477 réponses à ce sujet

[Clonedzero]

Terror_K wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

also respond to my post on page 3 plz

Simply put, I still disagree. Yes, technology has improved a lot and allowed developers to expand outside the box, but games are becoming generic and samey. Again, we're getting a whole bunch of story-driven action games with light RPG elements. Great if you're a fan, and some of these games are really good, but bad for diversity and originality. It's all becoming the same brown mush, and it's a shame. The techology is there for something really special to be made these days, but it rarely is because games are becoming samey and generic, and there's a lot of streamlining and pandering to the masses, and a lot of design decisions lately that are just being copy-pasted, and not all of them good ones (regenerating health, quick-time events, minimalist HUDs, etc.).

Icinix sums up my feelings pretty well in his post at the top of this page too. The gaming industy could have the potential to produce some great stuff, but too much of it is just developers all making the same basic types of games and hoping that theirs is simply better than the next guys. And now BioWare are pretty much doing the same. Dragon Age: Origins may not have been wholly original in the grand scheme of things, but it was definitely a breath of very fresh air in the time it came out.

you're absolutely missing the point.

they've always been generic and samey with a few standouts. name me 10 good games from 1992. over 50 SNES games were released in 1992 alone. guess how many were generic and samey? thats right! a vast majority of them. you dont remember generic and samey. you remember the stand outs. do you even realize the amount of generic super mario clones that have come out over the years? or final fantasy JRPG clones?

its the same thing today, dozens of games come out every year. only a few of them are stand outs. thats the way its always been. thats the way it'll always be. its the same with TV shows, movies, books, plays, ect.

pointing out current trends and saying gaming is becoming super generic while COMPLETELY ignoring similiar trends over the entire lifespan of videogaming as a whole is insane.

[javierabegazo]

Terror_K wrote...


This isn't about evolution and bettering the game at all. It's not about technology and progression. It's about pandering and following current trends that are popular. Full stop.

Whether something is popular or not has no inherent value on it's worth as a good idea.

Take regenerating health for example.

In many games, (most of them shooters), health was reliant on finding Med Kits, scrounging around and hoarding them. Even the original Halo. 

Get to a particularly hard part and you're low on health? You're pretty much screwed and have to start over and ration your health packs. While this may suit some genres, for others, it just seems like unnecessary forced hoarding. There's a real reason why "The Oregon Trail" ended up falling into obscurity in the gaming world.

[Terror_K]

javierabegazo wrote...

Lumping together in your assessment, a whopping extra 50%, who "voted" for an option that had nothing to do with opinions on "the way RPG's are evolving/dying",  isn't only a bit silly, but is a bit disingenuous to yourself.

It's like if I make a poll asking people whether or not they want to go to the store, and the options are

a) Yes
No
c) Gosh, Crowds make me nervous

and then taking all the results from b and c and deciding, hmm, yes, they must have meant the same thing.

I fully admit that it was based on a great deal of interpretation and even bias on my part. I won't deny that.

But I have to ask you: do you honestly believe that RPG fans who want more "details, depth and customization" in their RPGs would honestly be happy with the general direction and style BioWare went for with both ME2 and DA2 if these factors were really that important to them? I'm not talking about specifics as to which was necessarily better/worse gameplay wise, I'm talking about the general trend and approach itself.

[didymos1120]

Terror_K wrote...

Again, how is swapping out "archaic" RPG mechanics for "archaic" shooter ones progression or evolving in any sense?

How is combining "hydrogen" with "oxygen" even worth doing?   What, they're gonna "combine" into some sort of "molecule" with its own unique "properties" or somesuch ludicrousness?  

And if you don't like that analogy, pick some "archaic" foodstuffs instead.  Say....bacon and toast? Aaaand if you don't like that one, I'm sure you can come up with about eleventy-billion other ones with a modicum of thought.

[javierabegazo]

Terror_K wrote...
But I have to ask you: do you honestly believe that RPG fans who want more "details, depth and customization" in their RPGs would honestly be happy with the general direction and style BioWare went for with both ME2 and DA2 if these factors were really that important to them? I'm not talking about specifics as to which was necessarily better/worse gameplay wise, I'm talking about the general trend and approach itself.

What I find interesting is that for all your talk of "samey brown mush" and "bland unrecognizable games that copy the same trends", you have an alarming amount of rules and formulae for what quantifies an RPG, which is the exact kind of thinking that leads to "Samey Brown Mush"

It's the "Sacred Cows" of any genre that tend to dilute the originality, and creativity of any product.

[Icinix]

Clonedzero wrote...

they've always been generic and samey with a few standouts. name me 10 good games from 1992. 

My reply has nothing to do with anything going on in this thread, just because 1992 was a great year for games.

Wolf3d, Dune 2 (RIP Westwood), Star Control 2, Championship Manager, Indiana Jones and Ultima to name a few.

I also could be wrong, but pretty sure Wing Commander was around this time as well.

*memories*

Edit: We got our first computer that year too. It was from Tandy. The keyboard made huge clack clack sounds and I spilt one of those foam cup of instant noodles on it the first day we had it.

Modifié par Icinix, 08 août 2011 - 11:36 .

[Lumikki]

@Terror_K

Answer this, if what you say is direction of RPG, then how you gonna explain what's happening between ME2 -> ME3?

Did they increase more statical gameplay ? No
Did they increase more customation and depth ? Yes

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 août 2011 - 11:37 .

[Red_warning]

I disagree, there are a wide variation of RPG-games out there for different crowds.

Elder scrolls for example seems to be the polar opposite of Mass Effect in many ways. Upcoming Skyrim is Open world, sandbox, play it exactly as you like it-style versus linear conversation-focused and action packed Mass Effect.

[Savber100]

@Terror_K

Candidate basically summed up what I was going to say about the non-combat skills. Mass Effect was never that type of RPG where you have a variety of options to stealth or lockpick your way to victory like Deus Ex. More or less, Mass Effect have been usually down to two options: fight or talk your way out. Non-combat skills were more or less all to better help you get more credits and help in combat.  Sure, I was disappointed that the got rid of coercion etc in ME2 but they simply turned to the P/R system which is basically the new bar for persuasian. Was it annoying and imperfect? Yes, but one can't say that Bioware STRIPPED away the mechanic and made it less about role-playing. The mechanic remained only that it depended on the player's actions rather than a skill bar where I can drop points.

Modifié par Savber100, 08 août 2011 - 11:40 .

[Lumikki]

Yes, there is wide varietyof RPG's, but all of them have become affected the current technology level in world. Meaning they all are turning more visual experience. Compared how much numbers and text based they use to be. That's affect and it's consequences can't be stoped.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 août 2011 - 11:42 .

[Terror_K]

Clonedzero wrote...

you're absolutely missing the point.

they've always been generic and samey with a few standouts. name me 10 good games from 1992. over 50 SNES games were released in 1992 alone. guess how many were generic and samey? thats right! a vast majority of them. you dont remember generic and samey. you remember the stand outs. do you even realize the amount of generic super mario clones that have come out over the years? or final fantasy JRPG clones?

its the same thing today, dozens of games come out every year. only a few of them are stand outs. thats the way its always been. thats the way it'll always be. its the same with TV shows, movies, books, plays, ect.

pointing out current trends and saying gaming is becoming super generic while COMPLETELY ignoring similiar trends over the entire lifespan of videogaming as a whole is insane.

I don't see it that way. In the past there were all kinds of different AAA, big-selling titles. There were RPGs, shooters, platform games, beat-em ups, adventure games, action games, hack'n'slash games, sports games, etc. Sure, there were a lot of Mario and Sonic clones, Doom clones, Street Fighter clones, etc. but there was an overall greater variety of AAA titles across all genres. 90% of today's AAA titles are the same hybrid genre mash-ups I mentioned before. Many of the deepest and best games are still oldies that haven't been eclipsed since: UFO: Enemy Unknown (aka, X-Com), Syndicate, Populous, Deus Ex, Frontier, etc. No shooter since the original UT has managed to come close to the complexity, depth and options that title offered (the most recent third entry was a watered-down joke).

The adventure genre is pretty much dead these days, aside from Telltale trying to breath a little life into it with Sam & Max episodes and the like. Aside from Starcraft 2 there hasn't really been a big-name RTS for a while (seriously... C&C has been a joke for years now). FIFA, WoW and The Sims are about the only exceptions to the rule these days. DA:O was, but BioWare have clearly put that type of game behind them now. Portal 2 and L.A. Noir were a bit of an exception too, though the latter could have been a lot better. I'm hoping Deus Ex: Human Revolution will bring us something even remotely close to the original game.

The point is, today's AAA big name releases are a lot more samey and similar than the ones of the past. At least even those somewhat the same in the past had something that made them stand out. Many of today's titles feel like clones with just a reskin and a few tweaks here and there.

[Clonedzero]

Icinix wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

they've always been generic and samey with a few standouts. name me 10 good games from 1992. 

My reply has nothing to do with anything going on in this thread, just because 1992 was a great year for games.

Wolf3d, Dune 2 (RIP Westwood), Star Control 2, Championship Manager, Indiana Jones and Ultima to name a few.

I also could be wrong, but pretty sure Wing Commander was around this time as well.

*memories*

well sure, back then for every great game there was a dozen or more generic, terrible, samey crap released with it. just like it is now.

its no different today than it is now in terms of origionality and quality, actually strike that. its getting more origional and the average quality is higher today than it was before. production quality alone speaks for itself. origionality is better today because the technology allows for it, also the gaming market has expanded to mainstream so its easier for freelance indie developers to do their own thing and still make a profit.  10 - 15 years ago if someone tried developing an indie game they'd go bankrupt.

[Terror_K]

javierabegazo wrote...

What I find interesting is that for all your talk of "samey brown mush" and "bland unrecognizable games that copy the same trends", you have an alarming amount of rules and formulae for what quantifies an RPG, which is the exact kind of thinking that leads to "Samey Brown Mush"

It's the "Sacred Cows" of any genre that tend to dilute the originality, and creativity of any product.

The only rule I have that defines what an RPG is to me is a meaningful statistical progression system for the player character and a statistical ruleset of pre-defined guidelines and boundaries. Much of the rest of the stuff I complain about ME2 missing/watering down is merely stuff I enjoy in RPGs. Heck... some of it is just stuff I enjoyed about ME1 because I simply did and thought it fit, but isn't necessarily an RPG element as such (e.g. planet exploration, The Mako, etc.). And there's also stuff about ME2 I just didn't like because... I just don't like it, not necessarily because its a shooter element.

Clonedzero wrote...

10 - 15 years ago if someone tried developing an indie game they'd go bankrupt.

I guess you don't know that Worms started out as an indie game on a platform on its last legs then...

Modifié par Terror_K, 08 août 2011 - 11:49 .

[Icinix]

Clonedzero wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

they've always been generic and samey with a few standouts. name me 10 good games from 1992. 

My reply has nothing to do with anything going on in this thread, just because 1992 was a great year for games.

Wolf3d, Dune 2 (RIP Westwood), Star Control 2, Championship Manager, Indiana Jones and Ultima to name a few.

I also could be wrong, but pretty sure Wing Commander was around this time as well.

*memories*

well sure, back then for every great game there was a dozen or more generic, terrible, samey crap released with it. just like it is now.

its no different today than it is now in terms of origionality and quality, actually strike that. its getting more origional and the average quality is higher today than it was before. production quality alone speaks for itself. origionality is better today because the technology allows for it, also the gaming market has expanded to mainstream so its easier for freelance indie developers to do their own thing and still make a profit.  10 - 15 years ago if someone tried developing an indie game they'd go bankrupt.

Meh - I wasn't trying to make a point. It was just a really great time, there were some great games and same great diversity in the styles.


However, I now feel the need to point out that in those mentioned, we had FPS, RTS, 4X, RPG, Adventure, Management and SpaceSim.

These days, you're lucky if game companies produce anything outside of FPS or TPS (with a slight lemon twist of another genre thrown in for marketing points).

[Clonedzero]

Terror_K wrote...

I don't see it that way. In the past there were all kinds of different AAA, big-selling titles. There were RPGs, shooters, platform games, beat-em ups, adventure games, action games, hack'n'slash games, sports games, etc. Sure, there were a lot of Mario and Sonic clones, Doom clones, Street Fighter clones, etc. but there was an overall greater variety of AAA titles across all genres. 90% of today's AAA titles are the same hybrid genre mash-ups I mentioned before. Many of the deepest and best games are still oldies that haven't been eclipsed since: UFO: Enemy Unknown (aka, X-Com), Syndicate, Populous, Deus Ex, Frontier, etc. No shooter since the original UT has managed to come close to the complexity, depth and options that title offered (the most recent third entry was a watered-down joke).

The adventure genre is pretty much dead these days, aside from Telltale trying to breath a little life into it with Sam & Max episodes and the like. Aside from Starcraft 2 there hasn't really been a big-name RTS for a while (seriously... C&C has been a joke for years now). FIFA, WoW and The Sims are about the only exceptions to the rule these days. DA:O was, but BioWare have clearly put that type of game behind them now. Portal 2 and L.A. Noir were a bit of an exception too, though the latter could have been a lot better. I'm hoping Deus Ex: Human Revolution will bring us something even remotely close to the original game.

The point is, today's AAA big name releases are a lot more samey and similar than the ones of the past. At least even those somewhat the same in the past had something that made them stand out. Many of today's titles feel like clones with just a reskin and a few tweaks here and there.

for RTS, the Dawn of War series is absolutely fantastic. personally i'd say its MUCH better than SC2 since starcraft 2 is an up-rezzed oldschool style RTS while Dawn of War is actually innovating the genre. also, go on steam and check out adventure games, theres a TON of them from indie developers.

again, look at yourself, you're listing a bunch of standouts from today, LA noire, portal 2, ect. but saying the standouts from the past as evidence that gaming was more origional back then when it wasn't.

the sheer volume of games that have come out is mind boggling.

also if anything AAA titles are allowing alot more different style of games to become huge. 10-15 years ago a detective adventure game like LA noire woulda been successful in its niche market, but mainstream? forget about it. i mean do you know how massive of a risk LA noire was? it was disgustingly expensive to develop taking over 7 years and they had no idea if it would be a success or not.

just because shooters are all the rage right now doesnt mean anything. there was an uptrend with all the unreals and quakes and dooms, then shooters sorta fell to the wayside and they were revived back into the biggest genre with stuff like halo and CoD4. its just trends, shooters will start to slow down fairly soon actually considering every CoD game since 4 has pretty much been exactly the same.

its hills and valleys. market trends, ect. shooters are big right now, soon they'll slow down without innovation to the genre till someone comes up with a new and exciting way to breath life into it then they'll get big again.

the whole cynical look on gaming today is just nolstagia and short-sightedness

oh, also, since gaming is way more mainstream today the market can support more simliar AAA titles than it could before simply due to the sheer volume of customers  there are more AAA titles coming out these days than ever before.

[Shepard the Leper]

Terror_K wrote...

The only rule I have that defines what an RPG is to me is a meaningful statistical progression system for the player character and a statistical ruleset of pre-defined guidelines and boundaries.

How the heck are stats important? It always baffles me to hear people talk about small percentages like they're hugely important. They can be, but usually they're pointless. There is no difference between having to attack an enemy 3.01 times or 3.99 times - it always requires 4 attacks to kill, making all statistical progression (in between) worthless. Games need solid gameplay, not dozens of stat screens which have no impact on what you can and cannot do.

[littlezack]

marshalleck wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

The developers will do what sells. If something doesn't pull a profit, then it was the wrong way to go with the game/genre.

Developers do not need polls, they have sales figures.

And that's justification enough to flip off a good portion of your old fans? So long as you're making a profit, the people that got you where you are today don't matter, is that it?

I think you might be overestimating the predominance of your opinion amongst Bioware's so-called "old fans."

I've been a fan of Bioware since Baldur's Gate, and I'm glad to see them modernizing even if they do make missteps along the way. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Of course, I suppose you could always play the "no true Scotsman" card and say people who don't agree with you aren't true Bioware/RPG fans.

Hm. Respect.

[Il Divo]

javierabegazo wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
But I have to ask you: do you honestly believe that RPG fans who want more "details, depth and customization" in their RPGs would honestly be happy with the general direction and style BioWare went for with both ME2 and DA2 if these factors were really that important to them? I'm not talking about specifics as to which was necessarily better/worse gameplay wise, I'm talking about the general trend and approach itself.

What I find interesting is that for all your talk of "samey brown mush" and "bland unrecognizable games that copy the same trends", you have an alarming amount of rules and formulae for what quantifies an RPG, which is the exact kind of thinking that leads to "Samey Brown Mush"

It's the "Sacred Cows" of any genre that tend to dilute the originality, and creativity of any product.

With Mass Effect's inventory as our prime example. Inventory did not add anything to the series (weapon mods aside) and really ruined my enjoyment of the game. We need to get away from the idea that every RPG needs x,y, or z element to be "good".

The regenerating health is another great example, one which Human Revolution received criticism for, if I recall.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I like modern RPG's, but I also miss classic ones. I want more diversity. I want some RPG's that aren't cinematic or action focused.

This is more or less how I feel.

Now, as far as storytelling goes, RPGs have made great strides forward. At least, great strides forward in the direction of cinematics. Storytelling wise, it's not that much better. Planescape: Torment came out in 1999, after all. To be fair though, that's the measuring stick of RPG stories and far from an "industry average." But the tools are much more readily available now to tell better stories than compared with before. I think that's pretty much undeniable.

As far as gameplay and mechanics go however, I think that RPGs have been regressing for the latter part of a decade.

It's gotten to the point where character creation in Sports Games are approaching the same level of complexity, depth and meaningful customisation as many RPGs.

That's not a "ohlol RPGs eez being dumbed down" stereotype. It's fact.



Which really makes me go when people consider the "stats" aspect of RPGs to be too hard or complex. When people talk about spreadsheets as if it's the stats themselves that's daunting rather than it's how it's presented. Sure, drawing your own maps and using a spreadsheet was done in the 80s, but did anyone really need those for KotOR? Despite the D20 ruleset?

RPGs do not require geniuses to play, or require some form of higher intellect. Let no elitist convince you otherwise. It's a type of game that requires time, effort, study and practice to become good at, like almost every other type of game in existence.

Also, one of the bigger aspects of older RPGs was the idea of how certain mechanics can be leveraged to provide a unique experience for the player depending on the character they make. No one outside Bethesda is really carrying that torch anymore. Many of them were also player driven, with you solving puzzles and simply finding your next objective.

So while I love many new RPGs and actually my experience of RPGs only dates back to the mid 90s at earliest (still making me relatively "new school" for a lot of folks), I do wish some of the design principles and aspects of the older ones make a return.

I think they are evolving in the truest sense of the word, which I would be fine with. If it wasn't so thorough and universal.

Now, as far as Mass Effect goes. It's simple. I don't expect nor care for, an RPG. I care about a third person shooter with a nice story and decent gameplay. If the gameplay is more varied, more open, then the RPG aspects of the game can take a hike. That's not why I play Mass Effect. While I think more RPG elements would be fun, I would not want them in at the cost of fluidity. Which is why for example, I don't want to see stats directly affecting accuracy.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 08 août 2011 - 12:14 .

[CuseGirl]

Mister Mida wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

I want a game that has the story complexity of The Witcher 2 with meaningful, but not overly complex gameplay of Mass Effect 2.

I would argue that even Halo and COD players would want that despite the prejudices we have against them.

You honestly believe ME2's gameplay to be overly complex?

I think for new players, it can be. Also, when the fighting area gets flooded with a lot of enemies, I find myself paused in the power wheel a little more than I would like, especially with the lack of dedicated radar.

[Clonedzero]

Terror_K wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

10 - 15 years ago if someone tried developing an indie game they'd go bankrupt.

I guess you don't know that Worms started out as an indie game on a platform on its last legs then...

yeah, one example invalidates the entire statement huh?
today theres dozens of very successful indie games each year. i can name a whole bunch if you wanted, other than worms can you name many? i doubt it.

[Tommy6860]

mrcrusty wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

I like modern RPG's, but I also miss classic ones. I want more diversity. I want some RPG's that aren't cinematic or action focused.

This is more or less how I feel.

Now, as far as storytelling goes, RPGs have made great strides forward. At least, great strides forward in the direction of cinematics. Storytelling wise, it's not that much better. Planescape: Torment came out in 1999, after all. To be fair though, that's the measuring stick of RPG stories and far from an "industry average." But the tools are much more readily available now to tell better stories than compared with before. I think that's pretty much undeniable.

As far as gameplay and mechanics go however, I think that RPGs have been regressing for the latter part of a decade.

It's gotten to the point where character creation in Sports Games are approaching the same level of complexity, depth and meaningful customisation as many RPGs.

That's not a "ohlol RPGs eez being dumbed down" stereotype. It's fact.



Which really makes me go when people consider the "stats" aspect of RPGs to be too hard or complex. When people talk about spreadsheets as if it's the stats themselves that's daunting rather than it's how it's presented. Sure, drawing your own maps and using a spreadsheet was done in the 80s, but did anyone really need those for KotOR? Despite the D20 ruleset?

RPGs do not require geniuses to play, or require some form of higher intellect. Let no elitist convince you otherwise. It's a type of game that requires time, effort, study and practice to become good at, like almost every other type of game in existence.

Also, one of the bigger aspects of older RPGs was the idea of how certain mechanics can be leveraged to provide a unique experience for the player depending on the character they make. No one outside Bethesda is really carrying that torch anymore. Many of them were also player driven, with you solving puzzles and simply finding your next objective.

So while I love many new RPGs and actually my experience of RPGs only dates back to the mid 90s at earliest (still making me relatively "new school" for a lot of folks), I do wish some of the design principles and aspects of the older ones make a return.

I think they are evolving in the truest sense of the word, which I would be fine with. If it wasn't so thorough and universal.

Now, as far as Mass Effect goes. It's simple. I don't expect nor care for, an RPG. I care about a third person shooter with a nice story and decent gameplay. If the gameplay is more varied, more open, then the RPG aspects of the game can take a hike. That's not why I play Mass Effect. While I think more RPG elements would be fun, I would not want them in at the cost of fluidity. Which is why for example, I don't want to see stats directly affecting accuracy.

If I were wealthy enough to produce an RPG this^ is the guy I would have as my lead designer/director . It puzzles me that this type of RPG is getting lost now, and for what, more expensive cinematics and VAs that act as gaming guides more than RPGs..

[CuseGirl]

Captain Crash wrote...
Additionally complaining about a user friendly interface on Skyrim? This is possible one the most immersive RPGs I have ever seen and they still want to complain about it. This is the first time it looks like they got the interface right!! Oblivions interface was horrible.

Until I played ME-2, Oblivion was the greatest game I had ever played. My only issue was everytime I wanted to poison an arrow or switch a weapon, I had to go back into that list....but other than that, it's an unbelievable game.

[Phaedon]

Terror_K wrote...

The only rule I have that defines what an RPG is to me is a meaningful statistical progression system for the player character and a statistical ruleset of pre-defined guidelines and boundaries.

[Luigitornado]

I think classic RPGs were always archaic by design. They are nice, but as we go into the future I would not want to see more of them.

Let's get real here -- younger generation of gamers are caring less and less about classic-type RPGs.