I figured it out... Why RPGs seem to be going down hill.

[213374U]

 

 

Oh, I think I may have been misunderstood...

 

He flies through stuff so blindingly fast that I really don't know what it is he gets out of playing. And, that could be perhaps nothing, other than his audience.

 

So basically you made a thread out of what should have been a YT comment? Nothing wrong with that, but I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish, though I might be missing some context. Is that account some sort of gaming big shot whose opinion really matters or something?

 

[Looks Around] This is called a forum, is it not?

 

Seriously, did I miss something between the 90's and today? Forums, thoughts, discussions, etc.

 

As for my opinions: They're mine, and they're opinions. They of course matter to me but... No one else is required to: acknowledge, ratify, agree with, exalt, deny, show disdain for, get flippant about, explain their position, etc. with regards to them, unless they actually want to have a discussion on a forum.

 

Chill. I was asking why you believe that the YouTube account that posted those videos is more representative of the average RPG player than any other Skyrim LP where the author doesn't seem to be suffering from ADD (or are they all like that?). I suppose you misunderstood and assumed I was referring to your forum account, sorry about that, I could have worded it better. You are of course free to start discussions and express opinions about whatever you feel like, but as I said, some context may be required, as evidenced by some people not getting what exactly is the point of the thread initially.

Edited December 11, 2014 by 213374U

[rjshae]

 

Nostalgia has a tendency to enhance and glorify older experiences, which may create the illusion that things are getting worse. However, many of the older RPGs were also boring experiences with stupid repetitive mechanics, lousy stories, pitiful character interactions, and, of course, limited graphics and sounds. It's just that we were willing to put up with them back then because all we had were less capable computing systems and the experience was all so much newer.

It's wasn't so much about the experience being newer but the alternatives being no better.

 

As for RPGs - for me they started rolling downhill when the gameplay and mechanics design got 'refined'.

No developer wants takes risks anymore and I fell that for the last decade I have been playing the same three games with slightly different skins.

 

Yes, well I can't really blame them for not wanting to bet the company with a $100 million AAA title by "taking a chance" on something radically different that may not find an audience. Those niche products are better left for indie companies and Kickstarted games to explore. That's why I wouldn't mind seeing developer companies like Obsidian or InXile returning to Kickstarter to fund a more risky title. Personally I think we should be encouraging that behavior, rather than disparaging them for returning to the well.

[bussinrounds]

You say that modern games place an every increasing emphasis on action, yet many RPGs of old were almost entirely oriented around action. The stories were threadbare at best, with only a handful having a solid, enjoyable, well-developed plot and interesting interactions that rose above the constant stream of repetitive combat encounters.

 

I'm talking about the KIND of action.  If you'd like to read Gizmo's post on the first page (#17)  ...that would explain exactly what I'm talking about, pretty much.

 

"Good story makes good RPG, bad story makes bad RPG, that is the simple formula"

 

Yeah, because stories is what drove people to play RPGs liek the GB games, WL, the Fallout, M&M, etc., etc. LMAO

Story[--------]s gonna story[--------] Volly, you know that.

 

 

And I love me some RPGs like Planescape, Bloodlines, Betrayal at Krondor, Fallout 1/2/NV....but story is NOT the be all end all when it comes to RPGs, as it's a pretty short list of ones that can stand up on that aspect alone.

Edited January 22, 2015 by TrueNeutral
term no longer acceptable

[Luridis]

"Good story makes good RPG, bad story makes bad RPG, that is the simple formula"

 

Yeah, because stories is what drove people to play RPGs liek the GB games, WL, the Fallout, M&M, etc., etc. LMAO

 

Did you play M&M Book 2 - Gates to Another World? Great story, well... except the ending was about being more of a unique puzzle than having to do with the story itself.

 

By GB, do you mean Gold Box? Pool of Radiance, Champions of Krynn, Eye of the Beholder, etc.? You do realize that Pool of Radiance is the game that brought attention to places like Neverwinter, right?

 

Also, some narratives are told through gameplay... It's an element that is always there in one way or another unless... it's just a bunch of arena style encounters in the same room with no dialogue at all.

[Luridis]

Edit: Sorry, don't know how that double-posted.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Luridis

[Luridis]

 

You say that modern games place an every increasing emphasis on action, yet many RPGs of old were almost entirely oriented around action. The stories were threadbare at best, with only a handful having a solid, enjoyable, well-developed plot and interesting interactions that rose above the constant stream of repetitive combat encounters.

 

I'm talking about the KIND of action.  If you'd like to read Gizmo's post on the first page (#17)  ...that would explain exactly what I'm talking about, pretty much.

 

"Good story makes good RPG, bad story makes bad RPG, that is the simple formula"

 

Yeah, because stories is what drove people to play RPGs liek the GB games, WL, the Fallout, M&M, etc., etc. LMAO

Story[--------]s gonna story[--------] Volly, you know that.

 

 

And I love me some RPGs like Planescape, Bloodlines, Betrayal at Krondor, Fallout 1/2/NV....but story is NOT the be all end all when it comes to RPGs, as it's a pretty short list of ones that can stand up on that aspect alone.

 

 

Story[--------]? You homophobic or something? What's next, you high-fiveing people on the forums and exclaiming "Nohomo!"

Edited January 22, 2015 by TrueNeutral
term no longer acceptable

[rjshae]

And we have a bite. Will it be reeled in or escape the hook?

[bussinrounds]

 

 

You say that modern games place an every increasing emphasis on action, yet many RPGs of old were almost entirely oriented around action. The stories were threadbare at best, with only a handful having a solid, enjoyable, well-developed plot and interesting interactions that rose above the constant stream of repetitive combat encounters.

 

I'm talking about the KIND of action.  If you'd like to read Gizmo's post on the first page (#17)  ...that would explain exactly what I'm talking about, pretty much.

 

"Good story makes good RPG, bad story makes bad RPG, that is the simple formula"

 

Yeah, because stories is what drove people to play RPGs liek the GB games, WL, the Fallout, M&M, etc., etc. LMAO

Story[--------]s gonna story[--------] Volly, you know that.

 

 

And I love me some RPGs like Planescape, Bloodlines, Betrayal at Krondor, Fallout 1/2/NV....but story is NOT the be all end all when it comes to RPGs, as it's a pretty short list of ones that can stand up on that aspect alone.

 

 

Story[--------]? You homophobic or something? What's next, you high-fiveing people on the forums and exclaiming "Nohomo!"

 

Haha...relax...it's just an expression.

Edited January 22, 2015 by TrueNeutral
term no longer accepted

[Luridis]

And we have a bite. Will it be reeled in or escape the hook?

 

Hooks? Do a google image search for "hook suspension" and have a look. Just be aware that it's not for the squeamish.

[LadyCrimson]

Haha...relax...it's just an expression.

It's a fairly common one over on rpgcodex I think? Still, it's not one we're terribly fond/like to use here. It's easily misunderstood, understandably so. Just saying.

[500MetricTonnes]

As someone who (regrettably) spent a good deal of time on BSN, I can tell you that a big problem is that there's a number of people out there who claim they want to play RPGs, but actually hate the core gameplay mechanics that define the genre. They'll claim that RPG mechanics are "outdated" and "stupid nerd crap," that a game is an RPG because I'm "making choices and choosing dialogue options," and that "streamlining" RPGs to play more like action games is "progress" or "evolution" and that anyone who disagrees with this development is "too old" or "just nostalgia."

 

"What do you mean, my guy missed the orc? He was standing right next to him! This game is stupid!" - BAM! To-hit rolls are gone, your character can never miss.

"What do you mean, the dragon wasted my Level 1 character? I can reach him, so why can't I kill him? This game is stupid!" - BAM! Suddenly every enemy scales to your level, so you'll never encounter anything your character can't handle.

"What do you mean, I murdered someone in cold blood and my Paladin party member turned on me? This game is stupid!" - BAM! Now every party member goes along with your decisions, no matter how much it conflicts with their personality. (Mass Effect 2 was absolutely terrible with this)

"What do you mean, I told the quest-giver to go plough himself and now I can't get the Infinity +1 sword? This game is stupid!" - BAM! Now all consequences for your decisions have been removed, and every player can see everything in one play-through.

 

What these people really want is a shooter or action/adventure with more narrative interaction beyond "A space marine is you! Kill everything that isn't you!" I suspect their first "RPG" was something like Mass Effect 2, which is basically just a shooter with some superficial dialogue options and story choices. What they ought to be doing is demanding the shooter and action/adventure developers start adding more narrative interaction in their games instead of demanding that RPGs start playing like action games.

 

So RPGs are constantly being "streamlined," which means removing any gameplay mechanics that might put off non-RPG players. Not because this makes RPGs better, but because they think it will improve sales. The major publishers (and many development studios) believe that shooters and action/adventure games are the only thing that will sell, hence all other genres are pushed to margins. Fifteen years ago, a game like PoE would have been backed by a large publisher. Now, Obsidian has to rely on Kickstarter for funding, because none of the major publishers consider it viable.

 

Which gets us to a game like Skyrim, where Bethesda has removed attributes because they can't figure out what they're supposed to do. "Intelligence just increases mana!" they said, not understanding that Intelligence ought to govern things like the amount of skill points gained at level-up or what sort of dialogue options are available to the player. This was how it was implemented (albeit badly) in Fallout 3, which only goes to show that Bethesda cannot even learn from their own games!

 

Skyrim is the perfect example of how pathetic RPGs have become. It's a game where a thick-headed orc can join the mages' guild, or where an axe-wielding barbarian can join the thieves' guild, simply because the developers don't understand RPG mechanics, or they're terrified that players' choices in developing their character might lock them out of certain quests (or both). It's a game where levelling up does nothing except allow your character to keep up with the level scaling. It's a game where the role that you play is completely superficial and totally irrelevant.

 

People like to dump on BioWare, and I do that I lot myself, but Bethesda is much, much worse in every aspect. They basically make the same game over and over, only with more bugs and fewer features.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Orogun01]

To be fair to those people, it is ****ing stupid when my character can't hit a giant rat that's been turned legs up.

[Blodhemn]

To be fair to those people, it is ****ing stupid when my character can't hit a giant rat that's been turned legs up.

Agreed. It is quite stupid. Also when there is a good modern C&C game, like Alpha Protocol, old school nerds shun it since it isn't low-tech enough, not sporting a pitiful isometric engine or other archaic features. It's a wonder how and why a company like Obsidian even exists these days.

[Luridis]

As someone who (regrettably) spent a good deal of time on BSN, I can tell you that a big problem is that there's a number of people out there who claim they want to play RPGs, but actually hate the core gameplay mechanics that define the genre. They'll claim that RPG mechanics are "outdated" and "stupid nerd crap," that a game is an RPG because I'm "making choices and choosing dialogue options," and that "streamlining" RPGs to play more like action games is "progress" or "evolution" and that anyone who disagrees with this development is "too old" or "just nostalgia."

 

"What do you mean, my guy missed the orc? He was standing right next to him! This game is stupid!" - BAM! To-hit rolls are gone, your character can never miss.

"What do you mean, the dragon wasted my Level 1 character? I can reach him, so why can't I kill him? This game is stupid!" - BAM! Suddenly every enemy scales to your level, so you'll never encounter anything your character can't handle.

"What do you mean, I murdered someone in cold blood and my Paladin party member turned on me? This game is stupid!" - BAM! Now every party member goes along with your decisions, no matter how much it conflicts with their personality. (Mass Effect 2 was absolutely terrible with this)

"What do you mean, I told the quest-giver to go plough himself and now I can't get the Infinity +1 sword? This game is stupid!" - BAM! Now all consequences for your decisions have been removed, and every player can see everything in one play-through.

 

What these people really want is a shooter or action/adventure with more narrative interaction beyond "A space marine is you! Kill everything that isn't you!" I suspect their first "RPG" was something like Mass Effect 2, which is basically just a shooter with some superficial dialogue options and story choices. What they ought to be doing is demanding the shooter and action/adventure developers start adding more narrative interaction in their games instead of demanding that RPGs start playing like action games.

 

So RPGs are constantly being "streamlined," which means removing any gameplay mechanics that might put off non-RPG players. Not because this makes RPGs better, but because they think it will improve sales. The major publishers (and many development studios) believe that shooters and action/adventure games are the only thing that will sell, hence all other genres are pushed to margins. Fifteen years ago, a game like PoE would have been backed by a large publisher. Now, Obsidian has to rely on Kickstarter for funding, because none of the major publishers consider it viable.

 

Which gets us to a game like Skyrim, where Bethesda has removed attributes because they can't figure out what they're supposed to do. "Intelligence just increases mana!" they said, not understanding that Intelligence ought to govern things like the amount of skill points gained at level-up or what sort of dialogue options are available to the player. This was how it was implemented (albeit badly) in Fallout 3, which only goes to show that Bethesda cannot even learn from their own games!

 

Skyrim is the perfect example of how pathetic RPGs have become. It's a game where a thick-headed orc can join the mages' guild, or where an axe-wielding barbarian can join the thieves' guild, simply because the developers don't understand RPG mechanics, or they're terrified that players' choices in developing their character might lock them out of certain quests (or both). It's a game where levelling up does nothing except allow your character to keep up with the level scaling. It's a game where the role that you play is completely superficial and totally irrelevant.

 

People like to dump on BioWare, and I do that I lot myself, but Bethesda is much, much worse in every aspect. They basically make the same game over and over, only with more bugs and fewer features.

 

I agree with you in part, but not entirely...

 

Being an open world, or sandbox game, Skyrim is a different kind of RPG. The difference being between that of a story driven character and a character driven story. Classical RPGs were often story driven characters, meaning you participated in a story as the protagonist and made choices from a narrow field about his or her overall destiny. This destiny was usually good or evil, but not always necessarily so. Jade Empire is a good example, you could go Open Palm or Closed Fist, or even stay somewhat neutral, but rather than good vs evil it appeared to be more along the lines of careful contemplation vs decisive action. Something to note is that this type of game usually follows a linear game area progression. You can't go anywhere until you've made choices in the story line that open up the associated areas.

 

Skyrim is an example of a character driven story. You choose from a wide range of options regarding story lines, including the choice to not participate at all. Like all TES games, you start as a prisoner, which allows you as the player to define your own backstory: Were you wrongly accused? Were you a convicted fugitive hell bent on escape and continuing your criminal path, or are you perhaps looking for redemption?

 

TES games allow you to choose the destiny of protagonist, or villain, in many more ways. You essentially write the story with the actions you take. Most of the story lines are self-contained, meaning you can choose to do them or not. (There are some issues with that, I'll mention later.) You can even choose to partially complete them. Don't like the Stormcloaks or Imperials? You can opt to stay out of it and setup a peace treaty, which I thought was well done, but not done for nearly enough of the quest lines that exist. Heck, you don't even ever need to find out your dragonborn if you stay away from the starting hooks.

 

All that said, Skyrim is far from perfect. I see it as a game that could have been 3x as good with a little more care placed into the mechanics, AI, as well as other things.

 

Elimination of Classes: A lot of people herald this as a good thing. But, I'll give you one really good, and defining reason it is not. In order to reach maximum level, in the vanilla game, you must level all skills to 100. Not only that, you're not likely to get more than about 50 or so perks unless you branch out and start leveling skills you A: don't care about, and B: never intend to actually use. Skyrim has turned leveling into a chore onto itself. In order to reach level cap a barbarian must practice pickpocketing, not just a little, but a whole damn lot. And, because of the mechanics involved in it, the only sane way to level pickpocket as a non-thief is to save-scrub like mad. Skyrim has you leveling skills completely unrelated to the character you're playing for the sake of your character being able to progress. That is a bad thing, and I don't care what justification anyone else makes for the sake of a more "organic" character.

 

Removal of Notoriety: I personally believe that this created issues on multiple levels. And, while I cannot prove what I am about to write, I consider it to be the most plausible of the possibilities that exist. During development... First, someone thought removing notoriety was a good idea and it was given the green light. (Possibly to save money on voice acting.) Later, during play testing it was discovered that this made the world feel very static, as if the players actions within it are largely unknown. As a result, other types of NPC reactions were created to lessen the static feeling, but their design and execution was so bad that they became the brunt of many jokes.

 

Arrow in the knee. Conjure me up a warm bed. You've got a lot of nerve walking around with dangerous magic like that. Go fiddling with any locks around here... I don't like those clunky two handed weapons... (From a guy equipped with a great-sword.) Psst, Hail Sithis, etc. etc.

 

That's right... I believe something character-driven and meaningful was replaced by something arbitrary and annoying. I have a friend who cannot play Skyrim without a mod that prevents NPCs from speaking unless you actually touch them and I completely understand why... This decision is the jar-jar binks of The Elder Scrolls series: solid function replaced by stupidity. Bethesda, please stop this with Skyrim, it sucks and makes the game feel terribly shallow.

 

No Exclusivity in Guilds & Leadership: Mary Sue to the rescue! Way to make us dislike our own characters Bethesda. While I can see being a member of the Dark Brotherhood and any other guild, as The Brotherhood is fairly secretive. (Ill-considered guard commentary aside.) Being in more than two guilds feels wrong, being the leader of more than one feels downright fake. At the very least, where's the option to pass on leadership and allow the next in line to take the helm? Bad design, period.

 

I could go on quite a bit further: Quests forced on people and the lack of ability to fail... at anything. Locking word-walls behind guild membership, whosoever idea this was: you're an ass. But, I'll stop and say, in spite of all this Skyrim is a good game, it's just not a great one. The freedom and ability to choose your own path that are iconic to the series are thankfully unmolested in Skyrim.

 

Note: Sandbox to me means "free form" not "legos or erector set" as it has come to be known with the advent of more recent games like Minecraft.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Luridis

[nipsen]

unless they actually want to have a discussion on a forum.

 

Yeah, wondered about that. Hang on, let me get my updated 2014 contemporary dictionary for words which we don't really understand anymore: "Forum: noun \ˈfȯr-əm\, place where people fight over which opinion is the most common one, and therefore the only relevant one". 

 

Hm. Well, crap.

[Luridis]

 

unless they actually want to have a discussion on a forum.

 

Yeah, wondered about that. Hang on, let me get my updated 2014 contemporary dictionary for words which we don't really understand anymore: "Forum: noun \ˈfȯr-əm\, place where people fight over which opinion is the most common one, and therefore the only relevant one". 

 

Hm. Well, crap.

 

 

Yea, I don't understand that either. I have friends with whom I disagree about a great many things. But, my disagreement does not imply that I think their opinions are invalid or stupid. Any person can put fourth a well-considered argument, and while I may disagree, that doesn't mean I don't see intelligence in their response.

[archangel979]

As someone who (regrettably) spent a good deal of time on BSN, I can tell you that a big problem is that there's a number of people out there who claim they want to play RPGs, but actually hate the core gameplay mechanics that define the genre. They'll claim that RPG mechanics are "outdated" and "stupid nerd crap," that a game is an RPG because I'm "making choices and choosing dialogue options," and that "streamlining" RPGs to play more like action games is "progress" or "evolution" and that anyone who disagrees with this development is "too old" or "just nostalgia."

 

"What do you mean, my guy missed the orc? He was standing right next to him! This game is stupid!" - BAM! To-hit rolls are gone, your character can never miss.

"What do you mean, the dragon wasted my Level 1 character? I can reach him, so why can't I kill him? This game is stupid!" - BAM! Suddenly every enemy scales to your level, so you'll never encounter anything your character can't handle.

"What do you mean, I murdered someone in cold blood and my Paladin party member turned on me? This game is stupid!" - BAM! Now every party member goes along with your decisions, no matter how much it conflicts with their personality. (Mass Effect 2 was absolutely terrible with this)

"What do you mean, I told the quest-giver to go plough himself and now I can't get the Infinity +1 sword? This game is stupid!" - BAM! Now all consequences for your decisions have been removed, and every player can see everything in one play-through.

 

What these people really want is a shooter or action/adventure with more narrative interaction beyond "A space marine is you! Kill everything that isn't you!" I suspect their first "RPG" was something like Mass Effect 2, which is basically just a shooter with some superficial dialogue options and story choices. What they ought to be doing is demanding the shooter and action/adventure developers start adding more narrative interaction in their games instead of demanding that RPGs start playing like action games.

 

So RPGs are constantly being "streamlined," which means removing any gameplay mechanics that might put off non-RPG players. Not because this makes RPGs better, but because they think it will improve sales. The major publishers (and many development studios) believe that shooters and action/adventure games are the only thing that will sell, hence all other genres are pushed to margins. Fifteen years ago, a game like PoE would have been backed by a large publisher. Now, Obsidian has to rely on Kickstarter for funding, because none of the major publishers consider it viable.

 

Which gets us to a game like Skyrim, where Bethesda has removed attributes because they can't figure out what they're supposed to do. "Intelligence just increases mana!" they said, not understanding that Intelligence ought to govern things like the amount of skill points gained at level-up or what sort of dialogue options are available to the player. This was how it was implemented (albeit badly) in Fallout 3, which only goes to show that Bethesda cannot even learn from their own games!

 

Skyrim is the perfect example of how pathetic RPGs have become. It's a game where a thick-headed orc can join the mages' guild, or where an axe-wielding barbarian can join the thieves' guild, simply because the developers don't understand RPG mechanics, or they're terrified that players' choices in developing their character might lock them out of certain quests (or both). It's a game where levelling up does nothing except allow your character to keep up with the level scaling. It's a game where the role that you play is completely superficial and totally irrelevant.

 

People like to dump on BioWare, and I do that I lot myself, but Bethesda is much, much worse in every aspect. They basically make the same game over and over, only with more bugs and fewer features.

Very well said.

 

I just wanted to add that when comparing modern Bioware vs modern Skyrim both are good in one way but bad in another which makes their products flawed.

Bioware excel in storytelling. But their games lack quality gameplay. Ever since Interplay fell, Bioware games have been getting crappier and crappier gameplay. Mass Effect turned into a bad FPS with terrible "press x to use cover" system while Dragon Age into a mass grind MMO style combat.

 

Latest Elder Scrolls on the other hand have nice gameplay but story parts are bad. I really enjoyed playing Skyrim for those 20-25h. For the first 10 or so hours this was the best game I played in a long time. But then as you explore you figure out "this is it". The game does not have anything more. There is no cool story to be had, no twists to find, no C&C in anything you do. It is like a big blockbuster movie with super cool CGI but a nonsensical story and empty uninteresting characters.

Once novelty of Skyrim wear off I uninstalled it immediately and never felt the need to play it again.

 

On the other hand, I still come back to BG1 and BG2. They had both good storytelling and good gameplay. It was a good mix of both.

Edited December 11, 2014 by archangel979

[Volourn]

"IE games did. So did Fallout."

 

No.

 

 

"By GB, do you mean Gold Box? Pool of Radiance, Champions of Krynn, Eye of the Beholder, etc.? You do realize that Pool of Radiance is the game that brought attention to places like Neverwinter, right?"

 

\People don't like the GB games because of the story or the writing. They like it because of the combat and leveling up their party. Also, DnD brought attention to places like NWN. Plus, what does that even matter?

 

 

"Story[------]s gonna story[------] Volly, you know that."

\

Yup. And, I like a story with my RPG but when people talk about stories are why people like the older rpgs they are being silly. Outside of the exception known as Ultima old skool, RPGs where not about their stories. And, even Ultima's isn't really that special.

 

"Story[------]? You homophobic or something? What's next, you high-fiveing people on the forums and exclaiming "Nohomo!"

\\

The connection doesnt' make sense. he may be referring to a British ciggeratte for all you know. Are you a homophobe? I think you are. You smelled it you dealt it.

 

 

"Latest Elder Scrolls on the other hand have nice gameplay but story parts are bad."

 

No. ES series is pure crap.

Edited January 23, 2015 by TrueNeutral

[Qistina]

As someone who (regrettably) spent a good deal of time on BSN, I can tell you that a big problem is that there's a number of people out there who claim they want to play RPGs, but actually hate the core gameplay mechanics that define the genre.  -snip-

 

 

In BSN, i found it funny when a claimd to be DA:O fan hate everything about DA:O then suggesting the next games of DA series being like what he/she wanted...i found it weird.

 

Such example

 

"Darkspawn are boring, they are just orcs, remove darkspawn in the next game" - so we get clownspawn in DA2

"Grey Wardens are uninterestig, they just Jedis remake, i don't want to play as Grey Wardens in the next games" - so we get a nobody as main hero in DA2

"The combat is clunky as hell and slow, i want faster combat in the next game" - so we get manga anime combat in DA2

"The story is boring and cliche, it just gather your allies and then facing the threat, i don't want to play such boring story" - and so we get an anti-hero who fail at everything he/she do in DA2

"Dialogue options are lame, i like Mass Effect approach" - so we get dialogue wheel in DA2

"Dragon Age is boring game, uninteresting, ugly graphic, lame story, slow combat, bla bla bla bad bad bad!!! But i am a DA:O fan" - so we get DA2 and DA:I

 

I don't know who exactly these "fans" are, but they will attack whoever actually like the original game and want Bioware to maintain their identity in the next games, but Bioware listen to these "fans" and make the next games exactly like what these "fans" demanded

[archangel979]

Lol Volourn. You sure are wordy...

[Qistina]

I think internet also contribute to the downfall of RPG, we got so many claimed to be fans who hate everything in the original games, before there is no internet to fill these fans in developers forum, so the developers are free from being misguided by these sort of fans.

[mkreku]

RPG's are better than ever before. I have no idea what you guys are on about.

[Humanoid]

Fallout and BG2 were certainly highpoints in the genre, but they were more flash in the pan products of serendipity rather than the fruit of any perceived "golden era". They were the exceptions, not the norm. It seems there's a lot of dodgy extrapolation their virtues are extended to other RPGs of that era, which frankly were almost all rather terrible. Your Wizardries, your Might and Magics, your Gold Box games, all had writing even more perfunctory than Skyrim. They had mechanics that may have been interesting and addictive to some, but that's in no way different to the CRPGs of today.

 

CRPGs both then and now consist of a few islands of greatness in a sea of uninspired mediocrity.

[Luridis]

Lol Volourn. You sure are wordy...

 

Sometimes, and often in the same way a politician might be...

 

[Endrosz]

CRPGs both then and now consist of a few islands of greatness in a sea of uninspired mediocrity.

 

This. Sturgeon's 2nd Law applies everywhere ('90% of everything is crud').