Dragon Age II and the decline of the classic RPG

[Findlebob]

With everything now it has to appeal to a wider market.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I certainly hope Dragon Age 3 retains DA:O's epic scale

if the numbers are to be believed, that "epic scale" is what caused only 52% of players to reach the end, and that same "epic scale" caused most players to get 5 or less achievements (according to the article)

making something so big it's nearly impossible to see an end to what you got yourself into is going to make you quit (science confirms this)

I think this gets to the core of the issue on the "epicness" thing. Amount of time spent on busywork =/= epicness of world. LOTR conveys an epic world in 10 hours, for instance. Most people don't have 50+ hours to sink into a game, and would rather have a game that fits more content into less playtime. This is doubly true with games high in replay value like Dragon Age.

 

[Snotnarok]

DA2 is fine, I'm still stumped at why people dislike it. I didn't beat the game yet but I sure didn't see anything terribly wrong with it.

Seriously just because it's not the best game/instant classic doesn't make it a bad game. But whatever, in the words of some man: "Haters gonna hate!"

 

[GlenTheFox]

I really don't think the RPG genre is dying, especially not if elements from it are actively being used in other games. I know of plenty of people who still enjoy the hundred-hour-plus grinds and navigating the leafy menus of skill trees. The fact that Dragon Age: Origins was so well-received because of its classic RPG elements only furthers the idea that people enjoy RPGs and still have an interest in playing them.

 

[Hyper-space]

"Bold statements about an entire industry and genres, no argument to back it up"

Well, if you had been more respectful in your criticism, I might have found it worth my time to refute your rant. Point is, you are projecting your opinion against mine; not facts.
What determines the value of "choice"? Gameplay benefits? Story? Character development?

No, apparently it's the user "Hyper-Space" on The Escapist Forums. His word is God.

As it is, I see a post that's disguised to attack my person more than my complaints.

If you want the short version of how that debate would end: "I do not like the FAKE-CHOICE in today's RPGs."
You can try to refute it if you wish and then pat yourself on the back for proving absolutely nothing, but you're wasting your time.

Good day.

What separates problems from choice is the following:

Problems, are when there is one clear answer, that is, something along the lines of: the +5 axe is better than the +2 axe, therefore you would choose the +5 axe. The "choice" aspect of this is negated when there is a clear, definable advantage to choosing the +5 axe over the +2 one.

Choice, however, is something along the lines of the weapons in ME2 (for an easy example), where all of the weapons had equal pros and cons and where there is no one option that is better. For a more general example: you can choose between a sword that gives +5 strength or +5 agility (or whatever), both options are equal and its your preference that is the ultimate decider.

Now, the latter type is something that is rarely seen in older RPGs and is only gaining more prominence now that RPG has begun to evolve from their D&D roots. So if you could have refuted my points you would have, hurt feelings or no.

 

[dancinginfernal]

Snip-Snip!

I couldn't have said it better myself. Well done.

 

[Bonecrusher]

All I can respond to this is why I didn't like DA2. I play an RPG to roleplay. To chose, to define who I am. DA2 was unsuccessful in this regard. The illusion of choice is really all you get. You want to help the mages? Hawke is never given a chance to talk to the escaped mages on many occassiosn and even arbirarily tasked with hunting them down. Hawke fights some templars and then kills the mages then the Knight Commander. You want to side with the templars, Hawke kills the mages then the Knight Commander. Nothing changes. Hawke flees from the blight to Kirkwall, Hawke live in Kirkwall despite the blight ending. Hawke save Kirkwall, and Isabella runs regardless of whether you were going to give her the relic or not. She comes back due to a stat Hawke has and YOU actually get to defeat and chose how to defeat the Quanri. Hawke chose to go on an expedition, Hawke loses his family regardless of where they are or why.

one of the best aspects of alpha protocol was the "endless" choices and results.
in games like da2, you have virtual choices that have no results. alpha protocol has lots and lots of choices and you can change the scenario in any time.

 

[Atmos Duality]

What separates problems from choice is the following:

Problems, are when there is one clear answer, that is, something along the lines of: the +5 axe is better than the +2 axe, therefore you would choose the +5 axe. The "choice" aspect of this is negated when there is a clear, definable advantage to choosing the +5 axe over the +2 one.

Choice, however, is something along the lines of the weapons in ME2 (for an easy example), where all of the weapons had equal pros and cons and where there is no one option that is better. For a more general example: you can choose between a sword that gives +5 strength or +5 agility (or whatever), both options are equal and its your preference that is the ultimate decider.

The best RPG that I can provide an example for in regards to the concept of Problem vs Choice, is the rogue-like Nethack.
It is a game made entirely of choices, yet has no story. It's relentless problem-solving, yet somehow it retains depth even after 24+ years. Shallow accomplishments have little meaning; Bioware knows that. Hell, any game designer worth their salt knows that. But accessibility So today's RPGs have to dress them up in huge production budgets to make up for that.
Mass Effect 2 HANDED me my "accomplishments" regardless of how I chose to play the game.

Back to Nethack...You don't know what you're going to get or in what order each game. All equipment is unidentified. At any moment, your "best choice" can change, either because your weapon broke, became cursed, or you found something better or worse. Even the rest of your equipment choices depends heavily on the scenario; as most of the classes start with limited Strength (and carrying capacity).

Even at the very end of the game, you need every trick you can to survive. All the choices you've made up to that point, (including leaving stashes on your ascent) are mechanical, yet they serve a purpose. Even something as simple as mining a shortcut through the walls for your ascent helps.

The classes are very well defined, and even for a hack n slash where combat is largely abstracted, I still find myself using different tricks and skills for most of the classes.

It isn't like Mass Effect 2 where the only things I did were "Push Button, Receive Pellet" conversations (Paragon vs Renegade points; where the position of the next conversation option determines what I say next; not what I'm thinking or how to respond) and play Whack-a-mole every fight.

Part of the fun in games used to be overcoming difficulty. But now, difficulty gets in the way of accessibility.
Guess which one is more marketable?

There are games that combined both of these styles; they are some of my favorite games of all time. Just off the top of my head...Baldur's Gate 1 & 2. Deus Ex. Aracanum. The latter two especially show the power of action-via-choice, and they don't necessarily beat you over the head with the obvious.

Oh, and in all cases, they had excellent story.

Now, the latter type is something that is rarely seen in older RPGs and is only gaining more prominence now that RPG has begun to evolve from their D&D roots.

"Evolution" isn't a linear path that leads to "better". Evolution is simply a process by which one adapts to new circumstances; to new environments. Right now, that environment is one where making money takes precedence. That means games must have the widest market appeal possible. Eventually, the need to make money takes precedence over creating the game itself.

Case in point: Dragon Age 2 quite obviously cut corners to save time and money. The game is still a commercial success, yet it's being critically panned, almost to the point where people are questioning its creators intents seriously for the first time; not just nitpicking.

So if you could have refuted my points you would have, hurt feelings or no.

I don't refute trolls or trollish posts anymore, and I don't have the patience to play "guess what they are really thinking" either. I have a very simple philosophy here: If you stay civil with me, I'll stay civil with you.

But once you cross the line, then I personally don't care what you think anymore.

 

[Choppaduel]

You do realize that this is nothing new.
When Baldur's Gate was released, Tabletop DnD players complained.
When Neverwinter was released, Baldur's Gate players complained.
When Morrowind was released Neverwinter's Night Players complained.
etc. etc.

So what you're saying is that there's no need to "streamline" the RPG games, because it will always piss some people off and its better not betray the people who like your first game?

If so I agree.

 

[Bonecrusher]

Baldur's Gate and Fallout are all games i did't play so i will not say, but ppl often have nostalgia goggles on when talking about classics.

I love what Yahztee said about listening to fans, DON'T. We haven't a clue what we want.

This is a really weird argument (or cliche), and I hate it.

No, man. I didn't like Fallout, Baldur's Gate, Planescape Torment or Morrowind because I put on "nostalgia googles" after 15 years.
I played and like them when they first published, and I still like them because of their features.

For example, Planescape Torment has a very twisted world (Planescape, of course), an interesting story (much more better than a "CHAMPION" of a copy-pasted map city), skill/stat based dialog options, different quest flows according to your choices.

It is not true that we don't know what we want, because we know.
Witcher 1: An interesting story (of course, it is converted from a novel), different quest flows according to your choices, interesting characters, suspenseful events.
Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines: Different ways to complete a quest, dark and thrilling atmosphere, many options in dialog screens, alive world feeling, awesome characters and voice-overs.
Mask Of The Betrayer: Twisted storyline, weird characters, tactic based combat, very well written dialogs, alternative solutions.
Alpha Protocol: Different ways to complete a level (map), Changing your character's mood or personality during dialogs, dialog options affect the story outcome.

and there is a game called "The Age of Decadence", you know it? Many cRPG fan waits for it, it is a game made by fans and will include lots of features in it.

Game news websites don't mention that game, so many gamers don't even heard of it.

Not to mention Planescape Torment that was considered the worse rpg ever for like 2-3 years.

according to whom, exactly?
I have an InQuest Gamer magazine that reviews Planescape Torment, and there is a tag written "worthy successor of Baldur's Gate". Unfortunately, I don't have the issue of Planescape Torment scored. However, I have the InQuest issue which they scored Baldur's Gate 1, they gave an A for that game.
Some people also suggest that BG1 was also bashed back then, but these type of arguments are false, there was no a "general criticism" towards BG1 or Planescape Torment.

Also, I have an old magazine from 2000 (a magazine that reviewed many cRPGs even you didn't heard) - that gave %90 score for Planescape Torment.

Frankly if you would give nowadays gamers a game that is too much like the classic RPGs they would hate it. Why ? Because neither Baldur's Gate, nor Planescape nor Fallout were praised for the technical elements of gameplay. The games were limited by what was possible back in ye old times.

nope, this is %100 wrong.
this is just a bias for some people try to make an excuse for games like DA2.

there are many games that the mentioned "hardcore rpg fans" love. see bloodlines, mask of the betrayer or new vegas.

I want to thank all the biased "RPG-fan haters".
Because of it, game developers think us as "narrow minded complainers".
lol.

 

[Darth IB]

I never was too fond of the "classic" rpg style, so I don't mind this transformation at all.
As far as I'm concerned, pretty much all the changes from DA:O to DA2 were improvements.

You are not representative of the entire gaming population.

I don't recall claiming I was. In fact, at no point did I claim to represent anything else than my own opinion.

 

[icame]

DA2 isn't a "classic RPG". DA2 is DA2. Jesus fucking christ, all these people having to label everything, and if something doesn't match their version of the label, then THE PLAGUE ON IT!

I agree with Abe Lincoln. People just seem to hat anything that isn't exactly what they want it to be. Just because it doesn't completely fall into a 'classic rpg' template doesn't make it bad. Sure, DA2 has flaws, but it is certainly not a bad game.

 

[Bonecrusher]

11) "It is simply representative of a shift in the industry and consumer tastes."

No, it (and comment 10)) is representative of a shift in DEMOGRAPHICS FOCUS in the industry.

an interesting point. Some people argues these changes are to follow the shift in the consumer tastes, but actually their real purpose is to change their target audience.

They claim "this is to improve previous genre", when you complain about dumbing down of the games.

Weird part is, jRPG developers constantly improve their games, create more detailed character stats/skills, prepare heavier stories.

However, wRPG developers veil their "boring stories, dialog wheels, dumbed down inventory/character screens" under the "evolution" name.

lol

This man is right. Genres evolve, they change. Thats how gaming works. Its why we make new games. If you just want more DA:O, you could just play DA:O more. 'Problem' solved, I think.

We want to games to evolve on their previous good merits.
We don't want them to crop their good merits and dumb down.
Is is really that hard to accept?

If you want to evolve, add new things, don't subtract.

This "evolution" cliche is one of the most used excuse of game developers and publishers.
I wish the companies were not such evasive and took up their responbilities...

 

[Judgement101]

Furthuring my point that people will complain about everything.