3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Savber100]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Savber100 wrote...


Mass Effect 2 gives you something that NO other pure shooters have. Choice and Consequences. ]

I was just playing it! 

"Mr. JCCCC DEENTON" 

*cough* Anyways I believe Deus Ex is an Action RPG not a pure shooter like COD or Halo of which I was referring to in my argument. 

[Praetor Knight]

sbvera13 wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...
<image snipped>

Reinstall? RE?!?! IT"S STILL ON MY HARD DRIVE, YO!

Proudly wearing sunglasses at night....

Hmm, thinking know, I wish I had better luck with computers and software

And I've got some special edition of the first Deus Ex game (I'd need to look at the disk to be 100% of what I got too ), darn the new Windows stuff.

[Iakus]

sbvera13 wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...
<image snipped>

Reinstall? RE?!?! IT"S STILL ON MY HARD DRIVE, YO!

Proudly wearing sunglasses at night....

Same.  And eagerly awaiting the prequel.

[sbvera13]

Savber100 wrote...

*cough* Anyways I believe Deus Ex is an Action RPG not a pure shooter like COD or Halo of which I was referring to in my argument. 

And it's a better one then ME2 is!

Cheap shot... had to take it. Lol.

[AlanC9]

marshalleck wrote...
There's nothing erroneous about those claims. Each decision you've cited, Bioware have yet to deliver a consequence. It's not incorrect to say those decisions don't effect their respective game, because they don't. 

What would qualify as delivering a consequence here, and which games have actually succeeded at this?

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...


What would qualify as delivering a consequence here, and which games have actually succeeded at this?

Alpha Protocol.  Sure the combat was wonky but when it came to consequences for your choices, it delivered the goods.

[the_one_54321]

You can have serious consequences with specific squad mates. Outside of that, there are no decisions that effect the overall progress of any game. I'm willing to accept, play and enjoy that.

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
What would qualify as delivering a consequence here, and which games have actually succeeded at this?

Alpha Protocol.  Sure the combat was wonky but when it came to consequences for your choices, it delivered the goods.

Heavy Rain also had genuine serious consequences. It was just too bad that everything totally blew, except for a perfect run.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 04 juillet 2011 - 05:15 .

[this isnt my name]

Savber100 wrote...


Mass Effect 2 gives you something that NO other pure shooters have. Choice and Consequences.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ5YnEZpTQC71KAbUawDX9uXe6ehrjVL_FYeYC7Xuk83Ujh2dXlkg

I suppose you could include far cry 2, its much like mass effect, you get a choice, but they both have the same outcome.

[AngelicMachinery]

this isnt my name wrote...

Savber100 wrote...


Mass Effect 2 gives you something that NO other pure shooters have. Choice and Consequences.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ5YnEZpTQC71KAbUawDX9uXe6ehrjVL_FYeYC7Xuk83Ujh2dXlkg

I suppose you could include far cry 2, its much like mass effect, you get a choice, but they both have the same outcome.

Grandtheft auto isn't a shooter...

[littlezack]

Grand Theft Auto 4 gave you choices, but they really made very little difference in any way, shape or form. As a matter of fact, I think only one of the choices changed anything, and even then, it was mostly cosmetic.

[rt604]

Someone With Mass wrote...

rt604 wrote...

Skills don't have to necessarily make sense entirely, maybe the proficiency where weapon accuracy and damage went up didn't make sense to a certain standard.  If your character is a specialist as a soldier he can unlock skills, that other classes don't have the ability to duplicate.  A soldier is a master at weaponry, if you are an adept or engineer could mean you are proficient with weapons but you couldn't pull out more potential with that gear because you didn't put as much time into weapons training becacuse you were practicing biotics or tech powers.  That would be like applying the theory where a soldier could have adept powers because he was in the N7 training program.

Yeah, but holding the rifles steady so the shots aren't flying all over the place or so the guy can take the shot in the first place is something that's not so demanding or stressful. Shooting with long range rifles is like basic training for most military factions.

It's really sad when some dirty pirate sniper can get a better shot off than Shepard.

This I can meet you halfway about the craziness of the sway when you don't have any points in sniper rifle training when you are an N7 top graduate.  But I'm sure there are pirates or Mercs in the Milky Way Galaxy that are pretty good with the sniper rifle.  However, I do think there are stressful combat situations for sniping if you aren't hidden very well, or you are engaging multiple targets at different ranges.  Therefore you are switching between shotguns, assault rifles and sniper rilfes, but obviously the sight sway of the sniper scope won't be as exaggerated as it was in Mass Effect 1.

[Lunatic LK47]

iakus wrote...


Alpha Protocol.  Sure the combat was wonky but when it came to consequences for your choices, it delivered the goods.

Uh, let's see.

"Spare that Al-Samad recipient in Rome?" Oh, oops, guy gets offed. Only difference is it's you or Marburg doing the deed

"Need Surkov? All it references is either you're with G22 or VCI support".

"Assaulting Brayko's mansion? SIE or Albatross get captured regardless."

"Kill Shaheed or fake his death?" Missile strike still rains down on you regardless.

All the rest it boils down to are either Perks or "You fight X faction, everything else plays out the same."

[KingDan97]

ITT: People fruitlessly complaining that a company wants to make money, that artists want more people to see their work, and that a company has lost sight of it's own values.

Games are changing, the entire landscape is transforming and if any of you honestly want an old school RPG, go play one. Better yet, go support an indie dev because I guarantee there's at least 5 revival projects being headed that would love some donations. Triple A games are very expensive, and the hardcore RPG market is dwindling, and even if there are some new gamers who just love old school RPGs the ratio of them to those who are moving on, or getting older, or losing faith, or one of any other of a million different reasons is not even close to matching up.

This will continue happening, and unfortunately, some won't want to deal with the "inferior" multimillion dollar projects that are developed by teams of over 200 hardworking individuals over the course of thousands of hours within a period of years and will linger for the times when a group of 50 guys would work on a game for several years using preset scripting mechanics and old D&D manuals as the foundation for their entire gamebase so they had less work.

Companies exist to make money, and with a studio as well known as Bioware you know damn well that EA won't have them pumping out things that are considered a niche market in today's gaming architecture. Sorry, but you're fighting a losing battle, and Bioware is trying to meet you halfway, in spite of the fact that most of the posts on here are full of nothing but hate and vitrol for anything they want to change. I constantly see disgust at the practice of a CoD game being released annually with the small amount of changes to the core system but it seems that whenever a company like Bioware wants to experiment with their own games, everyone wants someone fired, or killed, or their offices razed to the ground.

Grow up people, they don't need to start making new franchises to try out new ideas, especially if they see their new ideas working within an existing franchise. Yet it seems like the most consistent suggestion I see is along the lines of "If you want to do new things make new games" Well guess what. That is exactly what they are doing. Years of passion on behalf of many many dedicated people who care about what the people who claim to be their "fans" gets torn down release after release because it wasn't quite your taste.

Would you walk into a fine arts museum and call a piece trash for the simple fact that you personally didn't like the perspective they took, the fact they focused on warm colors instead of cold colors or the fact that it was based on an allusion as opposed to being an originally inspired work? No, because you'd just come off as an arrogant fool.

Well these people, these human beings who slave for 10 hour days before their work, their baby comes out to the world, the thing that they needed to examine, and dissect, and retract upon their vision just to make sure it ever got out, they are artists. They do amazing things, they put their hearts and souls into these products and they look and feel fantastic.

They need to cover the randomness and abuse that people put into their products, they need to prepare for every eventuality they can and they can't outright ask you if that's what you want because that would ruin the surprise, or you could misunderstand them, or vice versa. And even if they polled us on every little minute detail they were going to put into the game they'd still have people who didn't want things changed, or people whose voices weren't heard because they missed the deadline for the poll or love the games but haven't signed up for the social forums.

In short: The people at Bioware are working miracles getting a product as polished as their games are in the time they have, and constantly crying out for more time just isn't a viable solution because eventually the game is going to have to come out.

A poem is never finished, only abandoned.
-Paul Valery

[littlezack]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

iakus wrote...


Alpha Protocol.  Sure the combat was wonky but when it came to consequences for your choices, it delivered the goods.

Uh, let's see.

"Spare that Al-Samad recipient in Rome?" Oh, oops, guy gets offed. Only difference is it's you or Marburg doing the deed

"Need Surkov? All it references is either you're with G22 or VCI support".

"Assaulting Brayko's mansion? SIE or Albatross get captured regardless."

"Kill Shaheed or fake his death?" Missile strike still rains down on you regardless.

All the rest it boils down to are either Perks or "You fight X faction, everything else plays out the same."

Untrue. If you play the other "acts" before rome, your decisions (such as your relationship with SIE, and whether you saved your handler at Brayko's mansion, and even the guy you can snipe or not snipe) affect how Marburg reacts to you. And, if you do everything right, you can get his score high enough so that he betrays the ultimate bad guy in the end. On the other hand, if you do everything to p*ss him off, when you fight him he stays until you kill him. I've yet to see that one happen, but I plan to when I get around to playing it again.

That's one thing ME could benefit from: individual scores for people, based on your other actions, that affect how those people act towards you. Too late for it now though.

I swear, I never could ****** Marburg off enough for that. Lord knows I tried, too.

I do agree, though; AP is inferior to ME in my book, but it did have some decent ideas. I like the idea of having a timer for the decisions; not something I'd like ME to carry over in full, but it would be kind of cool to have that with some of the bigger decisions. It kept things tense.

[Praetor Knight]

KingDan97 wrote...

Would you walk into a fine arts museum and call a piece trash for the simple fact that you personally didn't like the perspective they took, the fact they focused on warm colors instead of cold colors or the fact that it was based on an allusion as opposed to being an originally inspired work? No, because you'd just come off as an arrogant fool.

Well these people, these human beings who slave for 10 hour days before their work, their baby comes out to the world, the thing that they needed to examine, and dissect, and retract upon their vision just to make sure it ever got out, they are artists. They do amazing things, they put their hearts and souls into these products and they look and feel fantastic.

They need to cover the randomness and abuse that people put into their products, they need to prepare for every eventuality they can and they can't outright ask you if that's what you want because that would ruin the surprise, or you could misunderstand them, or vice versa. And even if they polled us on every little minute detail they were going to put into the game they'd still have people who didn't want things changed, or people whose voices weren't heard because they missed the deadline for the poll or love the games but haven't signed up for the social forums.

In short: The people at Bioware are working miracles getting a product as polished as their games are in the time they have, and constantly crying out for more time just isn't a viable solution because eventually the game is going to have to come out.

A poem is never finished, only abandoned.
-Paul Valery

"I like this part, it has weight."

And seriously, you are eloquent in sharing your perspective; and I really like the last line about poems.

[Cainne Chapel]

KingDan97 wrote...

ITT: People fruitlessly complaining that a company wants to make money, that artists want more people to see their work, and that a company has lost sight of it's own values.

Games are changing, the entire landscape is transforming and if any of you honestly want an old school RPG, go play one. Better yet, go support an indie dev because I guarantee there's at least 5 revival projects being headed that would love some donations. Triple A games are very expensive, and the hardcore RPG market is dwindling, and even if there are some new gamers who just love old school RPGs the ratio of them to those who are moving on, or getting older, or losing faith, or one of any other of a million different reasons is not even close to matching up.

This will continue happening, and unfortunately, some won't want to deal with the "inferior" multimillion dollar projects that are developed by teams of over 200 hardworking individuals over the course of thousands of hours within a period of years and will linger for the times when a group of 50 guys would work on a game for several years using preset scripting mechanics and old D&D manuals as the foundation for their entire gamebase so they had less work.

Companies exist to make money, and with a studio as well known as Bioware you know damn well that EA won't have them pumping out things that are considered a niche market in today's gaming architecture. Sorry, but you're fighting a losing battle, and Bioware is trying to meet you halfway, in spite of the fact that most of the posts on here are full of nothing but hate and vitrol for anything they want to change. I constantly see disgust at the practice of a CoD game being released annually with the small amount of changes to the core system but it seems that whenever a company like Bioware wants to experiment with their own games, everyone wants someone fired, or killed, or their offices razed to the ground.

Grow up people, they don't need to start making new franchises to try out new ideas, especially if they see their new ideas working within an existing franchise. Yet it seems like the most consistent suggestion I see is along the lines of "If you want to do new things make new games" Well guess what. That is exactly what they are doing. Years of passion on behalf of many many dedicated people who care about what the people who claim to be their "fans" gets torn down release after release because it wasn't quite your taste.

Would you walk into a fine arts museum and call a piece trash for the simple fact that you personally didn't like the perspective they took, the fact they focused on warm colors instead of cold colors or the fact that it was based on an allusion as opposed to being an originally inspired work? No, because you'd just come off as an arrogant fool.

Well these people, these human beings who slave for 10 hour days before their work, their baby comes out to the world, the thing that they needed to examine, and dissect, and retract upon their vision just to make sure it ever got out, they are artists. They do amazing things, they put their hearts and souls into these products and they look and feel fantastic.

They need to cover the randomness and abuse that people put into their products, they need to prepare for every eventuality they can and they can't outright ask you if that's what you want because that would ruin the surprise, or you could misunderstand them, or vice versa. And even if they polled us on every little minute detail they were going to put into the game they'd still have people who didn't want things changed, or people whose voices weren't heard because they missed the deadline for the poll or love the games but haven't signed up for the social forums.

In short: The people at Bioware are working miracles getting a product as polished as their games are in the time they have, and constantly crying out for more time just isn't a viable solution because eventually the game is going to have to come out.

A poem is never finished, only abandoned.
-Paul Valery

Dang... Now I feel I owe you a beer.


Wonderful Post.

[Savber100]

sbvera13 wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

*cough* Anyways I believe Deus Ex is an Action RPG not a pure shooter like COD or Halo of which I was referring to in my argument. 

And it's a better one then ME2 is!

Cheap shot... had to take it. Lol.

Honestly, you'll get no argument from me. 

Deus Ex is one of a kind. 

[Terror_K]

KingDan97 wrote...

In short: The people at Bioware are working miracles getting a product as polished as their games are in the time they have, and constantly crying out for more time just isn't a viable solution because eventually the game is going to have to come out.

Oh yes... because Dragon Age 2 was soooooo very polished. <_<

[Cainne Chapel]

I haven't played Dues Ex or system shock in so long.... Here's to hoping the new one releasing this month isn't a pile of nukem

Come on Terror_K...every development house is allowed one.

That said I enjoyed DA2 for what its worth.  But i've definately played games polished a lot worse in my day (big ones too).  Of course that may just be MY personal experience at said time.

Modifié par Cainne Chapel, 04 juillet 2011 - 06:23 .

[Terror_K]

Well, to be fair, the lack of polish was one of DA2's minor failings. Most of its issues stem from the fact that they deliberately messed with the formula intentionally in order to grow their audience. DA2 wasn't a bad game due to mistakes; it was a bad game because those making it purposefully derailed it and twisted the IP. That's why I'm done with Dragon Age now and the IP is dead to me. Especially while Laidlaw has any position of power. The whole thing was a friggin pooch screw, betrayal to the original and middle finger to old school RPG fans.

[Praetor Knight]

Terror_K wrote...

Well, to be fair, the lack of polish was one of DA2's minor failings. Most of its issues stem from the fact that they deliberately messed with the formula intentionally in order to grow their audience. DA2 wasn't a bad game due to mistakes; it was a bad game because those making it purposefully derailed it and twisted the IP. That's why I'm done with Dragon Age now and the IP is dead to me. Especially while Laidlaw has any position of power. The whole thing was a friggin pooch screw, betrayal to the original and middle finger to old school RPG fans.

For me at least, I can give the ME universe some wiggle room, but I've got too little understanding of DA2 to make a decent opinion; I just know that Templars were relied too heavily on, in the DA2 setting.

[Gatt9]

KingDan97 wrote...

ITT: People fruitlessly complaining that a company wants to make money, that artists want more people to see their work, and that a company has lost sight of it's own values.

Games are changing, the entire landscape is transforming and if any of you honestly want an old school RPG, go play one. Better yet, go support an indie dev because I guarantee there's at least 5 revival projects being headed that would love some donations. Triple A games are very expensive, and the hardcore RPG market is dwindling, and even if there are some new gamers who just love old school RPGs the ratio of them to those who are moving on, or getting older, or losing faith, or one of any other of a million different reasons is not even close to matching up.

First,  before all else,  let me compliment you on a well written post.  Now,  to counterpoint...

Games aren't changing,  they are what they were.  In terms of design there's no difference between any given game today,  and a game 10 years ago,  aside from the fact that today's games are significantly shorter.

The mechanics and implementations are exactly identical to games 10 years ago,  15 years ago,  in some cases 30 years ago.  Sure,  there's some cosmetic changes,  shooters now have stories.  RTS's aren't just "Build a base 40 times",  but the actual gameplay is identical.  This is because a game is a function of the control schemes.  The only way for games to change is for new control schemes to be invented,  because all existing variants our controls permit have been explored.

Not only are games not changing,  they're not even innovating anymore.  Seriously,  what's the release schedule for the next year?  ME3,  DA3,  Halo 7,  COD 12,  Uncharted 3,  etc,  etc.  Games are wholely stagnant,  doing nothing but rereleasing the same few games over and over and over...

ME2's not new,  it's Gears of War's gameplay with KotOR's dialogue interspersed.  ME2 didn't bring anything new to the table. 

The "Hardcore RPG market" isn't dwindling,  it's where it's always been,  some percentage of the total market.  In fact,  DAO outsold ME and ME2,  almost outsold them both combined,  so clearly there's no issue there.  As far as us "Getting older",  the average gamer's been determined by multple studies to be ~37,  we're the majority,  not the teens.

This will continue happening, and unfortunately, some won't want to deal with the "inferior" multimillion dollar projects that are developed by teams of over 200 hardworking individuals over the course of thousands of hours within a period of years and will linger for the times when a group of 50 guys would work on a game for several years using preset scripting mechanics and old D&D manuals as the foundation for their entire gamebase so they had less work.

No,  actually it won't.  The analysts are currently projecting 2011 to be a 20% reduction in revenues.  Not just double digits,  but a 1/5 reduction,  this is no small problem.  That means there's going to be a number of studios folding.  It's *highly* unlikely 2012 will be any better,  because it's a major sign of gamer fatigue,  too many studios making the same game over and over.  It's pretty much a lock that we're on the steep drop of a market crash at this point.  So it won't continue happening,  because the old gods are shortly going to be dead.

As far as the team sizes goes,  that's just a function of primitive tools.  200 man teams are nearly almost all artists,  with only about 20 programmers.  That's because they're brute forcing the art.  Someone,  somewhere,  will develop intelligent algorithms for interpolating art,  and then the team sizes and costs will drop inverse-exponentially.

Companies exist to make money, and with a studio as well known as Bioware you know damn well that EA won't have them pumping out things that are considered a niche market in today's gaming architecture. Sorry, but you're fighting a losing battle, and Bioware is trying to meet you halfway, in spite of the fact that most of the posts on here are full of nothing but hate and vitrol for anything they want to change. I constantly see disgust at the practice of a CoD game being released annually with the small amount of changes to the core system but it seems that whenever a company like Bioware wants to experiment with their own games, everyone wants someone fired, or killed, or their offices razed to the ground.

There's alot of problems in here...

First,  you're assuming EA has an agenda that isn't "Spam the market,  surpress the reviews,  grab cash".  EA's not interested in quality,  hasn't been in over a decade.

Second,  you're making some very major assumptions about the state of the industry.  Not until the late 2000's was a job in gaming respectable.  The CEO's and buisness people of these companies aren't there because they're the best and brightest,  those people went to work in other sectors,  where they'd get a ton more money and alot more respect.  The people running the gaming industry are clueless.  They're not making decisions based on healthy reasons,  they're making them based on trying to make the most money with every release,  which is why everything's treated like a Blockbuster,  even when it clearly isn't.  I mean seriously,  these people forbade Will Wright to make The Sims,  and when he did it anyways,  it sold 13 million units.  These people claim that "Turn based gaming is dead",  and yet Pokemon outsells almost every other game every year.

The whole "RPG's are a niche market" is a myth,  that the CEO's and buisness people perpetuate,  because they think they can make the next Doom or Warcraft.  That's the only reason for it.  It's akin to Hollywood doing nothing but making versions of Pirates because everyone in Hollywood thinks that if he makes a movie with pirates in it,  it'll make a billion dollars.  That's how the gaming industry works.

As far as being a niche market goes.  Like I said,  DAO outsold ME and ME2.

Nor is it a futile battle,  because when these companies fail,  and they will fail,  likely by the end of 2012 at the rate we're dropping revenues,  people will know why.  So when the penduleum swings back to PC Gaming starting in late 2012,  there'll be a marked difference.  It will swing,  the Industry is cyclical,  but I'm not going to elaborate here on that as this post is already long enough.  PM me if you want to here my perspective on that topic. 

Grow up people, they don't need to start making new franchises to try out new ideas, especially if they see their new ideas working within an existing franchise. Yet it seems like the most consistent suggestion I see is along the lines of "If you want to do new things make new games" Well guess what. That is exactly what they are doing. Years of passion on behalf of many many dedicated people who care about what the people who claim to be their "fans" gets torn down release after release because it wasn't quite your taste.

Here's the thing.

When you change a series in the middle,  without any reason other than some Suit saying "Shooters sell more units,  make it more like a Shooter 'cause I want a bonus!",  you alienate some portion of the fanbase.  You *cannot* alienate customers in a buisness,  especially an entertainment one,  trying to chase some mythical market.  Trying to switch demographics almost always leads to failure.

When you make a switch,  you *must* have a valid gameplay reason,  not a Suit searching for a bonus thinking all you have to do is put in more guns and you'll sell 10 million units.

Would you walk into a fine arts museum and call a piece trash for the simple fact that you personally didn't like the perspective they took, the fact they focused on warm colors instead of cold colors or the fact that it was based on an allusion as opposed to being an originally inspired work? No, because you'd just come off as an arrogant fool.

Well these people, these human beings who slave for 10 hour days before their work, their baby comes out to the world, the thing that they needed to examine, and dissect, and retract upon their vision just to make sure it ever got out, they are artists. They do amazing things, they put their hearts and souls into these products and they look and feel fantastic.

You've never worked in the Game Industry have you?  Never read about it either I take it?

Especially at a big company,  it's not about a "Vision",  other than a Suit's search for a bonus and a promotion.  You make the game they tell you to make,  not the game you envisioned.  You walk into a room with a grand vision,  and the suit tells you it's great,  but make it more like Doom,  or Warcraft,  or whatever sold well last year.

The gaming industry is a sweatshop,  pushing out the door some random Suit's plan for a promotion,  not developing visions.  It stopped being about visions in the early 00's,  which is really obvious considering that everything is some variation of the same two games these days.

From there,  all I'll say is you *really* should google EA cooporate culture,  they've a long standing reputation in the industry.

They need to cover the randomness and abuse that people put into their products, they need to prepare for every eventuality they can and they can't outright ask you if that's what you want because that would ruin the surprise, or you could misunderstand them, or vice versa. And even if they polled us on every little minute detail they were going to put into the game they'd still have people who didn't want things changed, or people whose voices weren't heard because they missed the deadline for the poll or love the games but haven't signed up for the social forums.

You really should read more about the game industry.  They're not doing anything other than covering a suit's bullet list of features to implement.  Look at ME3,  delayed to implement Multiplayer and Kinect's voice recognition?  That doesn't improve the game in any way.  It's someone's bullet list for selling more units.

In short: The people at Bioware are working miracles getting a product as polished as their games are in the time they have, and constantly crying out for more time just isn't a viable solution because eventually the game is going to have to come out.

A poem is never finished, only abandoned.
-Paul Valery

I've not doubt they are.  I doubt highly they really want to be turing out some suit's bullet list,  and shipping out inconsistent products,  but they're on a Suit's schedule,  not working on a Vision.  Look at Bioware's games before EA grabbed them,  look at it now,  the change is very obvious. 

Modifié par Gatt9, 04 juillet 2011 - 06:59 .

[Dangerfoot]

TheKillerAngel wrote...

Well, what does this sound like?

Gatt9 says

An RPG is defined by Character based skill,  you're taking on a Role,  you have to have a Character to do so,  the Character must be defined independent of you and your skills or you're just doing self-insertion.

Having a choice in how you distribute skill points is still you defining that character.

The player should always create the character. Why wouldn't they? It's only self-insertion if you create a character that is just you, with your attitudes, your basic skills or your look. Creating a character that isn't you is not self-insertion.

[Terror_K]

I personally think that publisher's and developers aren't giving the gaming community enough credit either. I think many gamers want variety and fresh, different games. If they didn't, Portal 2 would have flopped. Same with other titles trying to actually be different like Heavy Rain, L.A. Noire, etc. The problem is that a lot of publishers are looking at what sells well and simply saying, "gamers want more of that!" and are going with all the safe options they know will sell, rather than putting out something a little more different and risky on the chance it may not perform.

RPGs aren't a dead genre that doesn't have an audience, they're merely a genre that's perceived as being unpopular and too niche to be truly profitable, so they're rarer now. But if the RPG was really dead then the original Dragon Age wouldn't have done so well, and the likes of The Witcher and newer Fallout games wouldn't have sold well either. And it's not like these titles don't make money, it's simply that they don't make as much as the action-oriented affairs, particularly the shooter genre. Why offer variety and different games for different people when you can attempt to rope as many in as possible with a safe bet and sell millions of copies by throwing out the same stuff every year or so with barely any innovation. Look at CoD for instance: it's barely innovated at all since the original Modern Warfare, and yet each new version still breaks opening sales records each year. Modern Warfare 3 is probably going to do the same later this year, even if CoD fatigue is setting in a little now and we actually are starting to see a good portion of gamers waking up a little to that's going on.

But then, there are so many that always claim they're not giving Activision any more money and that they think Bobby Kotick is a gigantic money-grubbing douchebag, and yet each new CoD does better than the last one.