Am I right? Do western AAA developers think...

[anubite]

There aren't that many major RPG developers around anymore. Off the top of my head...

 

BioWare wants to make story-driven games.

Bethesda wants to make sandbox games.

Lionhead Studios wants to make action games.

Blizzard wants to make money above all else.

Obsidian puts a large emphasis on story and sandbox elements (exploration, dialogue trees, narrative, characters).

 

Yet none of these developers seem to acknowledge anymore, the "fun" of an RPG. I've gotten this impression that western RPG developers have arrived at some of the following conclusions:

 

-Nobody actually likes cRPG-based combat, where dice rolls and statistics determine a fight.

-There is no way to make cRPG-based combat exciting and enticing. That once numbers and percentages appear on the screen you "lose" the "casual"* audience.

-cRPGs are "old" "traditional" "out-dated" ways of making an RPG. The natural evolution of RPG mechanics is the Action-RPG, or basically, an action game with a minor character advancement gimmick.

-RPGs are only successful when they emulate WOW because skinner boxes are what customers crave

-Since RPGs "require" large budgets, they need to have mass appeal to succeed financially

-Since RPGs "require" large budgets, they cannot appear to be "nerdy". D&D and its players are stereotyped as losers, the further an RPG tries to present itself as anything but D&D, the better. Only niche titles can appeal to Pen and Paper role-players or "traditional" mechanics.

 

In essence, no developer wants to touch the "traditional" idea of a RPG. And this is nowhere else truer than in game mechanics. Arcanum was the last "AAA" cRPG. Why is this? Why did Arcanum only sell 200,000 copies? Why did the industry abandon this genre? Did it see the writing on the wall? Why haven't "indie" developers attempted to create an isometric RPG? Why do they create puzzle/platformer games? Shouldn't an isometric RPG, or a basic RPG, be something which can be financially plausible and viable for a small developer? I'd like to answer some of these questions, but they seem to pale in comparison to the larger one.

 

Why do most developers think RPG mechanics aren't fun? That they can't be made fun? I get the impression that most developers feel combat is a "chore" or an "obstacle" to put in player's way. In some ways, this feels true. In KOTOR2, sometimes it feels like you're killing enemies just so you can reach that integral NPC you want to have an interesting chat with. Certainly, OE is great at making interesting characters to interact with.

 

Does anyone else get these impressions?

 

I mean, Pokemon has been wildly successful and easy for children as young as five to pick up and play. It sells millions of copies all the time. And although some people would be reluctant to call it a RPG, I'm not. It has all the mechanics, and to be perfectly honest as someone who still plays it infrequently today, it's a fun game.

 

-Play as a blank slate protagonist whom can act rather freely in a large game world, said game world is often has non-linear segments, where you can tackle areas of the game with some selective freedom.

-Said protagonist gathers six "party members" to do battle with out of hundreds. Said party members all play particular roles in a party, from damage, to support, to healing, to tanking.

-Said game is pretty deep, with completely obfuscated mathematical mechanics (how much damage will your attack do? It's hard to say!). Game can be understood by children with limited vocabularies and can be played even at a semi-competitive level with a fair degree of strategy and tactical maneuvering.

-Said game also lets you play in a very broad manner. All poison team? All tank team? A team full of blue pokemon? A team full of "cool" pokemon? Stupid pokemon? Cute? There's a lot of player-identity and it's been studied that children who play pokemon and discuss it with their peers use pokemon as a means of asserting and defining their identity, much like a role-player might define their identity by creating an interesting alter-ego to play as.

 

So what's my point? Not that RPGs should be like pokemon, but that RPGs can be fun. They can be simple. And they can be complex. You think pokemon isn't complex? Let's do some math. Oh god.

 

You can have 6 of 649 pokemon.

Each pokemon can have only 4 moves on it at one time.

Every pokemon in the game as at least 8-10 moves besides Ditto and Wobeffet.

Every pokemon has at least two passive abilities in the game (with few exceptions and some have 3 too).

Every pokemon has six stats it can be specialized in, though most people focus on only two at the same time. Basically, the pokemon "Drapion" can be a tank or a fast sweeper type. Depending if he's trained in HP/DEF or ATK/SPEED.

 

649 choose 6 * 8 choose 4 * 6 choose 2 * 2 choose 1

 

2.1295551e+17 possible party combinations, which is a pretty low amount especially if we compare the game to a 19x19 game of Go.

 

Go is 9.775197e+152 more complex than Pokemon, so I would argue pokemon is a rather simple game - but that's a part of its charm. And yes, I know, this kind of analysis is kind of silly - we can make a game that is arbitrarily more complex than go, but that doesn't make it a good game or a well designed one. But the point is, that I'm making, is that there are numerous ways to play Pokemon and that it is a bit more complex than some people might give it credit. It is a roleplaying game with fun game mechanics (or at least, I find them fun). I think a number like this suggests that it is not hard to create a complex roleplaying game that is simple in nature, when it is designed and balanced well. You needn't even put MATH on the screen (insane, I know), if we must pander to this idea that the general Western consumer wants nothing to do with math and/or spreadsheets.

 

Am I alone in these thoughts? Am I looking at any of this wrong? My main point is - developers think RPG combat does not appeal to mainstream audiences, yet this is inherently wrong, because Pokemon is wildly popular and utilizes almost exclusively, a "traditional" roleplaying model.

 

*I think the debate between casual and hardcore is nebulous. What makes a hardcore gamer hardcore? There seems to be no definition here, as some people go to such hyperbole that you aren't hardcore until you can attest you were the first person to play a hypothetical video game on a turing machine.

[BruceVC]

Nice post, you make some sobering and thought provoking points.

 

But I have to honest, I still have fun with almost every game I play. Thats not to say I don't miss the likes of BG2. Thats why I am supporting initiatives like PE. But I don't think the new genre of games are worthless.

[LadyCrimson]

I just woke up so I might not be getting the whole gist of your post, but one big aspect imo is that isometric + complex UI + certain types of combat are hard to deal with on consoles and the more limited control/hotkey options. Thus as the gaming industry grew and the US AAA wanted more and more of the "mass" market for giant sales, vs. catering to smaller but fiercely loyal niche audiences, they've gone down certain paths. Now, I'm not saying that's all of it by any means....but I do feel like it's a fairly important aspect of the change in cRPG's in the US.

 

It's not just RPG's, btw. I feel somewhat similar about strategy games. Not just AoE type RTS, but all forms of it.

 

In terms of combat ... outside of the controller vs. keyboard aspect ... I don't know. I don't get the feeling companies think "US gamers don't like RPG combat." In fact, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by RPG combat, outside of number crunching and more party options and so I'm not sure if I'd agree with you or not.

[alanschu]

Yet none of these developers seem to acknowledge anymore, the "fun" of an RPG. I've gotten this impression that western RPG developers have arrived at some of the following conclusions:

 

The tricky part is what exactly is the "fun" of an RPG?

 

You seem to greatly prefer the combat mechanics, but simply because one is a fan of Baldur's Gate 2 doesn't mean that they enjoy it for the combat mechanics. I understand the AD&D rules, and in general I found the combat of Baldur's Gate enjoyable, but it's not my primary reason for playing the game. Fallout's combat was interesting and fun (if tedious in larger fights with dozens of NPCs), while I found Arcanum's almost punitive and not particularly interesting nor fun. I have never finished Arcanum and it's in large part because I find the combat so frustrating, which is such a shame because the setting and lore to be magnificent.

 

The level of detail of Planescape: Torment, with its rich atmosphere and fantastic writing (phenomenal characters), makes it my favourite RPG ever. The Icewind Dale games have the best combat IMO, but they are also my least favourite Infinity Engine RPGs.

 

 

I think RPGs tend to be quite versatile in what they can deliver and whom they appeal to.

 

 

 

I did just want to make one more comment regarding complexity, however.

 

You seem to have equated Go's search space with its complexity. That there's a lot of permutations in the search space does not make a game more complex, as its rules (how you play the game) are pretty straight forward. One could make a strong argument that Chess is more complex, in that there are pieces with distinctly different movement rules, special rules like en passant, castling, and various restrictions on when these moves may or may not be done. The search space of Chess is a lot smaller than standard 19x19 Go, however.

 

Go players can become professional at a younger age, and beginners can make reasonable estimates 60 moves into the future, while a chessmaster tends to max out at 10 moves into the future. (Source) When computing scientists talk about the complexity of Go, they are talking about the search space complexity.

[anubite]

You seem to have equated Go's search space with its complexity. That there's a lot of permutations in the search space does not make a game more complex, as its rules (how you play the game) are pretty straight forward. One could make a strong argument that Chess is more complex, in that there are pieces with distinctly different movement rules, special rules like en passant, castling, and various restrictions on when these moves may or may not be done. The search space of Chess is a lot smaller than standard 19x19 Go, however.

 

Well, I do admit that inherent complexity does not directly result in a more complex game, and that balance and viability of strategy are greater factors -- but the point of my combinatronics is just to show the POTENTIAL complexity of a game. Its actual complexity is much more difficult, perhaps impossible to quantify, as it's a matter of opinion.

 

And I don't necessarily prefer combat mehcanics over story, my main point is that most AAA are focusing on anything BUT the mechanics I briefly describe.

[AGX-17]

I don't think there are AAA developers, just AAA publishers, (and they don't necessarily restrict themselves to AAA titles.) Given enough money and enough dictatorship from the publisher, most moderately sized dev studios can make a "AAA" title. AAA games are the summer dumb action blockbusters of the gaming world. They have to be simple, stupid fun to appeal to the largest possible audience.

Edited December 3, 2012 by AGX-17

[Agelastos]

Why haven't "indie" developers attempted to create an isometric RPG? Why do they create puzzle/platformer games? Shouldn't an isometric RPG, or a basic RPG, be something which can be financially plausible and viable for a small developer?

 

What about Iron Tower Studio?

Edited December 3, 2012 by Agelastos

[Gorth]

Whatever happened to the fine art of making fire with two rocks. No appreciation of traditional fire making art these days of matches and lighters

 

Actually, I've found combat to be a chore in most crpgs, starting with the "gold box" games. I'll give rogue likes a free pass, because of nostalgia (being aware that it is nostalgia). There are a few and notable exceptions, but if crpgs are a rare breed, those with good and fun combat are as common as the 21st century dodo. IWD was the last. Generally games built around tactical squad combat with rpg elements seems to fare better when it comes to quality of combat (JA2 and the original X-Com games spring to mind).

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I do think the "mainstream" or "AAA" RPGs are mutating into something else entirely, but I do think that there is hope with kickstarter.

 

I would argue that the main things AAA titles tend to feature(extremely detailed graphics, long cinematics, and lots of voice acting) are the things that matter least to most fans of RPGs. The thing that makes an RPG a RPG is the ability to roleplay a character consistently, which does not benefit from(and in the case of voiced PC suffers from) what most AAA titles have to offer. So what most of us would call a great RPG would not really benefit from the requirements for a AAA game, and don't really need the 20 million + budget.

 

Kickstarter comes in to play by allowing developers to crowd source directly from their customers(essentially a pre-order in most cases) to create the game the fans want. This means we can have the great RPGs without having to sit through hours of cinematics, see zots thrown at making environments pretty rather than content rich, or having less dialogue available because all lines have to be voiced. We have a real successor to Fallout with Wasteland 2, a great RPG in Shadowrun Returns, Obsidian's Project Eternity is almost certain to be excellent, and others to scratch our RPG itch that AAA publishers seem hesitant to touch thanks to the opportunity provided by kickstarter.

 

To answer the OP's question: I think that it is Western Publishers who believe that the traditional-RPG market is not worth pursuing, not necessarily Western Developers.

Edited December 4, 2012 by KaineParker

[anubite]

Whatever happened to the fine art of making fire with two rocks. No appreciation of traditional fire making art these days of matches and lighters

 

Actually, I've found combat to be a chore in most crpgs, starting with the "gold box" games. I'll give rogue likes a free pass, because of nostalgia (being aware that it is nostalgia). There are a few and notable exceptions, but if crpgs are a rare breed, those with good and fun combat are as common as the 21st century dodo. IWD was the last. Generally games built around tactical squad combat with rpg elements seems to fare better when it comes to quality of combat (JA2 and the original X-Com games spring to mind).

 

Note my use of quotes around "traditional" in my original post. It's kind of hard to have any kind tradition when the medium of video games, let alone RPGs, isn't even half a century.

 

Jagged Alliance 2 is indeed a perfect example of a RPG game with good tactical combat. It's a poster child of "what could 'easily' be done". Granted, JA2's battles can stretch on for hours, but, that's kind of the point you can't design a fast paced cRPG with tactical/strategical combat. This is in my mind, why any attempt to casualify or consoleify the cRPG will always result in a bad cRPG or an ARPG. cRPGs lend themselves to slow combat, with semi or psuedo turn-based mechancis. Strategic/tactical games require a little thought in the same way you can't ask a chess/go player to make moves every 2 seconds, they need at least 30 seconds per move, and if we want to make games a 5th as deep, we need to give players more than half a second to do something; we can't make a button-masher cRPG.

 

The fact AAA developers (they are AAA developres because they command power, influence and money) find turn-based cRPG-like mechanics as "non-mainstream" or not viable for mass appeal is a huge misconception. Pokemon is the most obvious case and it has not had much iteration or improvement since the second generation of games.

 

As for Alan's point that perhaps I am more interested in game mechanics - I think that's a false dichotomy. Skyrim, Dragon Age Origins, Fable 3 - please, name any cRPG or ARPG that has come out this generation and I can guarantee you it would have been more fun regardless of its terrible or amazing story, had the developers... well, I don't want to say that turn-based cRPG mechanics are the "only way" to do things - but that, there is a general dumbing down of the RPG genre, from several stigmas, as I mention in the first post - and the justification for such dumbing down is completely inane. These RPGs would have been better with depth, even if you know your audience will not fully appreciate that depth. Pokemon has several dozen internal, invisible mechanics most children never grasp but they still play the game and have fun. Those 'invisible mechanics' such as damage, IVs, EVs, breeding, et cetera that make the game deeper effect its consumers on an unconscious level. Fable 3 and Skyrim literally offer you no challenge in combat and the way character advancement or monster scaling work in both games - it's just a mess. For all the money poured into those games - they aren't fun. Dragon Age Origins has a more redeemable story, but playing it at times feels like a chore. A greater care to game mechanics should be paramount, even if you're intending to sell your game to a bunch of people who actually should be reading fantasy novels.

 

ARPGs, known as "button mashing click fests" where you "click things to death" - can even be done in a way which creates depth.

 

This http://www.pathofexile.com/passive-skill-tree is just an extension of what anyone who's play D2 or WOW knows about - passive skills arranged in an undirected graph. Although we can't expect all players to appreciate such complexity, I think giving players deep choice allows for longevity and enduring association with a product. Although I doubt we can expect all companies to make massive 1350 point passive skill trees, nor should they do so, but my point is - POE does things with its design that I wish other indie developers were doing. You know, trying new things, not simply pandering to nostalgia, but also respecting what made "the old greats" good - understanding why they're good and why they appeal.

[alanschu]

As for Alan's point that perhaps I am more interested in game mechanics - I think that's a false dichotomy. Skyrim, Dragon Age Origins, Fable 3 - please, name any cRPG or ARPG that has come out this generation and I can guarantee you it would have been more fun regardless of its terrible or amazing story, had the developers... well, I don't want to say that turn-based cRPG mechanics are the "only way" to do things - but that, there is a general dumbing down of the RPG genre, from several stigmas, as I mention in the first post - and the justification for such dumbing down is completely inane. These RPGs would have been better with depth, even if you know your audience will not fully appreciate that depth.

 

My point regarding game mechanics for you was more that, for an RPG, it seemed like that is what you want out of an RPG (which is fine, you're not the only one either).

 

There's even some school of thought that the more drilled down and tactically versatile the combat becomes, the less of an RPG is because the human game player is exerting too much control over the PC. In this regard, they would prefer something like the original Wasteland combat. We all like to apply labels and I find it interesting, but I think I echo Gorth that Jagged Alliance 2 is about being a tactical turn based shooter, although you straight up classify it as an RPG.

 

I wouldn't disagree that any of the games would be better with deeper combat (although I suppose we may disagree on what it means to have "deeper combat") but it does come down to various shades of "Is that what I would prefer?" If I had a choice between another location/act in Planescape: Torment, or better combat mechanics, I think I'd be hard pressed to vote for the combat mechanics.

 

In other words, in the fun world of finite resources, there's probably a greater chance that you would find greater satisfaction than I would, if a ton of work was put into the combat system. I'd probably enjoy the changes, but at some point I do bet there'd become a critical mass where further work/focus may be an improvement for you, but now start to take away from it for me. I imagine the situation is similar for you with respect to conversation voice acting. We probably are both okay with NPC lines being spoken, while further focus on that has the PC lines having VO which is typically something I don't mind whereas it's something that takes away from the game for you.

Edited December 4, 2012 by alanschu

[Nordicus]

Why haven't "indie" developers attempted to create an isometric RPG?

Err, Eschalon and Avernum series want to say hello?

 

Or maybe you want to check the public beta of Age of Decadence?

Edited December 4, 2012 by Nordicus

[WorstUsernameEver]

Who said that indies don't make isometric RPGs? What about Eschalon, the bulk of Spiderweb's work, the upcoming Underrail, Dead State and Age of the Decadence (though both are likely going to appeal to a small subset of the "old-school RPG" audience), not to mention titles that arguably do tactical turn-based combat in a pitch-perfect way (though are lacking in other ways) like Knights of the Chalice*?

 

* Recommended only if you're a real turn-based/D&D lover, story and presentation are "OH GOD NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO".

[Maria Caliban]

Sure, modern developers are focused on creating fun RPGs.

 

That's why they removed all the stuff you liked.

[anubite]

Err, Eschalon and Avernum series want to say hello?

 

Haven't played Eschalon. And sorry, I forgot about Avernum. I've one in the series and I blanked it out of my mind, couldn't get past the first level it was so boring

 

Sure, modern developers are focused on creating fun RPGs.

 

That's why they removed all the stuff you liked.

 

While this is obviously a troll, I guess I should ask anyway -- so you think Skyrim, DA2, et cetera are fun? Why do you think so? Do you believe turn based "traditional" RPG combat mechanics are boring? I'd really like to hear arguments as to why. I honestly don't understand it.

[Nonek]

Personally i've always been far more invested in turn based systems than the average joe (I suspect,) two hit points away from oblivion, wondering whether that attack of opportunity will breach my armour class. That edge of the seat nervousness, leading to furious obscenity or relieved hilarity has always been for me the very definition of having fun in combat. Meld this with the ability to develop new tactics, and in depth knowledge of your characters strengths and weaknesses, and i'm caught, hook, line and sinker.

 

Then again a fine real time combat system such as Severance can be equally as rewarding, when every blow counts, your chosen characters are unique and their methods of attack and weapons each have their own pro's and cons.

 

Even more importantly for me however are smart, challenging and unique foes. Whom I have to be wary of, and adapt my tactics to cater to rather than just follow a set pattern off the usual menu. Throw endless waves of fodder at me that are too easily dispatched and all too easily forgotten, with the odd exception having a bloated skin of hit points to grind through, and i'm bored senseless.

[Amentep]

In essence, no developer wants to touch the "traditional" idea of a RPG. And this is nowhere else truer than in game mechanics. Arcanum was the last "AAA" cRPG. Why is this? Why did Arcanum only sell 200,000 copies?

 

As much as I liked Arcanum, its combat system was terribly flawed IMO and it had at least one game ending bug that I experienced. Its sales very likely are from negative word of mouth - negative word I'd heard before I decided to buy the game and I bought it fairly soon after its release (and possibly dwindling general PC sales as well).

[Nordicus]

Haven't played Eschalon.

I would recommend you try it during the next time it goes on sale. Some would think having gameplay reminiscent of Fallout 1&2 and having large dungeons would be the worst thing ever, but surprisingly, it's strangely addicting with its own sort of exploration feel.

 

If I were to give you a hint, it'd be to take at least ONE point in any magic training. The game seems to have been balanced around mages or mage-hybrids. Definitely not sneaky assassins like my character. When you're in the dark, you're harder to detect, but you can't hit for **** and will waste arrows. When you're holding a torch, the monsters come beeline at ya.

 

So suddenly with a low-level night-vision spell the game becomes 5 times easier, and I'm finally using my mana for something.

[bussinrounds]

Personally i've always been far more invested in turn based systems than the average joe (I suspect,) two hit points away from oblivion, wondering whether that attack of opportunity will breach my armour class. That edge of the seat nervousness, leading to furious obscenity or relieved hilarity has always been for me the very definition of having fun in combat. Meld this with the ability to develop new tactics, and in depth knowledge of your characters strengths and weaknesses, and i'm caught, hook, line and sinker.

 

Then again a fine real time combat system such as Severance can be equally as rewarding, when every blow counts, your chosen characters are unique and their methods of attack and weapons each have their own pro's and cons.

 

Even more importantly for me however are smart, challenging and unique foes. Whom I have to be wary of, and adapt my tactics to cater to rather than just follow a set pattern off the usual menu. Throw endless waves of fodder at me that are too easily dispatched and all too easily forgotten, with the odd exception having a bloated skin of hit points to grind through, and i'm bored senseless.

Good post and I'm right there with you, in terms of loving the tactical/turn based gameplay and deeper combat mechanics. I would take ToEE/Gold Box like gameplay in PST over another act ANY DAY.

 

And I can also enjoy a fun real time combat system like Severance or Dark Souls, say. The problem is, they are SO few and far between when it comes to games like these and are much better done in the pure action titles.

[anubite]

Jagged Alliance 2 is about being a tactical turn based shooter, although you straight up classify it as an RPG.

 

It's not an RPG in any "classically accepted" sense, but I would put it in the category of turn-based RPGs.

 

1. You build a party of mercenaries, determining their statistics - specializations and skills. They play very specific roles in a team - doctor, sharpshooter, support fire, rambo, stealthy backstabber, heavy weapons, anti-vehicle, et cetera; many of them have distinct personalities and positive/negative traits

2. You engage in conversations with NPCs and solve problems for them, liberating towns and exploring a large open-ended map.

3. There is a story told, a big bad villainess you slay.

4. There are "choices and consequences" to a large degree - you can choose to kill this dictator by freeing all the mines and the towns, which can be risky since you will engage in tons of combat and possibly lose comrades as a result. You have to make choices about what characters will defend/train what locations. You also need to decide how you're going to kill the dictator and how you will approach conquering territory. This is very open-ended, sandboxy story telling, sort of similar to Fallout 1, where you have an obvious story objective "get the water chip".

 

That said, it's clearly not similar to DA:O or something one can say unconditionally is a RPG, but I think JA2 fits nicely into a hybrid RPG/TBS category and has elements to it that make its gameplay engaging and thoughtful.

 

I can agree with your point that making a game "too tactical" may make it too much like a "game" instead of an exercise of "playing a role" - but that's more or less a design decision, I wouldn't say either approach is bad.

 

And I also agree there is an art to making a game, you cannot afford to say, "let's have deep gameplay, deep story, deep characters, deep art, et cetera" - because there is finite resources and you need to maximally distribute such resources to create a desirable product. I just think BioWare and other developers are wasting too many resources, or at least, they are squandering the resources they do put, into the gameplay. They approach the game from too simplistic a view and do not generate enough content or depth to create an engaging experience anymore. For instance, Skyrim's talent system - as a whole - is not a bad approach to an RPG, it's just, they are balanced poorly, aren't meaningful enough, and fail to really specialize a character, or cause a player to make decisions. Skyrim's talent system could have been executed much better with some of the design ethics... well, I don't want to get into my personal idea of good design, but, I think the developers did not pay enough attention to balancing Skyrim's talents, making them fun or engaging enough and they were satisfied with their combat mechanics because they feel that's not what makes their game engaging. Which is somewhat true, Morrowind can't be heralded for its combat system - but it's fixable. And it should be fixed. And there are many ways they could go about it, but they choose not to and I don't know where these design resources are going exactly. To make the big world even bigger? To make the voice acting cast spend an extra few hours on dialog? At what point do these elements, which purely exist as marketing spiel (Skyrim is 1000 times larger than New York City! Is I'm sure something they'd like to say as PR), get more development dollars when the gameplay - the real reason to sit down and play this game after you've climbed every mountaintop? And at what point, can money be spent on aspects that are necessary for marketing and appeal, but still generate a good game?

 

I see the current trends of AAA developers as toxic. I can't say that all of their allocations are wrong - because we need to make some sacrifices to sell a product to the masses - but there are ways that exist to make a turn-based RPG engaging and deep, while still being simple and intuitive.

 

People are reluctant to spend $15 to see a movie these days. Do they really want to spend 4x that to get an interactive movie? I think the consumers of video games want to be engaged. The removal of turn-based mechanics is the result of simplifying the genre. And as they continue to simplify games, I think they will hit a wall. How many times will people pay $25 for a collection of linear zombie dramas? Not that I don't think TWD is a bad zombie series, but I suspect there is a strong saturation point for a game like this, and if games like Skyrim or just RPGs in general, become too story-oriented, and they don't offer enough depth, the industry will hit a glass ceiling.

 

rant rant rant, as someone who programs, I can tell you that making a game necessarily complex is not difficult if you have a crafty team of programmers; object oriented programming lends itself to easily creating and recycling content for game systems, it's the strength of a computer RPG - you don't need to physically make everything by hand, a computer can generate depth for you

Edited December 4, 2012 by anubite

[DeathCard]

Strangely the worst MMO in a long time (SW:TOR) successfully pulled this off with the story missions. I'd imagine anyone who played the SW rpg would have quite a bit of fun with their friends going through the multistep missions like an episode of Star Trek with the silly villain who is trying to poison the lake and all that. It's a shame the PVP was so terrible because that I all I really play mmos for. They had everyone in the same ship and messed it up...

Edited May 16, 2013 by DeathCard

[Bester]

"This" "thread" "made" me "shiver".

[Drowsy Emperor]

Well, here's my two cents:

 

Back in the day, even though games were experiencing the same centripetal, unifying forces - there was still a bit of experimentation with form. Meaning that even big budget projects could wildly differ. But even the late nineties could be considered partially uniform if you look at the haphazard cross genre games of the late eighties and early nineties. 

What this means is that a "formula for success" has been established by marketing and design experts, and that formula in general - and with RPG's in particular is making everything an action game. 

 

Action is more appealing than turn based anything to a greater segment of the population - thus every big project is in real time now. This "pandora's box" was really opened by our favorite IE games. They showed that and RPG could ditch a big part of its tabletop turn based structure and play in real time - and really everything that happened to RPG's afterwards could be traced to them.

 

From BGII and PST is a very short jump to KOTOR and ME. The projects got more expensive on account of 3D demands thus more and more content had to be cut. Which is why every game today is so short. Marketing experts, focus groups, etc. refined the ideas behind these games to make them more accessible to everyone.

 

Another thing that reinforces this theory is the rise of RTS games as opposed to the stagnation of TB strategy and their subsequent downfall. RTS games couldn't really evolve into action games and they practically died - from 2-3 Starcraft clones and other similar games per month to 2-3 games per year at best.

 

Of course, there are other trends to consider: profitability of consoles, success of WoW, success of Diablo 2 and the rise of ARPG's etc. etc.

 

But the gist is that RPG's had to become more like action games or, from the perspective of big business - the were not worth the time and money (and RPG's are one of the most expensive genres).

 

 

Now as to why they're not fun. Well, putting subjective opinion aside - there's at least one good reason and it boils down to what Alan Moore said about hollywood (paraphrasing):

"hollywood movies suck because they're made by accountants and not by artists"

 

So much money is involved that the creative process is tightly controlled by committees of people whose jobs depend entirely on the game making more money. They don't care about the content or the "fun" - but they care about including say, bloody kill scenes, because a market survey told them adolescent boys **** to that.

Obviously this kind of "do everything to make it sell and do it our way" approach leads to games being made according to a checklist of features more successful titles have and hoping that they'll strike gold too.

 

This is why everyone is complaining about streamlining now. The offensive thing about streamlining isn't the dumb simplicity - its the  knowledge that the game is pandering to you, that you can't lose and worst of all - that around the corner is something you've seen in some other game or film or comic, probably a recent and successful one.

This utterly kills the sense of wonder and anticipation that one wants from a game.

 

Finally, the RPG market is catered to by already established studios. Established studios are not going to do substantial experimentation. This can be seen on the transition of The Witcher, from a novel, sometimes silly but at least fresh experience to the routine adventure of Witcher 2.

 

So, no big project is likely to surprise you. Kickstarter is the best and only hope for the type of game you want to play. But one thing is evident from KS and that is they don't know where to take the more tactical aspects of the genre. You can only play so many tactical RPG's and remakes of old games before it becomes stale.

[Drowsy Emperor]

And to be perfectly honest, we pretty much have Bioware to thank that we're playing RPG's today at all. They're the only one who demonstrated that a big budget RPG could make money. Without them the big budget RPG would be as dead as the dodo.

 

I still think the price that was paid was too high. I'm going to read reviews of ME4 and DA3 and watch gameplay videos to see what they did this time around, but I'm not going to pay for those games - or play them.

 

Partially because the gameplay is likely to be more of the same, partially because I hate how generic¹ the settings are - but mostly because they're likely to be the same EPIC^TM storyline that BW has been pushing since forever. 

 

 

 

 

¹ Take heed: these are the people who managed to make a space station boring. The place where you can see all the wonders of the universe, from the worst killers in the galaxy cleaning their nails with deadly blades to the intergalactic carnival teeming with all sorts of aliens, fantastical creatures and impossible technology. 

Not the same 10 drones standing around like PEZ dispensers waiting for the PC to talk to them in half empty corridors and halls. 

Edited May 17, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor

[Rostere]

I think the most important part of developments in gaming lately has been Microsoft's decision to launch the XBox in 2001, in which process they also left the PC as gaming platform in shambles. The golden age of PC gaming pretty much begins with Microsoft's OSes coming into prominence as "the" computer platform for games in the early nineties (leaving Macintosh and Atari behind).

 

Back then, the choice of a PC with DOS/Windows was a perfect one for most people. The best choice for work computer and play computer was the same. Why should anyone not want a Windows PC?

 

Now we are seeing a different revolution. Portable devices such as phones and tables have suddenly become commonplace. The new, large market is for games you play on the run. As with every revolution small actors get a chance to take a piece of the pie, and from this we get the current "indie" game revolution. But as soon as the AAA giants wake, the market will be homogenized again. In a few years, people will all play the million-dollar productions Angry Birds 5, FarmVille Space: Harvest the Moon and so on and once again there won't be much attention afforded for indies. The lasting effect will probably be more games in a format you can play in short intervals or with touchscreen controls only.

 

So I think simpler turn-based (RPG) games might actually come back again, however games which requires long, coherent play sessions in order to work will be even more rare.