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

[Nonek]

Though I personally don't think the narrative is paramount in any game, as I believe that all elements should be interesting and up to snuff, there are some aspects of narrative development that I think need working on in most games. The mid Ultima games are shining examples of this, thematic relevance working throughout the narrative, subtle and nuanced themes that are not broadcast at the player but become self evident through playing. Ultima IV's quest for virtue and the unattainable nature of that task. Ultima V's focus on moral absolutism twisting the virtues that the Avatar champions, and the need for constant self examination. Ultima VI and its examination of racism, the dangers of certainty and the reminder that heroes can be villains to those they oppose and see their actions return to haunt them. Just as an example.

 

Obsidian and CDPR are some of the only developers i've seen in the modern era that are upholding this heritage: Obsidian routinely focuses on thematic relevance to inform every aspect of its games narrative, and this makes them very satisfying to play and unravel, for me at least. CDPR routinely ask many moral questions throughout their games, and give no clear answer other than what the player chooses to believe, as well as binding everything together under the overarching questions of, What is a monster? in the first game and What is a Witcher? in the second game. Both handle choice and consequence in a superior fashion in my opinion.

 

Themes such as these can make any game interesting to me, I do not need big bads invading from demonic realms, or any other simplistic villains. I far prefer antagonists who are all too relatable, human and flawed, existing in interesting and complex situations rather than simplistic caricatures who have no real motivation, other than acting like idiots because the unbelievable plot demands it. Unfortunately some developers cannot really handle such nuance, and thus we see extremely poorly made games when they try, that instead of relying on their themes strengths resort to the endless simplistic grinding of combat and conversation in dull grey corridors. Because there isn't any other feature to use in their games.

 

However this is only my personal preference, and sometimes I like a well made brainless action game as much as the next person, such as the fantastic combat of Severance: Blade of Darkness. Or to indulge in testing strategy and tactics against a devious opponent, and by dint of experimentation, watchfulness and forward thinking, overcome them. Ideally a game would mx all three of these things, and not to laughable results, but I realise that is an extremely daunting challenge yet to be achieved. Still one worth supporting in my view rather than settling for less and less, and defending poor games for whatever reason. 

[archangel979]

In that case Witcher 1 is not a good choice. The main villain is not nuanced or realistic. He is just bad **** insane. It does not really make the game worse as the mystery around the game and all the morally dubious side quests make up for it.

 

For Witcher 2 I never played beyond the city that only belongs to a faction you choose (act 2?!) so I don't know who is the main villain there and how nuanced they are.

[Nonek]

I totally disagree about Jacque/Alvin, he was tormented by incomplete visions of the future and saw a way to save the world. He thus acted on it. The white frost is a reality, and the Witchers world is swinging towards an ice age, this is a fact and one cannot blame Jacque for his resolve to "save" the world. Unfortunately he lost humanity in pursuing his goals, letting his methods become tainted for the sake of the noble goal. A common failing. And the great thing about this is that in chapter 4 (the heart of the game) you, the player, provide his reasoning for doing this, which he repeats to you in his dream realm at the end.

 

Thus when Geralt realises whom he has killed, upon discovery of the Dimeritium amulet, he realises that he had a hand in creating his antagonist. And had just righteously killed the child he swore to protect. A near perfect denouement in my opinion, and a warning against judging too quickly even the greatest monsters.

 

The Witcher 2 doesn't really have a villain, it has a main antagonist who is a mirror image of Geralt, but chose to follow a different path under very similar circumstances. Everything about Letho is calculated to be the very opposite of Geralt, purposely so reinforcing the games theme of Geralt questioning himself and what he does, which rises organically from the ending of the first game. The other antagonists are of ones own choosing, Dethmold is loyal, clever, powerful and witty for all of his faults and has as many good sides to his character as faults. Philippa for all her faults is trying to make a better world, and prepare against external enemies, though her methods are repellant. All of the chosen antagonists are similarly three dimensional people, with realistic and relatable motivations, rather than caricatures spouting evil cliches.

 

Even Eredin's Dearg Rhudri are not the simplistic villains they pretend to be, though dead worlds of bleached bones lie in the Aen Elles background.

[archangel979]

While Jacque/Alvin reveal was cool , it didn't make him an interesting villain. You basically don't meet him before the end (Jacque). He is different enough from Alvin that you can easily consider them two separate characters. Well Alvin is just a narrative tool so your own character can be made kind of guilty for all the mess.

I didn't consider him any more interesting than Sarevok. Both are bat **** insane and have mass murder as their goal no matter how misguided they are behind it. And you meet Sarevok at the beginning and keep hearing about him through second part of the game.

Jacque is just a person behind all the people doing ****, he is as faceless as Archdemon in DAO.

[Nonek]

I'm afraid I still have to disagree, you meet Salamandra and the Flaming Rose, Jacques right and left hands at almost the beginning of the game and they spark the whole quest. Indeed Azar Javed's name translates as Eternal Fire, hinting at whom he serves. Jacques and Alvin are there throughout, you simply do not see it except in hindsight, a masterful reveal in my opinion.

 

Sarevok's actions are selfish, he wishes to seize godhood, which in the Forgotten realms is perfectly understandable for a power broker, not insane at all. Jacque is the exact opposite, he wishes to save all humanity for selfless reasons not commit mass murder, and as a source he possibly has the power to actually do so, this is not insane. Egotistical and delusional maybe, but not insane at the beginning.

 

Jacque/Alvin in my opinion is one of the best realised and most nuanced antagonists in recent gaming history, and a daring narrative experiment that less ambitious developers simply would not even try.

[licketysplit]

While Jacque/Alvin reveal was cool , it didn't make him an interesting villain. You basically don't meet him before the end (Jacque). He is different enough from Alvin that you can easily consider them two separate characters. Well Alvin is just a narrative tool so your own character can be made kind of guilty for all the mess.

I didn't consider him any more interesting than Sarevok. Both are bat **** insane and have mass murder as their goal no matter how misguided they are behind it. And you meet Sarevok at the beginning and keep hearing about him through second part of the game.

Jacque is just a person behind all the people doing ****, he is as faceless as Archdemon in DAO.

 

The writers would never say, but there's almost zero chance Jacque isn't Alvin. As to the topic at hand, some things have been lost, others are better than ever now. And I can always go back, replay those games of yore.

[Tale]

Jacque had two really cool things going for him. Throwing back your own words/choices and the twist.

 

Neither really made me compelled by the character. But the design! It's simply brilliant. The villains motivations are shaped by the player.

[HoonDing]

Wonder whether the choice at the very end of Witcher 1 will matter in 3.

[Gizmo]

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.

Alas... there are some [too many] that not only seem to thrive on the arguement itself, but willfully ignore any intelligence put forth in its points; seeking only an angle to chip away at it. The worst garnish their posts with insults.

[500MetricTonnes]

Ugh, The Witcher. I don't think I've ever endured a series that rubbed me the wrong way as this one did. Now, I personally loathe "dark and gritty" fantasy, so obviously The Witcher and the sequel weren't really aimed at someone like me, but I decided to play them regardless because people kept falling over themselves praising them as some of the greatest RPGs in the last decade. And I had just finished playing Dragon Age II, and I was eager to find something to cleanse the palate.

 

Let's just say that I managed to finish DA2, though I had to force myself to do so, and accomplished this feat only with the aid of copious amounts of vodka. I never finished either of The Witcher games, which is odd, because both of them are better than DA2. My reasons?

 

1: I hate Geralt. Hate, hate, hate Geralt. He's the grim, cynical, world-weary anti-hero who speaks in a gravelly monotone and his only facial expression is a po-faced grimace. I loathe this character type, partly because I feel like I've seen his like a thousand times before. He's supposed to be an outsider, considered something less than human because he's a witcher, yet women are regularly throwing themselves at him. And of course, witchers are sterile and immune to disease, allowing Geralt to engage in numerous sexual encounters without any consequence. How wonderfully convenient. His whole character feels like a juvenile power fantasy and a shameless, alienating manwhore. I spent most of the game wanting for him to die horribly.

 

2: I hate the world Geralt inhabits. I get it, this is supposed to be some dark, gritty, morally ambiguous world, but I never once encountered an NPC that was even remotely likable or whose plight I cared about. Everyone is either some irritating, loathsome, completely amoral, despicable swine or a hapless oaf scrabbling to survive like a vagrant. The writers present the "darkness" of the world with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the groin. In the first game, one NPC quips "I can't sleep over the sound of my neighbour beating his wife."

 

Really? Really? That's one step removed from Borat. I kept expecting someone to tell Geralt, "This is Urkin, town rapist. Naughty, naughty!"

 

These two factors destroyed any interest I had in the games. Sure, they offer choices more complex than "Kick the dog" or "Set the dog on fire and throw it into a pit of alligators," but since I hated the protagonist and the world around him, I had no real investment in making these choices. It basically came down to, "All right, do I want to see the Roche or Iorveth path this time?"

 

I'm pretty much immune to whatever charm this series possesses.

Edited December 13, 2014 by 500MetricTonnes

[licketysplit]

I thought it was awesome.

[Bryy]

Only reason why it went downhill is because players don't want to read anymore and so the games have catered to this public.

Oh please. Let's stop this immature, petty, kindergarten crap.

[Luridis]

1: I hate Geralt. Hate, hate, hate Geralt. He's the grim, cynical, world-weary anti-hero who speaks in a gravelly monotone and his only facial expression is a po-faced grimace. I loathe this character type, partly because I feel like I've seen his like a thousand times before. He's supposed to be an outsider, considered something less than human because he's a witcher, yet women are regularly throwing themselves at him. And of course, witchers are sterile and immune to disease, allowing Geralt to engage in numerous sexual encounters without any consequence. How wonderfully convenient. His whole character feels like a juvenile power fantasy and a shameless, alienating manwhore. I spent most of the game wanting for him to die horribly.

 

I don't dislike him per se, but I do think he could have been written a little better. On the note of his interactions with women, I stopped pursuing them in the first game because they were trite and meaningless encounters. How can you sleep with someone who is essentially invisible to you? He didn't know them, at all... Not even at the level of an hours worth of conversation to be had at a bar. How can you jump in bed with someone you in which you have found nothing noteworthy? There has to be something, their eyes, candor, smile, way they speak... He wasn't around any of them long enough to remember their hair color in a lot of cases. They might as well have been an illusion he could hump, or a robot.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Ugh, The Witcher. I don't think I've ever endured a series that rubbed me the wrong way as this one did. Now, I personally loathe "dark and gritty" fantasy, so obviously The Witcher and the sequel weren't really aimed at someone like me, but I decided to play them regardless because people kept falling over themselves praising them as some of the greatest RPGs in the last decade. And I had just finished playing Dragon Age II, and I was eager to find something to cleanse the palate.

 

Let's just say that I managed to finish DA2, though I had to force myself to do so, and accomplished this feat only with the aid of copious amounts of vodka. I never finished either of The Witcher games, which is odd, because both of them are better than DA2. My reasons?

 

1: I hate Geralt. Hate, hate, hate Geralt. He's the grim, cynical, world-weary anti-hero who speaks in a gravelly monotone and his only facial expression is a po-faced grimace. I loathe this character type, partly because I feel like I've seen his like a thousand times before. He's supposed to be an outsider, considered something less than human because he's a witcher, yet women are regularly throwing themselves at him. And of course, witchers are sterile and immune to disease, allowing Geralt to engage in numerous sexual encounters without any consequence. How wonderfully convenient. His whole character feels like a juvenile power fantasy and a shameless, alienating manwhore. I spent most of the game wanting for him to die horribly.

 

2: I hate the world Geralt inhabits. I get it, this is supposed to be some dark, gritty, morally ambiguous world, but I never once encountered an NPC that was even remotely likable or whose plight I cared about. Everyone is either some irritating, loathsome, completely amoral, despicable swine or a hapless oaf scrabbling to survive like a vagrant. The writers present the "darkness" of the world with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the groin. In the first game, one NPC quips "I can't sleep over the sound of my neighbour beating his wife."

 

Really? Really? That's one step removed from Borat. I kept expecting someone to tell Geralt, "This is Urkin, town rapist. Naughty, naughty!"

 

These two factors destroyed any interest I had in the games. Sure, they offer choices more complex than "Kick the dog" or "Set the dog on fire and throw it into a pit of alligators," but since I hated the protagonist and the world around him, I had no real investment in making these choices. It basically came down to, "All right, do I want to see the Roche or Iorveth path this time?"

 

I'm pretty much immune to whatever charm this series possesses.

 

Agreed on so many levels. I picked them up on a steam deal and just couldn't get into it. If driftwood mated with a zombie, you'd get Geralt. Worst protagonist ever. Combat was also very dull for me. The story, which is supposed to be a selling point couldn't pull me in because I could not care less about any of the characters, factions, or their motivations. I also found the binary choices very forced in a world that was supposed to consist of shades of grey. I like the poker dice game, and I thought atmosphere was very well done--the environments were fully realized and alive. Beyond that...*yawn*.

[Gizmo]

Ugh, The Witcher. I don't think I've ever endured a series that rubbed me the wrong way as this one did. Now, I personally loathe "dark and gritty" fantasy, so obviously The Witcher and the sequel weren't really aimed at someone like me, but I decided to play them regardless because people kept falling over themselves praising them as some of the greatest RPGs in the last decade. And I had just finished playing Dragon Age II, and I was eager to find something to cleanse the palate.

 

Let's just say that I managed to finish DA2, though I had to force myself to do so, and accomplished this feat only with the aid of copious amounts of vodka. I never finished either of The Witcher games, which is odd, because both of them are better than DA2. My reasons?

 

1: I hate Geralt. Hate, hate, hate Geralt. He's the grim, cynical, world-weary anti-hero who speaks in a gravelly monotone and his only facial expression is a po-faced grimace. I loathe this character type, partly because I feel like I've seen his like a thousand times before. He's supposed to be an outsider, considered something less than human because he's a witcher, yet women are regularly throwing themselves at him. And of course, witchers are sterile and immune to disease, allowing Geralt to engage in numerous sexual encounters without any consequence. How wonderfully convenient. His whole character feels like a juvenile power fantasy and a shameless, alienating manwhore. I spent most of the game wanting for him to die horribly.

 

2: I hate the world Geralt inhabits. I get it, this is supposed to be some dark, gritty, morally ambiguous world, but I never once encountered an NPC that was even remotely likable or whose plight I cared about. Everyone is either some irritating, loathsome, completely amoral, despicable swine or a hapless oaf scrabbling to survive like a vagrant. The writers present the "darkness" of the world with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the groin. In the first game, one NPC quips "I can't sleep over the sound of my neighbour beating his wife."

 

Really? Really? That's one step removed from Borat. I kept expecting someone to tell Geralt, "This is Urkin, town rapist. Naughty, naughty!"

 

These two factors destroyed any interest I had in the games. Sure, they offer choices more complex than "Kick the dog" or "Set the dog on fire and throw it into a pit of alligators," but since I hated the protagonist and the world around him, I had no real investment in making these choices. It basically came down to, "All right, do I want to see the Roche or Iorveth path this time?"

 

I'm pretty much immune to whatever charm this series possesses.

I think Witcher was the best RPG of the last decade. I liked the game for its gameplay mechanics; which Witcher 2 utterly ruined or discarded outright.

(Though I do like the W2 art design.) I liked Geralt and the Witcher world setting for precisely the first reasons you mention.

 

The W2 minigames and QTE's annoy; and they somehow ruined the dice game; they turned the bar fights into Whack-a-mole/'Simon Says'.

 

  The engine trick with the doors meant that Geralt had to fully enter a new room... this also annoyed; it shut the door ~even if that room was seen to be full of enemies; and sometimes the doors would lock. Combat devolved into random sword swinging; gone were the Witcher sword styles and combos; gone was the multiple camera setup; gone was Geralt's common sense usage of potions.  Gameplay-wise Witcher 2 was a real let down for me.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Gizmo

[Luridis]

What I don't understand is why everyone says games that use a type of axonometric projection are dead. D3 used it and sold well, and RPGs have been using that kind of thing all the way back to the first Zelda, etc. Top down, 3rd person, isometric, etc. views are completely doable for console systems. No one playing RTS games seems to think that kind of view is on its way out, but RPG's seem to be focusing more and more on FPS style interfaces.

 

I'd love to see D3's graphics quality and engine smoothness combined with mechanics on the order of KoTR, NWN1, NWN2, etc. Heck, I wouldn't mind if they left out the parts that just really wouldn't work on a console. You can make a game for console and PC where the RPG mechanics aren't reduced to remedial levels.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Luridis

[Blodhemn]

I didn't like Geralt(mostly because the English voice acting was bad), but the Witcher 1 was a good game in spite of that. Funny that the same elite user, clearly above the casual gamer, is also writing off one of the more complex games simply due to some personal gripes.

[Volourn]

There's nothing complex about the Twitchers. NOTHING. Not story wise, not character wise, not writing wise, non gameplay wise. NOTHING.

[Luridis]

I didn't like Geralt(mostly because the English voice acting was bad), but the Witcher 1 was a good game in spite of that. Funny that the same elite user, clearly above the casual gamer, is also writing off one of the more complex games simply due to some personal gripes.

 

Do you think that maybe it could just be personal taste? Personally, I've seen complex and even well done games I didn't like simply because it was not to my personal taste.

 

Look at Volourn, clearly hard to please on all counts: mechanics, story, writing, etc. But, there's nothing really wrong with that. If you're going to invest a lot of your time in something, why not do with something you really like? I'm still waiting for a 4x game as good as Master of Orion 2, and it has been nearly 20 years since that was released.

 

Personally, I'm not saying let's ditch console development, or stop making casual focused games, just that it would be nice to see something further out on the edge. My hope is that development is just in an expensive place at the moment. Perhaps as better tools and engines come out, it will reduce the need to focus on mass appeal. Imagine if a whole new generation of 3D modeling tools came out that allowed game artists to produce models 8x faster.

[Endrosz]

It is interesting to see that the Witchers so strongly polarize people, often a mix of both extremes WRT different aspects of the games. Which is good for sales, because the worst long-term reaction to a game is forgetting about it. People remember the Witcher, whether they liked it or loathed it.

 

I'm one of the few people who utterly disliked the rhythm-game combat of W1, and liked the action-combat of W2 a little bit more (just a little bit), because there was a better connection between clicks and actions. But otherwise, it drew me in. I still remember the somber music in Vizima, as the rain fell down on the cobbled streets, and people hurried to find shelter.

 

BTW, Geralt isn't an anti-hero, because anti-heroes have "bad" goals, but they have redeeming qualities. Apart from continued work as a monster-hunter, Geralt doesn't really have goals besides regaining his memories. Both games provide additional goals, they draw you into conflicts, but Geralt never, ever has a self-set goal which would qualify him as an anti-hero. Even the third game's main quest is still about the lost memories, the encounter with the Wild Hunt, and finding Yennefer and Ciri. There's nothing "bad" in there.

[Nonek]

I seem to have unwittingly shunted this thread aside into discussion of the Witcher, really not my intent, i'd prefer it to remain focused on the degeneration of RPGs over the last twenty years.

 

Personally I found Geralt as the classic Noir protagonist to be quite compelling, but then again i'm extremely tired of the undefined, boring, over emotional, squeeing morons, we usually have to play. Geralt was a nice tonic in comparison to this, understated and stoic. He was also professional and experienced in his field of expertise, started quests himself rather than waiting for others to tell him what to do, and was not pretty or nice, appealing aspects to me.

 

As a student of history I found the world brilliantly realised, with interesting complex situations around every corner and its characters charming and amusing in equal measure. Zoltans rough homespun philosophy, Siegfrieds geekish nobility, Vincent Meis' essential valour and humanity etcetera. The cast was some of the best presented, unusual and realistically likable that I have ever seen. I far preferred these NPCs to the usual caricatures experienced in most games, built upon archetypes without any humanity or soul to them.

 

The world of the Witcher is undoubtedly a dark place, reflecting its realism and inspiration in the middle age, but because of this good deeds stand out all the brighter, and are far more rewarding in my opinion. I far prefer this to the usual fantasy worlds, that are merely modern worlds with a thin covering of renaissance fayre flavour. Shallow, unrealistic and simplistic.

 

All my own opinion however, and I certainly respect others.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Nonek

[Nonek]

What I don't understand is why everyone says games that use a type of axonometric projection are dead. D3 used it and sold well, and RPGs have been using that kind of thing all the way back to the first Zelda, etc. Top down, 3rd person, isometric, etc. views are completely doable for console systems. No one playing RTS games seems to think that kind of view is on its way out, but RPG's seem to be focusing more and more on FPS style interfaces.

 

I'd love to see D3's graphics quality and engine smoothness combined with mechanics on the order of KoTR, NWN1, NWN2, etc. Heck, I wouldn't mind if they left out the parts that just really wouldn't work on a console. You can make a game for console and PC where the RPG mechanics aren't reduced to remedial levels.

 

Back on topic, I can't help but agree with Mr Luridis. It seems to be a matter of what is fashionable, rather than what is best suited to the game and its style. Turn based combat is similarly widely reviled, despite its strengths, as an outdated and degenerative option. When in truth it is merely another option. It has weaknesses of course, but so does every method of combat implementation, even the best designed.

 

It is in my opinion a pity when game design choices are rejected simply because they are not fashionable anymore, but at least we have Kickstarter to revive such mechanics, and embrace variety and choice.

[Luridis]

While I don't like most JRPGs, and that doesn't make me think they're invalid; it's just a matter of personal taste. Some of the best selling titles of all time, i.e. FF VII, are not first-person.

 

What will wake up publishers? Whatever will wake up people... Someone needs to do a stellar isometric, party based game where managing combat and action queues isn't annoying, is intuitive, also complex, but easy to learn. That's essentially what made WoW take over a decade ago, learning to play didn't require getting over the massive hump of a learning curve, yet a lot of "i think I'll give this a try" types went on to do things like 40 man raids.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Luridis

[Luridis]

 

Only reason why it went downhill is because players don't want to read anymore and so the games have catered to this public.

Oh please. Let's stop this immature, petty, kindergarten crap.

 

 

I'll be honest and say I've fallen into that trap myself, many times. Sometimes, I think it's just a way of venting frustration with the current landscape. That said, I think most people can handle complexity in RPGs just fine. What seems to make complex games unpopular is when you first load it up and that complexity hits the player like a brick.

[archangel979]

What I don't understand is why everyone says games that use a type of axonometric projection are dead. D3 used it and sold well, and RPGs have been using that kind of thing all the way back to the first Zelda, etc. Top down, 3rd person, isometric, etc. views are completely doable for console systems. No one playing RTS games seems to think that kind of view is on its way out, but RPG's seem to be focusing more and more on FPS style interfaces.

 

I'd love to see D3's graphics quality and engine smoothness combined with mechanics on the order of KoTR, NWN1, NWN2, etc. Heck, I wouldn't mind if they left out the parts that just really wouldn't work on a console. You can make a game for console and PC where the RPG mechanics aren't reduced to remedial levels.

D3 is not really a good example of anything. And good sales do not equal a good game. It equals good marketing. And in D3 case, good Blizzard reputation. But Blizzard **** on themselves with D3. Their reputation went down the drain after D3 even if it sold well (I bought it but I wish I didn't).