112 réponses à ce sujet

[Nikator]

(I hope the thread-title is not misleading, if so, please post and I will change it into something more suitable, if such an option exists . Also, I thought it was most suitable to post this in the Off-topic forum since it is not entirely about Mass Effect 2, it just uses that game as its focal point. If people think otherwise, I will ask a MOD to move the thread somewhere more apropriate )

Hi all,

Being mainly a "lurker" (I read more than I post on these forums) I do not usually post, but one thing that has really got me thinking while reading on these forums for the last 2-3 weeks has to do with the term "RPG" (Roleplaying game), and what it means to people/players. Mainly this has to do with the release of Mass Effect 2, Biowares latest game, and the impressions/reviews/opinions of people who have played it and are fans of the "RPG"-genre.

It has come to my understanding that many people (Or perhaps some, I am unsure and dont have any hard numbers to present, this is merely personal observations and can thus be "off") consider Mass Effect 2 to be a "dumbed down" RPG that is more of a shooter, or not an RPG at all?

Lets take the game "Borderlands", for example. This is a game that titles itself as a mix of "FPS" and "RPG". But the elements it takes from the RPG-genre is mainly the looting/inventory system aswell as the leveling aspect (To various degrees of sucess, according to people). There is, however, no sign of any ability to alter the story in any way, nor is there any dialouge-system (Another aspect of RPG's, perhaps most famous in Bioware games?) Would you consider Borderlands to be an "RPG"? If not, what is lacking in order for Borderlands to become an actual RPG (I know this is perhaps a dumb question, seeing as it was never designed to be a "Pure RPG")? Seeing that Mass Effect 2 lacked an inventory/looting system, is Borderlands more of an "RPG" than ME2? If not, why?

Another example would be the "Diablo" series, who, I wish to recall, is sometimes refered to as "RPG". This genre adopts the same definition of "RPG" as Borderlands, namely that the defining factor of an RPG is the inventory/loot system aswell as leveling and character development.

Now, I myself definately consider Mass Effect 2 to be an RPG mainly because the thing I associate with the term "RPG" is the ability of me as the player to shape the plot of the game. And on this end, Mass Effect 2 certainly delivers. Ofcourse, there are some/many mechanics that are considered to be iconic for the "RPG" genre, such as an inventory/loot-system, leveling system etc. (Mass Effect 2 most definately had a leveling system though I have read complaints that it was to "shallow") but I wonder, how many of these aspects can a game lack and still be considered an "RPG"?

My main reasoning being the focus of "Role Playing", namely that one can play the role of a character in a certain setting. This is, however, perhaps flawed thinking, as by this definition almost any game is an "RPG" considering you play a "role" in it. But to develop my argument I believe that the role you play is one you can change and determine for yourself.

Taking the game Halo as an example (Not anywhere near being an "RPG", I know, but keep reading) where you play "Master Chief". Now, by a very literal interpretation of the word "Roleplaying" one could say that Halo is an "RPG", since you play the "role" of "Master Chief". However, you have no direct control of the development of his character. Everyone's "Master Chief" will have the same moral, the same "character", and thus the same outcome of the story.

Which brings me to my next point, namely the concept of "character development". To some, this might mean in which way you can develop your characters mindset and personality. For example, in "Mass Effect 2" you can influence wether Commander Shepard is "Paragon/Renegade" etc. But for others the term "character development" might mean in which ways you can level up your character, spend his talent points and increase his power, as in the Diablo-games.

My main reason for creating this thread is that I am curious as to what the word "RPG" means to you? What defines an "RPG" in your book? It seems to me that the term "RPG" nowadays is very broadly used, and in different conjectures, leading to a sort of "Identity crisis" of the word, seeing as it means different things to different people, making it, perhaps, hard to distinguish what an "RPG" "truly" is? Since "Mass Effect 2" was released, and I read the many different thoughts and opinions about it and wether or not it fits into the "RPG" genre I actually gave it a lot of thought and actually discovered what "RPG" means to myself. However, I am still curious about the opinion of you other players out there.

And please, I do not mean to provoke or cause trouble, I am merely curious as there seems to be quite an ammount of different opinions regarding this topic. Lets try to keep it civil, I am not looking for "my definition is better than yours", merely "my definition is...", followed, if possible, by why.

(Know also that while I included some of my personal thoughts/opinions on this matter I by no way consider my opinion to be "the right one", but I felt that I had to include it for the sake of argument and to get started up.)

Modifié par Nikator, 15 février 2010 - 09:29 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Hi. The dialogue system is VERY NEW to RPGs but in my opinion will also be VERY CRUCIAL to the future of the genre. As Nozy has said in the past, leveling and loot in RPGs are shallow(paraphrasing).



Characters and plot add to the immersion. Not combat(my 2 cents, not putting words in Nozy's or anybody else's mouth).



Depending on how this thread pans out I'll add more later. This would be better in the general Mass Effect section though since there are lots of similar threads there.

[Nozybidaj]

To me no 1 particular trait makes a RPG. Just having a story doesn't automatically make it an rpg, no. Just automatically having an on screen persona doesn't either. S&B touches on something that is important, through the dialogue system you have the opportunity to shape and influence the characters persona which is another important feature.



Everyone has their own definitions of rpg, as has been evidenced in past threads. It's really a game that is more than the sum of its parts in the end that creates the kind of immersive experience where the player has the ability to effect the outcome.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Nozybidaj wrote...

To me no 1 particular trait makes a RPG. Just having a story doesn't automatically make it an rpg, no. Just automatically having an on screen persona doesn't either.

True enough. But most RPG fans agree an in depth story at the very least is crucial, and in my opinion MMOs and Borderlands don't even scratch the surface.

[Baracuda6977]

IMO, RPG's arn't RPG's anymore (keep reading if that makes no sense)



we need to use new terms, i believe that an RPG is a game where you shape your character through stats or morals etc.



you cant say that that alone is not enough to be an RPG or else JRPGs would pretty much get wiped out immediatly, look at Final Fantasy, there is no dialogue, no choices (maybe go tunnel A or tunnel B but come on) or anything else like that but you can't deny that that is an iconic 'RPG' or u should be slapped and sent away



the children metaphorically of the original RPGs are games like Dragon Age or Oblivion IV, high end looting, incredible ish customising, moral choice is present but graying out, you play a persona that you shape and it determines the flow of the story and the personalities of those around you, but compared to original RPGs they are nothing like them, in place of a better term they became WRPGs



at least imo, RPGs are the future but in the leveling sense, not like the metaphorical descendents

[Leinadi]

True enough. But most RPG fans agree an in depth story at the very least is crucial

In that case you would have to discount the very origins the genre comes from. While there typically is some form of story, if you go back longer than say, 10-15 years, you'll be hard pressed to find "in-depth stories" in the RPGs of that age. Even in some of the most defining games of the genre, like Fallout 1, the story is very thin and very narrative-light.



I've actually been fearing that the "epic story" type of design has actually threatened to choke the RPG genre, turning the player into a very passive figure that watches a story unfold that he can interact with in a very limited way. In that sense, I really appreciate what Bioware did for Dragon Age because while it is a story-heavy game, there are a lot of choices to be made. Furthermore, it expanded upon stuff like backgrounds. Not a new mechanic by any stretch, but certainly the most well-developed in Dragon Age.



I think what I find most annoying of all is that RPGs, having previously been a slightly "underground" type of genre, have crossed over into mainstream territory. This has made a lot of the RPG type of gameplay involving dicerolls, tactical situations as opposed to action gameplay, complex mechanics something very "ugly" in the eyes of the mainstream crowd. As such, a lot of the RPG genre is becoming very faceless and a sort of mishmash between various genres. It is interesting that you bring up Halo in your original post, because I actually *have* seen it mentioned as a RPG a number of times which is pretty distressing.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Leinadi wrote...

In that case you would have to discount
the very origins the genre comes from. While there typically is some
form of story, if you go back longer than say, 10-15 years, you'll be
hard pressed to find "in-depth stories" in the RPGs of that age. Even
in some of the most defining games of the genre, like Fallout 1, the
story is very thin and very narrative-light.

I've actually been
fearing that the "epic story" type of design has actually threatened to
choke the RPG genre, turning the player into a very passive figure that
watches a story unfold that he can interact with in a very limited way.
In that sense, I really appreciate what Bioware did for Dragon Age
because while it is a story-heavy game, there are a lot of choices to
be made. Furthermore, it expanded upon stuff like backgrounds. Not a
new mechanic by any stretch, but certainly the most well-developed in
Dragon Age.

I think what I find most annoying of all is that
RPGs, having previously been a slightly "underground" type of genre,
have crossed over into mainstream territory. This has made a lot of the
RPG type of gameplay involving dicerolls, tactical situations as
opposed to action gameplay, complex mechanics something very "ugly" in
the eyes of the mainstream crowd. As such, a lot of the RPG genre is
becoming very faceless and a sort of mishmash between various genres.
It is interesting that you bring up Halo in your original post, because
I actually *have* seen it mentioned as a RPG a number of times which is
pretty distressing.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Hi. The dialogue system is VERY NEW to RPGs but in my opinion will also be VERY CRUCIAL to the future of the genre. As Nozy has said in the past, leveling and loot in RPGs are shallow(paraphrasing).

All video games evolve many ways over the years. Look at Pong and Far Cry 2. Hell, if you want a closer comparison between 2 games, look at Pong and Pac-Man Maze Madness for the PS1. Another paraphrase of something Nozy said, is the RPG genre something stagnant that will never change? Because of the most famous and popular computer RPG, Final Fantasy 7, people expect great story from their RPGs. And what better way to evolve a plot based game than to make it like Choose Your Own Adventure to the 100th degree?

I have noticed people claim most if not all video games are "RPGs" though. Yeah, it's bull.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 15 février 2010 - 11:25 .

[David Gaider]

Personally, I find it interesting that so many RPG players claim to be fans of the genre but make their requirements for what constitutes an actual RPG so narrow that it doesn't seem to be a genre at all but simply a selection of their few favorite titles. A few titles does not make a genre, after all.

Another thing which I find interesting is the role that nostalgia plays in this. These same players will often swear up and down that there is no nostalgia, but I suspect part of what made older games so special to them is because they were new. That seems like it should be self-evident, but I see a lot of people running on the assumption that the novelty they felt playing an earlier game can be recaptured simply by replicating the features in their entirety -- and looking at those features as if they could exist independently of each other, rather than in the context of a game where there are often trade-offs.

It's also strange that these same people will make contradictory demands: they want novelty and innovation, while simultaneously wanting nothing to actually change. If there was an RPG they liked in the past, they want a new RPG to be made that's just like it but to feel as fresh and new as when they played it back then -- ignoring the fact that they are no longer who they were.

Now that's not to say that people don't like what they like -- just that there's a lot of factors that go into the whole "what is an RPG?" question, many of them emotional. You ask that question and you often get "what should an RPG be?" back. Speaking for myself, I think there's a lot of room in the genre for exploration, and I'm uncomfortable with the entitlement of those who claim to be spokemen for the "real RPG" model -- what they like is intelligent and everything else is "dumbed down" and thus for the less intelligent hoi polloi.

Ideally there would be room for RPG's to come out that cover the spectrum of interests within the genre. If the market is there, the industry will find it. I think what you often encounter is a fear amongst RPG fans that there isn't a big enough market for what they personally like and yet a desire that triple-A games should still be made for them regardless.

[eyesofastorm]

David Gaider wrote...

Personally, I find it interesting that so many RPG players claim to be fans of the genre but make their requirements for what constitutes an actual RPG so narrow that it doesn't seem to be a genre at all but simply a selection of their few favorite titles. A few titles does not make a genre, after all.

Another thing which I find interesting is the role that nostalgia plays in this. These same players will often swear up and down that there is no nostalgia, but I suspect part of what made older games so special to them is because they were new. That seems like it should be self-evident, but I see a lot of people running on the assumption that the novelty they felt playing an earlier game can be recaptured simply by replicating the features in their entirety -- and looking at those features as if they could exist independently of each other, rather than in the context of a game where there are often trade-offs.

It's also strange that these same people will make contradictory demands: they want novelty and innovation, while simultaneously wanting nothing to actually change. If there was an RPG they liked in the past, they want a new RPG to be made that's just like it but to feel as fresh and new as when they played it back then -- ignoring the fact that they are no longer who they were.

Now that's not to say that people don't like what they like -- just that there's a lot of factors that go into the whole "what is an RPG?" question, many of them emotional. You ask that question and you often get "what should an RPG be?" back. Speaking for myself, I think there's a lot of room in the genre for exploration, and I'm uncomfortable with the entitlement of those who claim to be spokemen for the "real RPG" model -- what they like is intelligent and everything else is "dumbed down" and thus for the less intelligent hoi polloi.

Ideally there would be room for RPG's to come out that cover the spectrum of interests within the genre. If the market is there, the industry will find it. I think what you often encounter is a fear amongst RPG fans that there isn't a big enough market for what they personally like and yet a desire that triple-A games should still be made for them regardless.

*I'm not arguing, just presenting another viewpoint.*

To be fair, you guys have abandoned everything you've done in the past.  NOW... let me explain what I mean by abandoned.  You made the BG's... what many consider to be the traditional RP archetype.  Then you went KOTOR which was an action/RPG mix.  Then you made JE which was mechanically almost 100% action with some RP story and dialogue.  Then NWN which was almost back to traditional RPG, but with the twist that it was focused on multiplayer rather than single player.  Then you went ME which was cinematic RPG-lite/action.  Then DA which was more traditional RPG again, but included what some consider concessions to a market that might or might not have a shorter attention span.  Then ME2 which junked nearly al of the mechanics of ME1 and went 90% TPS.  You can call it innovating and it would be accurate.  You can also call it abandonment because each of these games was at least a critcial success and in nearly every case a commercial success.  You moved on because you wanted to do something new.  Not because there wasn't a market there. 

Bethesda makes open world, relatively "unfocused" RPGs.  Blizzard makes action RPG's and MMO's.  The three of you are really the only developers that make AAA RPG titles.  And in the near decade between BG2 and DA, there wasn't what I would call a single traditional single player AAA RPG title on the market.  If BG2 was a huge success and DA is a success (it seems so to me, but I haven't seen the inside numbers), then are these games not being made becasue there is no market, or is there no market because these games are not being made?

[Giant ambush beetle]

@ David Gaider

Give me Baldurs Gate II and TOB expansion with up to date graphics and I am a totally happy man. Screw the rest of RPG's. No need for new features or anything else.  ^_^
 

[David Gaider]

eyesofastorm wrote...
If BG2 was a huge success and DA is a success (it seems so to me, but I haven't seen the inside numbers), then are these games not being made becasue there is no market, or is there no market because these games are not being made?

Hard to say. There are a lot of assumptions regarding what will sell, both within the industry as well as amongst the fanbase. I'm not sure DA is the best model to bring up -- most developers couldn't have worked on a game for as long as we did, and when you're looking at sales you really have to also look at the amount of expense that was incurred in its creation. That kind of development cycle simply isn't very sustainable in the long run.

Does that mean that triple-A "traditional RPG" titles shouldn't be made more frequently, then? Again, that's a difficult question. RPG's are already more content-heavy than just about every other type of game out there, with a fanbase that already seems to rate an RPG in comparison to the lengths of games which were made back in the day when such content was cheaper to produce... for a genre of game which, while it can sell pretty well, does not generally produce the kind of sales that attract the money that such content creation needs. I'm no businessman, but that's not exactly a winning formula.

I'd like to think that "if you build it, they will come"... but the answer's a bit more complicated than that, clearly.

[SkullandBonesmember]

eyesofastorm wrote...

"AAA"?

[SkullandBonesmember]

David Gaider wrote...

I'd like to think that "if you build it, they will come"... but the answer's a bit more complicated than that, clearly.

I'm never going to expect a Bioware game to be devoid of ANY action, but for a first time Bioware title buyer when I brought the first game, I felt the story and interactions, while could have been expanded a bit more, was great all the same. As I've said, it seems to me and others who play for plot that you guys skipped a lot of story, or more accurately character interaction/development in areas for combat. I called it before was released. Somebody else said in the general area ME2 is a good stand alone game, but not necessarily a good "immersive" title when comparing it to a sequel to Mass Effect 1.

[David Gaider]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
"AAA"?

It's an industry classification -- perhaps North American, I'm not sure, as it's a baseball reference. But a "triple-A title' means a game that is at the top of the pile: it has a lot of development money invested in it, is going to have above-average to top-of-the-line graphics... basically the latest and greatest.

Why is that important? Media has a lot to do with it. If your game is seen as a triple-A title, then you'll get coverage by the gaming media. If it isn't, you're relegated to the sidelines. If someone thinks that's not important to the industry, they're vastly mistaken.

The catch is that triple-A titles cost way more to produce than they used to. Comparing a triple-A title made today and one made ten years ago (BG2 is a good example) doesn't mean much without an awareness of the change in the industry during that time. You may not like the change, but ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

[eyesofastorm]

David Gaider wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...
If BG2 was a huge success and DA is a success (it seems so to me, but I haven't seen the inside numbers), then are these games not being made becasue there is no market, or is there no market because these games are not being made?

Hard to say. There are a lot of assumptions regarding what will sell, both within the industry as well as amongst the fanbase. I'm not sure DA is the best model to bring up -- most developers couldn't have worked on a game for as long as we did, and when you're looking at sales you really have to also look at the amount of expense that was incurred in its creation. That kind of development cycle simply isn't very sustainable in the long run.

Does that mean that triple-A "traditional RPG" titles shouldn't be made more frequently, then? Again, that's a difficult question. RPG's are already more content-heavy than just about every other type of game out there, with a fanbase that already seems to rate an RPG in comparison to the lengths of games which were made back in the day when such content was cheaper to produce... for a genre of game which, while it can sell pretty well, does not generally produce the kind of sales that attract the money that such content creation needs. I'm no businessman, but that's not exactly a winning formula.

I'd like to think that "if you build it, they will come"... but the answer's a bit more complicated than that, clearly.

Well, did DA really need to take 6 years to develop?  The addition of console versions added to the development time.  The development of the world and lore as an IP certainly added to it... if it wasn't a majority.  And was Bioware putting 100% of it's resources (or as much as any game you develop ever gets)  into getting DA from concept to reality or was it shuffled around as you (as a company) worked on ME, ME2, and SW:TOR and transitioned from being just Bioware to being a subsidiary of EA?  I think you are right that using DA as a model isn't the best choice, but unfortunately, it's the only remotely recent choice we have. 

As to the potential profitability of RPGs... well, I think it goes back to the same chicken or egg scenario.  In the intervening decade between BG2 and DA, we've seen literally dozens of AAA shooter titles.  The industry built that market.  Was it relatively cheap and easy to build?  Sure.  But could the market for RPGs have been built and sustained similarly if developers as a whole had chosen to make the effort... I think it's worth considering at least.  Unfortunately, at this juncture, we may never know.

I do think that, going forward, the development costs of these traditional RPGs of which we speak need not have the same costs both in time and pure money as DA did.  I hope the decision makers realize that when they consider keeping DA alive or axing it as an IP.  We haven't seen any D&D titles in a while either come to think of it.

[SkullandBonesmember]

David Gaider wrote...

It's an industry classification -- perhaps North American, I'm not sure, as it's a baseball reference. But a "triple-A title' means a game that is at the top of the pile: it has a lot of development money invested in it, is going to have above-average to top-of-the-line graphics... basically the latest and greatest.

Why is that important? Media has a lot to do with it. If your game is seen as a triple-A title, then you'll get coverage by the gaming media. If it isn't, you're relegated to the sidelines. If someone thinks that's not important to the industry, they're vastly mistaken.

The catch is that triple-A titles cost way more to produce than they used to. Comparing a triple-A title made today and one made ten years ago (BG2 is a good example) doesn't mean much without an awareness of the change in the industry during that time. You may not like the change, but ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

Oh, now I get the reference. Heh, thank you.

[Godak]

David Gaider wrote...

Personally, I find it interesting that so many RPG players claim to be fans of the genre but make their requirements for what constitutes an actual RPG so narrow that it doesn't seem to be a genre at all but simply a selection of their few favorite titles. A few titles does not make a genre, after all.

Another thing which I find interesting is the role that nostalgia plays in this. These same players will often swear up and down that there is no nostalgia, but I suspect part of what made older games so special to them is because they were new. That seems like it should be self-evident, but I see a lot of people running on the assumption that the novelty they felt playing an earlier game can be recaptured simply by replicating the features in their entirety -- and looking at those features as if they could exist independently of each other, rather than in the context of a game where there are often trade-offs.

It's also strange that these same people will make contradictory demands: they want novelty and innovation, while simultaneously wanting nothing to actually change. If there was an RPG they liked in the past, they want a new RPG to be made that's just like it but to feel as fresh and new as when they played it back then -- ignoring the fact that they are no longer who they were.

Now that's not to say that people don't like what they like -- just that there's a lot of factors that go into the whole "what is an RPG?" question, many of them emotional. You ask that question and you often get "what should an RPG be?" back. Speaking for myself, I think there's a lot of room in the genre for exploration, and I'm uncomfortable with the entitlement of those who claim to be spokemen for the "real RPG" model -- what they like is intelligent and everything else is "dumbed down" and thus for the less intelligent hoi polloi.

Ideally there would be room for RPG's to come out that cover the spectrum of interests within the genre. If the market is there, the industry will find it. I think what you often encounter is a fear amongst RPG fans that there isn't a big enough market for what they personally like and yet a desire that triple-A games should still be made for them regardless.

...Am I allowed to hug you? Are we allowed to do that? I'm not breaking any laws, am I? I mean, it is the Winter Olympics, we're technically competitors.

...Can I at least get you to sign my facial hair?

[David Gaider]

eyesofastorm wrote...
Well, did DA really need to take 6 years to develop?  The addition of console versions added to the development time.  The development of the world and lore as an IP certainly added to it... if it wasn't a majority.  And was Bioware putting 100% of it's resources (or as much as any game you develop ever gets)  into getting DA from concept to reality or was it shuffled around as you (as a company) worked on ME, ME2, and SW:TOR and transitioned from being just Bioware to being a subsidiary of EA?  I think you are right that using DA as a model isn't the best choice, but unfortunately, it's the only remotely recent choice we have.

I'm not sure what any of these questions matter. The size of development companies varies, as does the size of the teams they put onto their projects. What is important is keeping money flowing into a business. If you don't have any income coming in, you don't have a business -- period. There's a lot of gamers who don't like to think of gaming as an industry, but there it is.

But could the market for RPGs have been built and sustained similarly if developers as a whole had chosen to make the effort... I think it's worth considering at least.  Unfortunately, at this juncture, we may never know.

That depends on what you mean by "make the effort". Do you mean invested the money? Let's say you're the average investor in a game -- do you invest money in a game that requires less content but can sell equally well if not better? Or do you invest money in a game where the players for that game will judge it by the amount of content that goes into it, for possibly middling to good sales? I'm also not sure of the assumption that the players who bought shooter games would have been equally willing to buy content-heavy RPG's had they been more available... but I suppose you're right, we'll never know that.

I think we're getting a bit off topic, here. The thread isn't precisely devoted to the industry of making RPG's, but rather what constitutes the RPG genre. So I'll leave the discussion at that.

[SkullandBonesmember]

distinguetraces wrote...

What about games that are deep in terms of lore, but much simpler (and cheaper) in terms of production values? EA is experimenting with going after casual gamers with its flash games -- what about going after hardcore RPG gamers with lengthy, budget-priced RPGs at a similar tech level.

The obvious example would be Dragon Age: Journeys writ large -- what if something like that were developed as the entree instead of as a side dish?

Gamers like me -- still playing Infinity-engine games after all these years -- would play and pay for such a game very happily. Are there enough of me to make this a way for lengthy and complex RPGs to continue to be produced at a budget price in 2D?

Really, the only things I'd miss from the "AAA" style is the voice acting, and DA:O already makes the choice not to use voice acting for its protagonist.

Sadly, I don't think so.

[Godak]

I think the primary problem with trying to define a 'Role-Playing Game" is that it's quite dependent on one's personal views.



Someone might be totally immersed in the character of "Link" from Zelda. Other's might find him completely two-dimensional. However, certain aspects of gameplay from the Zelda series could be shoe-horned into an RPG mold. You have character skill progression, item collection, exploration, and quest solve-ation.



Then there are games like Heavy Rain, where your decisions have a massive affect on both the story and characters. Still, it is a fairly linear game, where you move from set-piece to set-piece, and there is no character progression to speak of.



I'm of the crowd that thinks that the RPG genre should be far more inclusive. All attempts to make some sort of "line" to define what is and isn't an RPG game have failed quite massively.

[David Gaider]

distinguetraces wrote...
Gamers like me -- still playing Infinity-engine games after all these years -- would play and pay for such a game very happily. Are there enough of me to make this a way for lengthy and complex RPGs to continue to be produced at a budget price in 2D?

Well, right off the bat you have a game that would not be a triple-A title (not like the IE games were in their day)... meaning that it would largely be ignored by the media, and considering the budget would be lower you're not going to make up for that with paid advertising. So the question is whether there would be enough sales to make up for the number of people required to make that amount of content? We're not talking about content that can be whipped up by five guys in a basement, after all... at a certain level the need for a triple-A title comes about because that's the level of sales you need to recoup the investment, which largely comes via salaries.

My suspicion is that it couldn't be done without the market changing to be less triple-A title driven. There is a growing acceptance of indy games and smaller titles, but right now the gulf between them is still pretty huge. But that's just my impression. I don't know for certain that companies aren't just chasing after the top sales instead of aiming lower... and I couldn't say for certain that aiming lower would actually be beneficial for them, either. Beneficial for the gamer seeking a niche game, sure, and I'm certain their effusive praise would warm the hearts of developers standing in the unemployment line.

Modifié par David Gaider, 16 février 2010 - 01:07 .

[--Master of All--]

I guess it's a trade off, really. Based on what DG said, it seems that modern RPGs are highly expensive to produce, and they rarely return sales numbers that can compete with the flagship shooter, action, and casual gaming titles. My thought is if that's the case, then maybe RPGs shouldn't always try to compete with other genres on the graphics and window dressings front.

I'm not sure if this could ever be justified, but what if a small group of developers within Bioware occasionally produced an "old school" RPG, with stripped-down graphics and more text-based dialogue. In other words, content-heavy, yet cheap to produce. Even though the sales numbers would likely be significantly lower than a full-fledged AAA title, maybe you could still pull a profit on it, because of the low development cost. Granted, you would still have to market it, and that has a cost as well.

I'm willing to bet many people would pay $20-30 for a Bioware RPG even if if it was made in the Infinity engine and had text-based dialogue.


Edit: I guess this has already been brought up.

Modifié par --Master of All--, 16 février 2010 - 01:12 .

[the_one_54321]

David Gaider wrote...
...

eyesofastorm wrote...
...

Right off the bat, I want to say that my definition of all genres is purely technical. I think that all these kinds of things should be defined with such technicality simply to avoid this whole mess of "is it an RPG or isn't it?" (it's not btw) The definition of RPG is, indeed, incredibly limiting, but that is not a restriction or a criticism to any game or any developer. It is simply the proper application of the label. Whether a game is an RPG or not an RPG or whatever other crazy mix-n-match label you guys come up with next, it's a great game or a terrible game or anything in between based on its merits, or lack thereof, and not based on the proper application of a genre label.

BioWare has, quite clearly, started to go far away from where they started in making RPGs, to the point that one of the biggest title is clearly not an RPG and they aren't even trying to say otherwise. I don't see anything specifically wrong with that, so long as the game is awesome. And by all accounts the game is awesome. However, I do worry for the future of the real RPG genre or "classic" RPG as those with more forgiveness in labels are calling it. Isn't there still room for real RPGs to still be made? Isn't there still some money to be made in producing those games? The recent releases from BioWare have me very impressed at the quality, but a little disconcerted at the style.

[--Master of All--]

David Gaider wrote...

My suspicion is that it couldn't be done without the market changing to be less triple-A title driven. There is a growing acceptance of indy games and smaller titles, but right now the gulf between them is still pretty huge. But that's just my impression. I don't know for certain that companies aren't just chasing after the top sales instead of aiming lower... and I couldn't say for certain that aiming lower would actually be beneficial for them, either. Beneficial for the gamer seeking a niche game, sure, and I'm certain their effusive praise would warm the hearts of developers standing in the unemployment line.

Is there a reason a developer can't do both AAA titles and niche lower cost games at the same time? I bet you could make a killing with even a half-way decent RPG on a portable gaming system, for example. And the financial risk for these smaller projects would be much lower. I guess the only Bioware game I can think of that follows this business model is the Sonic RPG, although I have no idea how successful that was.


Edit: Oh, and Mass Effect Galaxy.

Modifié par --Master of All--, 16 février 2010 - 01:25 .