Bioware put of for 15 years. If it's true that lots of DA2s are being traded in and less and less are being bought over time. That's, ironically, the best possible thing for Bioware, because it means that the core RPGer is not keeping the game, more people (i.e. the "broader audience") are buying used, less people are buying DLC. This sort of thing shows that what EA is doing will be disastrous for their bottom line. That's the only way they will learn. That's the only way Bioware can regain full creative and administrative independence: if EA realizes that the old Bioware way is the profitable way.
It's EA's shareholds and the beckoning of quarterly return numbers which are the problem. The thing is, we have an option to protest: wait, buy used, boycott. The hardcore RPGer just needs to stop buying content that doesn't meet his or her standards, regardless of the name attached to development. I won't be buying DA3 or even ME3 until I play enough of them to know if each is the sort of product that I want to support. EA needs to understand that the Bioware brand isn't a licence to print money, or that they can take a core audience for granted. We need to stop supporting crap with our money, otherwise it won't matter how many young, upstart studios are making solid, deep action RPGs and making money from them.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
