This isn't happening to just RPGs, its happening to just about every genre. I completely agree and hate it, they are getting lazy and greedy. "Dumbing down" or "getting the threshold lower" (ala DICE) is happening to every game. I'm sorry if I don't give a crap if the guy who just bought his first xbox dies every 2 seconds and gets mad,he is NOT the person you want to be your target market! Eff the new guys, make the games for the real players not the I played COD for an hour last week casual gamer. They CAN figure out how to play without the easy buttons, so there's no reason why we can't spend 2 minutes of our time figuring out how to use those not "dumbed down" features that really add to the experience.

To be fair, Dragon Age 2 was a good game, and I really enjoyed the story and the characters.
I did miss the option to change the apperance of my companions clothes, and was less than impressed by the skill options, but overall it was a positive gaming experience.

I understand that Zots were spent on voice, animation and writing rather than modeling clothes for multiple body shapes, so while I don't like that development decision, I understand the economics of it.
That said there are a number of mainstream RPG sequels that have also removed complexity, justifying if as though 'simple' games are always a good thing.

I think the key thing I would like to emphasise for developers is that while gamers wan't their games to be intuitive and easy to learn (a comprehensive tutorial/manual and an education system that does not churn out illiterates might help) gamers also want diversity and complexity. Even in action oriented games (sick of these dud action/rpg's myself), while the player may be less interested in numbers, they clearly want complex tactical options and diverse solutions to the key chalenges the game presents them.

Gamers game because they want to achieve something, sometimes that achievement is customising the ultimate character build which can take on anything, sometimes achievement is compleating the main quest in absurd ways, gamers will achieve things developers never dreamed were posible in their games. But removing choices, limiting complexity and 'distilling' the game experience down to a core set of mechanics rarely increases the number of things a gamer can dream of achieving. While computer games started with just 2 posible achievements (survive to the end or get the high score) they evolved a huge variety of potential achievements, many quite by accident.

Having experienced 3 decades of gaming, I really don't want to return to a time where a game boils down to just 2 numbers (lives and score).

I was a little bit concerned that the gamerant article complained about the removal of 'dice roll' based combat in Skyrim (ignoring the fact that that was removed in Oblivion and the real time combat is far superior it).

Likewise, the ability to develop your character as you progress without being restricted by your class choice is far better for role playing IMO; you're not limited by the choices you make at the start; you get to be what you want to be. Similar to real life.

I think the main problem is that for an rpg game to have real depth, it will take a long time to design (years). This means that the costs of development are going to steadily increase to a point where they need to sell many copies to make the production viable as a business enterprise. Obviously there is a 'catch 22' here - because vast amounts of sales only really seem to equate with accessibilty. This will in turn lead to 'streamlining'...

However, there is a point which has been indirectly overlooked so far in this discussion. That is that there are aspects of other genres which could work really well within the aims and aspirations of an RPG series like TES. One of the things that is apparent to me about Skyrim is that inspiration has been taken from other games which have got some things 'right'. The best example of this is Red Dead Redemption - the horse riding mechanics are undoubtedly better than Oblivion. Similarly, the world of RDR feels so much more alive than almost any other open world game I've played!

Action games have always strived for an immersive combat experience, and it seems that someone has made a connection that any kind of immersion works really well with RPG's. This could lead anywhere from 'camera shake' to gameplay options, etc.

The FPS genre has hugely benefited from adding RPG progressive elements to their multiplayer experience, and now we have an upcoming FPS like Brink which hopes to draw even further from this principle and keep such progression and character customisation throughout both the singleplayer and multiplayer.

For RPG's to improve in the same way, there is bound to be a period of experimentation where certain 'new' concepts will be attempted, but this by no means suggests the melodramatic death of a genre.

Oh goodness, dice. Bleh, thank goodness dice was removed in Oblivion. Skyrim will be just fine without dice. Infact I plan to never play a dice or turned based game outside of the old pokemon games I have ever again. Dice and turned based stuff were created to compencate for the lack of tech, and now that we have the tech we don't need dice and we don't need to wait for the bad guys to pull off some flashy move before we can attack again.

Rpg does not have a D for dice, and I'm glad to see we're not going back to dice. Its like rpgs for some people have come to mean menu's upon menu's with turned based dice rolling wandering questness. I'm glad I started with simple forum rping. Had a lot more fun using my imagination, instead of looking at numbers upon numbers.

Paradigm shifts are inevitable. In everything. I think we will see a steady decline in AAA-titles in the coming years, as innovation and the possibilities increases in the indie-field. These will grow into the new AAAs, because the producers will still want money and the games will need distribution and good quality (devs need to be paid).

I do think Bethesda are on the right track with creating open, living, immersive worlds. Putting your time and energy on that will ultimately give you a longer and richer game, which is less linear and puts the player in the centre; not the story, not the structure of the progression, not the final boss, etc.

I don't see how you really call most BW games recently rpg's to begin with (aside from DA Origins which was more rpg-lite). So no, I don't really agree that rpg's are dying. The folks who make great rpg's are still doing so. :tes:

Folks who say "rpg gaming is dying" are the same folks calling games like ME2 an rpg to begin with. I just smile and nod and pat them on the head.

Rise of Flight - which is the first good one in a long time

Well gaming genres altogether are being dumbed down. See the constant COD games, which are tbh the worst games I have ever played. Rpgs seem to be turning into action games. Final fantasy 13, DA2, Fable 3, Mass effect 2 and so on. The RPG genre is dieing out, hell challenging game-play is dieing out because it seems people dont like a challenge anymore , and I hope that Beth will be the last bastion of the genre.

[quote name='MojoRisin' timestamp='1300969567' post='17366567'

I do think Bethesda are on the right track with creating open, living, immersive worlds. Putting your time and energy on that will ultimately give you a longer and richer game, which is less linear and puts the player in the centre; not the story, not the structure of the progression, not the final boss, etc.
[/quote]

i agree, i think this is the essence of what we're talking about, rpgs traditionally make the player the focus of the game, and newer titles are putting that aside in favour of their own ideas of hero and moral dilemma and so on.
although the fully voiced feature is a looming threat to broader character creation, and there will be a surge in rpg/shooter crossbreeds like borderlands and mass effect, i think many future rpg developers will take good heed of the choice-orientated market and cater to it.
with bethesda taking the lead i don't think there's much to worry about.

True, but I also mean that the good thing is not necessarily having any choices at all, or anything that need to be chosen (or not chosen, like in D A2).

Just starting out as an "entity" or whatever and roam the lands of another world, unrestricted by anything, is a good way. Oblivion was on the right track because the main story wasn't something you had to do, but was rather one aspect of the game you could explore if you felt like being the hero-type of character.

I want the world to have even more little towns with deep, complex NPCs, verdant forests I can explore without a map, or fields I can plough because I feel like settling down. Total freedom!

I`m not worried about Skyrim particularly, as I really think it will be very immersive with some complex game mechanics which will enrich the game and add more replayability.


What I am worried about is Bioware. After playing the garbage that is Dragon Age 2, where it was noticeably rushed and just became a borefest with doing missions in the same areas over and over again, complete with predictable spawns of mobs, boring combat mechanic and forgettable and frankly terrible Companions (Merrilin makes me cringe), I really hope Bioware doesn`t continue down this route with ME3.

Reality Pumps tried to get to fancy with the content in TW2 and imho it ended up a mish mash of basic gameplay features that are very shallow in reality, under the cover of nice graphics. Play it long enough and it`s like a dumbed down Assassins Creed the RPG wannabe. Horse riding is just plain ugh in it. Sailing is completely boring and pointless as theres no where much to go to. Death strike - nice assassination cinematic but you can`t use it on NPC`s in towns or cities. The story is god awful adn rushed, with the worst ending ever. Loot is utter rubbish and dungeons don`t offer much in way of decent rewards.

We also have Gothic 4, which quite frankly, I hate to even link it to the Gothic games at all, as it is a pile of steaming poo. The Gothic series were great RPG`s and the provided tons of hours of free roaming RPG goodness - especially Gothic 3 once the Community Patches sorted the bugs. It had a huge land to explore and completely non linear (unlike Bioware efforts)

No, I have to say that I am worried a bit at the "RPG`s" that are rushed out as dumbed down, linear or just plain shallow experiences, in recent times.

My last hope is in Beth and that Skyrim will have a real immersive world to explore and hopefully a decent combat system. I`m also looking forward to Witcher 2, as that looks to deliver a satisfying experience. Witcher 1 had some brilliant RPG content but was let down by the awful twitchy combat system and long loading times.

Just my 2 cents.

try demon's souls dude, definitely the most challenging rpg, or game for that matter, that i've played, and it only came out, what, last year?
there's a sequel on the way too.

Well Bioware has just gone downhill, RPGS aren't dying it's just alot of developer/companies are losing their way.
Im glad that it seems Bethesda has not followed suit on this one.

You nailed it on the head. I agree full heartedly.

I personally agree with the OP, but think that Skyrim will be simplified in a good way (at least that's what my optimism says).
Still, let's wait and see before we cast and stones on Bethesda.

AMEN.



This. Things change, people. Accept it and move on and enjoy the games. Or don't accept it and become the arch-typical old grouch who loves to tell the story of how he used to crawl 30 miles to school because both legs were broken and he had no crutches, in a blizzard, every day, uphill both ways, carrying 150 pounds of books.




Final Fantasy XIII is not an action game. It's not a 'true' RPG (by my definition), but it is absolutely not an action game in any way, shape, or form. DA2 seems to me to be a hybrid (and I'm cool with that) -- you are responsible for defining the main character's personality, but in combat it's all about mashing the buttons. I don't know about Fable or Mass Effect. And my thoughts on "challenge" are too long and off topic.

tell that to people that were looking forward to Civilization 5 and they're likely to bite off your fingers

I hate it for the simple reason that there used to be a lot more meat to an RPG. I hate all the streamlining and simplifying. I like all the text and numbers and menus. It's why I got into RPGs to begin with. Anymore, RPGs are more like action games with a few RPG elements to them. The people they're catering to now aren't RPG fans -- they're action/adventure fans.

and you'll say "Space :snoring: " or "Fantasy! :woot:" or "Japanese weird :yuck:"

unless you're talking to another hardcoe rpger, in which case you'll say "Well it's a top down rah rah rah... "

everyone knows what an rpg is, it's not complicated, or diverse, of course you can compare different strains,
i only play rpgs nowadays, are you telling me it's imba for me to decide which one caters to my tastes the most?

Odd.

Personally, I'll play ME3 because I was captivated by ME1's story (2, a bit less), love the characters, and want to see where both the story & my choices end up. Great games, great RPGs.

(And, as I've mentioned other places before, I felt that ME2, while it's base story was weaker than ME1's and the combat system was somewhat simpler, it was a stronger RPG because the dialogue & decisions were better than ME1's. Combat system =/= RPG to me.)


...also, FemShep is awesome. (GuyShep does seem like an idiot, but why would anyone play him? )

-----

Anyway, the vast majority of "RPGs" over the decades have been basically linear, so if "linear" makes a game not an RPG for you..... :shrug:


edit: just read up on Demon's Souls..... it's a 3rd-person action beat-em-up, with some basic RPG aspects (equipment & class/stats). So, it's a roguelike? I can see alot of people dismissing that as an "action game" and not an RPG....

demon's souls is a game focused around character builds, and the aspects are far from basic, very detailed in fact.
it has a very interesting backdrop and lore, but no story, thank the lord.

I always chuckle when I hear the "evolution" argument. Evolution doesn't necessarily mean "for the better".

I guess is a matter of perspective... for the old coots like me RPGs are just not what they used to be.. sticking to computer games with a GUI, games like the Gabriel Knight series (1&2 only, the 3rd installment not so much) , Black Dahlia, Noctropolis, Deus Ex, Grim Fandango, The Dig, even the Monkey Island series... games with that much put into the story and interactions, I think those are dead, indeed...

.......:blink:

They are all RPG games even how simple they may get. Mass Effect drew me in more for its stroy and It actualy made me feel connected with the characters in there that say morrowind or oblivion. Dragon age to but not in the same way. There are 2 differnt kinds of RPG game. one for those that like the story and simplicity of use others like to have a more complexe game. I go for story. but I do like it to be with stats if you hate a game because you feel it does not deserve to be a RPG and you ignore what makes that game what it is then you are as bad as the fan boys. I dont compare this game to that game each one is its own game. I remember coming to this forum on a differnt accoiunt and seeing all the complaints of oblivion and people compared it to morrowind. Oblivion was its own game almost new everything and new art style etc but people would post hate threads because it didn't do this or that like morrowind. You have to remember they have to try and make moeny so they try and appeal to a greater crowd making a RPG simpler to use is the best way to do this.


Last time I saw a good flight sim was IL2 series and Lock on. but those are combat flight sims a little differnt from a normal flight sim.