Note: I have never played a role-play/adventure focused rpg until Divinity, thus consider this either an outsider's perspective or utter bullshit.
Quote
What they delivered was a series which turned from a crunchy rpg into a shooter, and ended with a choice between three different colors of unsatisfying.
While it is easy to blame CoD/consoles/whatever, I feel that there is an almost universal attitude in gaming, across all genres (excluding adventure focused rpgs obviously) and platforms to disregard the features that are important to adventure focused rpgs. Features like interesting crafting, characters, locations, dialog. Generally, the stuff that makes a world and it worth adventuring in.
While it is true that in other genres these are not as important, many would scoff at the idea that a game of any genre can be both good and be focused on it's roleplaying aspects.
It somehow stems from the idea that in a game, you need a weapon and the focus needs to be exacting violence with said weapon for it to be considered a legitimate game. It is the same reason why combat-less games like Journey and to some extent Portal get called "hipster bullshit" It is the same reason why games that have some combat but do not live or die based on it, like the original Mass Effect get pushed in the other direction in their sequels. Its because in a game with guns, the expectation is the focus should be on the guns and shooting and not the people you meet and converse with, otherwise it wouldn't be a "real game".
I wouldn't necessarily agree. There are genres of hardcore games which don't emphasize violence and weapons. Grand strategy and 4X games (like Crusader Kings and Civilization) typically stress the fact that violence is only one tool out of many, and usually not the best tool. Construction games, like Dwarf Fortress, Sim City, and Kerbal Space Program put less emphasis on destruction, and more on construction.
I think people call certain games "hipster bullshit" because they think those games are trying to be different only for the sake of being different, taking themselves too seriously, and/or are written pretentiously. Sometimes people are right, sometimes people are wrong. I've never heard anyone call Portal 'hipster bullshit'.
I think that Mass Effect was turned more and more into a shooter because shooters are what sell, nowadays. Its hardcore rpg components were toned down because the average casual gamer doesn't really care how many newtons of force their telepath character can exert with a "force push" ability, or want to sift configure dozens of equipment options, for 4 different characters.
Divinity Original Sin has been on the top sellers on Steam for over a month and the same goes for GOG.com but Bioware seems to think people don't want that anymore?
It's not necessarily that they even think people don't want it anymore, but they think that not enough people want it. And for their purposes, they're right. Larian is obviously making great profits off D:OS, but they're a 40-person company. EA has 10,000 employees, these kind of profits aren't worth their time. They're targetting the mass market, the unwashed masses (aka: console players). If you're looking for the D:OS kind of RPGs, there's no point in even paying attention to BioWare anymore.
EA struggles to make profit at all. And that is because they aim each year for blockbusters. Some year they have enough successful blockbusters and in some others 2 million sales of their game was 'poor' sales and they have a net loss.
Literally nothing would stop EA to have a few small studios to publish some AA instead AAA games. They can be quite profitable as well, start franchises and are much less risky than taking 250 million dollars and trying to produce a blockbuster that must sale at least 5 million copies to be profitable. Everyone else is doing that anyway several times per year already, the competition on that market is hard too. ;-) Well actually EA is doing a lot of AA games even, but they are nearly all licenced games and furthermore there seems to be no creative freedom involved for the studios that are contracted to develop them.
Instead of just giving fans what they want, Bioware is now making games that they think might sell better than their past titles. Dragon Age: Origins is a great and critically acclaimed game, it of course has some flaws, but it sold like 6 to 8 million copies. I personally had a blast playing it.
Could Bioware have ever reached the esteemed mark of 20 million sold copies if they would have simply continued down the beaten path? Probably, but then came EA. I don't think that DA:I will come even close to selling 6 to 8 million copies, especially not after the DA2 and ME3 fiascos.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is not visually appealing, the combat seems to simply consist of attack spamming (button mashing) with little to no tactics and the inventory (possibly even more) is suffering from very extreme consolitis. It is just another game for the bargain bin if you ask me. Maybe it isn't a bad game, but they are certainly putting a lot of effort into making it look that way.
/rant
Dragon Age Origins sold more like 5 million copies, not 6 to 8.
I wouldn't necessarily agree. There are genres of hardcore games which don't emphasize violence and weapons. Grand strategy and 4X games (like Crusader Kings and Civilization) typically stress the fact that violence is only one tool out of many, and usually not the best tool. Construction games, like Dwarf Fortress, Sim City, and Kerbal Space Program put less emphasis on destruction, and more on construction.
I think people call certain games "hipster bullshit" because they think those games are trying to be different only for the sake of being different, taking themselves too seriously, and/or are written pretentiously. Sometimes people are right, sometimes people are wrong. I've never heard anyone call Portal 'hipster bullshit'.
I think that Mass Effect was turned more and more into a shooter because shooters are what sell, nowadays. Its hardcore rpg components were toned down because the average casual gamer doesn't really care how many newtons of force their telepath character can exert with a "force push" ability, or want to sift configure dozens of equipment options, for 4 different characters.
"I think that Mass Effect was turned more and more into a shooter because shooters are what sell, nowadays."
Exactly, I wouldnt of called Mass Effect 1 "hardcore" RPG but it was definitely the only game in the series that closely resembled what an RPG "traditionally" is. I remember getting Mass Effect 2 and sitting back and going "where is the RPG in my RPG?". And then Mass Effect 3 came along and made it even worse with its boring characters, poor writing, uninteresting world design and bland gameplay. Cant wait to see the Asari homeworld? Its brown and grey with chest high walls, cant wait to see earth ? Sorry Brown and grey.
I loved the first Mass Effect and really hoped they would expand on the RPG elements, expand the "tank" missions when you were on a surface and just introduce more interesting characters, worlds, stories & converstations but the series just turned into a poor mans Gears of War.
Dont get me wrong I like to play the odd shooter, in fact I am very fond of old 90s shooters like Duke 3D, Shadow Warrior and Arena shooters like Unreal and Quake so I am not going to sit here and say I dont like a bit of mindless violence but If i wanted my game to play like COD or Gears I will play those games its that simple.
People always say they want KOTOR 3 but with this modern Bioware I wouldnt want them anywhere near KOTOR, I'd rather Obsidian work on it again if they could but finish the game this time!
Dragon Age: Inquisition is not visually appealing, the combat seems to simply consist of attack spamming (button mashing) with little to no tactics and the inventory (possibly even more) is suffering from very extreme consolitis. It is just another game for the bargain bin if you ask me. Maybe it isn't a bad game, but they are certainly putting a lot of effort into making it look that way.
/rant
I think it looks very good. The series is well on it's way to a more Skyrim'ish path and to be honest as much as most like Skyrim, there are many flaws in the vanilla non-modded version, that I can see many improvements to DA:I over stock Skyrim, which would take mods to do (waiting for them) and things that aren't available in mods. It's a huge open world game, really very little relation other than fantasy theme to D:OS.
I think it looks very good. The series is well on it's way to a more Skyrim'ish path and to be honest as much as most like Skyrim, there are many flaws in the vanilla non-modded version, that I can see many improvements to DA:I over stock Skyrim, which would take mods to do (waiting for them) and things that aren't available in mods. It's a huge open world game, really very little relation other than fantasy theme to D:OS.
Now surprising since Skyrim sold bukoo.
Well if you ask me Skyrim is the weakest in the Elder Scrolls series, as in the main numbered games, and you would have a good number of Elder Scrolls fans saying the same thing. Now I have been playing Elder Scrolls since Daggerfall and its possibly my favourite cRPG of all time but I did enjoy Skyrim for the most part but compared to even Oblivion I thought it wasn't as good.
So if Biowares ambition for DA:I is to be like Skyrim they haven't really set themselves a very high goal.
Aw, you guys are making me feel all sad and nostalgic. I too was a big fan of Bioware back in the days I considered to be the golden age of RPG's. I love D: OS and think its an incredible achievement. Someone mentioned about the size of the company. I think that is a factor in todays world. Yesteryear when gaming was in its infancy the companies were of a smaller size yet achieved some amazing things.
Sadly these days, what with all the various mobile devices and consoles, gaming has become a big industry focused much more on profit than the player. I think thats why a lot of us now look to the Indies for what we have been missing. We should support them whenever we can as without them it would all just be bloated mainstream companies running the show. Its sad what became of Bioware and all the other popular names that have gone the same way.
Don't you just hate it when you forget where you parked the dragon.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is not visually appealing, the combat seems to simply consist of attack spamming (button mashing) with little to no tactics and the inventory (possibly even more) is suffering from very extreme consolitis. It is just another game for the bargain bin if you ask me. Maybe it isn't a bad game, but they are certainly putting a lot of effort into making it look that way.
/rant
I think it looks very good. The series is well on it's way to a more Skyrim'ish path and to be honest as much as most like Skyrim, there are many flaws in the vanilla non-modded version, that I can see many improvements to DA:I over stock Skyrim, which would take mods to do (waiting for them) and things that aren't available in mods. It's a huge open world game, really very little relation other than fantasy theme to D:OS.
Now surprising since Skyrim sold bukoo.
Dragon Age Cisquisition is very far from being open world. Did you not watch any of the demos, it's a re-tread of Dragon Age 2, corridor forests and all.
Dragon Age Cisquisition is very far from being open world. Did you not watch any of the demos, it's a re-tread of Dragon Age 2, corridor forests and all.
I really can't tell much from them since they're clearly set up for whoever journo they're showing it off too or carefully choreographed as most marketing is. Whether one can run about off the trail or ignore the main quest for stretches will be key for me. I do admit that the above will be key for it to qualify as "open world" for me but I can't really tell a damn thing from the demos and I am especially frustrated by them in that they only have shown the console UI so far and I could give two craps about how that looks or works.
As for "Cisquisition" that's clever and a fair criticism but then it's also a fair criticism of most games or most things in pop culture.
Dragon Age Cisquisition is very far from being open world. Did you not watch any of the demos, it's a re-tread of Dragon Age 2, corridor forests and all.
DA:I is very far from "open world" because Bioware can hardly grasp what "open world" means. They think open world means that you can walk outside the graphics of the road.
Open world means that you can explore not just the graphics but also interact with everything in the world no matter what your progress in the main story is. In fact, under perfect conditions you should be able to complete every quest in the game at your own pace, discovering the world on your own agenda without even having a "main quest". But more importantly, open world implies that the world is filled with self contained, autonomous story lines, unto which the players stumble while exploring on their own and which ideally, organically guide them through the main story as well. Without those, there's no reason to explore, other than admire some graphics on digital trees or at best, find an easter egg. Morrowind was excellent at that, even Skyrim was pretty good at it, up to a point.
Bioware, on the other hand, never produced such a game. They made up for it with excellent writing, tight storyline, strong characters, engaging gameplay and solid mechanics. Something they threw out of the window with ME2 and DAII, because the only thing that goes through the management's head is "button-mashing-console-driven" bottom line.
Personally I love story driven, linear RPGs such as BG, The Witcher or DA:O as much as open world ones such as Morrowind or Skyrim. But I have no hopes for DA:I, I really doubt Bioware has had a revelation with it.
DA:I is very far from "open world" because Bioware can hardly grasp what "open world" means. They think open world means that you can walk outside the graphics of the road.
Open world means that you can explore not just the graphics but also interact with everything in the world no matter what your progress in the main story is. In fact, under perfect conditions you should be able to complete every quest in the game at your own pace, discovering the world on your own agenda without even having a "main quest". But more importantly, open world implies that the world is filled with self contained, autonomous story lines, unto which the players stumble while exploring on their own and which ideally, organically guide them through the main story as well. Without those, there's no reason to explore, other than admire some graphics on digital trees or at best, find an easter egg. Morrowind was excellent at that, even Skyrim was pretty good at it, up to a point.
Bioware, on the other hand, never produced such a game. They made up for it with excellent writing, tight storyline, strong characters, engaging gameplay and solid mechanics. Something they threw out of the window with ME2 and DAII, because the only thing that goes through the management's head is "button-mashing-console-driven" bottom line.
Personally I love story driven, linear RPGs such as BG, The Witcher or DA:O as much as open world ones such as Morrowind or Skyrim. But I have no hopes for DA:I, I really doubt Bioware has had a revelation with it.
Well I wouldn't say "button-mashing-console-driven" because Morrowind was on the original Xbox and console has nothing really to do with these games being watered down if you ask me because that kind of mindset is also on PC. Other than that I agree with what you're saying.
Well I wouldn't say "button-mashing-console-driven" because Morrowind was on the original Xbox and console has nothing really to do with these games being watered down if you ask me because that kind of mindset is also on PC. Other than that I agree with what you're saying.
You are right, I might have been a bit too dramatic with that. That kind of mentality as you say exists also in PC-land, but I do think it's because large publishers are actually trying to mimic the console market - or it's just downright easier to make such games.
Actually, I was pretty psyched when games like DA:O or ME were also designed for consoles, I was hoping that they would show the publishers that this kind of game actually was viable and had a future in consoles. And indeed, they were huge hits. But instead of changing the landscape of games in consoles, Bioware decided to strip features in the sequels so that they were more in line with the landscape itself. Less dialogue - or at least meaningless enough so that you can skip it, repetitious but fancy action sequences, good writing wasted on meaningless plots with no real choices, shallow but easy to swallow characters, instant gratification throughout the game, less strategy more "visceral" action, butchering of the interface to the point that inventory (in an RPG of all games) is meaningless, etc etc.
And I don't think it's a sign of the times either. Red Projekt and Bethesda, cater to the consoles as well, but they didn't water down their frachises - or at least they tried their best not to. Bioware on the other hand just took advantage of the loyal fanbase DA:O and ME has created, which is my main grivance with this company tbh.
You are right, I might have been a bit too dramatic with that. That kind of mentality as you say exists also in PC-land, but I do think it's because large publishers are actually trying to mimic the console market - or it's just downright easier to make such games.
Actually, I was pretty psyched when games like DA:O or ME were also designed for consoles, I was hoping that they would show the publishers that this kind of game actually was viable and had a future in consoles. And indeed, they were huge hits. But instead of changing the landscape of games in consoles, Bioware decided to strip features in the sequels so that they were more in line with the landscape itself. Less dialogue - or at least meaningless enough so that you can skip it, repetitious but fancy action sequences, good writing wasted on meaningless plots with no real choices, shallow but easy to swallow characters, instant gratification throughout the game, less strategy more "visceral" action, butchering of the interface to the point that inventory (in an RPG of all games) is meaningless, etc etc.
And I don't think it's a sign of the times either. Red Projekt and Bethesda, cater to the consoles as well, but they didn't water down their frachises - or at least they tried their best not to. Bioware on the other hand just took advantage of the loyal fanbase DA:O and ME has created, which is my main grivance with this company tbh.
I agree other than the Bethesda part I think Skyrim is pretty watered down and thats another series I worry about for its future.
Its what sells now a days so thats why they do it which is a shame. Like I said in an earlier post if I wanted to play a game like COD or Gears or whatever I will play THOSE games, I play an RPG to get an RPG experience not to get a watered down shooter the likes of the last 2 Mass Effect games.
People have different tastes and what is so wrong about wanting to have different play styles instead of constantly trying to blur the lines so you dont alienate people who probably wont play the game anyway! Why cant companies like Bioware see this? Hell I'd be tempted to put Bethesda in the same category as Bioware with the way things are going with them.
I think it looks very good. The series is well on it's way to a more Skyrim'ish path and to be honest as much as most like Skyrim, there are many flaws in the vanilla non-modded version, that I can see many improvements to DA:I over stock Skyrim, which would take mods to do (waiting for them) and things that aren't available in mods. It's a huge open world game, really very little relation other than fantasy theme to D:OS.
Now surprising since Skyrim sold bukoo.
Well if you ask me Skyrim is the weakest in the Elder Scrolls series
It's beloved. Certainly we can find someone on the internet that doesn't like it. But in general a home run for Open World RPG's.
It's beloved. Certainly we can find someone on the internet that doesn't like it. But in general a home run for Open World RPG's.
I loved the hell out of it. What I really liked was I could run around all over the place and ignore saving that whole world as long as possible or I could fork it's inhabitants over if I chose.
I don't think DA:I is going to be like that as I've heard you'll have to clear areas and complete tasks in order to open other areas up but I've also heard Witcher 3 will be like this. The one thing that gives me some hope about DA:I is that I did read one of the developers saying that after you completed quests you'd be able to run around in areas and have fights and do things unrelated to the main quest or keep playing after you'd finished that. Now that I do like to hear. It's one of the small disappointments about D:OS in that when it ends, baby, it ends! But since it wasn't billed as "open world" you can't get too broken-hearted about that.
Daggerfall has got to be my favourite of the series.
Daggerfall was my introduction to the Elder Scrolls series. I remember playing just the demo back in the day, and I was blown away by being able to actually walk from one town to the next, without loading zones. It was an impressive feat for it's time. And anyone who ever played it has to remember this.
Daggerfall has got to be my favourite of the series.
Daggerfall was my introduction to the Elder Scrolls series. I remember playing just the demo back in the day, and I was blown away by being able to actually walk from one town to the next, without loading zones. It was an impressive feat for it's time.
Yeah I love it, such a fantastic RPG. The stuff you could do was amazing for its time you could own multiple houses, you could own a horse, a carriage to go with the horse, a pirate ship, you could bank, the amount of guilds, etc still to this day I play the game and the scale of the game is amazing for '96. Granted most of it was randomly generated but I don't think we will ever get that level of depth with an Elder Scrolls again, Bethesda don't seem willing to do it and it feels a lot of people don't want that kind of complexity in an Elder Scrolls any more.
I enjoyed Skyrim for what it was but like I said earlier I fear for the future of the series and the usual thing that people always say to me is "if you want it like the older games just mod it" that statement really annoys me. Its like if I go to McDonald's and ask for a burger but they hand me a plate of minced meat and expect me to cook it!
