AAA industry and RPGs

[kazann]

Will we ever see a AAA company create RPGs on the depth and levels of Baldurs gate and Planescape: Torment? Specifically in choices, dialogue and skills/attributes depth? Or is this something thats just been neutered over the years and the old cRPG is now a dead genre only done by small indie groups?

I say this with the release of DAI and how Bioware went from DAO a cRPG to this, somewhat poor mix of action/rpg thats been heavily 'dumbed' down?

 

[sanquin]

I certainly hope so. I miss the rpg's with a wide variety of skills/talents/other to choose from. Heck, I prefer being able to assign my own stats over all this modern dumbed down stuff. As for choices/dialogue. That's harder to do. The more differing 'plots' you have, no matter how small the difference is, the more time, work, and effort has to be put into it. And with the games of today already being so technologically advanced it only takes more and more of those 3.

What I really, -really- want is an rpg with a proper singleplayer campaign which supports proper co-op. Not some separate multiplayer dungeon crawl or wave kill thing, but a friend or some such being able to join -your- singleplayer and help you. If skyrim had it I would have probably put 2 to 3 times as much time into it by now.

 

[Jandau]

The problem here is that there ARE RPGs with complex stat systems... but those systems tend to end up as more of a burden than a benefit. Two recent examples would be Divnitiy: Original Sin and Wasteland 2, both games with an abundance of stats and skills to play around with, and both of them having the same problem - those systems were poorly designed and balanced. Having to deal with a complex system is only fun if that system is well made and thought out, and then properly implemented into the game. Complexity for complexity's sake it tedious and pointless.

The old Infinity Engine games used 2nd ed DnD (and 3rd ed for IWD2), which was a well established system, developed and playtested for years. It wasn't something that was whipped up for each game individually.

Also, let's take off the rose colored glasses for a bit - the alleged complexity wasn't all that complex - where exactly was the complexity in leveling a Fighter? Or a Ranger? Heck, even a Cleric mainly came down to "How many healing spells to I need and which non-healing ones aren't useless?". There was some depth to playing Mages, but that's about it. As long as you didn't royally fuck up your starting stat rolls, you were good to go.

A better example in that regard might be the early Fallout games, which used the SPECIAL system and made a fair bit of effort to utilize the wide plethora of skills available in the game. But this was, again, a well established and designed system that predated the Fallout games by an age.

As for the story and dialogue complexity, that aspect is the victim of technology. Think about it - all you needed to do to express a different permutation of a storyline back in the days of Baldur's Gate and Fallout were a few extra lines of dialogue. Nowdays, it takes a whole set of animations and voice work. Hell, back then you could adjust things on the fly, fix quests if needed, etc. It's much harder to make adjustments in development today. That's why you get less apparent choice in your dialogue interactions - it's simply gotten too hard to work it in.

Personally, while I like me some AAA RPGs, I understand the limitations and constraints they have to work with (yes, it's ironic that a bigger budget and production values bring extra constraints) and I accept it. However, what I'm truly interested in are the single-A RPG titles such as Torment and Pillars of Eternity, whose lower-tech foundation might allow for more development freedom...

 

[Smooth Operator]

Problem is mass appeal.
You need to understand that the major population would way rather a Mass Effect game that just plays itself then one where you are challenged to the point where you have an impasse in the story, easy entertainment sells and Baldur's Gate is the furthest thing from it.

So unless we just find a billionaire who wants to burn money on niche triple A titles this shit will not come to pass.

 

[Ecster]

An elaborate story with 10+ differing conversation options is a question of resources spent on production.

Look at The Witcher 3. Claims to be a massive, enthraling, never-seen-before CRPG experience. It will probably deliver, but not to the conversational detail of 2D text-based games such as Baldur's Gate and Planescape.

CD Projekt RED could totally do a Planescape text-complecity equal in TW universe if they were into 2D and it'd be a guaranteed sale.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Today? No.
The lowest common denominator absolutely dominates AAA design philosophy right now and that isn't going to change, well, ever.

Generally speaking, writing is near the bottom of the list of priorities for most games (not just AAA).

Making a great CRPG requires someone that is not only a good writer, but someone who is very familiar with gameplay mechanics and both kinds of structure (narrative/gameplay). I've played many RPGs with good stories and good gameplay, but most of those are games where the story and gameplay act largely independent of each other.

(That's the main source of everyone's most hated phrase "ludonarrative dissonance"; where writing and design are basically kept completely separate from each other.)

That's why there are extremely few games where the gameplay actually matters to the story beyond a Boolean Pass/Fail state.

What I'm saying, is that great CRPGs are HARD AS HELL to make; much harder than following some proven formula.
They're some of the hardest games to design in because they are dually complex.

Basically, they're the antithesis of AAA design, from a business standpoint.

 

[deathbydeath]

Problem is mass appeal.
You need to understand that the major population would way rather a Mass Effect game that just plays itself then one where you are challenged to the point where you have an impasse in the story, easy entertainment sells and Baldur's Gate is the furthest thing from it.

So unless we just find a billionaire who wants to burn money on niche triple A titles this shit will not come to pass.

Thisx4

The audience for old-school RPGs can't really support a AAA budget. Games that promote vapid, nonsensical explosions laced with pseudo-philosophy and sex appeal do, though, hence every Bioware product post-Origins.

 

[veloper]

As long as tactical RPGs will continue to get made on medium budgets (say between $2 to 10 million) I'm happy.

You don't need AAA budgets to create something like BG2 and the infinity engine games, as long as you can accept 2D scenery and limited VO, which fans of these old games shouldn't find too hard.

 

[Steve Waltz]

DA:O felt kind of like a "dumbed-down" cRPG in the first place. Neverwinter Nights was my first BioWare cRPG and DA:O is so lightweight in comparison. I was actually pretty disappointed my first time playing Origins. Origins was already heading down the chutes already. DA:I is just even worse on the sense that the only thing you do is pick abilities. There?s no Feats/Talents, you don?t even get to adjust stat points about.

I?m not going to say I don?t particularly like it, but BioWare has been sacrificing gameplay for story for a LONG time. This isn?t a new problem; it?s been going on for years and years and years.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I am getting too old to put spreadsheet level thought into an RPG.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

A better example in that regard might be the early Fallout games, which used the SPECIAL system and made a fair bit of effort to utilize the wide plethora of skills available in the game. But this was, again, a well established and designed system that predated the Fallout games by an age.

Or, you know, was created by the Fallout leads when the deal with SJG to use GURPS fell through (which, according to some ex-SJG insiders, was because Steve Jackson saw crpgs as both a threat to tabletop gaming and a novelty that would never go anywhere and acted the dick about it all).

 

[fenrizz]

I am getting too old to put spreadsheet level thought into an RPG.

Indeed.
I simply don't have that much time to dedicate, or the will to sacrifice other things to do it anymore.
And besides, I never thought they were that complex in the first place. Felt more like tedious and convoluted min/maxing.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I am getting too old to put spreadsheet level thought into an RPG.

Indeed.
I simply don't have that much time to dedicate, or the will to sacrifice other things to do it anymore.
And besides, I never thought they were that complex in the first place. Felt more like tedious and convoluted min/maxing.

Yep and crafting systems are the worst.

 

[Mikeybb]

Will we ever see a AAA company create RPGs on the depth and levels of Baldurs gate and Planescape: Torment? Specifically in choices, dialogue and skills/attributes depth? Or is this something thats just been neutered over the years and the old cRPG is now a dead genre only done by small indie groups?

I say this with the release of DAI and how Bioware went from DAO a cRPG to this, somewhat poor mix of action/rpg thats been heavily 'dumbed' down?

I have great hopes for the pillars of eternity.
Waiting as patiently as possible for my copy to arrive next year.

If it does well, perhaps we'll see the genre spread into the realms of interest for the AAA companies.

 

[RavingSturm]

The trend is towards cinematics and voice overs. Imho this really kills the Rpgs and makes them more like interactive movies where the viewer just chooses which story path to follow. I also dont like it when devs throw in a needlessly complex crafting system when the in-game items are still better than what you can make and castle building(NWN2) type activities that feel like padding/busy work.

 

[RavingSturm]

DA:O felt kind of like a "dumbed-down" cRPG in the first place. Neverwinter Nights was my first BioWare cRPG and DA:O is so lightweight in comparison. I was actually pretty disappointed my first time playing Origins. Origins was already heading down the chutes already. DA:I is just even worse on the sense that the only thing you do is pick abilities. There?s no Feats/Talents, you don?t even get to adjust stat points about.

I?m not going to say I don?t particularly like it, but BioWare has been sacrificing gameplay for story for a LONG time. This isn?t a new problem; it?s been going on for years and years and years.

Cant say I blame Bioware for making the game accessible to the average player. DA:O was in development for a long time. I guess they were betting a whole lot of marbles on its success. Even Baldur's Gate was streamlined compared to the original Ad&d rules it was based on at the time of its release.

 

[Kathinka]

Since they can't be played with a wobbly thumb stick and four buttons, can't be cranked out in yearly intervals and have content that requires more memory than contemporary consoles have: Never. It sucks, I know

 

[Ishigami]

The answer is pretty obvious I think: No we won?t.

The reasons for this are obvious as well: The market doesn?t favor it.
In terms of AAA you have to view this from the business side since publishers will only pour tons of money into a project if the payoff is right. And AAA is pretty much defined by its production value alone.
And that?s simply not the case for cRPGs.
To make a good RPG is demanding in comparison to other well established genres e.g. shooters. Yet these easier and therefore cheaper to build and marketable games often outsell RPGs. It is therefore inherently an unfavoured business move to make an RPG.
Now of course this doesn?t mean there is no market for it. Companies have been making profitable RPGs for decades after all. It just simply means that it is unlikely that a publisher allows or even encourages a developer to exponentially increase the scope and therefore budget of a game when there is no corresponding profit to be made. It is far more likely that the publisher will limit the budget on an RPG tightly and supports more profitable undertakings instead of blowing a cRPG out of in their eyes reasonable proportions.

There was also a shift to more cinematic experiences which isn?t in favor of traditional cRPGs. I for myself tremendously enjoyed the detailed dialogs of e.g. Baldur?s Gate 2 or Planescape Torment but those were mostly text based as you might remember. As you have seen with Dragon Age Origins having even only a mute protagonists will in today?s environment seen as a drawback.
If every dialog has to be voiced it will ultimately result in less dialog since every voiced line increases the budget way more than just text. It will also almost automatically result in less dialog choices since it is not really profitable to voice dialog paths which most likely will not be experienced by most players. Evidence of this behavior can be seen in changes made in BioWare or Bethesda games over the years.
The demand for a larger audience to regain the increased investments on AAA game also comes more or less automatically with the demand to make the games more accessible to reach these goals. I don?t like the notion that accessible means dumbed down but it can?t really be argued that a more streamed line experience is usually the result.
Attributes etc. don?t necessarily add to a game as classes usually tend to favored certain stats after all. So having these automatically distributed/applied simply removes busy work and may make it even easier to fine tune the learning and difficulty curve. This very well could positively affect the reception of the game at large as most players probably want to concentrate on the more active side of gameplay and storytelling.

The bigger ?AAA? cRPGs will be more like the recent CD Red, BioWare or Bethesda games.
If you are looking for experience more in line with the older cRPGs as NWN then I think need to step away from the AAA market.
There are of course some projects underway that profited from the crowdfunding boom such as Torment Tides of Numenera, Wasteland 2 or Pillars of Eternity but these can hardly be considered AAA.
I personally hope that Ninja Theory is successful with their Hellblade. Hellblade of course is no cRPG but if this project turns out profitable maybe their ?independent AAA? concept carries over to other developers. I think cRPGs would benefit of this greatly as it allows for bigger budgets and scopes than your usual crowdfunding game while not running into the AAA budget race.
At the same time I think it is fairer than crowdfunding as well as the ones who have would reap the benefits of success are also the ones who would carry the risks, making it very effective quality control.

 

[Fox12]

Depends on what you mean. Will there continue to be "deep" games with excellent designs and stories? Certainly. Just look at Dark Souls, a game that's based on a design that's essentially the opposite of everything we expect from a big budget title.

Will we see something as technical as Baldurs Gate being produced? Maybe, maybe not, but I can't say it really matters. Complexity for the sake of complexity strikes me as pointless. Storytelling has been improving, while quality of dialogue has replaced quantity. I don't want ten minutes of textual exposition, lets get to the point already. That's not lazy or bad writing, that's just good pacing. I also refuse to say that the game play or story for titles like Mass Effect are somehow bad. The AAA market has been improving, as far as I'm concerned. I'll be frank, DA:O was pretty awful, all around.

They may make more games like what you want, but they'll be few and far between. That's why we have indie titles, though, so as long as there's a market, someone will fill the void.

 

[TT Kairen]

These regressionist attitudes really grind my gears. Nostalgia is the biggest reason for anger at today's gaming climate, and I'm glad the industry is progressing despite it (this coming from someone who grew up on old school cRPGs, I'm talking Pool of Radiance from the Gold Box here). Don't get me wrong, there are more than a few shitty games coming out these days. But I think a lot of people are suffering from "Nothing But Hits" syndrome. It happens with personal eras of music as well. It's why your parents think your music sucks. They only remember stuff like The Beatles, The Doors, Led Zeppelin (examples, not everyone's parents grew up in the same era), and completely forget all the total garbage that came out.

Let's take a slightly more modern example: Dragon Age: Origins. Everyone thinks this game blows the sequels out of the water. It does in some aspects, don't mistake me there, but the game's flaws make it far inferior to me. For instance, you can distribute stat points upon level-up in Origins and Dragon Age 2. Okay, why? If it's a Warrior you're always going to pump strength and con (bit of dex for Sword/Shield talents if a tank), if you're a rogue it's always going to be dex and cunning, as a mage it's always magic and willpower. Same thing going further back. Why would you level anything besides INT or CON on a Wizard? It's customization in name only, makes you THINK you have more agency in your character development than you do.

In terms of skills, the vast, VAST majority of your XP is gained by killing stuff in combat in almost any RPG. So when I level up, how the hell did I get better at talking? Or picking locks? Or making potions? It makes no damn sense, and why I applauded when BioWare took the Persuade/Intimidate options out of leveling up in Mass Effect 2 and attached them to your morality bars. What this did was it made your combat XP focus on combat, and then your morality bars acted as a sort of "speech XP", the more you did it, the more you could do it.

Finally let's talk combat. Firstly, it's stupid and frustrating as hell when your meticulously min/max'd party gets destroyed in what should be an easily winnable battle because of shitty luck with dice-rolls (D&D RPG's, most others have safeguards in place to prevent such BS). Second, a lot of these games have overpowered healing mechanics so damage can't stick. Going back to the Origins example, the Heal spell, as well as every SEPARATE HEALING POTION TYPE had it's own 5 second cooldown. Meaning since damage can't stick, the only two states that matter are Alive or Dead. So they had to have instagib mechanics to kill you, usually in the form of grabs (Dragon chomping you, Ogre punching you, animals tackling you, etc). Contrast the new game Inquisition, where you can carry only VERY few healing potions, there's no healing magic, and no health regeneration, so damage sticks VERY hard. You really have to pay attention to how you mitigate damage across your party or you're gonna get screwed.

Combat mechanics in a lot of older RPGs are just boring in general, with little to no active ability usage outside of magic, focusing almost entirely on building your character's passive attack strength and durability. No thinking on the fly, no agency in a character defending themselves, just dice-rolls and spreadsheets.

Notice I haven't touched on story at all? That's because the story was the main thing that got me through those games, and there HAS been a noticeable drop in both story quality and complexity. But as Jandau stated above, that's a victim of the technology. It's a lot harder to animate facial movements, pay voice actors for dialogue, and create an active cutscene rather than have a few sprites standing around the normal game area and having text boxes pop up. The tradeoff here is improved immersion. Complexity suffered, no doubt. But my emotional investment increased because you can see and hear the emotions and drama play out on the screen in a more cinematic way.

I guess my whole point here is that advancement is worth the cost of a minority of gamers' enjoyment. Why? Because eventually we're going to hit that singularity where graphics can no longer be improved in any appreciable way, it becomes cheaper and cheaper to create those scenes and worlds, and then they can finally focus completely on writing amazing stories with great gameplay and mechanics. To me it feels like we're nearly there. So just be a bit more patient, is all.