477 réponses à ce sujet

[SalsaDMA]

MacCready wrote...

Christ, some of you 'traditionalists' sound like spoilt toddlers. 'No! This is MINE, you can't have it!'

Funny. Cause that actually seems to be the argument used by the shooter fans when rpg'ers ask for some rpg games amid the tidal wave of actiongames.

[Lord Phoebus]

Based on the gameplay definition I'd say the genre has died as far as the AAA devs are concerned, there are some indy devs working on projects but they're starting to look like vapourware. NWN 2 and the Drakensangs were the last RPGs I played. Alpha Protocol and ME2 were TPS games, Fallout:NV was a FPS, the Witcher 2 and DA:O were action games.

However, other genres are evolving and taking elements from RPG games to improve their story telling and character development. It's not to say that this is something entirely new, games like Starcon 2, Zelda 2, Castlevania 2, Faxanadu and Wing Commander have added RPG elements to their gameplay in the past, but they existed along side RPGs. These days they have replaced RPGs, I'm not sure of the reasons why:
Is it because in the past there were more left-brained than right-brained individuals playing video games so games that appeal to analytical skills are no longer being made?
Is it because math skills have deteriorated in the West and players are afraid of statistics? Turn based games are still popular in the East...
Is it because the cost of making games has risen to the point that developers are only willing to make games that are either, FPS, TPS, RTS or Action?
My guess is that it's a combination of all these factors and a few more that I won't mention, that have led to the current state of affairs. Suffice to say that following the evolution metaphor, RPGs have become the mitochondria of the gaming world, they used to be functional units by themselves, but now they're organelles in the cells of other genres. I don't want every dev. to start making traditional RPGs, but I would like to see 1 good title a year in the genre.

I would also like devs. to stop calling shooters RPGs and call them shooters. Every other genre of video games is defined by gameplay, RPGs used to be defined by gameplay, there is no ****ing reason for the genre not to be defined by gameplay today.

[VoiceOfPudding]

Lord Phoebus wrote...

I would also like devs. to stop calling shooters RPGs and call them shooters. Every other genre of video games is defined by gameplay, RPGs used to be defined by gameplay, there is no ****ing reason for the genre not to be defined by gameplay today.

If only this happened I would be content

[bussinrounds]

Thankfully i missed out on alot of these classic RPGs when they first came out. (not having a gaming pc) At least i can enjoy them for the first time now, and not have to suffer through these tough times like alot of the old school RPG fans are doing. I feel for you guys/gals though.

[Seagloom]

Lord Phoebus wrote...

I would also like devs. to stop calling shooters RPGs and call them shooters. Every other genre of video games is defined by gameplay, RPGs used to be defined by gameplay, there is no ****ing reason for the genre not to be defined by gameplay today.

Indeed.

[KenKenpachi]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

KenKenpachi wrote...

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

All change is good.

... Not sure if Serrious?

I'm serious.

 
*sets your home on fire* see Change, You had a home, now your homeless which is change. And Change is always good. Said so yourself, also you didn't have fire insurance so yeah...

<< >>

Anyways on that topic, I don't mind games like say DA:O DA:2, Fallout. But I hate Fable three from an RPG standpoint. Which to me means Role Play Game, not roll play. You can eat your dice. I think the last and only Turn based RPGs I liked were FF7, Legend of Dragoon and those older JRPGs. WRPGs I just (more so the early ones) find it hard to get into. Hell even today if it wasn't for the path FF took after 10 I might play those. And I don't expect Sony and Square to bring back those old days. RPG's arn't dying, but I doubt you'll ever see a mainstream BG game ever again. 

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 09 août 2011 - 10:06 .

[MacCready]

Maybe you need to ask yourself the reason why 'true' RPG games are in the minority here and aren't being made into AAA games? More big companies would gladly pump millions into a classic RPG formula if they thought that the majority of the consumer base would buy it up.

The fact is most people find games that are quick and easy to pick up more fun to play, and you can all act like elitists and just accuse those consumers of being shallow and thick but not everyone has as much time as you may do to spend hours levelling and grinding your characters. Hence, a lot of developers are trying to find a happy medium with a modern RPG that has deep gameplay but is still accessible.

And to be honest the classic RPG's were growing very stale - they're no different from what CoD is now with it's rinse and repeat formula of the shooter genre. Turn based battles, unwieldy menu systems, predictable fantasy settings (always aping Lord of the Rings), tedious grinding and levelling. Once upon a time I used to enjoy these traits but by the time Dragon Age Origins was released I had grown weary of this tired formula.

And I keep seeing endless complaints about ME3 trying to be Gears of War but what's wrong with that? Silly story aside, Gears of War 1&2 are extremely fun action games. If ME3 can be half as polished with the combat but implement a deep upgrade system with an immersive story and characters then they're on to a good thing. I hardly see how determining battles by dice rolls or having Shepard carry hundreds of items worth of loot in their pocket will improve anything?

And it's important to remember that while the classic RPG is a niche market it's still a market. So they'll always be at least one small company that wants to make games like Baldur's Gate and so on, just don't expect the visuals to look as sharp as Crysis or anything.

[KenKenpachi]

In full Agreement with MacCready. I think alot of us See the "Good Old Days" with more value and higher standards that never were there.

[MacCready]

KenKenpachi wrote...

In full Agreement with MacCready. I think alot of us See the "Good Old Days" with more value and higher standards that never were there.

We'll be doing the same thing in 20 years. 'Oh shooters now are so commercial and streamlined; they're not as deep and complex as Modern Warfare was, back then we could have two weapons!'

[FoxShadowblade]

MacCready wrote...

KenKenpachi wrote...

In full Agreement with MacCready. I think alot of us See the "Good Old Days" with more value and higher standards that never were there.

We'll be doing the same thing in 20 years. 'Oh shooters now are so commercial and streamlined; they're not as deep and complex as Modern Warfare was, back then we could have two weapons!'

"When I was your age, the game was so much better! We could pause and set up the battle! You kids these days"

-hobbles off on cane-

[Teddie Sage]

I enjoy Costume Quest way too much. It plays like a traditional rpg with QTEs while fighting.

[Kidd]

I'm happy the games are evolving. When I sit down to play D&D with my friends, we take turns not because turn taking is the most fun thing ever, but because it is the only way to have the game make sense. Handling a real-time game over tabletop would be horrible and make me wonder why I'm not doing LARP in the woods.

Not to mention that as "deep" as the rpgs of yesteryear tended to be, I find most modern rpgs allow for more interesting characters. If I think of a character concept, it is in general easier for me to make that exact character come to life (especially if ability to progress in the game is to be considered a factor) than it used to be. Nowadays role playing is a lot more about the character you want to play and what you choose to do, instead of emulating a turn-taking number crunch.

Role playing games are at their core nothing but the games of pretend we all played as children. But we make up rules to stop those stale moments of "I'm a master shot, and I just shot you! Now you're dead!" - "Nuh-uh, I totally reflected your gun's laser beams with my japanese sword!". In a video game, such an argument can't happen any way, so the work-arounds created for tabletop aren't at all necessary implements into a video game.

[Lord Phoebus]

MacCready wrote...

And to be honest the classic RPG's were growing very stale - they're no different from what CoD is now with it's rinse and repeat formula of the shooter genre. Turn based battles, unwieldy menu systems, predictable fantasy settings (always aping Lord of the Rings), tedious grinding and levelling. Once upon a time I used to enjoy these traits but by the time Dragon Age Origins was released I had grown weary of this tired formula.

Shooters have been stale since Doom and Quake.  Apart from Dark Queen of Krynn and the Bard's Tale I don't recall any western RPGs that required serious grinding and leveling.  I'll agree the fantasy settings were getting predictable but there were some Sci-Fi and Modern games, Fallout, X-Com, Jagged Alliance, etc.  At least the turn based offered more of a challenge than the modern games.

And I keep seeing endless complaints about ME3 trying to be Gears of War but what's wrong with that? Silly story aside, Gears of War 1&2 are extremely fun action games. If ME3 can be half as polished with the combat but implement a deep upgrade system with an immersive story and characters then they're on to a good thing. I hardly see how determining battles by dice rolls or having Shepard carry hundreds of items worth of loot in their pocket will improve anything?

Nothing's wrong with it, but don't call it a RPG, it's a TPS.  It should be competing with and judged against other TPS games like GoW.

And it's important to remember that while the classic RPG is a niche market it's still a market. So they'll always be at least one small company that wants to make games like Baldur's Gate and so on, just don't expect the visuals to look as sharp as Crysis or anything.

Other than Knights of the Challice and Temple of Elemental Evil were any turn based western RPGs released in the last decade?  I'd say that it isn't a market anymore.

[Gatt9]

In Exile wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...
I've seen J E Sawyer (New Vegas lead designer) claim something similar on his formspring. He goes on to say that a lot of the issues are publisher related. There is nothing limiting a developer from making that turn based isometric game RPG fans are hankering for. Except for money. No publisher would fund it. Likely not because it would lose money, but because it wouldn't make enough. Not many publishers want to spend $5-10 million over a 3 year period on a game that brings back $15 million. They want to spend $20-30 million over a 2 year period to make $50-100 million.

Which is a shame, because I really love turn-based combat. 

But it always come back to opportunity cost. It's (IMO) the issue with DA:O versus DA2. If RPG fans were dedicated enough to organize and raise the capital for an RPG game as a 'group' publisher maybe you'd start to see AAA development of turn-based RPGs, but otherwise we're SOL. 

That's not even it though,  the problem is the Industry is lead by the second rate buisness graduates,  because 5 years ago,  or 10 years ago,  "Real" buisness people didn't go into gaming.  The people leading the Industry don't have a clue how to run a healthy industry.

They only want the blockbusters because they see that as their way to get their name in lights,  and get a big bonus (Games with high sales give bonus checks out).  So they don't want to be the guy pushing the game with 5 million profit,  they want to be the guy pushing the game with 50 million.  Since traditionally,  certain genres have higher sales than others,  that's all they want to hear about.  "Turn based games won't sell,  RPG's won't sell,  RTS won't sell",  it's all been said recently by some studio head or another.  What they mean is,  "That won't sell as much as this". 

This is what started us onto the path of financial insolvency.

The problem is,  and we're seeing it now,  is that it's a self-terminating buisness plan.

Let's look at Hollywood.  Horror movies usually only make a couple million in proft,  comedies usually only make a couple million,  10 years ago comic book movies only made a few million.  But Hollywood knows that the key to health is diversification,  so they budget those movies according to what they historically make,  and take a few million in profit.  Then,  sometimes,  they accidently make Blair Witch,  Saw,  Hangover,  X-men,  and suddenly receive hundreds of millions if not billions in profits.They don't make endless clones of Pirates of the Carribbean because the series is well over 4 billion,  probably closer to 6 or 8,  because they know that rehashing one thing over and over leads to fatigue.

Gaming Industry doesn't get this. 

So they keep plugging after whatever was hot 12-24 months ago,  thinking they can sell just as many units.  Bury themselves in debt with the delusion that it'll work,  and stagnate the entire industry down to FPS and TPS with very few alternatives.

People will get sick of it,  they already are.  2010 was down pretty much the whole year.  2011 had two or maybe 3 positive months,  and the rest have been down,  most of it double digits.  Eliminate WoW,  Starcraft 2,  and Grand Turismo 5 from 2010 and the picture becomes amazingly bad,  COD is pretty much all that's saved 2011 so far.  People are getting tired of endless shooters.

The industry is choking itself on it's greed,  and on it's inability to see how critical diversification is.  I would bet real money that 2012 becomes a raging disaster,  and I wouldn't be surprised to see high-profile bankruptcies,  because I think they're hitting the critical point of oversaturation and I sincerely doubt their ability to shift direction before it's too late.

[Gatt9]

MacCready wrote...

Maybe you need to ask yourself the reason why 'true' RPG games are in the minority here and aren't being made into AAA games? More big companies would gladly pump millions into a classic RPG formula if they thought that the majority of the consumer base would buy it up.

The fact is most people find games that are quick and easy to pick up more fun to play, and you can all act like elitists and just accuse those consumers of being shallow and thick but not everyone has as much time as you may do to spend hours levelling and grinding your characters. Hence, a lot of developers are trying to find a happy medium with a modern RPG that has deep gameplay but is still accessible.

And to be honest the classic RPG's were growing very stale - they're no different from what CoD is now with it's rinse and repeat formula of the shooter genre. Turn based battles, unwieldy menu systems, predictable fantasy settings (always aping Lord of the Rings), tedious grinding and levelling. Once upon a time I used to enjoy these traits but by the time Dragon Age Origins was released I had grown weary of this tired formula.

And I keep seeing endless complaints about ME3 trying to be Gears of War but what's wrong with that? Silly story aside, Gears of War 1&2 are extremely fun action games. If ME3 can be half as polished with the combat but implement a deep upgrade system with an immersive story and characters then they're on to a good thing. I hardly see how determining battles by dice rolls or having Shepard carry hundreds of items worth of loot in their pocket will improve anything?

And it's important to remember that while the classic RPG is a niche market it's still a market. So they'll always be at least one small company that wants to make games like Baldur's Gate and so on, just don't expect the visuals to look as sharp as Crysis or anything.

You've got a major logic problem in there.

Following it to it's conclusion leads to "The only game worth making is a Shooter",  translating it to movies,  "The only movie worth making is Pirates of the Carribbean",  translating it to TV "The only TV show to make is American Idol",  and to books "The only book to print is Harry Potter".

Just because some genre sells more units than others doesn't mean that everything should be that genre.  It doesn't mean that every game studio should be making Shooters(Which is what they're doing),  because people can only play the same game so many times.

The other problem is,  you lose your market.  If you only make shooters,  then Strategy fans leave,  RPG fans leave,  Adventure gamers leave,  etc.  Soon,  all you're left with is Shooter fans.  When they get bored,  who do you sell games to?  There's no one left because you ignored everyone else.

These companies are going to crash very,  very,  hard.  This is *exactly* what happened circa 2000,  when RTS was the only thing to make because of Warcraft,  Starcraft,  and C&C.  When the shine wore off in about 2 years,  a sizeable portion of the industry went under,  I'd venture at least 50%. 

What's wrong with ME2 being GoW: Mass Effect Edition,  and ME3 potentially being the same?  Because Gears of War already exists,  and it's AI and level design is a great deal better.  So if I'm going to choose between the two,  I'll buy the better one.

Nor were "classic RPGs" getting stale,  they were doing just fine.  DAO outsold ME and ME2.  Problem is,  it didn't outsell CoD,  and EA is only interested in that.  Hence why ME2 was a Shooter and not an RPG.

Modifié par Gatt9, 10 août 2011 - 01:57 .

[I Ryukage I]

I really want depth and customization. I don't believe that games are truly evolving, a bad or just good game is just that. Dragon Age 2 was definitely dumbed down from Origins in terms of inventory management. I do believe that there are better ways to manage a clunky inventory system as the one in ME1, for example some games have gear optimization, so you don't have to trek through all that gear if thats not your cup of tea.

Let's look at DA2 (er spoilers I guess just in case
SPOILERS

In 10 years time (there about), none of the companions truly changed their armor with the exception of Aveline. Sure if they were loyal or enraged with you, some of their gear changed slightly, but to be honest that to me just seemed lazy. As for the graphics, I don't mind the art style. But certain areas were definitely not well done, and the fact that they were so jarringly open about it in terms of the landscape, was dissapointing. I enjoyed the character models for the most part.

As for gameplay, story, and so on, I didn't mind the more action-y approach, I did feel that maybe it should have been a seperate IP, or side story, to follow this approach (I'm on 360 btw), but the combat was updated to me with certain abilities, (such as the way Pommel Strike was performed as oppose to DA:O). But those wanting a more stealthy approach, or even diplomatic, weren't always given that option, since after almost every dialogue, you had to fight, or just go straight away into battle.

Storywise there was so much talk of how it spanned the course of a decade. However I don't believe that was done well at all, either, as the story skipped around. Sure there were great parts, I really did feel the tension in Act II, the buildup towards whichever way you decided to resolve the conflict. But truly, if anything DA2 didn't seem to be an evolution, maybe not a complete step backwards..... I feel it was more along the lines of an experiment.


SPOILERS END

I don't consider myself an RPG elitist by any means, I won't attack anyone whom has different beliefs from mine, but I truly wish to question how is DA2 considered a step forward ? An evolution??

ME2 was similar to me, but as many have stated before, I feel ME2 was made to be a hybrid rather than a full blown in-depth RPG. I feel they greatly upped the shooter mechanics which were a good thing, brought companions into the spotlight a great deal, and also experimented with different ways to tackle missions rather than the norm (such as thane's loyalty mission, or even Samara's either one needing no combat at all), While I do feel the missions could have been done better (maybe a bit more true stealth action primarily in Thane's mission) I do like the direction in that section, that Bioware were tackling the missions(the side quest). I do feel of course there could have been something much greater done about the inventory system, and more of a balance between story missions and companion missions though.

[I Ryukage I]

forgot to add, I do not believe that DA2, near completely removing the inventory, as was done in ME2 is good by any standard.

[FoxShadowblade]

Gatt9 wrote...

MacCready wrote...

Maybe you need to ask yourself the reason why 'true' RPG games are in the minority here and aren't being made into AAA games? More big companies would gladly pump millions into a classic RPG formula if they thought that the majority of the consumer base would buy it up.

The fact is most people find games that are quick and easy to pick up more fun to play, and you can all act like elitists and just accuse those consumers of being shallow and thick but not everyone has as much time as you may do to spend hours levelling and grinding your characters. Hence, a lot of developers are trying to find a happy medium with a modern RPG that has deep gameplay but is still accessible.

And to be honest the classic RPG's were growing very stale - they're no different from what CoD is now with it's rinse and repeat formula of the shooter genre. Turn based battles, unwieldy menu systems, predictable fantasy settings (always aping Lord of the Rings), tedious grinding and levelling. Once upon a time I used to enjoy these traits but by the time Dragon Age Origins was released I had grown weary of this tired formula.

And I keep seeing endless complaints about ME3 trying to be Gears of War but what's wrong with that? Silly story aside, Gears of War 1&2 are extremely fun action games. If ME3 can be half as polished with the combat but implement a deep upgrade system with an immersive story and characters then they're on to a good thing. I hardly see how determining battles by dice rolls or having Shepard carry hundreds of items worth of loot in their pocket will improve anything?

And it's important to remember that while the classic RPG is a niche market it's still a market. So they'll always be at least one small company that wants to make games like Baldur's Gate and so on, just don't expect the visuals to look as sharp as Crysis or anything.

You've got a major logic problem in there.

Following it to it's conclusion leads to "The only game worth making is a Shooter",  translating it to movies,  "The only movie worth making is Pirates of the Carribbean",  translating it to TV "The only TV show to make is American Idol",  and to books "The only book to print is Harry Potter".

Just because some genre sells more units than others doesn't mean that everything should be that genre.  It doesn't mean that every game studio should be making Shooters(Which is what they're doing),  because people can only play the same game so many times.

The other problem is,  you lose your market.  If you only make shooters,  then Strategy fans leave,  RPG fans leave,  Adventure gamers leave,  etc.  Soon,  all you're left with is Shooter fans.  When they get bored,  who do you sell games to?  There's no one left because you ignored everyone else.

These companies are going to crash very,  very,  hard.  This is *exactly* what happened circa 2000,  when RTS was the only thing to make because of Warcraft,  Starcraft,  and C&C.  When the shine wore off in about 2 years,  a sizeable portion of the industry went under,  I'd venture at least 50%. 

What's wrong with ME2 being GoW: Mass Effect Edition,  and ME3 potentially being the same?  Because Gears of War already exists,  and it's AI and level design is a great deal better.  So if I'm going to choose between the two,  I'll buy the better one.

Nor were "classic RPGs" getting stale,  they were doing just fine.  DAO outsold ME and ME2.  Problem is,  it didn't outsell CoD,  and EA is only interested in that.  Hence why ME2 was a Shooter and not an RPG.

There is a major flaw in everyone's logic who argues this: Your going to buy the game, no matter what. BioWare doesn't care past that.

[In Exile]

Lord Phoebus wrote...
Is it because in the past there were more left-brained than right-brained individuals playing video games so games that appeal to analytical skills are no longer being made?

I'm going to have to get out my science stick to dispell some BS.

There is no such thing as "right brain" and "left brain" in any meaningful sense. There is a preference among the right hemisphere for certain kinds of information (typically big picture) and on the left for other kinds (typically specific details), but this applies to any kind of proccesing task and both hemispheres are required in general for effective processing, with the actual end result depending on parallel distributive processing across both hemispheres. 

All the brain does is analysis. Even assuming this distinction actually existed, a "right brain" would likely favour traditional RPGs more, as traditional RPGs are very much about broad level pattern recognition. 

Is it because math skills have deteriorated in the West and players are afraid of statistics? Turn based games are still popular in the East...

RPGs rely on the greater than sign. Sometimes they even involve things as scary as addition or subtraction. 

My guess is that it's a combination of all these factors and a few more that I won't mention, that have led to the current state of affairs. Suffice to say that following the evolution metaphor, RPGs have become the mitochondria of the gaming world, they used to be functional units by themselves, but now they're organelles in the cells of other genres.

Given that one of the factors is fictional, and it's very hard to see how the other one even applies... the answer is probably not. 

I would bet it's largely because gamers are lazy, and RPGs are a lot of hard work for very little reward, and in the past relied on a fanbase that already wanted the reward instead of a fanbase that had to be sold on the reward.

[In Exile]

Gatt9 wrote...
That's not even it though,  the problem is the Industry is lead by the second rate buisness graduates,  because 5 years ago,  or 10 years ago,  "Real" buisness people didn't go into gaming.  The people leading the Industry don't have a clue how to run a healthy industry.

The US business culture isn't about "healthy" industries - it's about short-term constant gains, which are typically at odds with long-term growth. Very rarely you will see executives who invest in long-term growth, but they're always fighting an uphill battle to convice their shareholders to bite the bullet on present day costs. 

They only want the blockbusters because they see that as their way to get their name in lights,  and get a big bonus (Games with high sales give bonus checks out).  So they don't want to be the guy pushing the game with 5 million profit,  they want to be the guy pushing the game with 50 million. 

They are legally obligated to be the guy pushing the 50 million product, if they can be in a position to create a 50 million product. Google ''shareholder derivative lawsuit'' if you're curious about the specifics. 

Since traditionally,  certain genres have higher sales than others,  that's all they want to hear about.  "Turn based games won't sell,  RPG's won't sell,  RTS won't sell",  it's all been said recently by some studio head or another.  What they mean is,  "That won't sell as much as this".  

Which is exactly what I said. Do you even know what an opportunity cost means?

Gaming Industry doesn't get this.

Sure it does. But there are certain movies (like Musicals) that are simply dead in the water except for very rare perfect storms, nowadays. Certain video-game genres are just the same, to use your Holywood analogy.

People will get sick of it,  they already are.  2010 was down pretty much the whole year.  2011 had two or maybe 3 positive months,  and the rest have been down,  most of it double digits.  Eliminate WoW,  Starcraft 2,  and Grand Turismo 5 from 2010 and the picture becomes amazingly bad,  COD is pretty much all that's saved 2011 so far.  People are getting tired of endless shooters.

Do you realize that we're in the worst economic crisis since the depression, and the US and Europe in particular are basically a mess of epic proportions? Do you really think totally spurious items like video games are high on the priority list?

So, the stupidly high selling nintendo wii doesn't make the list? What about those casual java facebook games?

The industry is trouble, but that's because AAA development itself is in trouble. 

The industry is choking itself on it's greed,  and on it's inability to see how critical diversification is.  I would bet real money that 2012 becomes a raging disaster,  and I wouldn't be surprised to see high-profile bankruptcies,  because I think they're hitting the critical point of oversaturation and I sincerely doubt their ability to shift direction before it's too late.

There may well be bankruptcies, but only on the heels of the general economic mess we're seeing. Regardless of how desperate you are to show that FPSs are the cause for the industry's potential downfall, you've got to look at broader economic picture. 

[In Exile]

Gatt9 wrote...
Nor were "classic RPGs" getting stale,  they were doing just fine.  DAO outsold ME and ME2.  Problem is,  it didn't outsell CoD,  and EA is only interested in that.  Hence why ME2 was a Shooter and not an RPG.

DA:O didn't outsell ME+ME2 + all ME DLC, and that's EA's problem. The opportunity cost of a DA release is ME+ME2, which is doubles up on your chances to sell a product to consumers. DA2 was EA's chance to translate ME's release schedule and business model, and that's a model that's just plain superior $$ wise to DA:O. 

[Terror_K]

I just want to make a few quick, personal points...

1) The overall point is fairly simple when it comes down to it: many longtime RPG fans like complexity. Developers these days are trying to make their game more accessible, and are thus cutting out the complexity to do so. Thereby, they are cutting out one of the factors that many longtime RPG fans like. To me their "streamlining" and making their games "more accessible" in this manner is largely akin to somebody making a cake without any chocolate in it and yet trying to claim and act like it's still a chocolate cake just because they maybe sprinkled some chocolate hail on the top.

2) I agree with the sentiment that BioWare (and other developers) have garnered a lot of people who claim to love RPGs and be RPG fans, but seem to more accurately want story-driven action and/or adventure games. There are just so many people in this thread that don't seem to even "get" RPGs and don't even get why a statistical form of progression is necessary that illustrates that.

3) Its amazing how BioWare's philosophy has changed, particularly since the EA take-over. Look at Dragon Age for instance: the things the developers were saying then were so contrasting compared to what they're saying now and when they were making DA2. The voiced vs. silent protagonist is a classic and obvious example, with the developers flip-flopping between games. In the former case they defended the silent protagonist against those who wanted a voiced character for all the right reasons: about how it gives the player more control, more variety and choices for roleplaying and dialogue, allows them a larger game and more choice of races for the player, how it allows the player to define their character's personality more and give them their own voice, etc. and that overall it's merely a mechanic one can use or not, and isn't dated. Then with DA2 we've since had Laidlaw and co. saying they believe BioWare will never do a silent protagonist again, that it's a dated, archaic mechanic, that a voiced protagonist is more immersive (I personally disagree completely) and more cinematic and because that's where all their games are going now , etc.

4) BioWare may like to think that their old fans will always just cave and buy their products anyway, but Dragon Age is completely off my radar now. As I said in another topic, I've got from somebody who got the DAO Collector's Edition, the expansion and all the DLC and David Gaider's first two novels to somebody who is basically letting the sequel rot on his shelf, with no DLC purchased yet, no interest in any sequels or novels or anything else Dragon Age related now. That side of BioWare isn't going to get another cent out of me.

5) Finally, I raise the question: can you make a game accessible and streamlined and still keep it deep and complex? I'd like to think the answer is "yes" to that, but BioWare have yet to prove it. At all. And it doesn't seem they're even trying. I'm sure people will say that the DA2 team have eaten a lot of humble pie lately, but I saw a fairly recent comment from Laidlaw that basically said they're looking to find a balance between DA2 and Origins. That just says to me they're lost and not even working in the area they should.

Modifié par Terror_K, 10 août 2011 - 05:20 .

[Wusword77]

Gatt9 wrote...
Nor were "classic RPGs" getting stale,  they were doing just fine.  DAO outsold ME and ME2.  Problem is,  it didn't outsell CoD,  and EA is only interested in that.  Hence why ME2 was a Shooter and not an RPG.

Still no actual definition on what a RPG is.

RPG's are the only Genre that does not have a solid definition, all others are based off gameplay elements (or even camrea angles), but RPGs vary so much in game play that you can't define the genre by 1 or even 2 game play aspects.

Look at the differences between JRPGs (Final Fantasy), Action RPGs (Dungeon Seige/Demon Souls), PC RPGs (Baulders Gate), Strategy RPGs (Tactics Orge), and the recent Shooter RPGs (Borderlands/ME).  There is no common gameplay element between them.  Combat, which other genres seem based on (except puzzle games), is handled differently in all of them yet they are all considered to be a type of RPG.

Hell the only thing that seems to tie any RPG's together at all is some form of Character Progression, be it from a "level up" system or equipment based.  Compared to the other Genres of gaming (FPS, TPS, RTS, Simulator, Racing, TBS [Turn Based Strategy]), which all seemed based on gameplay mechanics, the RPG doesn't seem to fit in, as it's only commonality is a behind the scenes mechanic that doesn't effect how the game plays.

Based upon that fact the only thing that can be said is RPG's are changing/evolving.  The RPG has shown that it is more then simply the way combat is handled within the game, and it can be like any genre it wants.  A game like League of Legends proves this, it plays similar to a RTS but you have a single character that has progression while you play.  Borderlands, Mass Effect, and Dues EX: Human Evolution also prove this as well, useing FPS/TPS to handle combat but still have character progression within the games.

[Massadonious1]

To be honest, I'm glad some of the so called "staples" of the genre are going the way of the dinosaur. While I'm all for customization, sticking in often bloated statistical and micro-managing options, like inventories without a true purpose, like crafting, simply for the sake of genre defining is not the way to go. Bad mechanics are bad regardless of what genre it belongs to or originated from.

Think of it this way, you are developing an RPG based on your life. While you understandably have to include some "features" like daily wardrobe selection, (which plenty of people enjoy in games already) do you really need to go full throttle and include things like organizing your closet or doing your taxes? Would you really subject people to participating in such things, simply so they could get the most out of their "role"?

Maybe it is about instant gratification in the end, but honestly, menu surfing is simply not fun to me, nor is it all that challenging.