Poll: Are RPGs getting 'dumbed-down'?
- Thread starter Eduku
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Where's the option: No, they're progressing and evolving at a slow pace. (not necessarily getting more...complicated)
It seems Bioware might be doing this. Note that it's not that bad, and they still have the best writers out of any other developer.
Dragon Age 2 seems a bit disappointing, but I'm holding judgement until I play it, I don't think Bioware will let us down.
And Mass Effect 2, I liked... A LOT! But, Mass Effect 1, I still think is superior, not because of the lack of RPG elements but because I think ME1 had a better story, pacing, and villain.
I still vote yes, I think they're getting somewhat dumbed down, but they're not necessarily any worse for it.
Dragon Age 2 seems a bit disappointing, but I'm holding judgement until I play it, I don't think Bioware will let us down.
And Mass Effect 2, I liked... A LOT! But, Mass Effect 1, I still think is superior, not because of the lack of RPG elements but because I think ME1 had a better story, pacing, and villain.
I still vote yes, I think they're getting somewhat dumbed down, but they're not necessarily any worse for it.
Yes, RPGs are getting dumbed down to an extent.
In many, but not all, cases, this makes the game more accessible, more console-friendly, and results in something which is still a fairly good game.
Would a few stat-heavy old-school RPGs be a good idea? Yes. Would they be possible on a console? Strangely, I'm going to say yes. Dragon Age is proof of concept. Basic as many of its RPG elements were in comparison with the more complex RPGs we used to see, they were very important to the playstyle and effectiveness of the character(s), and there was room to expand the RPG elements without sacrificing playability.
Unfortunately, Dragon Age 2 isn't looking promising in its followup role. I hope they expand on the traditional RPG elements already present, and emphasise their importance as well as the responsivenes/action focus which has been emphasised in most interviews and information I've seen so far. Not that prettying up the action and improving responsiveness of commands is bad, but in the past, that usually makes skill with the controls more important than developing your character's stats, equipping the right abilities, and all the other elements which make traditional RPGs what they are.
Of course, on the other side of the equation, I think blurring the lines between the genres is a good thing for shooters and action games as well as RPGs - there are plenty of people who want more intelligent shooters, or more intelligent hanck-and-slash games, and even more who like the stories of RPGs, but can't be bothered with all the complicated stuff they'd have to do to follow them. The problem comes when everyone forgets there are still extreme ends to the scale as well as a middle ground.
In many, but not all, cases, this makes the game more accessible, more console-friendly, and results in something which is still a fairly good game.
Would a few stat-heavy old-school RPGs be a good idea? Yes. Would they be possible on a console? Strangely, I'm going to say yes. Dragon Age is proof of concept. Basic as many of its RPG elements were in comparison with the more complex RPGs we used to see, they were very important to the playstyle and effectiveness of the character(s), and there was room to expand the RPG elements without sacrificing playability.
Unfortunately, Dragon Age 2 isn't looking promising in its followup role. I hope they expand on the traditional RPG elements already present, and emphasise their importance as well as the responsivenes/action focus which has been emphasised in most interviews and information I've seen so far. Not that prettying up the action and improving responsiveness of commands is bad, but in the past, that usually makes skill with the controls more important than developing your character's stats, equipping the right abilities, and all the other elements which make traditional RPGs what they are.
Of course, on the other side of the equation, I think blurring the lines between the genres is a good thing for shooters and action games as well as RPGs - there are plenty of people who want more intelligent shooters, or more intelligent hanck-and-slash games, and even more who like the stories of RPGs, but can't be bothered with all the complicated stuff they'd have to do to follow them. The problem comes when everyone forgets there are still extreme ends to the scale as well as a middle ground.
As a matter of fact, I still play tabletop RPGs. But you can get by being completely idiotic in your choices as long as you have a little luck and a DM who isn't going to viciously punish you for it. Kinda like having a video game that's not going to punish you for your bad choices.Ultratwinkie said:
I don't mean to be rude at all, but illiteracy isn't a sign of lack of intellect, but the lack of a skill. I have two brothers, 11 and 13, and their writing is so bad it almost makes anybody seem illiterate, but they still manage. Also, illiteracy doesn't mean that your cousin can't learn to play tabletop. If your cousin has a mental problem I'm sorry, but if he gets a little assistance, I'm sure he can at least have fun with tabletop, unless the DM is completely impatient with him, or a major dick about it.
The RPG world is definitely changing and evolving, like everything else does. You could ask this question about video games in general, and you'll get a million different answers.
The most polarizing example in Western RPGs is Mass Effect. Some people think the first was better, others think the second was, and you pretty much won't get anyone to agree on it. I think we have to define what "dumbed down" actually means to get a handle on the answer to this question.
Does dumbed down mean that one doesn't have to put as much thought into playing the game? I've seen a lot of people in this thread saying that RPG elements are getting removed, but what exactly constitutes an RPG element? Going back to ME again, was the first games' clunky and time consuming inventory and mostly superficial character customization really worthy of keeping around just because it's an "RPG element?" Or do we just like keeping these things around because of nostalgia, because it's expected? I, personally, liked ME2 just as much as the first. I liked Fallout 3 just as much as the first two. I loved Morrowind and I expect I would have loved Oblivion had I not found it so interminably boring for some undefinable reason.
I think we need to take a step back and understand what an RPG is and what it's supposed to do. We're supposed to relate to and empathize with the character we're playing and the characters around him or her, or, I should say the ones that we're meant to. Villains and jerks are exempt from the empathy bit. There are a few different ways to achieve the desired results, but if the game sucks us into its world, it's doing its job properly. I think this depends more on good writing than any particular gameplay elements. I think we gravitate towards some of said elements just because they feel familiar and not because we particularly like them, and any discontent gets forgiven because of the game as a whole.
The most polarizing example in Western RPGs is Mass Effect. Some people think the first was better, others think the second was, and you pretty much won't get anyone to agree on it. I think we have to define what "dumbed down" actually means to get a handle on the answer to this question.
Does dumbed down mean that one doesn't have to put as much thought into playing the game? I've seen a lot of people in this thread saying that RPG elements are getting removed, but what exactly constitutes an RPG element? Going back to ME again, was the first games' clunky and time consuming inventory and mostly superficial character customization really worthy of keeping around just because it's an "RPG element?" Or do we just like keeping these things around because of nostalgia, because it's expected? I, personally, liked ME2 just as much as the first. I liked Fallout 3 just as much as the first two. I loved Morrowind and I expect I would have loved Oblivion had I not found it so interminably boring for some undefinable reason.
I think we need to take a step back and understand what an RPG is and what it's supposed to do. We're supposed to relate to and empathize with the character we're playing and the characters around him or her, or, I should say the ones that we're meant to. Villains and jerks are exempt from the empathy bit. There are a few different ways to achieve the desired results, but if the game sucks us into its world, it's doing its job properly. I think this depends more on good writing than any particular gameplay elements. I think we gravitate towards some of said elements just because they feel familiar and not because we particularly like them, and any discontent gets forgiven because of the game as a whole.
The game design is being watered down and the settings are being simplified so they are appealing to more people. I agree that RPGs were never exactly quantum physics but they are moving down the bell curve leaving veterans bored.
No but they sure as hell are getting cookie-cutter. I'm almost glad Atlus went out of business, they were the main culprit for pumping out JRPG after JRPG with bland unoriginal story, characters, everything. Now that they're gone Square Enix is going to have to step up and factory press more.
Fallout is not what I, nor folks I have talked to, would call an RPG. And Bioware has its own take on RPGs which is nice, but if they keep beating it eventually the horse will die.
Fallout is not what I, nor folks I have talked to, would call an RPG. And Bioware has its own take on RPGs which is nice, but if they keep beating it eventually the horse will die.
