Dragon Age II and the decline of the classic RPG

[Kotep]

CDPR the dev studio has only published two games, but CDPR the publisher has been around for a while and is one of the biggest publishers in Eastern Europe, and they're making a game that's part of a long-running and intensely popular fantasy franchise in Poland.

There are plenty of RPG developers that care about the content and their fans, but they're constrained because they have to make deals with publishers in order to get funding for their games in the first place. CD Projekt is its own publisher, so they don't have to make deals.

 

[subtlefuge]

I feel like rants work better when they are relevant.

I for one somewhat liked DA2. It wasn't quite as tight, but nothing ever is the second time around.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

CDPR the dev studio has only published two games, but CDPR the publisher has been around for a while and is one of the biggest publishers in Eastern Europe, and they're making a game that's part of a long-running and intensely popular fantasy franchise in Poland.

It's actually CD Projekt's standing as Poland's largest games distributor that allows them to fund CD Projekt RED independent of larger publishers.

There are plenty of RPG developers that care about the content and their fans, but they're constrained because they have to make deals with publishers in order to get funding for their games in the first place. CD Projekt is its own publisher, so they don't have to make deals.

That ignores the the fact that CD Projekt still has it's distro (and publishing) business to run and that CD Projekt doesn't handle distribution outside of Eastern Europe (and now digital distro via GoG.com). That means CD Projekt has to make deals with other distros to get physical units distributed which resulted in those cockeaters at Namco Bandai forcing CD Projekt to jack up the digital price on GoG.com for The Witcher 2 for Aussies because of the distro deal they had... of course, CD Projekt/GoG.com's counterstroke in removing geotracking for orders/authentication was masterful and showed they can afford to take the chance of pissing off major distributors.

 

[Kotep]

For international sales they do have to make agreements with publishers who are based in those regions, but the actual funding for the development, which a developer needs before work even starts on a game, would be coming from CD Projekt and not the regional distributors.

And yes, that's basically what I was saying. CD Projekt is a big publisher, so they can fund CD Projekt RED on their own, and provide the funding for the development of future free DLC and the like. The case of other RPGs not getting the same sort of cool stuff isn't so much that CD Projekt RED cares about their content and customers and no one else does, it's that they care about their content and customers and are in a financial situation where they're free to support them without needing to be making money with each piece of additional content.

 

[AbsoluteVirtue18]

"Classic RPG", huh?

Exactly what does that mean? Hell, that could mean anything from D&D to me and my friends beating each other with metal broomhandles pretending that they're swords.

 

[MacOfDonald]

I think this has gotten to the point where it doesn't matter whatsoever what anybody says anymore.

I mean, I think my main problem with the recurring theme of this topic is actually really small. Semantics.

There is a very irritating (for me) line that a lot of people (not all, sheesh) are crossing. That line is opinion = fact.

It doesn't.

Because you hated a game, that doesn't mean the game deserves it. That's your problem, not the game's. Because I can bet you anything that somewhere, someone likes a point in a game that you do not. If we continue to use DA2 as an example, let's go on the attacks on the story and characters.

A lot of people seem to think the story was useless and didn't go anywhere. I'm personally unsure where they get that idea, because to me it certainly goes somewhere. Where a whole bunch of people see... well... nothing, I see a cleverly written commentary on minorities, gender and race equality and sexuality (get over the homosexuality. Just get over it already). If you can't see that in the story, it means probably one of two things. Either you're blind (or not looking?), or it's not enough for you to classify it as a story. But whatever, you are who you are.

The game is what it is.

Where people see characters as being terrible because it was a homosexual/oversexual 'lustfest', or because they were uninteresting, I see all of them as interesting. I found Eve Myles' voicing of Merrill to be exceptional. I found Anders' story to be very compelling, and heartbreaking, and I every time I (SPOILER) had the choice to kill him, I did. And I felt mixed between angry at him and regret that he had to die (in my mind).

But whatever, that's my opinion. The difference here is that I am not saying DA2 is the best game ever and Bioware are kings and should eat trifle of the gods for the rest of their lives, and that DA:O was crap because it was a different story.

So I guess, after this brief novel, my point is this: what's the point in this argument?

The only way to come to any real conclusion is if we all agree on a basis for a classic RPG, which we clearly do not. And using DA2 as the scapegoat only works if everyone agrees it is bad, which again we clearly do not.

I don't know. Maybe let's just say, "I think this should have happened, but it's a shame it didn't FOR ME" instead of, "I wanted it this way, it wasn't that way, which means they made a mistake."

Am I the only one seeing the difference between those two attitudes? Or even the worth of the first?

Sorry, pizza is taking a long time to get here and I get antsy when I'm hungry.

 

[Kotep]

My argument isn't about Bioware. It's that CD Projekt RED can do what they're doing with The Witcher because they have (relatively) a lot of money thanks to being a part of CD Projekt, a large publisher. Bioware could be doing what CD Projekt RED is doing, but (as far as I know) they're pretty much under the control of EA now.

Basically it was that other smaller (not indie, just not big like Bioware) RPG developers care about their games and customers just as much as CD Projekt RED does, it's just that they can't offer the same sorts of freebies because they don't have the resources.

 

[ImprovizoR]

Dragon Age 2 is a good game. It's not a great game like it's predecessor but that's what happens when you don't develop an RPG primarily for PC. They say old school RPG decline - I say The Witcher 2!

 

[marcooos]

From the cursory review of sales figures I've seen, DA:O outsold DAII by 2:1 in the first ten weeks of sales on the XBOX360 (1.4m units as opposed to 700,000 units). That may suggest that the market for more traditional RPG fare (represented by DA:O) may be healthier than a more pacey console-friendly arcade RPG (like DA II)? Or it might mean that players are more savvy about spending their dollars on a game that has received patchy reviews or has been rushed out?

I realise that each game will have its advocates because they essentially pander to different people's needs - and it could be said that both are good games. However I think we all recognise that DA II suffered from being rushed and I feel sure that everyone involved would have preferred to increase the sales achieved by DA:O.

No i assume they were like most people on the 360 - including me - and had no fucking idea how the game played. Before you get shitty I enjoyed Dragon Age: Origins and most of the DLC but I think the removal of the micromanaging was far superior and the general conesensus of people I have spoken to have agreed

 

[veloper]

From the cursory review of sales figures I've seen, DA:O outsold DAII by 2:1 in the first ten weeks of sales on the XBOX360 (1.4m units as opposed to 700,000 units). That may suggest that the market for more traditional RPG fare (represented by DA:O) may be healthier than a more pacey console-friendly arcade RPG (like DA II)? Or it might mean that players are more savvy about spending their dollars on a game that has received patchy reviews or has been rushed out?

I realise that each game will have its advocates because they essentially pander to different people's needs - and it could be said that both are good games. However I think we all recognise that DA II suffered from being rushed and I feel sure that everyone involved would have preferred to increase the sales achieved by DA:O.

No i assume they were like most people on the 360 - including me - and had no fucking idea how the game played. Before you get shitty I enjoyed Dragon Age: Origins and most of the DLC but I think the removal of the micromanaging was far superior and the general conesensus of people I have spoken to have agreed

Micromanaging (controlling your units RTS like) was the only real gameplay the Dragon Age games had. Now I can somewhat understand your POV from the 360 crowd, but talk to the PC players and you´ll hear the exact opposite.
Tactical overview and full party control was DA:O main selling point, while crappy ARPGs are a dozen in a dime.
(edit: and ofcourse the 360 version didn't even get tactical view and RTS controls, so again somewhat understandable)

 

[marcooos]

From the cursory review of sales figures I've seen, DA:O outsold DAII by 2:1 in the first ten weeks of sales on the XBOX360 (1.4m units as opposed to 700,000 units). That may suggest that the market for more traditional RPG fare (represented by DA:O) may be healthier than a more pacey console-friendly arcade RPG (like DA II)? Or it might mean that players are more savvy about spending their dollars on a game that has received patchy reviews or has been rushed out?

I realise that each game will have its advocates because they essentially pander to different people's needs - and it could be said that both are good games. However I think we all recognise that DA II suffered from being rushed and I feel sure that everyone involved would have preferred to increase the sales achieved by DA:O.

No i assume they were like most people on the 360 - including me - and had no fucking idea how the game played. Before you get shitty I enjoyed Dragon Age: Origins and most of the DLC but I think the removal of the micromanaging was far superior and the general conesensus of people I have spoken to have agreed

Micromanaging (controlling your units RTS like) was the only real gameplay the Dragon Age games had. Now I can somewhat understand your POV from the 360 crowd, but talk to the PC players and you´ll hear the exact opposite.
Tactical overview and full party control was DA:O main selling point, while crappy ARPGs are a dozen in a dime.
(edit: and ofcourse the 360 version didn't even get tactical view and RTS controls, so again somewhat understandable)

I am aware that the PC and 360 versions were different as Bioware decided to be fucking lazy and not even try with the 360 version. I suppose I'm also one of those console tards who enjoys action rpgs and thought that Mass effect 2 was an extreme improvement

 

[veloper]

From the cursory review of sales figures I've seen, DA:O outsold DAII by 2:1 in the first ten weeks of sales on the XBOX360 (1.4m units as opposed to 700,000 units). That may suggest that the market for more traditional RPG fare (represented by DA:O) may be healthier than a more pacey console-friendly arcade RPG (like DA II)? Or it might mean that players are more savvy about spending their dollars on a game that has received patchy reviews or has been rushed out?

I realise that each game will have its advocates because they essentially pander to different people's needs - and it could be said that both are good games. However I think we all recognise that DA II suffered from being rushed and I feel sure that everyone involved would have preferred to increase the sales achieved by DA:O.

No i assume they were like most people on the 360 - including me - and had no fucking idea how the game played. Before you get shitty I enjoyed Dragon Age: Origins and most of the DLC but I think the removal of the micromanaging was far superior and the general conesensus of people I have spoken to have agreed

Micromanaging (controlling your units RTS like) was the only real gameplay the Dragon Age games had. Now I can somewhat understand your POV from the 360 crowd, but talk to the PC players and you´ll hear the exact opposite.
Tactical overview and full party control was DA:O main selling point, while crappy ARPGs are a dozen in a dime.
(edit: and ofcourse the 360 version didn't even get tactical view and RTS controls, so again somewhat understandable)

I am aware that the PC and 360 versions were different as Bioware decided to be fucking lazy and not even try with the 360 version. I suppose I'm also one of those console tards who enjoys action rpgs and thought that Mass effect 2 was an extreme improvement

Don't worry. Prefering ME2 isn't a consoletard opinion. ME1 was a mediocre shooter and ME2 is a half-decent shooter. That's an improvement on any system.

Comparing Dragon Age is more like this:
DA:O on PC is vegetables: not everyones prefered meal, but some of us want it.
DA:O on console is shit.
DA2 is a happy meal.

 

[Netrigan]

I hate the attitude of 'if this had a different title, I would feel differently about the game'. It's dumb. A good game is a good game.

Wouldn't matter. Bioshock (one of the more complex FPSs) gets accused of dumbing down System Shock, a game it is most definity not the sequel to. If you're linked to another game, these comparisons get made regardless of the name on the box.

 

[RA92]

All those people critical of the 'archaic' nature of cRPGs, remember what the best RPGs of this year is going to be: The Witcher 2 and Skyrim.

 

[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

Squenix have spent the last 10 years dumbing down FF games to the point of absurdity. And the stories are vacuous, shallow affairs with characters that are more and more irritating (and hell, I KNOW irritating - I played through FF8 about 3 times).

Dunno who else you might be talking about with regard to jRPG devs.

as like the only wRPG company is not Bioware, the only jRPG company is not square enix. there are also companies like atlus and sega.
i am not that into jRPGs, however I've seen and played Valkyria Chronicles II a while, and I think it has very interesting details&systems for a RPG.