On whether the "magic" is there or not in CRPGs

[Blodhemn]

It could be that you both have just become more cynical and jaded with age, and it's harder to recapture the magic of your youth.  

Funnily enough, that's the attitude that drove many Kickstarters. The games were made just as much in protest to modern gaming as anything else and they promised nothing more than to be a shell of nostalgia.

[prodigydancer]

IWD/IWD2 were good hack'n'slash games so they were not about having a soul. NWN and SRR were more about helping people create their own content rather than proving great official campaigns. (But I liked Dead Man's Switch nevertheless.)

 

And my opinion is that WL2 has more "soul" than NWN2. In fact I'd rate it very high on the "soul" list - probably right behind PS:T and BG series.

Edited November 8, 2014 by prodigydancer

[Orogun01]

When people say NWN2 they actually mean MoTB.

[prodigydancer]

MoTB

It's still on my to do list but everyone says it's great so it probably is.

Edited November 8, 2014 by prodigydancer

[Drowsy Emperor]

Its growing older and being worn down by repetition.  

 

On the other hand, one of the reasons the thrill is "gone" is because games became a big business and there is less experimentation, personal input and obvious joy in their design. 

In some of the older games its apparent the designers had a free hand and did things because they could and because they genuinely found them fun. All the in jokes in Fallout 2 for example. 

Notice I said some, because there was a lot of "made by a committee", "made to make money off a better game's success" etc. junk back then, as there is now.

 

When you get older its hard to swallow an impersonal product made by ticking design check-boxes, known player hooks and aggressive marketing because you see it for what it is. 

 

The Shadowrun expansion and the first Witcher were the last RPGs where I could relate to the game.

 

The second Witcher is a prime example of everything I wrote above. Made to succeed by suffocating you with its bombastic production values, screaming ARE YOU IMPRESSED in your ear all the time trying so hard to be larger than life... without the low key humor and down to earth approach of the first one. When they actually made Geralt pretty and gave you the option to do change his hairstyle... I knew the series was done.

 

Bioware is the same deal. Everything made to elicit the: OMG SO EPIC! DUDE DID U SEE THAT???! response.

No its not ****ing epic, its the same **** you've been peddling for the last ten years in a universe you made so purposefully generic it makes Greyhawk look good.

 

Its not just role playing games either. I'm currently playing Civ IV and V, and V will awe you with its production values until a few games in you realize its a mere shadow of the design genius the civilization series once was. Civ V is an ingenious product though, that will pull you in and make you feel good and clever and let you wiin and make the designers a ton of money.

 

But making a good product and a good game is not the same thing.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[Chilloutman]

Its not just role playing games either. I'm currently playing Civ IV and V, and V will awe you with its production values until a few games in you realize its a mere shadow of the design genius the civilization series once was. Civ V is an ingenious product though, that will pull you in and make you feel good and clever and let you wiin and make the designers a ton of money.

 

But making a good product and a good game is not the same thing.

 

I would say its down to todays mantra about 'balance'. First whe nI started playing Civ 5 I was in awe, but after 10+ games you realise that civilisations are all almost same and you mostly play all of them same way. All techs are same in same order, some tactics are always much more superior (go for science) no matter which civ you are playing. One starts be bored by it really soon (but for some reason I still play them) too bad that new BE is even more boring. I was hoping for improved SMAC

[Drowsy Emperor]

Yes, there is zero flexibility in Civ V. Same research order in every game, same policy trees, warfare is utterly suboptimal with the large hapiness penalties and with the post BNW science penalty per every city after the fourth one the only way to play the game is a 4 city empire going for science with a skeleton army for defence (exploiting the inept AI)/

 

I've seen some high level  MP games and it looks depressing. Everyone sticking with their 4 city empire, vast parts of the map unsettled, no interaction between players.

 

They manage to make a 4x game where eXpand and eXterminate aren't viable strategies.

[Rosbjerg]

A majority of mp players in civ 3. Complained about the tedious micromanagement of 30+ city empires... I guess they took that a little too serious.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Well it is tedious but they wanted to be the emperor of a globe spanning empire... it can't be whores and eating until you puke all of the time

 

I do wonder what they'll do with Civ VI. Civ V is already so simplified, if they wanted to make it even more so they'd kill the game. And a return to more complexity isn't likely either.

[rjshae]

It could be that you both have just become more cynical and jaded with age, and it's harder to recapture the magic of your youth.  

 

There's this, and there's also the fact that our tastes change as we age. At this point I like to see a deeper development of character interactions, more compelling reasons for engaging in combat, and well crafted challenges. A pretty view is enjoyable for a few hours, but it doesn't carry the story for me.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Starwars: Mebbe I spoke too soon. I have yet to play SR: Dragonfall!

 

 

Definitely. Dragonfall is one of the best CRPGs I've played since forever. It's about on par with Alpha Protocol.

 

Another recommendation from me would be The Banner Saga. It has a semi-interesting world (Fantasy Scandinavia in the throes of golem-induced Ragnarök), a tactical combat system with some fairly unique mechanics, and an incredible amount of reactivity to your choices. Other features include insanely cool music, a very strong melancholic atmosphere, boring characters, a plot that's literally running on rails with zero freedom to explore, and a story that ends before it could begin. So, a mixed bag, but it definitely has a soul.

Edited November 21, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[LadyCrimson]

"Magic."

Very few games have made me care about the main plot, outside of the means to get to the end. It's not that I won't appreciate/don't want good stories. I just don't tend to pay attention often - it's background noise. Maybe because by the time I reach the next plot point/quest/info, I've been distracted by/done so many other things in the game I've literally forgotten what the main plot was in the first place (it's not like reading a book cover to cover).

 

I can get attached to individual characters. If a game has this for me, it's a huge plus, since emotional connection to gaming is so rare for me...and yet, if it's not there, I won't miss it much per se - if the game still appeals to me in other ways.

 

...so the "magic" for me is largely about what, in another thread, was called "hookability." Which I find a lot of modern crpg's don't have. All the current trends that I've seen/experienced do not give me more immersion, it detracts from it. I'm too often brought to awareness that I'm watching a game, for example tapping my fingers waiting for something onscreen to finish so I can get back to playing.

 

Whatever the ultimate reasons for hookability being there or not being there (obviously very subjective), most modern games seem to lack the ability to put me into tunnel vision mode, thus they are far less magical. I need my tunnel vision. Perhaps because I have a hard time focusing for long periods without it.

[Amentep]

To me this is a matter of player engagement, really.

 

High levels of engagement with a game means high interest, multiple playthroughs, feelings persist (perhaps permanently) that the game was a benchmark for an age.

 

Mid-range engagement with a game means completion of the game, maybe some fond memories

 

Low engagement means game is never completed, playing it might be forgotten

 

Negative engagement with a game means that the player has developed antagonism for the game, such that they become an advocate against it; feelings persist (perhaps permanently) that the game is a nadir of an age (possibly even feeling that it permenantly damaged gaming).

 

I think that gamers tend to divide over whether mid-range engagement with a game is acceptable or not; some people want only the highest levels of engagement and not finding that is disapointing (and can cause negative engagement) others are okay with mid-range engagement.

 

Or something.