182 réponses à ce sujet

[Salaya]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

...

That's a semantic argument.  :)  You have to define RPGs increadibly narrowly to make that claim.

I think that discussions about genres -or, more specifically, this discussion about CRPG genre- it is indeed a matter of semantics

Lets define the CRPG genre as some kind of style for videogames with lots of definitory elements that the common CRPG player expects, in more or less presence (and avoid then your claim about narrow definition). I guess you have a clear idea (I assume not completely hiper-defined, but intuition based) about what is to be expected in a CRPG, and, as you have stated before in this thread, you see that idea of classic CRPG is morphing into something new. If thats true, then you see that there are lots of changes in the definitory-elements of the genre that are making that global change possible. So, the genre as it was is declining. The result, I insist, it's not necessarily bad, but unquestionably different. 

This assumes that almost every common CRPG player could do a intuition based list about elements that are expected on the genre. I think this is pretty acceptable

Modifié par Salaya, 24 juin 2011 - 05:06 .

[Salaya]

Lasceil wrote...

Salaya wrote...

...

Uhm, wait...the denotation and connotation of "decline" generally means a detoriation of quality or coming to an end. When is having something of less quality generally a good thing? 

What is declining is the genre, not the games

If we took DA2 as a classic CRPG genre game, then is probably not as good as others. But if the declining of the CRPG genre derivates into a different genre, that result its not necessarily bad.

[Salaya]

Lasceil wrote...

@ OP

Sorry – I haven’t read all the posts on here and am only going by the first post. So, I'm probably reading your post wrong because I inferred that you meant that the quality of RPG's is in decline with statements like:

"japanese titles were becoming stale and absurdly repetitive. Gameplay and art direction suffered from lack of ideas and most respected franchises became relative failures.

...For me, it's clear that western RPGs are suffering from his own decline, similar (yet different) from the one that killed the international success of japanese ones."

But your last posts seem to imply that you meant that there's a decline in the quantity or amount of games that can fit into your definition of what is a proper CRPG.

Yes, those statements are pretty confusing I literally fight with myself whenever I have to speak/write english, so my apologies. 

And yes, my intention was to point at  the decline of traditional CRPG as I understand it -games that could fit in that category. Thats why I dont think that the result of that "morphing" is necessarily bad

[Wozearly]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

No, I have never once thought that.  Any game has a "price" you pay to get to the good bits.  The good bits of RPGs have always been the story of the characters.  The tedious looting, selling, shopping, zzzzz.... that's been the price.  It goes back to my point about how ME2 and DA2 are exactly what RPGs need...  They're the RPG genre growing up, changing into something new that appeals to more people.  Good for the games, good for the genre.

Not sure I agree with all of the points you've made Rinpoche (or the flak you've got, for that matter), but you've illustrated one of the critical points of the argument - different people value different things in RPGs.

My personal view is that what we're seeing with games like Fallout: NV, Mass Effect and DA2 is that some traditional RPGs are shifting closer towards being "action RPGs", with fewer/simpler mechanics, less peripheral elements (e.g. crafting) and a greater focus on the 'core' elements around story and/or gameplay and a shift in spend towards graphical elements at cost of scope of the in-game world.

I'd argue that these games are competing directly, or indirectly, for space with other action-driven games. And eerily enough, traditional action games like Grand Theft Auto are moving into the same space from the other direction...

That said, not all RPG franchises are moving in this direction (albeit even the giants of scope and small-scale detail like Bethesda and Obsidian are shifting towads it), and the more that do, the more likely others will attempt to step into the gap they're leaving behind.

In my view, players' preferences probably haven't changed all that dramatically. There are still a large chunk of people who like, and would buy, the more 'classic' RPGs. However, the console markets have expanded the gaming community to a larger audience who (as a very, very broad group) have shown greater willingness to spend on more 'actiony' games.

Kinda hard to blame the developers for experimenting with shifts in that particular direction, and copying elements and ideas from successful games in other genres. With Mass Effect, I think they landed it on the nail...I just personally feel that the same attempt in DA2 went south rather sharpish.

[Realmzmaster]

Forum mates you keep talking about classic or traditional CRPGs. Please define what is a classic or traditional CRPG. I say this because there is no universal definition. People like to put media into classifications and genres that way they can define them.

So what defines a classic CRPG? Are you saying Bards Tale is a classic CRPG then that would make Baldur's Gate an action-CRPG. Are you saying turn based combat makes a classic CRPG like the early Might and Magic series before they instituted real time combat. What about Vampire: Redemption is it a classic CRPG.

Are you saying the genre is dying because classic games as you see them are no longer being produced. Even the Witcher 2 would not be considered a classic CRPG, but an action-CRPG.
So is the genre dying or morphing.

Are we now seeing the break down of genres and more games that will cross genres challenging established convention.

Even TES games are action-CRPGs, because the classic CRPGs like Temple of Elemental Evil which is based on D & D has turn based combat. Early CRPGs force you to save at an inn or camp. Early CRPgs did not have maps or mini-maps. You drew your own maps just lie a p n p session. How many want to do back to doing that? Until Ultima III CRPGs did not have animated characters. That back when if you made sales over 100,000 it was considered great.

Even other genre are borrowing from CRPGs. Some shooters and strategy games have experience points that can be used to upgrade your character.

Companies have made changes to the classic CRPG that most gamers want. The genre keeps evolving. Companies tried new innovations like the mini-map some loved it others who like drawing their own maps hated the idea and said the companies were ruining the CRPG experience.

If companies are afraid to make changes because of fear that they will disenfranchise their fanbase then the genre will stagnate and die.
Change can be good or bad, but unless a developer tries the developer will not know one way or the other.
Also to remain competitive you have to try something different or your competition will thereby leapfrogging you and making that developer play catch up as gamers go play the new game with the cool innovations.

But this is my humble opinion.

Edit: one zero to many.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 24 juin 2011 - 08:01 .

[Sidney]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

  You have to define RPGs increadibly narrowly to make that claim.

...but that is the key to define the genre so narrowly that literally only DAO is an RPG.

FNV
No race selection
You are "the courier" not someone who you choose
Combat is pew pew fast moving shooter action, no more turn based point n' click action here!
You can't control companions in combat other than the most rudimentary commands
There is no tactical camera how can you aim a rocket, grenade or other AoE weapon?!?!?!
You can't even control companion weapons!

On the upside it does have a terrible inventory system and a worse crafting mini-game so maybe that's enough to push it over the top for some folks.

[Mr.House]

Kilshrek wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

To you maybe, I have hated Geralt since the books. It's old hate that is like a root that will never go away.

No grudge like an old grudge then. Since I've never read the books, I can't really comment. *shrug*

So you'd rather the ability to customise your protagonist in TW then?

When I heard the anouncement TW2, I was hoping that maybe, just maybe they would get away from Geralt and let us make our own Witcher, yes this would require some more wrtting but it would have been intresting, then I saw Geralt and then I just remember him from the books and TW and I grumbled. I don't like Geralt, I don't see the apeal, but that's my opinion.

To me a customiseable PC is a must for an RPG, unless the character is amazing(Nameless One) The PC is very important to me, if they fail then I simply don't care for them or the game, I don't care if there is hundreds of choices, over ten endings ect. I need to connect, and if I don't then the PC has failed for me, which is why I'm not a big fan of TW games, which is a shame because I love the other characters, the setting and the stories.

Modifié par Mr.House, 24 juin 2011 - 08:14 .

[RangerSG]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

No, that's not growing up. That's turning into an action game. There's always been games like that. Diablo, Dungeon Siege, et al. They were doing that a decade ago. That's not a classic RPG. There's nothing "new" about ME2 and DA2 in that sense.

It is growing up.  Diablo was a hack and slash with a story painted on.  DS looked like a Diablo game, so I never ever touched them.  RPGs aren't in decline, they're morphing into something new and as they go, they're borrowing traits and features from other games.  Action isn't a bad thing, it complements the storytelling and builds tension.  It gives a sense of accomplishment when different chunks of the tale are presented.

And the way to make a game appeal to "different kinds of players" is to *shock* reward different playstyles. DA2 and ME2 don't do this. It's hack and slash or big boomstick. That's not rewarding different players. Origin rewarded players for taking non-combat skills to solve problems. DA2 doesn't, by and large. BethSoft games can be played virtually pacifist, if the players wants to.

Rewarding different playstyles still only rewards RPG players.  A better way to appeal to more gamers is to make the game more fun and emphasize the fun parts of an RPG... as ME2 and DA2 did.  More story, less looting.  More playing, less plotting.  More action, less voiceless characters.

The strength of RPGs, and what made Origin appeal to a broader audience than DA2 did, is the reward of DIFFERENT gameplay styles. That is what needs to be tweaked and evolved. Not cut out. Diablo created that formula a decade ago.

Your linking DA2 to Diablo is specious.  They're totally different games.  But nice try!  :lol:

DAO's single key feature was "throwback to the past!"  It was cool, like watching football with retro uniforms.  But retro is retro for a reason.  It's day is over.  Next week, I want something modern.

You want something modern, and you represent the entire audience. That's hubris. The majority of gameplayers don't go to a Sports game thinking they're going to get a 1st person shooter. And there's games in 1 genre that will never appeal to "die hards" in another. That doesn't mean those games do poorly.

I don't buy the argument that making a RPG more marketble means making it less of an RPG. And the sales numbers don't back up your assertion. DA:O outsold DA2. It's that simple. There's no evidence the "morph" game was even the correct direction.

And Diablo and Dungeon Siege were 'exactly' the same sort of game as DA2. Action/RPG hybrids. Diablo was all about story and looting as well. The problem Bioware has is, they already HAVE an action/RPG hybrid in ME. Why would players willingly choose to sink their money in the same sort of game? And that's what DA2 was, a fantasy morph of ME.

There's no evidence DA2 was the right way to go, other than marketers want to tell us it was. If Skyrim, as a classic CRPG, outsells DA2, then it's more than fair to say the marketing suits are wrong. And I'm sure Skyrim WILL outsell both DA2 and TW2.

[Morroian]

RangerSG wrote...

I don't buy the argument that making a RPG more marketble means making it less of an RPG. And the sales numbers don't back up your assertion. DA:O outsold DA2. It's that simple. There's no evidence the "morph" game was even the correct direction.

Given the issues DA2 had beyond the changes form DAO and the subsequent bad press you can't actually claim that the changes in features caused the downturn in sales either.

RangerSG wrote...

And Diablo and Dungeon Siege were 'exactly' the same sort of game as DA2. Action/RPG hybrids. Diablo was all about story and looting as well. The problem Bioware has is, they already HAVE an action/RPG hybrid in ME. Why would players willingly choose to sink their money in the same sort of game? And that's what DA2 was, a fantasy morph of ME.

See IMHO DAO is just as much of an action rpg as DA2.

[Captain_Obvious]

Wasn't Origins hailed as the return of the "true" cRPG? There must have been a "decline" for there to be a "return". I think it all runs in cycles, and there is no need for panic.

[RangerSG]

Morroian wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

I don't buy the argument that making a RPG more marketble means making it less of an RPG. And the sales numbers don't back up your assertion. DA:O outsold DA2. It's that simple. There's no evidence the "morph" game was even the correct direction.

Given the issues DA2 had beyond the changes form DAO and the subsequent bad press you can't actually claim that the changes in features caused the downturn in sales either.

RangerSG wrote...

And Diablo and Dungeon Siege were 'exactly' the same sort of game as DA2. Action/RPG hybrids. Diablo was all about story and looting as well. The problem Bioware has is, they already HAVE an action/RPG hybrid in ME. Why would players willingly choose to sink their money in the same sort of game? And that's what DA2 was, a fantasy morph of ME.

See IMHO DAO is just as much of an action rpg as DA2.

Why? Many of the "issues" DA2 had were directly related to the attempt to "streamline" the game for a more action-oriented audience.

And no, DA:O wasn't as much an action RPG. Non-combat skills, in-depth crafting, non-hostile ways of advancing and completing many quests.Those are all indicative of a true RPG, and the fact these were essentially stripped from DA2 points to the hybridization of the game.

[erynnar]

RangerSG wrote...

Morroian wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

I don't buy the argument that making a RPG more marketble means making it less of an RPG. And the sales numbers don't back up your assertion. DA:O outsold DA2. It's that simple. There's no evidence the "morph" game was even the correct direction.

Given the issues DA2 had beyond the changes form DAO and the subsequent bad press you can't actually claim that the changes in features caused the downturn in sales either.

RangerSG wrote...

And Diablo and Dungeon Siege were 'exactly' the same sort of game as DA2. Action/RPG hybrids. Diablo was all about story and looting as well. The problem Bioware has is, they already HAVE an action/RPG hybrid in ME. Why would players willingly choose to sink their money in the same sort of game? And that's what DA2 was, a fantasy morph of ME.

See IMHO DAO is just as much of an action rpg as DA2.

Why? Many of the "issues" DA2 had were directly related to the attempt to "streamline" the game for a more action-oriented audience.

And no, DA:O wasn't as much an action RPG. Non-combat skills, in-depth crafting, non-hostile ways of advancing and completing many quests.Those are all indicative of a true RPG, and the fact these were essentially stripped from DA2 points to the hybridization of the game.

This^ And why do we need yet another action/arcade/anime/MMO/shooter (mage was one)/RPG lite game when there are plenty out there to be played I don't get. Why demand that DAO and the franchise be turned into another one? Fixing what wasn't broken in DAO, and not just fixing what didn't need it, but strippng out what worked? 

And no OP, I don't think it spells the end of CRPG. I think BioWare, or EA, or both suffered from the "oooh shiny" numbers and dollar signs of games like WoW, CoD, etc. Couple that with a too short dev time? Yeah. 

Only DA3 will tell me if the franchise is dead, not RPGs.

[Sutekh]

RangerSG wrote...

And Diablo and Dungeon Siege were 'exactly' the same sort of game as DA2. 

What?

The only common points Diablo has with DA2 are: you fight, you loot, you level up, there's a story. Which pretty much defines every CRPG ever made, regardless of subgenre.

I've played both, and DA2 certainly felt nothing like Diablo.

And no, DA:O wasn't as much an action RPG. Non-combat skills, in-depth crafting, non-hostile ways of advancing and completing many quests.Those are all indicative of a true RPG, and the fact these were essentially stripped from DA2 points to the hybridization of the game.

Yet those didn't exist in the first decade or so of CRPGs. Does that mean that "true RPGs" only exist since the mid 90s? What do we call the older games then? Non-hostile ways of advancing and completing many quests isn't even very common in any RPG, true or not, now.

I agree with you re: hybrids not always being a good thing, but your definition of what is a hybrid and what is a "true RPG" seems a bit, ah, strict and only referring to this and this being in the game or not. Strictly speaking, where's the roleplaying part in crafting or using a coercion level number to convince someone? I'm all for the return of non-combat skills, but they're not what defines a "true" RPG, IMHO.

erynnar wrote...
And why do we need yet another action/arcade/anime/MMO/shooter (mage was one)/RPG lite game

So because a mage can "shoot" from a distance it makes the game a hybrid shooter? Seriously? So any game with a mage or an archer in them have shooter DNA or something? Have you ever played (or seen played) a shooter or are you just hyperboling for the sake of it? Tell me it's the latter, please 

As for MMO, you lost me.

I agree that we don't need hybrids, especially in a franchise that did quite good without, but could we stop calling hybrid every game that doesn't fit our own, personal, exact definition of what is a "True RPG"? And I'm not even arguing that DA2 isn't a bit of a hybrid, but not this way.

[erynnar]

Sutekh wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

And Diablo and Dungeon Siege were 'exactly' the same sort of game as DA2. 

What?

The only common points Diablo has with DA2 are: you fight, you loot, you level up, there's a story. Which pretty much defines every CRPG ever made, regardless of subgenre.

I've played both, and DA2 certainly felt nothing like Diablo.

And no, DA:O wasn't as much an action RPG. Non-combat skills, in-depth crafting, non-hostile ways of advancing and completing many quests.Those are all indicative of a true RPG, and the fact these were essentially stripped from DA2 points to the hybridization of the game.

Yet those didn't exist in the first decade or so of CRPGs. Does that mean that "true RPGs" only exist since the mid 90s? What do we call the older games then? Non-hostile ways of advancing and completing many quests isn't even very common in any RPG, true or not, now.

I agree with you re: hybrids not always being a good thing, but your definition of what is a hybrid and what is a "true RPG" seems a bit, ah, strict and only referring to this and this being in the game or not. Strictly speaking, where's the roleplaying part in crafting or using a coercion level number to convince someone? I'm all for the return of non-combat skills, but they're not what defines a "true" RPG, IMHO.

erynnar wrote...
And why do we need yet another action/arcade/anime/MMO/shooter (mage was one)/RPG lite game

So because a mage can "shoot" from a distance it makes the game a hybrid shooter? Seriously? So any game with a mage or an archer in them have shooter DNA or something? Have you ever played (or seen played) a shooter or are you just hyperboling for the sake of it? Tell me it's the latter, please 

As for MMO, you lost me.

I agree that we don't need hybrids, especially in a franchise that did quite good without, but could we stop calling hybrid every game that doesn't fit our own, personal, exact definition of what is a "True RPG"? And I'm not even arguing that DA2 isn't a bit of a hybrid, but not this way.

No, just because you can shoot from a distance doesnt' make it a shooter, I was being silly. Damn! My smiley didn't stay. SORRY! I was throwing in some humor ( often post  how I liked playing my mage, the only fun I had with DA2) <----This smiley better stay! *looks at formatting on BSN*

MMO becuause of the style of some of the quests, boss fights, and the running from arrow to arrow.

[foogoo]

Diablo and Dungeon siege were hack and slash, action rpg's. Very little story line and dialogue and more of killing thousands of enemies in real time at a fast pace. DA2 still uses pause so it still has that turn based element plus it still has that dialogue and story element. You don't also kill as much in DA2 unlike in normal action games. But DA2 is getting close to an action rpg, farther that it's more turn based cousins like BG, NWN, & DAO.

erynnar wrote...

MMO becuause of the style of some of the quests, boss fights, and the running from arrow to arrow.

NO not MMO cuz MMO is online multiplayer. Dragon age/Mass Effect games are single player so no.

Modifié par foogoo, 25 juin 2011 - 12:34 .

[foogoo]

simfamSP wrote...

foogoo wrote...

Diablo and Dungeon siege were hack and slash, action rpg's. Very little story line and dialogue and more of killing thousands of enemies in real time at a fast pace. DA2 still uses pause so it still has that turn based element plus it still has that dialogue and story element. You don't also kill as much in DA2 unlike in normal action games. But DA2 is getting close to an action rpg, farther that it's more turn based cousins like BG, NWN, & DAO.

Story line and branching choices are becoming common place these days. Hell even Rockstar had a go at it with L.A Noire. I think plot and choice should be a fundementle requirement of most games (and even more so in RPGs,) but it does not necessarily make it an RPG.

Combat is another thing that get's brought up. I understand combat is a huge part of an RPG, but why does having shooter mechanics or The Witcher 2's lovley click click click system (disclamer, I loved the game,) make it even more, or less than an RPG?

Dunno, this is the definition of RPG afaik:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game

]Role-playing video games (commonly referred to as role-playing games or RPGs) form a loosely-defined genre of video games with origins in pen-and-paper role-playing games[1] such as Dungeons & Dragons, using much of the same terminology, settings and game mechanics.
The player in RPGs controls one character, or several adventuring party
members, fulfilling one or many quests. The major similarities with
pen-and-paper games involve developed story-telling and narrative
elements, player character development, complexity, as well as replayability and immersion.

[Bryy_Miller]

Salaya wrote...
 I dont think that DA2 caused the decline. 

Why are you blindly defending EAware? 

[trademark2]

what a bunch of rubbish. DA2 is a fine game, its all the mudslingers that have risen, not games declining.

[Sutekh]

erynnar wrote...

No, just because you can shoot from a distance doesnt' make it a shooter, I was being silly. Damn! My smiley didn't stay. SORRY! I was throwing in some humor ( often post  how I liked playing my mage, the only fun I had with DA2) <----This smiley better stay! *looks at formatting on BSN*

Thanks You had me spooked for a moment there.

MMO becuause of the style of some of the quests, boss fights, and the running from arrow to arrow.

See? This is exactly what I mean.

A MMO, for me, is what its appellation tells you: Massive, Multiplayer and Online. From these three qualities, a lots of things ensues. Raids, Guilds, PvP etc... and a whole culture. Without them, nothing can be qualified as even remotely MMO-like. Plus, MMO being born of CRPG, it's only natural they have common points.

Quests and boss fights as the ones you're talking about can and could be found since the dawn of CRPGs. Hell, even in PnPs you have bosses with lots and lots of HP and only that to qualify them as "bosses". So that, in itself, doesn't make DA2 a hybrid MMO, but a game that have some badly thought-out bosses.

The arrow is something to help the player distinguish Sam Quest-Giver from Joe Average in a place full of Joe Averages. I've seen them in other games too. I've seen them in DAO (and sometimes, they would never go away). Ideally, they should be optional, but they don't strike me as MMO-like. As for running everywhere looking for a quest? Come on. It is one of the features of CRPGs since CRPGs have side quests 

Not to argue specifically on the MMO thing, but the same could be applied to many genres DA2 is allegely an hybrid of. It all boils down to the definition of RPG, and I feel that for some, that definition is way too narrow (and a bit unfounded). That would make "pure true RPG" the absolute exception, and all others hybrids. Not only now, but in the entire history of CRPGs.

Now the "easification" of the game, from the simplistic maps, to combat, to crafting, to lack of diversity re: solving quests IS a problem, especially if devs and publishers impose it as the norm in the future. But not one related to genre, IMHO.