Poll: Are RPGs getting 'dumbed-down'?
- Thread starter Eduku
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No but they sure as hell are getting cookie-cutter. I'm almost glad Atlus went out of business, they were the main culprit for pumping out JRPG after JRPG with bland unoriginal story, characters, everything. Now that they're gone Square Enix is going to have to step up and factory press more.
Fallout is not what I, nor folks I have talked to, would call an RPG. And Bioware has its own take on RPGs which is nice, but if they keep beating it eventually the horse will die.
Fallout is not what I, nor folks I have talked to, would call an RPG. And Bioware has its own take on RPGs which is nice, but if they keep beating it eventually the horse will die.
I was pretty displeased with Mass Effect 2. The story and combat were both great, but so much of what made the game incredible; the exploration, the deep character customization, the interesting squad members, was just neutered. You went from 12-15 different talent choices in Mass Effect to just 4 (5 with specialization) in Mass Effect 2. Then they completely removed advanced class paths (Commando, Bastion, etc.) from the series. I loved Mass Effect 2, but I don't think it can be argued that it's as deep as the first game was.
There are aspects of older RPGs that are being taken out in order to make room for new ones, yes. Some of these older elements were depth and complexity. But more importantly, most are elements that added unnecessary complexity that ended up bogging things down and breaking the immersion/flow.
For instance: A major positive change between Mass Effect 1 and 2 was the removal of the inventory. Some claim this was it being dumbed down, but I felt that since I no longer had to worry about micromanaging my party's equipment I could concentrate on utilizing their abilities in combat more effectively. When playing 2, I never got the nagging feeling that I wasn't optimal. I never had to open up three layers of menus to change the ammo type I was using (use that radial menu, BioWare! use it! woo!).
For instance: A major positive change between Mass Effect 1 and 2 was the removal of the inventory. Some claim this was it being dumbed down, but I felt that since I no longer had to worry about micromanaging my party's equipment I could concentrate on utilizing their abilities in combat more effectively. When playing 2, I never got the nagging feeling that I wasn't optimal. I never had to open up three layers of menus to change the ammo type I was using (use that radial menu, BioWare! use it! woo!).
Atlus hasn't gone out of business and as far as I know they haven't even announced any development layoffs or project cancellations. I'm not sure what Atlus games you are talking about anyway. I advise you to go back to your Bethesda games and stop trolling.RobfromtheGulag said:
Edit: Or not go back to Bethesda games, whatever. Just try to stop being wrong so much.
Pretty much this; go play an SNES JRPG, then go play a PS2 or current-gen JRPG. Chances are that the latter is substantially more complicated.Space Spoons said:
As for RPG's in general, from what I can guess they're more accessible than anything.
It's called evolution, it's changing with the new ideas and technology, otherwise it will become a stagnant and stale genre.
While I can appreciate the streamlining of certain mundane tasks and decisions in games like Fallout 3, ME and the like, one thing I don't like is the 'wipe all' functionality that seems to be popping up in more and more games. Oh, what's that? You put a point into a skill you don't like? Well, here you go, here's a clean slate for you. Fix your guy, succeed! Go!
Whatever happened to living with the character builds you make? Is that too much work for some people? Is it that people don't want to give up and start over? Are we that pressed for time nowadays?
Whatever happened to living with the character builds you make? Is that too much work for some people? Is it that people don't want to give up and start over? Are we that pressed for time nowadays?
A lot of them kind of have, (Mass Effect 2, Fallout 3,) but there's still some hard core old fashioned ones out there.
I think...
I think...
I will beat on the ME 1 vs ME 2 horse.
I concede ME1's invenotry was bad , but it's complete removal was just as wrong. A diablo style inventory with the ability to choose what i take and leave on the ground would've been just perfect.
Another thing is the universal upgrades. Come on people is it THAT hard to read what an upgrade does to your weapon and armor in ME1? It's better for role-play if i taylor my equipment the way i see fit rather then beforced to do it because thos global upgrades aply to party memembers aswell.
Story: ME1 had a nice and captivating story that managed to weave the gameplay into itself. You don't know where the bloody hell Saren is so it makes sense when you go down a random planet to check out a beacon or generally wander aimlessly arround the galaxy dicking arround. You were searching. In ME2 you know presciely where your enemy is coming and going from , the general vincity it operates after it's entry and the prescise targets. Yet you must go and help your largely bland and unlovable party members resolve personal issues that have absolutely no bearing on the grander scheme of things without any sort of excuse desides "Resquing sisters from a life of splendour makes spandex bullet-proof."
And finaly the Mako. Curse you all you dim witted morons who couldn't drive it! The damn thing was as gracefull as an ice skating couple if you knew what you're doing when driving it.
I concede ME1's invenotry was bad , but it's complete removal was just as wrong. A diablo style inventory with the ability to choose what i take and leave on the ground would've been just perfect.
Another thing is the universal upgrades. Come on people is it THAT hard to read what an upgrade does to your weapon and armor in ME1? It's better for role-play if i taylor my equipment the way i see fit rather then beforced to do it because thos global upgrades aply to party memembers aswell.
Story: ME1 had a nice and captivating story that managed to weave the gameplay into itself. You don't know where the bloody hell Saren is so it makes sense when you go down a random planet to check out a beacon or generally wander aimlessly arround the galaxy dicking arround. You were searching. In ME2 you know presciely where your enemy is coming and going from , the general vincity it operates after it's entry and the prescise targets. Yet you must go and help your largely bland and unlovable party members resolve personal issues that have absolutely no bearing on the grander scheme of things without any sort of excuse desides "Resquing sisters from a life of splendour makes spandex bullet-proof."
And finaly the Mako. Curse you all you dim witted morons who couldn't drive it! The damn thing was as gracefull as an ice skating couple if you knew what you're doing when driving it.
Compare neverwinter nights to mass effect... yeah i think they're being dumbed down. I don't care too much though; both are fucking awesome. I'll take either.
Oblivion had all of it's mechanics improved over Morrowind, the only thing I disliked in Oblivion was the craptastic ending...Eduku said:
I do ALL that running around getting the damn Amulet of Kings to the Blades, then going to Kvatch and finding Martin, and THEN have to run across the face of the Gods-forsaken Earth closing portals to Hell just to have the new Emperor sacrifice himself and leave the Empire MORE screwed than it was before this whole mess started! Seriously, WHAT THE HELL, BETHESDA?!
Other than that, the magic, melee, and ranged combat all flowed much better in Oblivion than in Morrowind. The AI also seemed a little less screwed up in Oblivion, but then I'm not an expert on game mechanics.
I'm really not sure if they're being dumbed down. I know that I wish games like planescape torment and arcanum still existed - I guess modern RPGs have less features than them (Arcanums spell list alone is huge) but they don't necessarily seem 'dumber' they just have less optional content. (you try and kill Alistair in DA because you don't like the look of him? Tough. You want to kill Virgil in Arcanum? Go ahead, the game will cope.) I like it when the game actually offers me the freedom to do outright insane stuff like that.
See, the thing is there is no real definition of a game which is an RPG. What makes an RPG?
Times are changing, companies are trying to appeal to a wider audience and they seem to not like the way classic RPG's are handled.
However, with the change from Mass Effect 1 to 2, i loved the changes since the combat was better and the whole clunky inventory was gone. However, i wanted more weapon choices and more vechicle combat, so BioWare need to try and find a middle ground i think.
Times are changing, companies are trying to appeal to a wider audience and they seem to not like the way classic RPG's are handled.
However, with the change from Mass Effect 1 to 2, i loved the changes since the combat was better and the whole clunky inventory was gone. However, i wanted more weapon choices and more vechicle combat, so BioWare need to try and find a middle ground i think.
Here's my take:
- In various titles, yes. It seems more and more that some gaming companies have basically denied you creating your character from scratch, and expect you to play a certain character with a specific name, only making certain class or equipment tweeks.
Examples:
Mass Effect 2(in a way, you're always playing a Sheppard)
Final Fantasy (the heroes are always pre-defined and tend to work better in certain roles than others)
- In other titles, no. Some companies get it. For example, they let you create heroes that look like you and you can control every facet of their development. That's real roleplaying - you are choosing the role, appearance and attitude of your character.
Examples:
Dragon Age
Fallout 3
You may disagree with my examples, but I'm not saying those games are better than others. What I'm saying is that there's a definition of what role-playing is, and some companies get it better than others. While I don't necessarily agree that Fallout 3 is better than Final Fantasy games, it more closely resembles real role-playing. Removing elements because it's hard to "number crunch" or "get lost" or whatever is removing elements of role-playing, turning it into something easier i.e. dumbing it down.
- In various titles, yes. It seems more and more that some gaming companies have basically denied you creating your character from scratch, and expect you to play a certain character with a specific name, only making certain class or equipment tweeks.
Examples:
Mass Effect 2(in a way, you're always playing a Sheppard)
Final Fantasy (the heroes are always pre-defined and tend to work better in certain roles than others)
- In other titles, no. Some companies get it. For example, they let you create heroes that look like you and you can control every facet of their development. That's real roleplaying - you are choosing the role, appearance and attitude of your character.
Examples:
Dragon Age
Fallout 3
You may disagree with my examples, but I'm not saying those games are better than others. What I'm saying is that there's a definition of what role-playing is, and some companies get it better than others. While I don't necessarily agree that Fallout 3 is better than Final Fantasy games, it more closely resembles real role-playing. Removing elements because it's hard to "number crunch" or "get lost" or whatever is removing elements of role-playing, turning it into something easier i.e. dumbing it down.
No, I think that technology is allowing a lot of 'complexity' to be integrated into basic game mechanics/design/customization - which doesn't always make it obvious that it's there.
As an example, I can't wait for action based Dragon's Age. I played the original game, pausing it every other move, and having to micromanage my group mates...I did not find that enjoyable in the slightest - yes it made it a little more difficult, but it made combat tedious not fun in my opinion (I'd rather manage cooldowns than pause the game every action and redirect my group members for example)
I personally think people are confusing convoluted game-play and poor mechanics with difficulty. Having a genre become streamlined doesn't mean it's being dumbed down (this argument comes up in the MMO genre too). On the contrary, it allows designers implement more fun/interesting mechanics and game-play since they aren't constrained by the more cumbersome traditional ones.
As an example, I can't wait for action based Dragon's Age. I played the original game, pausing it every other move, and having to micromanage my group mates...I did not find that enjoyable in the slightest - yes it made it a little more difficult, but it made combat tedious not fun in my opinion (I'd rather manage cooldowns than pause the game every action and redirect my group members for example)
I personally think people are confusing convoluted game-play and poor mechanics with difficulty. Having a genre become streamlined doesn't mean it's being dumbed down (this argument comes up in the MMO genre too). On the contrary, it allows designers implement more fun/interesting mechanics and game-play since they aren't constrained by the more cumbersome traditional ones.