Dragon Age - Might Not Catch with Console Gamers

Originally Posted by Turjan
Fair enough. The optimal mix of RPG elements is different for everyone. Don't put the game away before you make it out of that initial dungeon. That one was a bit of a trudge.

Don't get me wrong, I thought what it did it did do absolutely perfectly, I really couldn't fault it. In terms of quality and balance and polish it absolutely beat planescape hands down, but planescape had that elusive element that completely captured my imagination that BG1&2 simply didn't and I forgave any amount of flaws for that. The BGs were 10/10 deliveries of what a good quality RPG should be and what I expected one to be, but planescape (& the fallouts a couple of years earlier) went beyond what I'd realised the genre could deliver and had far more impact for me.

I did finish BGII anyway, I just didn't feel utterly gutted after it was over in the way I did with planescape.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I'm talking about impact on the state of the genre at that time. It's not even close, Daggerfall practically flew under the radar compared to Baldur's Gate.

Fair enough, in terms of significance though the genre has moved towards daggerfall and away from BG.

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
Once again Benedict I agree with everything you said except M&M. I really hated those games. Preferred Wizardry or Ultima.

On a lot of levels I preferred Wizardry or Ultima too. Admittedly Wizardry I found there was so much combat and so many hidden or tricky things that it could be hard work, and Ultima required a lot more engaging my brain, where the M&Ms were just unchallenging (but enjoyable for me) epic romps through big fantasy worlds. Ultima & Wizardry were also those few years earlier so I couldn't use them as examples for there not being a drought.

I think for me the M&Ms hit a really good mix of open sandbox and individual handcrafted. I could go anywhere right from the off (barring getting killed to DEATH all over the place) and had a lot of freedom, but the world's weren't autogenerated and empty. I think the first couple of Gothics were the only other thing that had that same kind of feeling, and it's something that for me makes a big contribution to immersion over and above any plot or characters.

Originally Posted by Benedict
Fair enough, in terms of significance though the genre has moved towards daggerfall and away from BG.

Sorry but I just don't see that. The crpg market hasn't exactly been flooded with first-person sandbox RPGs yet. Look at what's been released the last few years, as well as the biggest titles this year. (IE. Storm of Zehir, Drakensang, Dragon Age) Those types of party based RPGs still outnumber the "Daggerfall types'.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Sorry but I just don't see that. The crpg market hasn't exactly been flooded with first-person sandbox RPGs yet. Look at what's been released the last few years, as well as the biggest titles this year. (IE. Drakensang, Dragon Age) Those type of party based RPGs still outnumber the "Daggerfall types'.

Depends on what you're seeing as the biggest releases. Drakensang, for all that it's right up the alley of most on here and a hotly anticipated release, probably isn't going to be one of the largest releases, certainly nothing on the scale of fallout 3. Dragon Age is the first major release of a BG type game in years IMO, and hopefully the first of a welcome return to form but I fear not.

Plus, I was talking of movements rather than absolutes. At the time of baldur's gate the rpg market was dominated by the broad category of party based rpg (fallouts, planescape, BGs, M&Ms etc) and only daggerfall doing anything sandboxy. Since then the party based rpg market has dried up substantially (drakensang & Dragon age hopefully being the reversal of that trend) while more developers have tried to get a sandboxy element (not just bethesda but the sacreds, fable, not to mention all the industry energy targetted at the MMO sandbox market, heck even the gothics are more first person single player go where you want sandboxy, particularly the third one).

To my mind, at the time the BGs did what they did (admittedly very, very well) that style of game accounted for the bulk of the rpg market. Since then diablo clones & sandboxy FP SP games have grown while traditional party based have shrunk.

Originally Posted by Benedict
Dragon Age is the first major release of a BG type game in years IMO,

How so? NWN2 was definitely a major release.

Originally Posted by Benedict
Plus, I was talking of movements rather than absolutes. At the time of baldur's gate the rpg market was dominated by the broad category of party based rpg (fallouts, planescape, BGs, M&Ms etc) and only daggerfall doing anything sandboxy. Since then the party based rpg market has dried up substantially (drakensang & Dragon age hopefully being the reversal of that trend) while more developers have tried to get a sandboxy element (not just bethesda but the sacreds, fable, not to mention all the industry energy targetted at the MMO sandbox market, heck even the gothics are more first person single player go where you want sandboxy, particularly the third one).

To my mind, at the time the BGs did what they did (admittedly very, very well) that style of game accounted for the bulk of the rpg market. Since then diablo clones & sandboxy FP SP games have grown while traditional party based have shrunk.

Well I guess anything can be "sandboxy" if you want to be that ambiguous with it. I don't think most people would consider Sacred or Fable to be sandboxy though. The Gothic games definitely had some sandbox elements, but they were still much more tightly driven than a true sandbox game.

Party based RPGs haven't shrunk as much as other types have simply grown. We just have more parity now, which is a good thing. It's not a case of one being more dominate than the other, although there are still more party-based RPGs than first-person sandbox games.

Originally Posted by JDR13
How so? NWN2 was definitely a major release.

I've always considered the NWNs far more niche than the bioware type games with their console crossovers, but it's a pretty arbitrary cutoff as to what's "major". Bethesda / Blizzard > Bioware > Obsidian > every other rpg type producer so I'm happy move the line to include Obsidian as well

Well I guess anything can be "sandboxy" if you want to be that ambiguous with it. I don't think most people would consider Sacred or Fable to be sandboxy though.

Depends what you count as sandboxy. Fable has a very linear main plot but you can go anywhere and do anything and spend hours crafting or buying stuff or getting married or doing all kinds of silly things. Sacred has very little non combat stuff to do but has a massive open world with complete freedom to do it in. Neither are as sandboxy as a bethesda experience, both are more sandboxy than a BG type plot driven experience.

Party based RPGs haven't shrunk as much as other types have simply grown. We just have more parity now, which is a good thing. It's not a case of one being more dominate than the other, although there are still more party-based RPGs than first-person sandbox games.

So, as said, the market mix has shifted away from BG type games (party based, relatively linear, reasonably plot heavy) and towards the two other main archetypes whose first incarnations were both around the time of BG - Diablo type ARPG and Daggerfall type Sandboxy. I agree we now have more parity rather than other games now being dominant, but at the time of baldur's gate the BG type games were dominant and it has moved from dominance to parity.

Originally Posted by Benedict
Depends what you count as sandboxy. Fable has a very linear main plot but you can go anywhere and do anything and spend hours crafting or buying stuff or getting married or doing all kinds of silly things. Sacred has very little non combat stuff to do but has a massive open world with complete freedom to do it in. Neither are as sandboxy as a bethesda experience, both are more sandboxy than a BG type plot driven experience.

Those points are true, but again, very ambiguous. It's very easy to be less sandboxy than a Bethesda game but more sandboxy than Baldur's Gate.

Originally Posted by Benedict
I agree we now have more parity rather than other games now being dominant, but at the time of baldur's gate the BG type games were dominant and it has moved from dominance to parity.

Most definitely.

I think the trend that you're actually recognizing is that there are now more crpgs that have you controlling a single character rather than a party. It's more about the single protagonist in general, not the camera view. Whether it's 1st person, 3rd person, or something in between. The true first-person sandbox is not a main archtype though, definitely more of a niche category.

Unfortunately Diablo clones are stronger than ever, which doesn't bode well for the genre imo. I too hope that Dragon Age does well enough to stimulate the interest for more games of that type.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Those points are true, but again, very ambiguous. It's very easy to be less sandboxy than a Bethesda game but more sandboxy than Baldur's Gate.

Indeed, that pretty much covers all games, my sense of the genre has just been that the spectrum around the first BG was almost entirely over towards tightly channelled, handcrafted & plot driven and now there's games spread out all over.

I think the trend that you're actually recognizing is that there are now more crpgs that have you controlling a single character rather than a party. It's more about the single protagonist in general, not the camera view. Whether it's 1st person, 3rd person, or something in between. The true first-person sandbox is not a main archtype though, definitely more of a niche category.

I think there's a definite interaction between the camera angles / graphics engine and the type of protagonist chosen. The move from 2d isometric to 3d drove the tendency to shift from party based & strategic to single protagonist and clicky because the camera angles and perspectives built into the graphic engines lent themselve better to new play styles than old ones. The NWN games for example have been plagued by camera angle complaints.

I was thinking of archetypes more in the sense of frames of reference for categorising games rather than all games fitting completely into set moulds. Few games are completely sandboxy, all games make a decision as to how sandboxy they want to be given the trade-offs for trying to be sandboxy.

Unfortunately Diablo clones are stronger than ever, which doesn't bode well for the genre imo. I too hope that Dragon Age does well enough to stimulate the interest for more games of that type.

100% agreed. I think it's a real shame that the BGs (and fallouts & torment) came along when the genre was about to be dislodged from its perch, whether through diablo showing clickfests were marketable or from 3d engines really beginning to take off properly. Had the BG type games market matured a little earlier (and it could have done, it was more a matter of game design than technical progress) we'd have hopefully got a few more classics. Then again, there was funding for a couple of icewind dale things and they were both dull as heck so it's probably a good thing that some different but good new game forms came along.

Originally Posted by Benedict
I've always considered the NWNs far more niche than the bioware type games with their console crossovers, but it's a pretty arbitrary cutoff as to what's "major". Bethesda / Blizzard > Bioware > Obsidian > every other rpg type producer so I'm happy move the line to include Obsidian as well

I think that is more a part of the general landscape shifting to console games that would previously have been on PC's … so by being a PC-only RPG you are inherently niche. That said, a couple million units sold is enough to make console makers happy, let alone PC devs …

Originally Posted by txa1265
I think that is more a part of the general landscape shifting to console games that would previously have been on PC's … so by being a PC-only RPG you are inherently niche. That said, a couple million units sold is enough to make console makers happy, let alone PC devs …

They managed a couple of million units? Good on them

I think they've really worked the niche thing though. NWN has seemed so heavily community based what with all the modding that they've got a hugely loyal niche base from which to try and lure in users from a broader spectrum.

Originally Posted by Benedict
I think there's a definite interaction between the camera angles / graphics engine and the type of protagonist chosen. The move from 2d isometric to 3d drove the tendency to shift from party based & strategic to single protagonist and clicky because the camera angles and perspectives built into the graphic engines lent themselve better to new play styles than old ones. The NWN games for example have been plagued by camera angle complaints.

I don't think camera view really has much to do with the shift to single protagonist at all. The proof being so many party-based games in the past that used a first-person view, and with great success. M&M, Wizardry, Bard's Tale, Lands of Lore, Etc. It's also already been proven that those games can be successfully developed with modern graphics. (IE. Wizardry 8)

I tend to think the single character shift has more to do with story based reasons. Perhaps the devs feel it's easier to flesh out a great story with the player having direct control over only a single entity, rather than multiple PCs.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I don't think camera view really has much to do with the shift to single protagonist at all. The proof being so many party-based games in the past that used a first-person view, and with great success. M&M, Wizardry, Bard's Tale, Lands of Lore, Etc. It's also already been proven that those games can be successfully developed with modern graphics. (IE. Wizardry 8)

I tend to think the single character shift has more to do with story based reasons. Perhaps the devs feel it's easier to flesh out a great story with the player having direct control over only a single entity, rather than multiple PCs.

Fair point, I'd been thinking in terms of nice clear BG vs messy and awkward to follow NWN type things. I'd completely forgotten Lands of Lore, shame the third one was so buggy, that was a franchise I'd have liked to see continue.

I think that the direct control business is probably pretty secondary to the story though, the tendency of BG / PS:T to have one main protagonist & others joining the plot already covers a lot of the story benefits of not creating a whole party of people without fleshed out backgrounds, the choice of party based vs single protagonist based then just has more impact on combat dynamics than plot flexibility.

Originally Posted by Benedict
I think that the direct control business is probably pretty secondary to the story though, the tendency of BG / PS:T to have one main protagonist & others joining the plot already covers a lot of the story benefits of not creating a whole party of people without fleshed out backgrounds, the choice of party based vs single protagonist based then just has more impact on combat dynamics than plot flexibility.

The developer-story theory is just a suggestion. To be honest, I don't think anyone could accurately pinpoint the reason for the shift, and I don't personally believe either way is more beneficial to a crpg having a great story.

Well this conversation has taken way too much time away from my current gaming experience, Vampire the Masquerade:Bloodlines. Speaking of a great story……

Originally Posted by JDR13

Well this conversation has taken way too much time away from my current gaming experience, Vampire the Masquerade:Bloodlines. Speaking of a great story……

Now that's definitely a great game . . . . what are you playing as?

I ought to revisit it as a malkavian at some point, I gather the tweaks for the madness are done brilliantly.

Ventrue, first playthrough. The game is great so far. My only complaint is how sometimes you run into a dead end in a dialog tree, and are forced to choose an option with no way to back out of it.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Ventrue, first playthrough. The game is great so far. My only complaint is how sometimes you run into a dead end in a dialog tree, and are forced to choose an option with no way to back out of it.

I played a Tremere, that blood magic definitely kicked arse whenever there was a tough combat.

VtM is another one like Torment for me, full of flaws but full of such unique charm and innovation that the flaws even became kind of endearing.