And then there's MineCraft. Or Dwarf Fortress.
Games with mass appeal (well, relatively) WITHOUT fancy graphics.
How is this possible ? These games shouldn't exist ! - At least if we follow the thought that games WITHOUT flashy graphics MUST fail instanly !
I think its a barrier to entry issue, which also depends on the age of the gamer. Younger gamers demand higher levels of graphics because their baseline is much higher than those of us that grew up with gaming in the 80's or 90's.
As an example, I'm 35, so my teenage years were spent in what some consider the 'Golden Age' from '85-'95. One of my good friends is 25. he barely remembers any of the games from before '95. We both lament the current state of gaming, yet when he went back to try the original Ultima IV and Ultima V, it didn't hold his interest at all. Yet he'll play Fallout and Baldur's Gate until the cows come home!
I on the other hand had a blast replaying Ultima's I-V a few years back. I bought M&MI-VI on GOG when it was on sale and can't wait to play them (I never have). He'd probably be bored out of his mind.
I was thinking about the 'rpg problem' last night actually (before even seeing this post) and I thought a couple things:
1) Graphics are definitely a large part of the problem, but only because they cost so much and take so much out of the budget, but that can't be helped if you want to appeal to a decent amount of people that are under 30.
2) In older games, they were often sandboxes where you could do what you want, where you want, and the story was really just small bits and pieces that we filled in the rest. We accepted this and it was fine, but it doesn't work as well in modern games, particularly 3-D games. I take the U6: Project as an example.
Don't get me wrong, I love the remake and had a blast with it, but I still haven't finished it. Why? Because the world is too huge, IMO, for a sandbox game. I spend a lot of time wandering around trying to remember where I left my boat (if its been a while since I played) or find the entrance to a dungeon or whatever. While they improved the story significantly, it still is dependent 100% on the user to advance the story. It's purely reactive instead of proactive. Modern games need a mix of both. Now don't get me wrong, they accomplished what they set out to do, which was modernize Ultima VI, and they did an out of this world job of it.
So what does all that rambling mean? It means in today's games, we NEED a stronger storyline. We need something that drives us from point A to point B, outside of just 'well, I haven't been there yet, so let's explore'. That works for a while, but in games of this size, we need more. Not necessarily in a tactical RPG, but in a story RPG.
The problem is that because the graphics and other technology take up so much of the budget, you either end up with not enough story to keep you interested, or rail-roaded along a specific story arc (like what I hear from DA2). Both are easier to do than creating an interactive narrative with real choices and consequences.
IMO, I think BG2 really nailed that. Yes, ultimately regardless of you choices, you were driving towards the same final battle and choices, but all the things you did along the way determined how you got there.
Modern games need a better balance of story that just seems to really be lacking.
.
