There ARE people still making CRPGs, though. It's just that they are perceived to be not popular enough to cover. Without that extra challenge of criticism and player scrutiny, you're going to wind up getting mediocre titles that are made to scratch that basic itch you and I have for more complex mechanics, but they're not going to have fan pressure and competition make them much better. On of the few games I reviewed on here tried something really different, and when it was combined with the skill system and story it was a breath of fresh air. It still had a bit of that JRPG feeling if you're not into that, but it was an attempt at something new, with some hectic and challenging combat.
After reading your article I've discovered what I like the most is probably a combination of exploration and customization, with good tactical combat really keeping me interested. Customization like in Might and Magic was some of my favorite, where you could pick your party members, pick what they learned, their arsenal, their starting stats, everything. Icewind Dale 2 was a frigging masterstroke in so many ways and I still get a bit excited recalling some of the desperate battles from that game, but I think what made me love it was that that party was MINE from the ground up, with background, class, portraits, everything all because I put them there. Sure, that makes the story exist more in the environment than with my characters, but that's really not a compromise in my book, that's just another way to tell a story.
I think the reason I like games like Elder Scrolls is partly because of that customization. I feel like I make my stamp on my character (even if the world seems a bit obsessed with me, preventing immersion feelings... why can't there be other hero characters running around?), but I don't much consider it the same kind of game as what you're talking about, so I don't see much of a conflict. It's just that even when I play a fun oldie like Buck Rogers, which used the Gold Box engine, it's not just the tactics that keep me interested, it's that I feel invested in the characters.
When you move toward a market where everyone expects fully-voiced dialog, you have a problem when it comes to that customization, since you're not likely to be able to afford tons of voice actors for all the contingencies. When we made the move toward 3D, Snide, we watched as more and more effort went to making inclines and big palaces, with less time devoted toward making a controlled and expansive tactical experience.
It's cool that DA worked for you, and I wonder how you feel about the DA2 previews, but I wonder if part of our problem is that we're not casting the net wide enough to include stuff that you wouldn't see on too mainstream a site. The chances for more development in this field is still going on, I think, it's just that a lot of us are never going to notice it because the coverage won't be there.
Mass Effect 2
Game » consists of 21 releases. Released Jan 26, 2010
After a violent death by an unknown force and a timely reanimation by the human supremacist organization Cerberus, Commander Shepard must assemble a new squad in the seedier side of the galaxy for a suicide mission in the second installment of the "Mass Effect" trilogy.
Woah, got too many questions about Mass Effect 2
Have you played Grotesque Tactics? It's a Tactical RPG with a lot of references to games of yore.
Best article i have read in months on Giantbomb, thanks for sharing your opinion, i agree completely.
Did you ever play tactical shooters like Rainbow Six? It's another genre that has fallen from grace. The games have gotten progressively more linear since the original PC releases. In the original R6 games every map was rendered fully, and were fully populated by enemies instead of having arbitrary spawn locations. It created an environment where you felt like anything could happen. Gameplay in the recent editions of R6 and Ghost Recon (GR less so) have just felt like... "uh oh my screen is turning red, I better hide behind this wall until it goes back to normal. Then I will return to picking off these tangos one by one in this long hallway filled with doors that can't be opened."
You're obviously correct to hold that opinion about Mass Effect 2 and similar games, and there's no revelation to make you love them. Some people might be picking apart your opinion or misunderstanding your meaning, but if your main focus is the specific style of tactical turn based combat with deep character progression, there's very little to like about modern role-playing games despite their other strengths.
I'm mainly curious about your comment regarding your appreciation of STALKER. I absolutely love the games, but the things I like about STALKER are how it's unforgiving, tense, and the setting is unique to me. The fact that the guns feel good to shoot and that the enemies are dangerous is obviously to its benefit, but I feel like there's very little shared in regards to the tactics and progression with CRPGs; the only real tactics STALKER has compared to other FPSs is 'be careful of bullets and sharp things because they really hurt'. The illusion of depth in the combat of STALKER is removed when you realize that you can beat nearly every monster by standing on a barrel, and every human will slowly walk towards you if you hide around the corner of a building with your gun lined up to their head. That doesn't remove how dangerous things feel however, as running blindly around can still get you killed easily, so the game remains tense and exciting as you feel like you have to keep on top of your game to survive. I don't think that there are any options in STALKER that aren't in just about every other first person shooter, it mostly removes the option to soak up bullets while shooting everybody. That's obviously a good thing, but I don't feel its something that's tactical, uncommon, or what makes STALKER good.
Regardless of my blabbing about STALKER, I also want to suggest that you play some roguelikes. I think I recall you saying that you weren't interested in playing Nethack when people were suggesting you games, but I'm not sure if you've actually tried it or other roguelikes. I wouldn't consider Nethack the best choice considering the things that you like about CRPGs, but you did mention Rogue and I feel they all have a lot in common with the tactical combat aspect of CRPGs although at the expense of story. I think if you can deal with CRPGs in general, there's a lot of roguelikes that are simpler, and I'd recommend trying a more forgiving roguelike with the option to back up saves (it removes a lot of the tension, but it seems like something you might prefer) that still has a lot of options. There's a shitload of roguelikes out there and if you're interested there's a lot of people who can give recommendations, but I'd first suggest Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup (it has 2d graphics and is generally really good), and if you're feeling adventurous I'd suggest Incursion (based on a modified D&D 3.5 system, has tumble and escape artist skills, you can be a lizardman druid who's combat strategy is to summon water and fight while your enemies drown, or a priest with heat resistance that grabs guys and tackles them while on fire/into lava, but it's unfinished and really unpolished with ASCII graphics and really dense). On second thought, maybe I wouldn't recommend Incursion, but it has basically the best combat in a roguelike and if you can play it it could be exactly what you want out of an RPG.
Anyways, it's a good thing that you're involved with Giant Bomb, but I understand better why you don't have more prominent role.The comment regarding "takes hours before you learn to play them properly" is indicative of both the strengths and weaknesses of Japanese games in addition to eastern bloc. Let me state that I enjoy games with vastly different gameplay styles that require a completely different method of thinking from the last game you played. But simply put, the games in question are poorly designed, not from a gameplay standpoint, but a philosophical one. Difficult to learn, easy to master is NOT what you aim for. The goal is easy to learn, difficult to master. Simplicity is not a demon, as an artist yourself, you know simplicity is the ideal. The trick is adding additional layers beyond it, not in presenting an impenetrable front that never expands.
And difficulty and the proper use of it is a whole other topic that I won't even brooch.
RPG = Role Playing Game. At it's core it's about becoming another person. This started with D&D. Games like Baldur's Gate brought it to the PC.
But when I think about a game that actually puts me in another person's shoes, in another universe, I think about Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, and Fallout 3. I am playing the role of another person. I do not think about a helicopter high view of my little wizard shooting magic missiles and collecting loot. That stuff is mostly going away because it just doesn't cut it anymore in terms of the actual role-playing.
Also, playing Mass Effect 2 on higher difficulties requires a whole LOT of strategy for every battle.
" RPG = Role Playing Game. At it's core it's about becoming another person. This started with D&D. Games like Baldur's Gate brought it to the PC. But when I think about a game that actually puts me in another person's shoes, in another universe, I think about Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, and Fallout 3. I am playing the role of another person. I do not think about a helicopter high view of my little wizard shooting magic missiles and collecting loot. That stuff is mostly going away because it just doesn't cut it anymore in terms of the actual role-playing. Also, playing Mass Effect 2 on higher difficulties requires a whole LOT of strategy for every battle. "A RTS requires a whole lot of strategy, doesn't mean it's an RPG.
By that logic, are you saying Zelda is an RPG? I am playing the role of Link, I am in his iron-clad shoes.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you've said Dave. That said, I still very much enjoyed Mass Effect 2.
Fuuuuck yes. The Witcher is the light at the end of the tunnel. So fucking good. Can't wait for number 2." Witcher 2, dude. Witcher 2. "
Edit: As far as the original post, I agree with a lot of what was said. I grew up playing CRPG's and to see them completely die out would be incredibly sad, but I also enjoy games such as Oblivion and Mass Effect 2 and Fallout 3. I guess that makes me part of the problem =( like someone else said, it's a shame both can't coexist. Though I do agree that ME 2 did feel dumbed down from the first game and it was incredibly linear. So many corridors.
ME2 was hardly an RPG for me. I know that people will come and say "an RPG is about playing a role, duh" but I mean, come on. You KNOW what I mean. There are hardly any skills for each character to learn, the level cap is insanely small compared to ME1, and this overall lends to the game feeling the same no matter how you play it. In Mass Effect 1 there were so much skills and levels you could really go off and do crazy things with your character, or you could also really fuck him up and make the game a nightmare because of your bad leveling decisions. These are things I appreciate in RPGs, not just the characters and story. Even though ME1 had a better story by MILES
" @McGhee_the_Insomniac said:I didn't say the fact that Mass Effect requires strategy makes it an RPG. If you paid attention to my post it shouldn't be difficult to see that I was making two separate points. My parting shot was addressing the claim that Mass Effect is "dumbed down" as some say, like when Snider says, " I miss the puzzles of battle. I miss counterspells. I miss crowd control. I miss focus fire. I even miss the idea of things like tumble rolls. I miss knowing that in some battles I should take the mage out first, but in others I should prolly sleep his minions and take out the healer."" RPG = Role Playing Game. At it's core it's about becoming another person. This started with D&D. Games like Baldur's Gate brought it to the PC. But when I think about a game that actually puts me in another person's shoes, in another universe, I think about Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, and Fallout 3. I am playing the role of another person. I do not think about a helicopter high view of my little wizard shooting magic missiles and collecting loot. That stuff is mostly going away because it just doesn't cut it anymore in terms of the actual role-playing. Also, playing Mass Effect 2 on higher difficulties requires a whole LOT of strategy for every battle. "A RTS requires a whole lot of strategy, doesn't mean it's an RPG. By that logic, are you saying Zelda is an RPG? I am playing the role of Link, I am in his iron-clad shoes. "
Damn, did you even read Snider's post? Did you even read mine? Don't waste my time with nonsense. Good day, sir.
Amen, brother.
Glad to see not everyone thought ME2 was a gift from god. I fully endorse this thread.
" @zoner said:Arguing against implied things is silly. Call of Duty is also hard on a much harder difficulty,and can be put to the same logic. There isn't the type of mental process going on in Mass Effect 2 versus say a Dragon Age on hardest difficulty. It's the same thing as any other shooter. Step one; the enemy is coming through that room, I need to set a warp(Grenade/mine) at the choke point. Step two, I need to keep my distance and pick off enemies that are weakened. If there is an enemy that is weak to one of my party member's abilitys, I will use that ability. If there is an enemy Vanguard/Krogan(Shotgun user in any FPS), I need to always keep them in mind as they can sneak up on me and kill me." @McGhee_the_Insomniac said:I didn't say the fact that Mass Effect requires strategy makes it an RPG. If you paid attention to my post it shouldn't be difficult to see that I was making two separate points. My parting shot was addressing the claim that Mass Effect is "dumbed down" as some say, like when Snider says, " I miss the puzzles of battle. I miss counterspells. I miss crowd control. I miss focus fire. I even miss the idea of things like tumble rolls. I miss knowing that in some battles I should take the mage out first, but in others I should prolly sleep his minions and take out the healer." Damn, did you even read Snider's post? Did you even read mine? Don't waste my time with nonsense. Good day, sir. "" RPG = Role Playing Game. At it's core it's about becoming another person. This started with D&D. Games like Baldur's Gate brought it to the PC. But when I think about a game that actually puts me in another person's shoes, in another universe, I think about Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, and Fallout 3. I am playing the role of another person. I do not think about a helicopter high view of my little wizard shooting magic missiles and collecting loot. That stuff is mostly going away because it just doesn't cut it anymore in terms of the actual role-playing. Also, playing Mass Effect 2 on higher difficulties requires a whole LOT of strategy for every battle. "A RTS requires a whole lot of strategy, doesn't mean it's an RPG. By that logic, are you saying Zelda is an RPG? I am playing the role of Link, I am in his iron-clad shoes. "
There is no major strategy going on in Mass Effect. It's simply about knowing where the enemy is and prioritizing those enemies. It's not about cursing, setting weaknesses, buffing. The only exceptions are boss fights, which number what 2 with legitimately different mechanics?
Why would you ask a rhetorical question? No need to get uppity.
Guild Wars offers more deep tactical combat than any old CRPG, which is why I don't really miss them that much I guess. I really loved Dragon Age, but the amount of rape that mages could dish out just made the game way too easy after a while.
I disagree with nearly everything he says. The truth is that sales of more hardcore RPGs have been in decline for ten years or more, and there's simply no substantial market for such games to justify the inflated budgets required for AAA game development these days. The result has been the third-person shooter/RPG hybrid, which includes Mass Effect and, to a lesser degree, Dragon Age. We see that Skyrim is going to move in that direction, as has the Fallout series. Yes, blame KOTOR for this. But KOTOR is the reason we have AAA titles with RPG elements at all. Without it's success and the new style of gameplay it pioneered, there would be no RPG-style hybrids at all. Mass Effect certainly never would have been made, and likely not Dragon Age either.
The answer to his complaints about difficulty in ME2 is pretty simple: play the game on Insanity. I think that would solve most of his problems. The game becomes far more strategic at that level. Not that you can't use the game's combat system more strategically at lower levels, but Insane forces the gamer's hand. And I think that's the problem with most complaints about Mass Effect 2: gamers chose to play it one way, then criticized it for not being different. You can play it like a third-person shooter if you want (at least on lower difficulty levels) but you don't have to. Dragon Age had the same style of flexibility. On lower difficulties, you could almost play it as a real-time hack and slash if you wanted. On harder difficulties, the game required more micromanagement and strategy. It's difficult to fault Bioware for giving us more choices in how to approach the game, but these criticisms seem to stem from that flexibility.
"They are god-damned different that it takes you a couple hours just to figure out how to play them correctly. Look, that limits their appeal, but shit, that's what I enjoy out of games these days: a novel approach."
And this is the real problem with a lot of gamers these days. They want everything. You can't have a AAA title that requires hours and hours of just figuring out how the system works. And when AAA titles come out, they expect them to be everything they want. People are more intuitive about this with other entertainment, like movies. They know that if they go to a big tent-pole movie release that they're likely to get action, but probably not the best writing or acting. And that's alright. Because they know what they're going to get. Those movies are designed for mass appeal. With games, though, some still feel that they ought to be given everything. They want everything that goes with a AAA budget, but they want features that only a 100,000 people or so are interested in dealing with.
Mass Effect 2, for instance, had enough RPG elements to make most RPG fans content. It had a decent story, great characters, and combat that made most third-person shooter fans content. Wide appeal, great sales, and overall nearly everyone who bought it left the game happy. You don't go to see Ironman, for instance, expecting deep, nuanced performances. You're lucky if you get convincing performances. Or even decent performances. Classical RPGs are mostly dead at the AAA level, and have been since KOTOR. It's been a decade. I think classic RPG fans need to get over this, get used to the fact that their favorite genre has been back-benched, and realize that not many people take their complaints about Mass Effect 2 very seriously because the game was never intended to satisfy their demands in the first place.
But that's an initialism, not an acronym.
Thinking about this topic more made me think about how young our medium is. The games industry is 30-35 years old, which puts us somewhere in the Humphrey Bogart era if comparing to film. I thought about how BioWare began making niche games, and did that well, and decided on their own volition that they wanted to take the elements of those niche games they enjoyed, and move them into more and more accessible formats. It made me think of film directors and how their work changes throughout their careers/lives, and how most of our developers (directors) are so young in comparison.
I've heard mentions of how there's no room for AAA budget traditional CRPGs... there never really was. The RPG as a genre is so widely accepted now that I think people forget how hard it was to get them made in the 90s. It wasn't until Final Fantasy VII that the JRPG became something you'd put money behind, rather than a limited release thing for fans only. Dave is right, it will take the indie developers who only want to create the kind of games they like for those throwbacks to reappear.
From what I can tell, the things that Dave and others desire from those games are not the same thing I desire. I desired the complex narratives and player interaction and choice that only they offered... I was not going to get meaningful dialogue or choice from action games of that era. The grognard, hyper-complicated combat and punishing difficulty was simply a chore to master in order to get more of the story. I feel the same way about modern JRPGs, like the Persona series. Love the narrative, but the 'gameplay' is brutal. Meanwhile, I went through Mass Effect 2 several times just so I could try different classes and see how they handle combat. And yes, you have to completely change your philosophies playing an Engineer from playing a Soldier. You have to think about who you're going to back yourself up with, and which powers you're going to upgrade. At least on Veteran/Hardcore.
Agreed on absolutely every front.
ME1 is a superior game to ME2 for many reasons, but ME2 is bioware melding into another genre. It has become their push into a shooter oriented market. I love both games, and I love shooters and RPG's so I was sated. A good game is a good game, screw what genre it is. ME3 will hopefully meld the best of the first two games, although I believe Bioware will continue to push it in the direction set by ME2.
I would say I agree with you, except I don't. Maybe I'm too young of a gamer (I'm 20), but I cut my teeth on KOTOR from an RPG standpoint. I do enjoy ME1 and KOTOR more than ME2, I feel like they streamlined it too much, but that said, ME2 is a fantastic game with a great world and great story. I'll be honest, I've tried some CRPGs, mainly Fallout 1 and Baldur's Gate 2, since Dragon Age on a console doesn't count IMO, and...I just don't like them. They're...I guess...they just require more time investment to LEARN how to play than I'm willing to give in my busy schedule.
I hope ME3 looks back to ME1 and KOTOR and finds a happy middle with ME2, but honestly I think ME3 will basically be a slightly upgraded, about the same depth ME2, which I'm actually perfectly okay with. I do agree with you that CRPGs are probably mostly dead, but I just don't think that the 20 and under generation cares much anymore.
Kind of get what you are saying but I can't relate. Never liked overly strategic games mostly because the payoff was never satisfying. Low res sprites with reused animations made combat in old RPGs really unappealing for me so besides Fallout 1/2 and Planescape I never finished any of them. Even with later ones like Neverwinter Nights I never got into it. Hell, I didn't even get 15 hours into Dragon Age. Rpg combat is too dependent on dice rolls to look exiting. I get that it's upsetting to see your favorite style of gaming go and be replaced with something completely different but you got to change your mindset when you play a game or else it will just get you angry. I was really disappointed when Deus Ex 2 came out but It was just for that reason. Recently I decided to replay them back to back and there really is nothing to be upset about with the second one. The first one is actually less enjoyable because of it's arcane design.
Also Mass Effect one was as much of a shooter as the second one but bugged down with horrible inventory system and abilities that you could ignore. So I don't see any reason to be upset about the second one being more of a shooter. Besides it being developed by Bioware who did MDK 2 way before it... But I'm just trying to diffuse that bitterness to a game that really doesn't deserve it.
P.S.
Since when not being able to gimp your character = meaningless RPG elements? Also why do you think that real time combat can't be strategic?
I like games.
The games market has become so mainstream that any sort of tactical or strategic play has been pushed entirely to the margins. Most people just don't have the patience for it, so no major publisher will invest in it, especially when it's a harder game to develop and balance compared to the 'fill the corridors full of cover ducking enemies' of Mass Effect 2. The scale of something like even the original Balder's Gate is beyond the quirky indie crowd, though I'm surprised all the European RPGs are action based and not at all tactical. Guess that style never took off there. When they do strategy, they like it so dense the average person can't even tell that it's a game.
It's personally disappointing for me since I couldn't stand the characters and plot of Dragon Age. I thought it was the most trite, predictable bullshit I've ever been asked to stomach, full of moronic characters who act according to how the plot needs them to, instead of being the ones driving the plot forward as in all good stories. I really did enjoy the combat though. Maybe DA2 will borrow Mass Effect's storytelling ability AND NOTHING ELSE.
This is like comparing the UK and US versions of the office, both great things, but both of the things in question are great for different reasons.
On one side you have classic CRPG's and the other side you have a streamline experience like Mass Effect 2.
I get bonnerific combat, stats, and rule sets on one hand, on the other I get a slick, cinematic, fun 3rd person cover based shooter.
I pause for both sides in this argument :P
" P.S. Since when not being able to gimp your character = meaningless RPG elements? Also why do you think that real time combat can't be strategic? "The real problem isn't that you can't gimp your character. That's just a symptom of an underlying problem--lack of depth.
Look at Dragon Age: Origins. The Warrior tree is so small that by level 22, I stopped leveling up (actively--I still gained XP and levels, I just didn't upgrade) because I actually had skill points that I couldn't spend on anything in my specialization. The only choice is really weapon type, and there aren't very many differences between them. 2 weapons deals a lot of damage with less mitigation, weapon/shield deals little damage with a lot of mitigation, 2h weapon is down the middle, and archery deals small amounts of damage from range. There aren't even any build design decisions past that, because you'll literally purchase and be able to use every single skill at higher levels.
What BioWare did is take out the choices that older, more complex progression systems force you to make in design, in the name of creating an ungimpable character. So now you've got vanilla character design--it's all the same flavor.
I never played CRPGs. In fact, the only true computer game I ever played was an MMO called Shadowbane. But that game had an extremely deep and complex character design system, to the point that it could realistically take a player a year to learn how to build a character that was even functional, nevermind optimal.
I'll give some stats, for an example in that game. Out of 22 classes, each had at least 2 viable builds, this being a minimum for only a few classes. The Warrior class had upwards of about 12 different viable design archetypes, not taking into account the more nuanced differences, such as subclasses and races. Unlike Dragon Age, where both str and dex figure into damage and attack, only one stat figured into both, depending on the weapon. So if you invested all your points into dexterity, but used a strength-based weapon, you'd be completely useless, and thus gimped.
But this allowed for more nuanced creation. Rather than just throwing points into whatever stats you wanted and coming out with a workable character, you had to make a choice. But this created more variety. Because rather than just, y'know, having all 2h warriors play the same, you could have 4 or 5 different ways to make a 2h warrior, and each one would play differently.
Simple character design is great for accessibility and getting people into the game quickly, but it's just that: simple. And for people who enjoy complex, strategic design that requires planning, modern choices just seem meaningless.
This, of course, doesn't even get into complexities in gameplay, like what Dave was talking about when he mentioned the whole take-out-the-wizard-first thing.
There were other tactics involved (like entire groups, as in 10 people or more, specced out for one type of fight, matching up opponents with a spec that can be effective, and a bunch of other stuff), so I don't share Dave's CRPG experience, but I know what it's like to play a really intricate, strategic RPG, versus what we have today, for better or for worse.
Sure. I get complexity and at some point depth but as you said out of 22 classes there were at least 2 viable builds and more than 12 at max. So all the other ones are non viable and there is no reason to use them. And if there is a better design why would you use a worse one? That thing really put me off on most of MMORPGs. There is always a better build than the one you create yourself and at best you get to reroll your character but usually you got to start over. That whole idea of builds that are better is just infuriating to me. It's as close to breeding genetically perfect people as we can get at this point. And I'm not a fan of that idea.
As I said previously I never got far into Dragon Age so I don't know about loose skill points but In Mass Effect 2 I haven't had that problem. Even though the skill tree is very limited you still have a choice of what kind of character you want to play. Do you want buffs or projectile powers? Do you want them to affect one dude hard or many dudes light? Do you want to disable them for some time so you can shoot through the shields and armor or give them some raw damage? You can't have all of them at once but any way you choose to upgrade is perfectly viable if you know how to use it. And if you don't, you can just reroll any character with a bit of money and see what you find good for you.
Also I find it that Dave sells strategic play in real-time games a bit short. It's like you never had to take out the mage in Diablo before dealing with his minions, or never had to shoot down a ton of small ships in a Shoot 'em up before shooting at the boss. Sure you rarely think about it as much as you would in a turn based game but you still do it, and it's still crucial to your survival. Even in Gears of War, that Dave dismissed as a game where you sit behind cover and shoot, as soon as you hear boomer approaching you know you need to kill him first or he would just blow you up cover or not. And on the other hand you have to kill smaller enemies like tickers before they get past your cover and self destruct. Sure, you sit behind cover and shoot but you still have to do all those strategic tricks that you would in an RPG. In last portion of HL2: Episode 2 you hunters shoot down your strider busters before they stick on striders so you have to kill them first. In pretty much every Shoot 'em up ever you benefit from taking out guns on bosses before trying to go for the weak spot. In DOOM you got to kill the archvile before the smaller enemies because he resurrects them. In Left 4 Dead you have to cooperate with your teammates to not startle the witch by ignoring her and not using flashlights. In all multiplayer shooters since the first quake you got to know the map and know how to use tricks like bunny hopping or rocket jumping to get ahead of others. I can go on and on. You have to use strategy in pretty much every real time game there is. I'm not even mentioning strategy games themselves. I get that he is talking more about having a party of characters and using their abilities on specific targets but Mass Effect 1 was never any good at that. The AI there was so bad that you were better of not giving it any commands at all. And the second game actually improved on that. You had a limited amount of powers so you could with ease manage all of yours and your teammate's in battle. Even combining them for better results.
I get that no one wants to see their favorite genre fade away and any kind of game that seems to replace it would bring out the poison but at some point you got to let go. Anger in general is not a good feeling to have but anger toward something good is worse. You can miss out on a lot of good new experiences just because you are so fond of old ones.
P.S.
About Normandy. It was way better than roaming around town having to load every house in search of actual quest people in games before radar maps.
I really like the the story and presentation of mass effect 1 & 2 that rivals and surpasses established sci-fi franchises like for example Star Wars.
And I really like shooters, too.
But Dave is right: ME(2) is a shitty and boring shooter. I'm about 35 hours in and it continuously makes me laugh how poorly the levels are designed. There is no surprise involved whatsoever. If you see walls for cover, it is 100% certain that a fight will break out there.
If Bioware had only put in some situations or missions that surprise you by NOT making you fight even though you expected it, It'd would've reduced this issue somewhat.
But no, each and every mission that has the player carrying weapons is exactly the same: talk at the start, reach cover and fight, talk in the middle ("the target is on the other side of the valley/court/complex"), reach cover and fight, talk at the end. The formulaic nature of the missions It really pulls me out of the experience and the world.
Another example for the bad mission design are the "gear-up"- rooms that you encounter in between missions before bigger fights (yeah, I see this room and know immediately that there's some bigger fight coming up around the corner). They all have the same stuff in them - no matter what planet or what enemy you fight against. I also find it baffling how each alien race drops the same kind of ammo. That makes the enemies appear way less threatening in my opinion.
How I see it is, there are things that are useful to one build/class that are completely useless to another. If you make something useful to everybody, then everybody is going to use it, and there will be less variety.
What you said about Mass Effect...those are general gameplay choices, and they effect how you play, but in all those options you listed, you only gave 2 directions to go in. When you have only 2 choices, it's fairly easy to make both choices viable. But what if you have 4 or 5? What about 10? It's much harder, if not impossible, to provide that kind of complexity, and still make every combination viable.
Of course Shadowbane was an intensely unique game, for a variety of reasons, which is why I can't completely relate to Dave's experiences through mine. But it brings me to another problem with newer games, along a similar line: hand-holding, safe, vanilla gameplay. WoW is the chief offender in the MMO world: players can't do anything of consequence, and the game is fairly safe overall. Many games share this issue, though. There really aren't many "hardcore" games left out there. And I'm not talking about masocore games, which are hard and frustrating by design, forcing the player to rote memorize routes and such to get through.
I'm talking about games that require patience and skill to really get good at, and be successful in. Games that require actual skill. Anyone can pick up CoD and get right into it. With a bit of effort and learning, they can figure out how to be largely successful, too (for instance, camping). Dragon Age is really easy to understand if you've ever played an RPG before, and there really aren't any complex gameplay mechanics to learn, or any deep strategies to dig into.
The reason is probably because most players want easier, more accessible games, and so developers build games to suit those needs.Again, as Dave mentioned, though, this is where independent developers come in: they can develop to gamer niches like this, feeding a smaller, dedicated target audience, rather than having to appeal to the masses.
It was just an example of some powers. You get 6 skills for each of 6 classes, each one of them can be modified by reaching a maximum level plus you can adopt a unique skill out of any of your teammates with 32 powers in total with each having 2 variations. It is a lot of powers but since you only get 7 at once you can without problem decide what you want and how you want to upgrade it. None of these include ability to use certain weapons. Those are restricted to different classes and are not upgradeable as in the first game.
Also yes hand holding can be bad. Especially in games that you really don't need it that much like Legend of Zelda series where you have to run around a town doing fetch quests and tutorials on things you can get in seconds, but to be fair RPGs could use some better ways of teaching you how to play. Since most of the ideas behind how they work are not as understandable to people without the point of reference. Take Rogue for example. It's a simple bare bones dungeon crawler with what seems like a confusing and archaic interface. I've been avoiding rogue-likes for years because I had no idea how you were supposed to play them with every guide being made for so called "hardcore" gamers I just gave up and haven't touched them for years. But a few months back I found a remake of Sword of Fargoal. It was a straight remake with just some simple graphics and UI but in minutes I got everything I needed to know not just to play SoF but any rouge like out there. They may be more complicated but I understand the concepts behind them and that is all you need. That whole hardcore gamer nonsence just makes these kinds of games unaccessible to new audiences that, I should remind you, constantly appear with each generation getting older every day. You never have an inherent idea of how video games work so you got to learn it somewhere. That's why fighting games were dead before SF IV, that's why point and click adventure games were dead before telltale and so on with every dead genre. You got to account for new people and with complexity of old RPGs it's probably the hardest genre to explain to a new person.
Also you are drastically underestimating competitive players in new shooters. I bought Modern Warfare 2 only after a few weeks of it being out and I could never get even close to anyone in normal modes. Camping is the easiest way to get yourself killed since people know all the usual places where people camp. You got to be real fast and precise to get any kind of kill streak on there. At one point I had to just play the third person playlist because people can't make a fast switch between the first person and third person. And unrelated to competitive stuff the co-op mode in it is really good. especially on higher difficulties. I had a great time coordinating simultaneous sniper shots and finding a way to defend the building against hordes of enemies. All of that takes skill and writing it off as some kind of simple time waster would be pretty careless.
But all of that is unrelated to what I was trying to say in the first place. Mass Effect never was a CRPG. So there is no reason to be bitter about the second one not being it either. It's a completely competent third person shooter with pretty good implementation of RPG elements. Even if there is no way to fail in character creation those skills you update mix up your game in a fun way making an ordinary cover shooting system a more interesting and flexible one. Also comments on elder scrolls and fallout kind of threw me off. Especially when fallout is terrible if you play it as a shooter and elder scrolls is even worse if you play it brute force style. BUT THAT IS NOT IMPORTANT. NONE OF THIS IS. Just neat to rant about video games. You guys are great.
And when I say hardcore games, I mean games that are deep enough that it does take a long time to really understand and master them. COD ability comes with nothing but time. The only reason that I'm able to do well in COD is because I've been playing FPSes since Goldeneye came out the N64, including a long stint playing SOCOM 3 online. It has nothing to do with me personally. It's all about the fact that I've basically been conditioned to react, either with the trigger or the knife, over all those years. The game isn't very deep or hard to understand. In fact, I can sum up tactics in about a sentence: shoot the other guy first. Gameplay really doesn't get much deeper than that in COD (demo and the like just add one more: don't die before plant/defuse is finished).
But I'm really coming from a different place as a gamer than probably 90% of the people who play nowadays, which is probably why I have a taste for games that require a deep understanding of a complex system to play.
Damn, Dave. I disagree. I like were RPG's are headed. KOTOR was a favorite of mine. Don't get me wrong I'm not calling you out. I just think the old way lasted a long ass time and it needed to change. This is just what it's changing into now. I also played DA and all the expansions. I also played Ultima Online...when it was new. I think as tech grows more accessiable to smaller pubs. we will see the return of CRPG's
Aww c'mon dude. You can't go into that kind of terms. If I went into having a better appreciation of deep stuff because of having a unique perspective it wouldn't be an argument. For example: because I live in Russia and was born after the USSR crumbled I have expirienced in 10 years everything from ZX Spectrum to Playstation 2. There is literally no genre or video game era that I haven't experienced in some form while growing up. I learned English thanks to video games, I skipped school thanks to video games, I got and lost friends thanks to them, I failed some exams, wasted time, learned a lot of computer stuff ect. But I can't throw that as a point around. No matter how much I appreciate games, industry or even just the memories I have it doesn't give me anything more than a point of reference. I know how a ZX spectrum can catch spontaneously fire or how amazing was the first mission in C&C but why would that make me miss Space Sims? It's silly. Time passes. Games do become irrelevant. There was a passionate fanbase for SFIII but it was way to complicated for a new player. Space sims at one point used every key on the querty keyboard. Adventure games got to the point of developers insulting customers who didn't like to get stuck because they didn't pick up a stick in the begining of the game. When it comes to this point they become irrelevant. Temporarily but still. The only thing I'm asking is to not dismiss the games if they streamline things. Clear that mind frame. You can totally do it and enjoy the game for what it's worth.
Well said and I absolutely agree. I really do not understand the argument that says Mass Effect is no longer an RPG. You are straight up Role Playing throughout the whole game. RPG stands for "Role Playing Game", not "Loot & Stat Game"."The rulesets and basic game mechanics are NOT THEMSELVES Role Playing. Role Playing is about choice, flexibility, and an ability to influence events in a meaningful way; it has nothing to do with Dexterity, Strength, Defense, or any other numerical statistic-based mechanic."
Saying "It's not an RPG, it's a Shooter!" also makes no sense. The terms are not mutually exclusive and they're referring to different aspects of the game. It's like describing a car and saying "It's not a fast car, it's a blue car!" - no, the car is fast and blue. ME2 is an RPG and a Shooter. If that doesn't fit with our need to neatly pigeonhole games into one exact category, then we need to come up with more/better categories.
I think where it all falls apart is where we play the terminology game. If you remove generic terms and actually talk about what you like specifically, it gets clearer. Just about everyone I've met has enjoyed slightly different aspects of what RPGs in all their forms have offered over the years. When we say that we like RPGs because they have X, it's inevitable that you'll find someone to contradict it.
I play pen and paper games now and again, and even within THOSE, some of them emphasize crunchy, rules-heavy mechanics for dictating how the universe works with strategy and tactics sort of taking over playing sessions, and some of them are all about making stuff up as you go along, throwing in some random elements only to make things more interesting. If someone forced me to to pick between one or the other and call it an RPG and the other something else, I'd rather walk away than answer since every one of them are, in some ways, connected to term RPG, whether or not that particular definition would appeal to anyone.
As to which kinds of games I prefer? That's about opinion, and not quite the same topic.
I'm OK with these sorts of discussions, though, because I just like hearing about how diverse the opinions are. Beyond that, I hope the subject never fully closes, since this kind of enthusiasm is rare. Just don't pop a vein over it, everyone.
I'm so glad this post is here. Kotor and Mass Effect 2 are not great games, they're 8/10 at best. Their biggest drawback is that they're just too dry and dull and are a gameplay missmash that don't do any one thing really well.
But my tastes have definitely been shaped by the games I've played. I really love complex, deep, pure open-world PVP MMOs (of which no good ones exist anymore). That's what I really like. I wouldn't pay for WoW, because that's not my thing. I might be willing to play for free, and I might enjoy it for what it is, but I wouldn't enjoy it as much as a Shadowbane-style game. I might enjoy D&DO, but that's because I've heard that it's basically pen-and-paper D&D rendered graphically, which I find really appealing.
It's the same thing with single player RPGs. Dragon Age: Origins was a game I liked. I really enjoyed how the game played. But I really can't say it's my favorite style of game, regardless of how many hours I played it. I really prefer ARPG loot-a-paloozas, like Champions of Norrath, where you're constantly getting newer, cooler weapons and armor and things.
Also, irrelevancy depends on perspective. SFIII might be irrelevant to the average gamer, but is it objectively irrelevant? I'd say no, because people do enjoy and like playing that game. SFIII is relevant to its fans.
I'd like to see some of these different styles of games resurrected. Because game design is now starting to branch out into smaller niches, similar to what TV is doing with cable networks versus the traditional, over-the-air networks, this can become a reality. And while I'm not going to tell you to care about those games that are completely out of touch from mainstream society, I'd ask you to let me care about them, and allow me to have my opinion on the problems/things I don't like about some of these massive-audience games that we see selling millions and millions of copies.
Now I sound like an asshole. Sorry if it came off this way. Never intended to sound like old games don't deserve the love or anything like that.
And about SF III. I meant culturally relevant. Of coarse everything is relevant to somebody but on the big picture it was nowhere near what SF II or even Alpha was. SF II was popular enough that here I still meet people who remember a pirate version of it for the NES and think it was an official one. Versions of Alpha were also circulating for PSX although rarer but I didn't even know about III existing before M3 was emulated. Which is kind of weird in retrospect since Dreamcast was pretty popular here and by that point some sort of tournament scene existed. It's a fine game and all but there are reasons why it took so long for a new one to come out and why IV was nearly passed on before the development began. But whatever. this is way offtopic and with each post I feel more and more like an ass.
BTW. If you want a crazy hardcore PvP MMO check out Fallout online. Not the official one but the unofficial russian made game. It's really brutal and sure takes time to learn how to play. I think you can find it on mod db now translated and all. That is not my kind of thing but it's a pretty crazy one.
I play pen and paper games now and again, and even within THOSE, some of them emphasize crunchy, rules-heavy mechanics for dictating how the universe works with strategy and tactics sort of taking over playing sessions, and some of them are all about making stuff up as you go along, throwing in some random elements only to make things more interesting.Exactly. some systems emphasize stats all over the place, some . . .not so much.
It might also be fair to say that, in ME:2 for example, Bioware is effectively our GM, and our GM is more interested in making stuff happen in cool ways and at cool times than in nitty-gritty stating.
I wouldn't say something like DA is the last great AAA CRPG. ME 1 and 2 (and probably DA2) are just examples of the development of new styles. It doesn't mean old-school CRPG's are dead, they're just not as popular right now.
A few years ago, people might have said hardcore 2D fighting games were dead, and died with the development of flashy (but usually less deep) 3D fighting games. Then we saw a crazy revival of the Street Fighter series, re-releases of games like Garou MOtW anf the KOF series, BlazBlue, and an upcoming AAA 2D Mortal Kombat game.
The deep, hardcore strategic CRPG genre may have slowed down and AAA releases may be few or none, but years down the road someone might come up with a new game that manages to spark interest again. Or maybe we'll see newer WRPG's start to get deeper and more strategic as people get bored with them. If there's a good game to be developed within a genre, it ain't dead.
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment