Bioware Will Continue to Stray From the "Core" RPG
|
Fans of menus, pausing combat, turn-based action, and crunching numbers beware! Bioware has descended from on high to inform gamers that they will continue to “dumb down” their games with more exciting elements from other genres instead of reverting back to forcing players to control a character that is nothing more than a mathematical equation! The death of the core RPG is imminent! The end is nigh! All joking aside, Ray Muzyka and Greg Zeschuk of Bioware stated in a recent interview with Eurogamer that their focus on implementing more action into their games is a real and likely possibility. “We see a lot of other genres incorporating features of RPGs and in turn RPGs are incorporating features of other genres. There are more action elements, there’s different ways to tell a story, there’s different ways to have characters interact for adventure games, action games, shooters, and that’s exciting to us.” Don’t go grab your flamethrowers and opinion-enforcing Wikipedia articles just yet, kids, let’s think about this. Yes, in it’s early days Bioware gave us some of the best RPGs of all time with all the number crunching we could eat. Although not a fan of that type of game myself, it’s a great system. Anyone interested has loads of fun figuring out the best possible gear and skill configurations for maximum monster killing efficiency. With that in mind, one thing we can all agree on is that Bioware has always been about telling a story. Does anyone honestly believe we would have gotten the incredible story out of Mass Effect 2 if hundreds of development hours had been spent attempting to update the disorganized mess of RPG elements the first game had? Of course not. I think it’s about time we all faced the fact that role playing games being synonymous with spreadsheet battles is becoming less and less true. There’s a bit of a divide at play here. Number crunching gameplay has moved in into the MMO realm. There’s considerably less of an emphasis on story, leaving players free to create mathematically perfect powerhouses to dominate other players or band together into an unstoppable algorithm of death. Story driven gameplay is becoming easier, but more emotionally engaging and satisfying in its own right. Players are free to experience the story at their own pace and make continuity changing decisions without having to worry about grinding or making sure that they have enough of a critical hit percentage to be effective against their enemies. Bioware is moving into the latter territory and I for one support them, even if it means we might see another Dragon Age II here and there. Besides, it’s not like games that let the constant stress of character configuration and grinding get in the way of a good story are going anywhere. Final Fantasy games are still coming out. Source: Sarcastic Gamer |
“Does anyone honestly believe we would have gotten the incredible story out of Mass Effect 2 if hundreds of development hours had been spent attempting to update the disorganized mess of RPG elements the first game had?”
I do! First, I’ve seen no evidence that RPG systems actually take more development time than action systems. Second, while I find the narratives of both games significantly underwhelming, I think Mass Effect was definitely the stronger one, given that A. It actually had more of a plot than “find a bunch of dudes” and B. It didn’t have the lamest, least-developed villain I’ve ever seen in a Western RPG.
Secondly, I don’t think what traditional RPG players want is spreadsheet battles. The numbers aren’t about the number, they’re indicators of depth. And, mind you, Bioware has never been great at this; the combat systems in the Baldur’s Gate series were pretty awful and horrifically unbalanced. But I, for one, am most concerned about role-playing, about really developing an interesting and nuanced character, and THAT is where Bioware consistently fails, giving me consistent binary options of “Give the begger all my money” and “Murder the begger just for the hell of it.” In KOTOR, the dark side PC wasn’t evil and scheming. He was just an asshole.
Agreed completely. One thing I would say though also, is that while ME2’s story was pretty bad, I found most of the side stories to be quite enjoyable. I like to look at the whole game as a collection of short stories rather than the novels that I look at most games as. It makes me forget all the failures of the primary story when I do that.
Yeah, I’ll definitely give it that; I don’t mean to sound like a plot nazi, and some of the side stories were definitely an improvement on Mass Effect’s tired “ONE MAN AGAINST AN ANCIENT EVIL” plotline. It was better. But it still couldn’t stop itself from being mechanically identical to so many earlier Bioware efforts. I could romance a Bioware NPC in my sleep, it’s all so ridiculously transparent.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who prefers ME1 to ME2.
I do to David.
yo man half the sh*t he’s saying is a joke, and for crying out loud the name is fckin sarcastic gamer. If your that uptight of a douchebag about it you really need a life man.<(0_0<)(>0_0)>
sorry i mean the source is from sarcastic gamer.
Mass Effect 1 had horrible shooting mechanics compared to the sequel but the villains were much better. Both games have had better stories than the last few final fantasy games. Enough with spirits living in the earth.
Amen to that, sir! I do agree with most of you guys that ME1 had a much better villain, but ME2 wasn’t about having one villain. It was about an entire race. It was about something bigger than one Salarian with a curly mustache could accomplish. Not to mention ME2 had more interesting characters, actual development of characters from ME1, plotlines that actually affected me, and decisions that required a few minutes of putting down the controller and thinking.
I wonder what this will mean for Dragon Age. What with the first being well loved, and many people not liking the second for going the “action” route.
What I don’t understand is why can’t they do both? Dragon Age for the “old-school” RPG experience, Mass Effect and others for the “new” experience. They could cater to both markets. Dragon Age proved the former is a viable market, so more or less abandoning it in favor of the “mainstream” market when they could have both seems a bit foolish.
Plus, if The Old Republic is successful, it’d put them in a situation where they’d be able to make whatever they want. But that’s still the future, and hazy at this point.
ME1 was a unique and timeless masterpiece: the best interactive cinematique experience ever.
Then they improve 1 (ONE!!!) element, the combact mechanic, in the second episode… Leaving ALL the other elements (plot, continuity, exploration, looting, customization, gameplay variety etc..) on the ground.
The result? ME2 was a really mediocre linear shooter.
I have zero hype for ME3… And this is incredible considering that, before ME2, ME franchise for me was on par to Star Wars saga.
Bioware died long ago.
Well said you are so right my friend.
It’s not all about the numbers, but it is about the choices. It’s what made Dragon Age: Origins such a fantastic game (and Awakenings), and what made Mass Effect a pair of relatively mediocre games I don’t want to replay (though, I will admit, I like ME1 for all the wrong reasons).
The problem with saying, “The RPG is dead” is the same as it is with saying “The turn based strategy game is dead”: they’re dead because no one’s developing in them, not because of some magic new science that has made them irrelevant. The turn based RPG is not irrelevant; rather, Bioware has stopped making them. They’ve done this, most likely, because they like money.
Action games tell some stories better. Turn based games tell other stories better. Games are falling into the trap comics fell into: all mainstream comics need a good fight, because “without a good fight no one will read it”. Obviously. And yet, the fights dumb down the stories. Games go the same way. Mass Effect 2 added shooting to every sidequest because it was a game about shooting. You couldn’t do something like Keldorn’s side quest in BG2 in Mass Effect 2 because there’s no one to kill. All solutions in action games have to feature action. Turn based games give tonal difference, which gives them more options. It’s not about segregation, but about telling better stories.
Sorry, but with every step Bioware take in this “borrowing” from other genres (read: just trying to make the game more like GOW or COD), I find Im doing less roleplaying, and more pointing crosshairs at enemies and shooting them.
ME1, while heavily flawed, had a more evenly matched mixture of gameplay elements – as it should since it was marketed as a hybrid of genres.
ME2… When you stop at look at it, you clearly see 80-90% of the game is shooting your way through linear corridors. Almost every “great” side plot mission that meant recruiting and gaining the loyalty of a teammate involved shooting wave after wave of enemies from behind cover. Only two characters side missions had the guts to say “lets not devolve into a repetition of boring, dumbass TPS combat”.
I dont play Mass Effect for a Gears of War/Call of Duty experience, yet Bioware increasingly wants to portray the game as friendly to these playstyles because they want the sales the aforementioned games attract.
Ill be researching ME3 heavily and if the game yet again involves 90% of my time being spent shooting enemies repeatedly, Ill pass. The first mass effect allowed for several breaks in play that lasted up to an hour+ where firing a shot wasnt necessary. You just immersed yourself in your Shepard and the gameworld.
Deus Ex HR also had the same idea (along with the added bonus of not even using shooter combat if you dont want).
I think Deus Ex HR should be biowares standard. I want my hours spent on the citadel or noveria in ME1, or experiences like exploring detroit and Hengsha and immersing yourself in non-TPS gameplay for a few hours back in ME3.
I agree with anyone who views the “homogenisation” of game genres not as something done out of efficiency or quality, but because shooters sell better, so the suits want more shooter in their games.
I totally agree. I was completely underwhelmed by the Citadel and the space station (forget its name) in ME2. Deus Ex HR’s hub cities are still pretty empty, but they’re awesome compared to those in ME.
Pingback: Hardcore, Casual, and Why I Don't Care | Blackman'N Robin
We’re hmnuas, we categorize things. It is what we do. Labels help us achieve that. Genres are one way we accomplish this. Just because something can fit into multiple genres does not make the act of labeling irrelevant.The problem with the RPG label isn’t entirely that it isn’t applicable, but that it is not clearly defined. Rodrigo has put forth a definition, and now it is up to us to either agree or disagree; to accept or refine it.
I totally disagree with you regarding mass effect one,anyone that loves RPG’s wouldn’t have found it a disorganised mess as you put it,in fact is was rather light on RPG features but acceptable,ME 2 wasn’t in my book, and 3 looks far far worse,but Bioware and everyone else knows that these days there are more people into shooters than RPG’s so Bioware changed everything to appeal to a larger audience,which annoys me greatly because there are loads of shooters out there and very few Sci-fi RPG’S,but appealing to more people means more money and that’s why they betrayed their loyal fans of the past,for me this is near the end of my gaming life the quality of games has gradually gone down hill with each generation and games are becoming boring and more alike,game play and story has disappeared for now which is a shame.