Skyrim, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 3: Are RPGs Evolving or Dy : Othor Games

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 3:50 am

well, after years of harrassing bioware to ease up on the linear story approach, i've finally given up and let that one go, i will play mass effect 3, but more out of respect for pandemic's programming than anything else.
i definitely think they lost touch with the rpg a while ago - as soon as that irritating dumb-ass shepherd opened his mouth in fact, Origins had a great design aspect to it, but it was all locked away inside the story, without mods you literally could not play the combat without trawling through that same story that constantly threatened to ruin the mood the first time around, i just don't have the patience for linear games anymore.
i look to elder scrolls, i look to demon's souls, and i hope there'll be more franchises on the way that make creativity for the player their top priority.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:34 am

Good thing we still have Dark Souls comming our way, may as well be the hardest real time third person RPG yet.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:28 am

RPG is the worst label ever. It's so diverse almost anything could be counted as an RPG.

But the genre TES games are only has one series in it, and that's looking pretty good so far.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:54 am

Wherever there is a market there will always be someone who will want a share of it. So, as long as there is a market for "oldschool" RPGs there will always be games that more or less fill that description. It might not be the old franchises though. It's like Roadrunner described in his post.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:17 am

There's always gonna be a demand for hardcoe RPG games. It won't die.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:20 am

It seems like everyone griping about RPGs "going downhill" are always complaining about how there are fewer quests now, less in-depth customization, etc etc. Here's my problem with these arguments: none of them address the issue of WHY these features are being removed. Sure, they all say they're being removed to "dumb down" the game for mainstream audience, but that's simply untrue. Adding voice overs is not "dumbing down" a game. Rather, adding voice overs moves the game forward to more realism.

In the same way, many of the things being removed as customization options were useless anyway. They've taken out skills and abilities no one used or wanted. They've rolled other skills into different categories to cut down on the categories without cutting down on the skills. This, also, is not "dumbing down" the game.

There are fewer quests because there is less room on the disk for quests when it has to take up other files. Files like graphics. Files like voice overs. Honestly, if we really want to go back so far why are these people advocating for just going back 5-10 years? Why are we even talking about computer games or video games at all? Why are we not throwing dice and playing dungeons and dragons? There were more choices there than any computer game. Why? Because your imagination was the game engine. You didn't need a disk, just a brain.

My point is this: people should stop complaining about progress. We have better graphics, better gameplay (if shorter gameplay), and we've included voice overs. Now we're even getting the player character to have a voice in some games (Mass Effect 1&2 and Dragon Age 2). It will not be feasible in the near future to give all player characters a voice, just when there is only one race that can be played. Does this cut down on roleplay? Possibly. But I doubt games like Skyrim where you can pick from several races will ever restrict you to only one.

Progress is good. Going back in the past is bad. Regardless, the games will continue to progress whether some people want old games or not, they aren't coming back. Why? Because not enough people will buy them to justify the cost of making them. And why would they? I doubt there is a single person arguing for this "old game" style of RPG who would actually buy an RPG from a developer they've never heard of releasing a game nowadays that is dated 10 years old at release. If there are any people willing to do that, I doubt it's many.

Most people who want to go back in time really just miss their old games they liked a lot and want that same excitement again. They don't want a brand new game that they have no connection to that's just 10 years old. Games are moving forward, gentlemen (and gentlewomen), either buy them or don't, but they aren't going backwards. Evolution is a one way street - the same for games as for living creatures.

You confuse the notions of progress and evolution. Evolution is full of dead ends. RPGs are undeniably evolving, but are they improving? That's what the whole discussion is all about. Personaly, I'd much rather have a long, witty, well written story a-la Baldur's Gate than useless gimmicks (Fable) or voiceovers. Storytelling and characters add so much more to a RPG than voiceovers and the like ever could.

» Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:07 pm

-snip-

You say progress, but everything else you say sounds like going backwards. Alright, graphics have improved. Alright, voice overs have improved. Is the game better for it? Well... no, it isn't.

And no, Evolution isn't a "one way street". Evolution isn't a street at all. Things don't evolve down some magical path, they evolve based on what's advantageous for them. Cutting down on choice and adding voice overs has certainly been advantageous to their wallets, but you know what? Baldur's Gate 2 is a better game than Dragon Age 2 will ever be, and it has very few voice overs, much worse graphics, and a hell of a lot more content and a hell of a lot more fun to play. So not good for the game. I'm all for great graphics (Very much so), but I draw the line when it actually starts creating a worse game.

One thing does give me hope, though. One day we'll have decent speech synthesis, and on that day the RPG can rise again.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:21 am

I don't think so. They're just evolving. Obviously some people won't be happy with it. They'll want the old-school RPGs where it takes 6 hours to complete a single quest, but as long as they don't go too mainstream, I'm happy.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 10:08 am

They're changing. Whether that's evolution or decay depends on the game, and possibly the developer.

I have noticed a tendency for gamers to focus more and more on genre, finances, etc when discussing games, which perhaps speaks more of the increasing age of the gaming generation than of the "death" of RPGs themselves. A lot of RPG players have grown up, I think (read: boring; take things too seriously). Nostalgia of course plays a role too; I loved Ocarina of Time, and if I got myself worked up and irrational enough I could probably make a case for it being vastly superior to Skyrim -- oh how RPGs have declined -- but if I look at the two games with the same excitement and sense of wonder I had as a kid, and still have, Skyrim wins every time.

On the other hand, I've also noticed how much of a big business games development has become for some, likely with men in suits (who either "grew up" long ago, or never had that excitement and wonder for games) calling the shots; men who couldn't design a cool dungeon, model a character or write a quest if their expensive cars depended on it. And we see games churned out with little apparent love or artistry - some of them very recent RPGs, which hardly deserve the title "game" let alone "role playing game". Cough, EA, cough cough.

Ultimately, I think the truth is probably somewhere inbetween. I'm just glad Bethesda are still around, and still taking their time.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 3:09 am

http://gamerant.com/skyrim-dragon-age-2-mass-effect-3-rpgs-dying-dyce-68478/

This is a very good article discussing the state of RPGs these days.

I strongly hate all the dumbing down that keeps on happening in my favorite PC genre. I dislike how much the RPG genre has changed over the last 5-10 years going from deeply complex games with loads of character customization and classes to gradually become simpler and simpler to appeal to people who simply dont like reading manuals or learning how to play the games themselves. I want my favorite genre to remain as strong, deep, complex and completely satisfying to play as it used to be in the past. If there is one reason why 'PC gaming is dying', it is purely due to the dumbing down greed that a lot of developers have developed a strong hunger for in order to try and make games that will appeal and sell to casual FPS gamers. We hardly ever see this level of dumbing down in the PC Strategy game genre, most games in that genre have maintained what makes them great and they retain their appeal to their fans. But the RPG genre for some completely bizarre reason keeps on getting more and more simplified as time goes on, that it raises a very valid point - What will the RPG genre be like 10 years from now? At the rate that they seem to keep on going, I hate to have to imagine that we are literally going to end up with simple FPS games with bows for pistols, swords for knives, and spells for rifles with completely linear stories and games that only last around 20-30 hours being marketed as RPGs.

I dont want that

I think people are overreacting to this. DA 2 was influenced by DA O imo. DA O had some great features and it also had some horrible features (the skill trees were improved, the story line was less frustrating - hated having to do people's dirty work in DA O when they could have done something to prepare for the Blight themselves). I think DA 2 had an interesting concept but they went for a cheaper and easy execution. The issue wasn't the ideas, it was the execution.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 3:49 am

I think an important point to note here is that ever since the dawn of RPG's back in the day, the definition of what an RPG essentially is has allways changed and varied. At first it was the notion of taking on a role in your own imagination in "pen and paper" games, then the japaneese transformed the concept into the sheer element of character development, then games like TES changed it yet again into the degree to which you can interact with the game world the way you want to, then it morphed again into being able to have multiple outcomes ("open-ended games") and so on, and so forth. All the while there were groups who resisted the change of the notion, advocating their own, "purist" interpretation. All points considered, it boils down to the fact that the term RPG never had a single meaning in the first place, and, to a certain degree, EVERY game is an RPG (even in the first Mario you took on the role of Mario), and the recent trend is that more and more games have elements of it. Until someone invents terms that more acurately reflect the different notions, these kind debates will rage on forever. :spotted owl: (just ask my owl)

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:33 am

You say progress, but everything else you say sounds like going backwards. Alright, graphics have improved. Alright, voice overs have improved. Is the game better for it? Well... no, it isn't.

And no, Evolution isn't a "one way street". Evolution isn't a street at all. Things don't evolve down some magical path, they evolve based on what's advantageous for them. Cutting down on choice and adding voice overs has certainly been advantageous to their wallets, but you know what? Baldur's Gate 2 is a better game than Dragon Age 2 will ever be, and it has very few voice overs, much worse graphics, and a hell of a lot more content and a hell of a lot more fun to play. So not good for the game. I'm all for great graphics (Very much so), but I draw the line when it actually starts creating a worse game.

One thing does give me hope, though. One day we'll have decent speech synthesis, and on that day the RPG can rise again.

I think you missed my point. I am very much on your side. I think Bioware is definitely going backwards atm. They seem to have fallen in love with the ME dialogue wheel, and it is getting a bit gimmicky. They seem to wanna build games behind that wheel, and well it may just hurt them in the end.

I think BG2 is about 1000X the game DA2 could even think about being. Story is better, gameplay is better, characters are better, it is much more open, etc. Bioware makes good games, but they have been making much more linear games since the BG series, and it seems to get more and more linear. I still enjoy their games, but they are far from perfect. DA2 is proof that they are far from perfect in fact.

I could care less about graphics honestly. Give me a game that looks like Baldurs Gate, a good story, and fun gameplay... I will be a happy gamer. However, I appreciate good graphics when they come with a good game. If Skyrim is a good game then its graphics will be a bonus. I don't buy games because they look pretty tho. I almost wish Bioware would update the old infinity engine, and make a true BGesque game. In all honesty I think their linearity comes from moving into the 3d space. Ever since they started using 3d engines their games have been pretty linear and formulaic (play a bit, gather crew or get allies or find starmaps, confront evil). Kotor, ME, ME2, DAO all follow this formula to the letter.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:22 am

I just read that article. What a load of crap their issue with Skyrim was. They say that removing classes means most players will all have the same characters. Utterly false. You still specialise just the same as with classes, just you progress into them naturally rather than having it decided for you. You decide the role in the early levels of your gameplay!

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:42 am

The article posted in the OP is idiotic. There're all sorts of controversial claims made without even the slightest attempt at providing justification. For example, the author states: "it’s a safe bet that a majority of players will craft the exact same type of character for Skyrim." Why are we supposed to believe that? What about the way that lower valued skills will be more difficult to increase as the character improves other skills? It's like the author didn't even bother considering how what we know about the game's mechanics might matter to the argument. It seems like the author is just full of confirmation bias: just selectively take the evidence that could be used to support one's view, but pass over the rest in silence. The article is basically a nostalgic rant masquerading as reasonable, even-handed commentary.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:56 am

I just read that article. What a load of crap their issue with Skyrim was. They say that removing classes means most players will all have the same characters. Utterly false. You still specialise just the same as with classes, just you progress into them naturally rather than having it decided for you. You decide the role in the early levels of your gameplay!

Couldn't agree more with this.

Classes are probably the single best example of why change in the RPG genre isn't always a bad thing; TES has always been very free in this regard, and finally removing the ludicrous concept of classes is what I'd consider a big step towards creating a "truer" (and deeper) RPG. All too often when one says "hardcoe" or "old school" or "complex" what they mean is "Dungeons & Dragons," which -- at least in terms of its ruleset -- has never been the holy grail of role playing games for depth, complexity, or... well... playing the role of a character.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:48 am

Couldn't agree more with this.

Classes are probably the single best example of why change in the RPG genre isn't always a bad thing; TES has always been very free in this regard, and finally removing the ludicrous concept of classes is what I'd consider a big step towards creating a "truer" (and deeper) RPG. All too often when one says "hardcoe" or "old school" or "complex" what they mean is "Dungeons & Dragons," which -- at least in terms of its ruleset -- has never been the holy grail of role playing games for depth, complexity, or... well... playing the role of a character.

I find it particularly ironic how in the same article they complain about having prechosen armour in mass effect rather than upgrading as you go (or something like that, I may be recalling incorrectly and I haven't played it). That's basically the same thing with having a class system. It's prechosen.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:01 am

First off I would like to say, ARE YOU DELUSIONAL? I see almost nothing true in your statement, please message me back, I would like to try to understand your lunacy.

I have a few counter arguments, first, RPGs have gotten no less complex than their predecessors if anything they have gotten more complex, think about games like Mass Effect and Fable, on top of the morality choices (which games 5-10 years ago didn't have) you now have choices that profoundly affect the story and characters, and RPGs in general are getting less linear with multiple scenarios and endings based on your choices and actions, so please explain to me how you think they are losing complexity. Second, PC gaming is dying because consoles now have more processing power than they once did, PCs are losing their advantage of capability and also people like the responsiveness you get from a controller, you can quickly perform actions without running the risk of pressing the wrong key, granted a keyboard allows for more actions to be available with just one key tap. Third, developers make whatever game they want, they don't change things just to draw in the FPS crowd, you're confusing the hybrid Mass Effect with the future of RPGs, Mass Effect is simply trying something new which is key in the gaming industry, there will always be classical RPGs, but other genres are adding RPG-like features to their games, like leveling up and having a basic inventory, so if anything RPGs are only getting stronger. Forth, the strategy genre currently has little room for innovation, because they already require so much of their computer from their huge scale so there is little you can add without exceeding the technology. What am I at now? Fifth? There has already been a FPS featuring magic called Shadowrun, it was an epic fail, but in the future who knows? We could have a FPS with successful magic features, but one thing is for certain, RPGs are here to stay and are only getting better.
/End Lecture

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 3:59 am

I would not want RPGs to become so big and deep and etc as they were before if it menas the combat will feel silly or even be turned based as it has been in some series over the time. Skyrim will be better than OB and MW and both of thyem were better than daggerfall and arena. Before, the only way of really making RPGs was to add lots and lots of skills to make characters differ from eachother. Now with only 18 skills but with perks it will create the same thing without 100 different skills. Those who feel like graphics shouldn't advance, gameplay shouldn't advance etc are only interested in the non-immersive "deep" world with pixels that came before.

But DA: 2 is bad in almost every way because it lacks the damn combat and gameplay and free world.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:26 am

PC gaming is dying because consoles now have more processing power than they once did, PCs are losing their advantage of capability

LOL

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:46 am

I think an important point to note here is that ever since the dawn of RPG's back in the day, the definition of what an RPG essentially is has allways changed and varied. At first it was the notion of taking on a role in your own imagination in "pen and paper" games, then the japaneese transformed the concept into the sheer element of character development, then games like TES changed it yet again into the degree to which you can interact with the game world the way you want to, then it morphed again into being able to have multiple outcomes ("open-ended games") and so on, and so forth. All the while there were groups who resisted the change of the notion, advocating their own, "purist" interpretation. All points considered, it boils down to the fact that the term RPG never had a single meaning in the first place, and, to a certain degree, EVERY game is an RPG (even in the first Mario you took on the role of Mario), and the recent trend is that more and more games have elements of it. Until someone invents terms that more acurately reflect the different notions, these kind debates will rage on forever. :spotted owl: (just ask my owl)

I disagree. The definiton of an RPG has mutated over the years but what an RPG is at it's core has not. Playing the role of a specific character does not an RPG make. In the Mario series you played the role of Mario Mario but you had no choice over direction, you made no decisions, there was no character development. THAT is what an RPG is. Just because a game allows you to take on a role doesn't make it a Role-playing game.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:03 am

There has already been a FPS featuring magic called Shadowrun, it was an epic fail, but in the future who knows? We could have a FPS with successful magic features, but one thing is for certain, RPGs are here to stay and are only getting better.
/End Lecture

To be fair, that failure wasn't because it was Magic in a shooter, but because they took an IP, stripped anything of value from it, made it multiplayer only, gave like 12-15 maps(can't remember), charged 60 bucks, and then disbanded Fasa and stopped supporting the game. Shadowrun was just a badly managed situation. I don't think it would have bombed nearly as bad if they had only charged 20 bucks for it, and supported it tho. If they made a shooter/RPG out of the Shadowrun IP I think it would do well, or if you put magic into a game like Brink then you would be ok as well.

OH, and they forced the PC players to get on the whole Windows Live bandwagon.

In fact, Shadowrun is kind of similar to DA2. They had an IP that had die hard fans, and they took everything out of it those fans love. Just like DA has fans that want those RPG elements, and isometric gameplay... So remove them or water them down, and they aren't happy. Both have, or did, do things that didn't please their core audience.

» Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:19 pm

I've struggled with this in the past too! It's hard to say exactly what is happening. On the one hand, it could be streamlining to make more profit. However, it could also be that video gamers have gotten older. You can't read the same book to a 5 year old that a 20 year old will read. I think gaming hasn't evolved in this sense. It has to become more complex to match our own growing intellectual knowledge of the genre, or it just becomes dull. For me, it's a matter of gameplay depth within each of the gaming systems. If there isn't enough, I see right through it all after a few hours and question why I should continue playing. If it's poorly presented, or information to explain the depth is not present, then it's hard to get into. Lastly, if it doesn't make me ponder different character builds, gameplay approaches, or game mechanics while I am not playing it, it's going to fall on it's face.

If you want to capture the RPG audience, you have to grow with us! That's the issue.

Edit:

For me, RPGs are about designing a character and watching it grow. Over coming the struggles of combat and progression, while moving through some type of minor story, are really what i am after. I need a deep gaming system, not a deep story! I will read a book if I want a story. I play video games to enjoy the mechanics. Make them deep and engrossing and RPG fans will love it.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:20 am

It's like a strawman convention in this thread. I lost count of the number of times I read, "What they're really saying is...."

» Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:49 pm

It's like a strawman convention in this thread. I lost count of the number of times I read, "What they're really saying is...."

Huh?

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:09 am

come on, let's not get carried away here, an rpg = DECIDE HOW YOU'RE GOING TO KILL THE GOBLIN

what's up for debate is developers removing the decision from the equation, and leaving us with KILL THE GOBLIN