182 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr Bawbag]

inkjay wrote...

brgillespie wrote...

However, earlier in the article:

50% completion rate is well above the industry average. Epic boasted Gears of War games completion rate was at about 50% (a game with a 6-8 hour campaign) and said it was a good thing. When your average RPG is 35hrs long a 50% completion rate is godsend.

http://www.gamasutra...ck_.php?print=1

Games come out at an amazing rate, some people simply don't have the time or the energy to finish a game or simply move on to the next big thing. You don't adress thing by making worse games though, I'd venture to say completion rates for DA2 are not better than those of DA:O or ME.

I'm not disputing your point entirely, but GoW isn't the best comparison due to the fact most people that play Gears do so for the MP, not the campaign mode.  I'm not a huge fan of Gears and I've only played the the first one, but i think i reached about the mid way point and went on to the MP, where i remained until i stopped playing it.

[Economist21]

I think we should wait until DA3 to tell if the genre is dying. Supposedly bioware is adding more rpg elements to ME3 in response to the backlash maybe the same will happen with DA3.

[ErichHartmann]

Old school crpgs started to "streamline" a long time ago. Even Baldur's Gate doesn't have the complexity of RPGs from the late 80's and early 90's.

[inkjay]

Dr Bawbag wrote...

I'm not disputing your point entirely, but GoW isn't the best comparison due to the fact most people that play Gears do so for the MP, not the campaign mode.  I'm not a huge fan of Gears and I've only played the the first one, but i think i reached about the mid way point and went on to the MP, where i remained until i stopped playing it.

Of course, many people play  games for the multiplayer component only (in fact I can almost guarantee that DA 3 -or a spinoff- will have some form of multiplayer according to some recent job postings at Bioware.)
But other games like Fable and Mass Effect 3 have similar competion rates. My point is that as an average 50% rate is not a bad number at all and it shouldn't be used as an argument of why DA2 deviated from DA:O's formula.

Modifié par inkjay, 20 mai 2011 - 05:21 .

[bEVEsthda]

Well, I for one disagree with most of the text matter.
Disagree strongly, because while it's certainly true that DA2 fails to deliver an honest sequel, I don't feel that is the biggest problem with DA2.

The greatest problem is - and I have said this many times before - that DA2 is supposed to kill off the spirit of everything that was DA:Origin (and BG before that). They really intended DA2 to be the new direction.
How is this then different from what that author wrote, you might wonder? Simply that what DA2 is or is not, is completely irrelevant. The point is still that 'DA next' not only is missing, but supposedly gone for good.

Now, I also disagree with what he has to say about DA2, though. This is a side issue, but I don't think DA2 is a great game or even a good game. It is *enjoyable enough*. To finish. And to not make me mad (I'm only mad because of the absense of a true 'DA next', because this was supposed to replace that). That is my opinion.
DA2 is not a great game. There are many things with DA2 which diminishes the experience.

The ugly atmosphere of 'retard-ness', throughout the game, for instance.
Are the involved developers themselves retards? Or do they hold their customers in so much contempt? Are exploding bodies, sickening JRPG re-'styling' of Flemeth, Fenris, Qunari, overpowered talents, auto-crossbows, spiky armor, a cynical, calculated attempt to woo Beavis and Butthead type of players? Or did the developers really feel that this anime-poop was unique, fresh and cool? While Origin's consistent, gorgeous, medieval, painted realism was somehow suddenly 'cliché'? "Generic fantasy"?
Maybe Bioware themselves have devolved? Maybe there is noone left who is able to do a great game? Maybe it's just all kids who admire Diablo, FF, Anime, Manga, Bayonetta and stuff?  Medieval is out, old. Not "kewl". It should be Zap, Bang, Ka-Boom?

Then the  reused dungeons.

The dialogue wheel. (Which I now have decided to hate. To hell with voiced protagonist!)

The linearity, the annoying false choices which aren't.

Simplification.

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Well, I for one disagree with most of the text matter.
Disagree strongly, because while it's certainly true that DA2 fails to deliver an honest sequel, I don't feel that is the biggest problem with DA2.

The greatest problem is - and I have said this many times before - that DA2 is supposed to kill off the spirit of everything that was DA:Origin (and BG before that). They really intended DA2 to be the new direction.
How is this then different from what that author wrote, you might wonder? Simply that what DA2 is or is not, is completely irrelevant. The point is still that 'DA next' not only is missing, but supposedly gone for good.

Now, I also disagree with what he has to say about DA2, though. This is a side issue, but I don't think DA2 is a great game or even a good game. It is *enjoyable enough*. To finish. And to not make me mad (I'm only mad because of the absense of a true 'DA next', because this was supposed to replace that). That is my opinion.
DA2 is not a great game. There are many things with DA2 which diminishes the experience.

The ugly atmosphere of 'retard-ness', throughout the game, for instance.
Are the involved developers themselves retards? Or do they hold their customers in so much contempt? Are exploding bodies, sickening JRPG re-'styling' of Flemeth, Fenris, Qunari, overpowered talents, auto-crossbows, spiky armor, a cynical, calculated attempt to woo Beavis and Butthead type of players? Or did the developers really feel that this anime-poop was unique, fresh and cool? While Origin's consistent, gorgeous, medieval, painted realism was somehow suddenly 'cliché'? "Generic fantasy"?
Maybe Bioware themselves have devolved? Maybe there is noone left who is able to do a great game? Maybe it's just all kids who admire Diablo, FF, Anime, Manga, Bayonetta and stuff?  Medieval is out, old. Not "kewl". It should be Zap, Bang, Ka-Boom?

Then the  reused dungeons.

The dialogue wheel. (Which I now have decided to hate. To hell with voiced protagonist!)

The linearity, the annoying false choices which aren't.

Simplification.

so you hate jrpgs????

and the choices are not what you have a problem with it would appear. its the consequences.

[Brockololly]

The thing is though, if you use that same metric of looking at achievements as a measure of people finishing the game and therefore extrapolate that people finishing a game is some measure of how much they enjoyed it or how successful it is, DA2's numbers on that achievement site are about the same as Origins.

And of course, while I agree with the article that the changes made to DA2 basically missed the point why a good chunk of people enjoyed the more traditional elements of Origins, the notion that it had to be changed to reach a broader audience and garner more sales is flawed. Look at DA2's sales and you'll see they're not as good as Origins and you bring up DA2 most anywhere and it goes down mostly as a disappointment.


Thats not to say Origins was perfect as it had a ton of flaws I was hoping to see fixed in DA2, but most of the problems I had with Origins weren't fixed in DA2. Rather, they just went a 180 and did something completely different while perpetuating many of Origins flaws, like mediocre encounter design, which was only exacerbated by the waves.

Modifié par Brockololly, 20 mai 2011 - 05:32 .

[abaris]

Savber100 wrote...

"Somewhere during the two-year regeneration of Shepard between the first and second titles, the Mass Effect universe gave up on item-carrying and huge skill-trees in favour of simplified, dynamic levelling and looting. By reducing the choice players had in regards to levelling or loot selection, BioWare was able to create a more cohesive and uniform storyline for all players. While this shift worked for Mass Effect, it rang hollow when applied to Dragon Age II. After being sold as the modern re-imagining of the classic PC games of yore, its 180-degree refocus away from the elements that made it so special in the first case made the game feel empty and cold by comparison. "

THIS sums it all up perfectly. ;P

Yeah, but he does a 180 degree with his next line about DAII being a great game.

So what was his opinion?

I agree with the above quote and he worked his arguments a lot to get there. So why do a turn?

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

abaris wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

"Somewhere during the two-year regeneration of Shepard between the first and second titles, the Mass Effect universe gave up on item-carrying and huge skill-trees in favour of simplified, dynamic levelling and looting. By reducing the choice players had in regards to levelling or loot selection, BioWare was able to create a more cohesive and uniform storyline for all players. While this shift worked for Mass Effect, it rang hollow when applied to Dragon Age II. After being sold as the modern re-imagining of the classic PC games of yore, its 180-degree refocus away from the elements that made it so special in the first case made the game feel empty and cold by comparison. "

THIS sums it all up perfectly. ;P

Yeah, but he does a 180 degree with his next line about DAII being a great game.

So what was his opinion?

I agree with the above quote and he worked his arguments a lot to get there. So why do a turn?

his argument was never that da2 was a bad game. just that it didnt have the spirit of past rpgs.

[jds1bio]

There are a few interesting points in this editorial, but the editorial also contradicts itself and loses its way at times. Is DA2 a pretty good game or not? The author seems to imply that if DA2 was DA:Kirkwall 1 or something, then it would be pretty good. But then says since it's DA2, it falls flat.

And what does that have to do with the decline of the "old-school RPG"? And why is BioWare the only one responsible for this? By changing the rules every so often, isn't D&D responsible for this also? What about Microsoft for entering the console business in the first place? What about Activision/IW for including role-playing elements in COD4 and blowing that series wide open (I think the author does mention this)? What about the PC players who prefer playing PC games with XBox controllers rather than keyboard/mouse? What about the companies who make PC-only games and forget "old-school" PC options like keyboard remappings, invert mouse, separate voice/fx volume sliders, and the use of the keyboard in the main menu? (Yes, that would be The Witcher 2). What about the actual number of people worldwide who really do prefer the old-school games exclusively? (my guess is that number is approx. 1.5 million worldwide - a relatively small number) They can't possibly support a development studio's longevity all on their own.

[bEVEsthda]

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

so you hate jrpgs????

and the choices are not what you have a problem with it would appear. its the consequences.

? Why would you ask if I hate JRPGs?

(I'm still curious about that, but to clarify: My point was, I found it somewhat baffling that developers scorned Origin for "Generic Fantasy", while that particular Origin style actually was both very consistent in the game, and even rather unique for games today. And while they then "borrowed" stylistic clichées from very well exposured sources instead. The Navi re-styling of Elves is also pathetic. Doubly pathetic for developers who argued that Origin wasn't "unique" enough.

I also don't understand your line about consequences. I have no clue what you're talking about.

[Drachasor]

Savber100 wrote...

"Somewhere during the two-year regeneration of Shepard between the first and second titles, the Mass Effect universe gave up on item-carrying and huge skill-trees in favour of simplified, dynamic levelling and looting. By reducing the choice players had in regards to levelling or loot selection, BioWare was able to create a more cohesive and uniform storyline for all players. While this shift worked for Mass Effect, it rang hollow when applied to Dragon Age II. After being sold as the modern re-imagining of the classic PC games of yore, its 180-degree refocus away from the elements that made it so special in the first case made the game feel empty and cold by comparison. "

THIS sums it all up perfectly. ;P

Honestly I didn't feel like ME2 had a more coherent story overall.  It really felt like there was a LOT of side-tracking when you were dealing with a crazy-nasty threat.  ME wasn't perfect here either, but I didn't feel like the side-tracks were force on me...I CHOSE to get side-tracked whereas ME2 seemed to force it on you.

I thought DA:O actually handled this sort of thing very well.  You had the main plot, and when you went to take care of part of it, there were other things you could straighten out or take advantage of if you chose.  These other quests fell in naturally with what you were already doing and doing them didn't make you feel like you were ignoring the fact you were in a Blight.  ME2 DID NOT give me that feeling, yet kept the same feeling that doom was just over the horizon...and that was very odd.  IMHO, of course.

Frankly, I don't mind them cutting down on inventory management or the like.  The problem I've been having with Bioware lately is that they've been cutting down on the depth of gameplay (in DA2 in particular, and harder modes of ME2 really limit viable tactics as well), and depth and breadth of the RPG elements.

And I don't know what they mean about giving up on "huge skill tress", as skill trees are not something Bioware has done much if any off.  Some linear skill paths in DA:O does not a tree make, imho.  I also think cutting down on abilities is also something that hurt ME2, imho.  DA2 wasn't hurt here, but it was hurt by the lack of polish in the superior skill system.

Anyhow, I think the paragraph there is trying to make ME2 and DA2 a bit too much alike.  They do have some similarities I don't like (dialogue wheels as implemented cut out too many choices, imho), but it isn't a universal situation of "this worked in ME and didn't in DA".

[Drachasor]

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

abaris wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

"Somewhere during the two-year regeneration of Shepard between the first and second titles, the Mass Effect universe gave up on item-carrying and huge skill-trees in favour of simplified, dynamic levelling and looting. By reducing the choice players had in regards to levelling or loot selection, BioWare was able to create a more cohesive and uniform storyline for all players. While this shift worked for Mass Effect, it rang hollow when applied to Dragon Age II. After being sold as the modern re-imagining of the classic PC games of yore, its 180-degree refocus away from the elements that made it so special in the first case made the game feel empty and cold by comparison. "

THIS sums it all up perfectly. ;P

Yeah, but he does a 180 degree with his next line about DAII being a great game.

So what was his opinion?

I agree with the above quote and he worked his arguments a lot to get there. So why do a turn?

his argument was never that da2 was a bad game. just that it didnt have the spirit of past rpgs.

He says it was a middling RPG very clearly and also say it isn't entirely unenjoyable.  He is NOT giving it great praise for most of the article, merely saying that some elements were good.  He pretty strongly indicates the whole package is not good.  Then at the end he says it is a great game.  It doesn't make any sense.

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

bEVEsthda wrote...

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

so you hate jrpgs????

and the choices are not what you have a problem with it would appear. its the consequences.

? Why would you ask if I hate JRPGs?

(I'm still curious about that, but to clarify: My point was, I found it somewhat baffling that developers scorned Origin for "Generic Fantasy", while that particular Origin style actually was both very consistent in the game, and even rather unique for games today. And while they then "borrowed" stylistic clichées from very well exposured sources instead. The Navi re-styling of Elves is also pathetic. Doubly pathetic for developers who argued that Origin wasn't "unique" enough.

I also don't understand your line about consequences. I have no clue what you're talking about.

i asked because i read that as you hated jrpgs. my bad. as for the consequences line. you complained about the game being linear. there were lots of choices ingame. but usually no matter the choice that you picked you went down the same road. so it wasnt the choices themselves that were bad. it was the result of those choices.

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

Drachasor wrote...

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

abaris wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

"Somewhere during the two-year regeneration of Shepard between the first and second titles, the Mass Effect universe gave up on item-carrying and huge skill-trees in favour of simplified, dynamic levelling and looting. By reducing the choice players had in regards to levelling or loot selection, BioWare was able to create a more cohesive and uniform storyline for all players. While this shift worked for Mass Effect, it rang hollow when applied to Dragon Age II. After being sold as the modern re-imagining of the classic PC games of yore, its 180-degree refocus away from the elements that made it so special in the first case made the game feel empty and cold by comparison. "

THIS sums it all up perfectly. ;P

Yeah, but he does a 180 degree with his next line about DAII being a great game.

So what was his opinion?

I agree with the above quote and he worked his arguments a lot to get there. So why do a turn?

his argument was never that da2 was a bad game. just that it didnt have the spirit of past rpgs.

He says it was a middling RPG very clearly and also say it isn't entirely unenjoyable.  He is NOT giving it great praise for most of the article, merely saying that some elements were good.  He pretty strongly indicates the whole package is not good.  Then at the end he says it is a great game.  It doesn't make any sense.

This is what makes Dragon Age II such a mystifying game. By conventional wisdom, it is a vastly improved sequel – gameplay is far more fluid and dynamic, conversations are much more in-depth and the plotline is intriguing and engaging. But somehow by fixing the "problems" of the first title, Bioware removed the soul and the heritage of the Dragon Age namesake, making it nothing more than another middling RPG. Without the features that made Dragon Age: Origins so unique, the title felt featureless in a cluttered, yet dying genre.

It's therefore easy to understand the shock I experienced the first time I placed Dragon Age II into my Xbox 360. Dragon Age II is a jarringly different game to that of its predecessor, both mechanically and thematically. It is not an unenjoyable experience for the most part, but is alarmingly different from that of its forefather. If Dragon Age II had been the first entry of a new series, I would have praised its strong combat system, wonderful cast of characters and Mass Effect-style conversation wheel, however, it was not. Dragon Age II was a sequel to a title that specifically sold itself on its classic RPG bloodline, and for me its deviation from this path was an ultimately disappointing realisation.

he praises the game alot. he is saying it is in fact better. but he liked the quirks of origins despite them being inferior. because those quirks are gone he feels like the soul of dragon age origins is gone.

[Drachasor]

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

Drachasor wrote...

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

abaris wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

"Somewhere during the two-year regeneration of Shepard between the first and second titles, the Mass Effect universe gave up on item-carrying and huge skill-trees in favour of simplified, dynamic levelling and looting. By reducing the choice players had in regards to levelling or loot selection, BioWare was able to create a more cohesive and uniform storyline for all players. While this shift worked for Mass Effect, it rang hollow when applied to Dragon Age II. After being sold as the modern re-imagining of the classic PC games of yore, its 180-degree refocus away from the elements that made it so special in the first case made the game feel empty and cold by comparison. "

THIS sums it all up perfectly. ;P

Yeah, but he does a 180 degree with his next line about DAII being a great game.

So what was his opinion?

I agree with the above quote and he worked his arguments a lot to get there. So why do a turn?

his argument was never that da2 was a bad game. just that it didnt have the spirit of past rpgs.

He says it was a middling RPG very clearly and also say it isn't entirely unenjoyable.  He is NOT giving it great praise for most of the article, merely saying that some elements were good.  He pretty strongly indicates the whole package is not good.  Then at the end he says it is a great game.  It doesn't make any sense.

This is what makes Dragon Age II such a mystifying game. By conventional wisdom, it is a vastly improved sequel – gameplay is far more fluid and dynamic, conversations are much more in-depth and the plotline is intriguing and engaging. But somehow by fixing the "problems" of the first title, Bioware removed the soul and the heritage of the Dragon Age namesake, making it nothing more than another middling RPG. Without the features that made Dragon Age: Origins so unique, the title felt featureless in a cluttered, yet dying genre.

It's therefore easy to understand the shock I experienced the first time I placed Dragon Age II into my Xbox 360. Dragon Age II is a jarringly different game to that of its predecessor, both mechanically and thematically. It is not an unenjoyable experience for the most part, but is alarmingly different from that of its forefather. If Dragon Age II had been the first entry of a new series, I would have praised its strong combat system, wonderful cast of characters and Mass Effect-style conversation wheel, however, it was not. Dragon Age II was a sequel to a title that specifically sold itself on its classic RPG bloodline, and for me its deviation from this path was an ultimately disappointing realisation.

he praises the game alot. he is saying it is in fact better. but he liked the quirks of origins despite them being inferior. because those quirks are gone he feels like the soul of dragon age origins is gone.

No, he says if you look at some of the raw design decisions then it seems like you'd have a better game, when in fact it is NOT better, but instead worse.  Again, stuff like "It is not an unenjoyable experience for the most part" is damning with faint praise.

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

@ Drachasor

no. he explicitly states that it is a better game. however, those outdated designs of origins made it unique amonst the current rpgs. thats evident from him saying if it wasnt a sequel and instead a new series he would have loved it. his dissatisfaction as you are trying to point out, is that it is no longer a flawed gem like the original, but instead is starting to look more like the rest.

Modifié par TGFKAMAdmaX, 20 mai 2011 - 07:10 .

[bEVEsthda]

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

i asked because i read that as you hated jrpgs. my bad. as for the consequences line. you complained about the game being linear. there were lots of choices ingame. but usually no matter the choice that you picked you went down the same road. so it wasnt the choices themselves that were bad. it was the result of those choices.

Yes, yes, but why would you ask?  What's it to you?
(I don't hate JRPGs. I certainly don't love them, but I have no reason to hate anything that isn't in my life.)

And aah, yes. That is one way of putting it.  Now I understand. Though, since the inevitabel 'event' is NOT something coming from of your choice, it's not a "consequence" IMO. I simply call them false choices, since they just converge to same event.

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

bEVEsthda wrote...

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

i asked because i read that as you hated jrpgs. my bad. as for the consequences line. you complained about the game being linear. there were lots of choices ingame. but usually no matter the choice that you picked you went down the same road. so it wasnt the choices themselves that were bad. it was the result of those choices.

Yes, yes, but why would you ask?  What's it to you?
(I don't hate JRPGs. I certainly don't love them, but I have no reason to hate anything that isn't in my life.)

And aah, yes. That is one way of putting it.  Now I understand. Though, since the inevitabel 'event' is NOT something coming from of your choice, it's not a "consequence" IMO. I simply call them false choices, since they just converge to same event.

ok. i asked because i was trying to understand your opinion. not hating on your opinion. merely trying to understand where you are coming from.

[brigantine]

I think this is a great article because it captures exactly how I feel. I'm sad to see the hard core RP games are going away but I loved DAII.

The author was able to make some criticisms of DAII in an intelligent way while also expressing his enjoyment of the game.

[Drachasor]

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

@ Drachasor

no. he explicitly states that it is a better game. however, those outdated designs of origins made it unique amonst the current rpgs. thats evident from him saying if it wasnt a sequel and instead a new series he would have loved it. his dissatisfaction as you are trying to point out, is that it is no longer a flawed gem like the original, but instead is starting to look more like the rest.

Read it in a bit more detail.  He clearly says superficially you'd think it was a better game, when it is not.  And no, he doesn't say he would have loved it if it was a new series, but rather that he would have praised certain elements; there's a big difference between the two.

[abaris]

jds1bio wrote...

There are a few interesting points in this editorial, but the editorial also contradicts itself and loses its way at times. Is DA2 a pretty good game or not? The author seems to imply that if DA2 was DA:Kirkwall 1 or something, then it would be pretty good. But then says since it's DA2, it falls flat.

Yeah, that was my point. He spends quite some time explaining how it doesn't rise up to good old fashioned RPG standards, laments the decline of the RPG genre and says it's a great game.

I don't quite get what this guy is at, since I agree completely when he says its a bad thing to see RPGs in decline.

[V1talic]

Baldurs Gate: Tales of the Swordcoast is still my favourite game. Dragon Age (2) is much better with the battles though, and graphics ofcourse.

Things I miss in Dragon Age (2) are:

- Freedom of movement. In Dragon Age it is too much walking a path. There is no way you can go the wrong way. I would like to do some exploring.
- Variety in alignments of characters. In Dragon Age there are no pure evil characters which you can take up in your team. Maybe the most evil character was Morrigan, though thats nothing compared to Viconia or Xzar in Baldurs Gate.
- Variety in classes. I want Druids, Paladins, Clerics and multiclassing.
- 6 member-teams are more fun.
- Baldurs Gate trilogy had much cooler storylines. I think because those stories are more mysterious.
- Better music:)

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

Drachasor wrote...

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

@ Drachasor

no. he explicitly states that it is a better game. however, those outdated designs of origins made it unique amonst the current rpgs. thats evident from him saying if it wasnt a sequel and instead a new series he would have loved it. his dissatisfaction as you are trying to point out, is that it is no longer a flawed gem like the original, but instead is starting to look more like the rest.

Read it in a bit more detail.  He clearly says superficially you'd think it was a better game, when it is not.  And no, he doesn't say he would have loved it if it was a new series, but rather that he would have praised certain elements; there's a big difference between the two.

no. he clearly praises almost every individual component. from the combat to the story to the characters he says that they are good or a vast improvement. he actually clearly states the reason for his disappointment.

Dragon Age II was a sequel to a title that specifically sold itself on its classic RPG bloodline, and for me its deviation from this path was an ultimately disappointing realisation.

There is nothing inbetween the lines that i fail to grasp. He clearly states that because it no longer adheres to the oldschool mechanics which he so enjoyed in origins.

As it stands currently, it seems that consumers emerge from Dragon Age II as the ultimate winners. Even with its changes to gameplay and presentation, Dragon Age II is a great game worthy of your time.

this ultimately reinforces my point. at the beginning and the end of his article he makes it a point to state regardless of his disappointment that his oldschool rpg is dying DA2 is still a great game.

[brigantine]

abaris wrote...

jds1bio wrote...

There are a few interesting points in this editorial, but the editorial also contradicts itself and loses its way at times. Is DA2 a pretty good game or not? The author seems to imply that if DA2 was DA:Kirkwall 1 or something, then it would be pretty good. But then says since it's DA2, it falls flat.

Yeah, that was my point. He spends quite some time explaining how it doesn't rise up to good old fashioned RPG standards, laments the decline of the RPG genre and says it's a great game.

I don't quite get what this guy is at, since I agree completely when he says its a bad thing to see RPGs in decline.

He is sying it does not measure up to the old time RPGs but taken on its own it is a great game.