Dragon Age 2 - The End of BioWare as a Traditional RPG Creator?

There's been plenty of good rpgs with a set protagonist in the past, that isn't an issue for me. However, I absolutely hate the dialogue wheel feature, that alone effectively kills the game for me. From everything I've read DA did better in terms of sales than ME2, why they'd want to make them indistinguishable from each other instead of trying to cater to both audiences seems odd. But who am I kidding, I should know that it's unlikely that I'll be the target audience for a AAA title again, ever.

Am I the only one that really hated ME2 ?

For me ME2 was nothing more than very well produced ,yet boring , interactive story with some bad attempt on 3rd person shooter added in for flavor.

That was not rpg, not shooter, and not even adventure game.

It was simple, it was small.

And only merit was good voice acting and cgi.


Is Dragon Age heading that way ?

I liked the Mass Effect games, but I certainly didn't think they were among Bioware's best, and I wouldn't like them to be used as a model for future games. I thought ME2 had a more interesting cast of characters than ME's rather underwhelming selection, but there were lots of design choices they took that I didn't like. In particular, the points of no return everywhere, time limits and being punished for exploration.

Originally Posted by maylander
talk about a lot of whining and doomsday prophecies. Geez. People need to relax, wait for the actual game, and try it out. Either it's good or it's not.

+1

……..

I'm actually very optimistic about this. I think DA:O started out in development with the BG template in mind then added a bunch of cinematics that never meshed quite right. I don't think it really turned out all that great. The origin stories were short, and almost all the battles were very similar once you levelled a bit. The villains were lame, and the story so-so.

I really enjoyed ME2. The complaints about the dialog wheel are just bizarre. A dialog list is good, but a wheel is bad? Ridiculous. Here's hoping they take some good parts from ME2 and improve on DA, which I found highly flawed.

Bioware is going to places I can't follow them. For a Sci-Fi setting it was bearable to have a human, because a more or less unknown Sci-Fi cosmos, what do you expect?

Fantasy however is a totally different beast. When you are forced to play human in a fantasy setting, it just does leave me with an awkward feeling of limitation. Plus, what I hear that the major part of the game is strong narrative of past events, it makes me wonder where is the RPG is that? For my taste even DA:O and ME2 had WAY too many long conversations and cinematics. Thats not what I connect with an RPG and it already felt too much like a sort of interactive movie with some shooter elements in between.

RPGs where Baldurs Gate or Icewind Dale. RPGs where even KOTOR. But this… yeah it may be a great story, and that is nice and fine. But it means to sacrifice Roleplay for the pre defined story, and I just don't like that a bit. Bioware had in the last years already tended towards restricted areas. DA:O was again quest instances and travel only via a map. It wasn't an open world like Oblivion or Fallout 3, and I found that a very unfortunate development. This is just one more step away from what I like.

I am quite certain I will not get DA2.

Sadly, I think the days of Bioware producing true RPGs is over. Is it too early for the "I told you so" from all of us who thought EA would ruin Bioware to everyone who said they wouldn't?

The ME & DA series have been interactive movies with weak gameplay and long dialogs, each release even more watered down than the last. It'd be one thing if the interactive movies were interesting but their writing has gotten stale and overly formulaic.

Yeah yeah, I know, they're in it to make money and schlock sells. That's all well and good, who doesn't like money, but aren't there any developers in it for the art anymore? Maybe I'm just getting too hard to please and too damn old.

Edit: Save me CD Project & Radon Labs, you're my only hope.

Unfortunately the era of Radon Labs might also be gone - since they have been bought up by Bigpoint.

Somebody please fill in this niche.

So The Witcher, which has no character customization at all, is an RPG. But Dragon Age 2, by forcing you to be a human and voiced, is suddenly not an RPG like DA 1 was?

'I hate games with voice-overs' is fair enough, but hanging it all on some thoroughly arbitrary and inconsistent moniker 'RPG' and saying what's good and what's not by how much it matches your particular definition of it is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by moonmonster
So The Witcher, which has no character customization at all, is an RPG. But Dragon Age 2, by forcing you to be a human and voiced, is suddenly not an RPG like DA 1 was?

'I hate games with voice-overs' is fair enough, but hanging it all on some thoroughly arbitrary and inconsistent moniker 'RPG' and saying what's good and what's not by how much it matches your particular definition of it is ridiculous.

Some people see RP as taking on the role of another person - whether chosen or not - so playing a game with a fixed protagonist is considered an RPG.

Others see RP as playing yourself, to various degrees, in a game and hence a fixed protagonist doesn't work (this would be me and why I do not like, play or consider Witcher an RPG anymore than ME).

Many are fine with both styles and I am sure there are other ways of defining it as well.

The point being that it is not at all illogical to call the Witcher, ME and DA all RPG games. I think the issue is either what you prefer or expected. For instance some liked ME2 and DAO and would like to see more of both, not ME2 + DAO = DA2. Some want choice and avoid any game with a single hard-coded and fixed protagonist and veer towards the games with more choice - the more choice the better.

So I think some of the complaint are from what people expected (a continuation of DA2), what some prefer (fixed over choice), and a mix of mechanics thrown in.

I have been amused at people moaning about DA2 versus ME2 and yet not putting the Witcher in the same area as ME2. IMO the Witcher is way more hard-coded and fixed then Shepard. He has an entire book series for petes sake. One reason I have never had any interest in the Witcher. NOTE not saying Witcher is bad - just that I dislike that style of game where you have a hard coded character.

Still I will give DA2 a chance as the writers have said they plan on letting you build Hawkes personality far more than Sheps. Time will tell if that holds true.

Bioware ended being a traditional RPG creator by the time KotOR was released, at the latest.

With these DA2 reveals, it´s obvious DA:O was an oddity. I thought that with DA:O they´ve found a very good compromise between "mainstream" and "traditional" and since it no doubt was a commercially successful game, I hoped it will push them in the direction of refinement of this compromise. So obviously I´m a tad disappointed they seem to be abandoning that specific route, probably for the economical reasons. Not really because I don´t like to play a somewhat fixed protagonist with own voice, some of my favorite games have this (Gothics, The Witcher), but because as of now there´s not really anyone else making the kind of game combining high production values with more traditional approach to game elements. Oh, well.

That said, other than loss of opportunity to give the PC my own voice, everything else sounds like there´s a potential to end in the positives.
Dialogue wheel combined with stance system might turn out good, provided it isn´t stripped to binary choices á la Mass Effect. And the stance system suggests it´s not.
I´ve read that the PC is known as a champion of some town or so, which, to some extent, may as well be the different way to define PC´s "origins" aka how and why he became one is on player.
Seeing consequences of actions of one character through the eyes of another via savegame import is certainly an interesting way to supply continuity between the two games, provided, of course, these consequences don´t end up in usual cosmetic waters.
Finally, the fact the game spans across a decade is a very interesting feature as well, provided (again) there´s enough reactivity implemented into the world and it won´t cause the game to became way too linear. Something in the vein of Gothic 2 where places changed upon reaching a new chapter, just with more consequences to player´s actions, as well as ability to visit new ones, would be great.

In comparison with DA:O, the sequel would also benefited from less filler combat, tweaked character development, more creative itemization and more freedom when it comes to exploration, but this now seems more-or-less wishful thinking on my side since these things would be more likely addressed would Bioware chosen to refine the more traditional elements of DA:O and, in the light of recent reveals, it seems their focus lies elsewhere.
Seeing the relatively short planned development time along with claims of more cinematic approach and usual Bioware tendency to corridorize player´s freedom, I´m far from being excited yet.

All in all, available info suggests they haven´t taken the direction I hoped them to take, but some mentioned features hint at a potentially interesting game nevertheless. The amount of typical Bioware shortcomings in the game will be the deciding factor.
I think I´ll remain neutral for a while.

Originally Posted by DeepO
Bioware ended being a traditional RPG creator by the time KotOR was released, at the latest.

I fully and wholeheartedly agree, especially with the "at the latest" part. In fact, I believe that the title of the editorial reeks of irony. My first thought was: Wouldn't there have to be a beginning for there to be an end first? And what is their definition of a "traditional RPG"? Baldur's Gate?

Personally I have to admit that I have always kind of hated BioWare for killing what I consider to be the traditional RPG. For me traditional RPGs are the great RPGs or RPG series of the 90s. Games like the Realms of Arkania series, Wizardry series, Might & Magic series, Daggerfall (which sucked IMHO but still… it was a traditional RPG back then) and so on… etc… pp…

And then along came Baldur's Gate, a game with a retard-friendly isometric engine for simplistic point and click gameplay like Diablo. A streamlined game in every regard. A game with a journal and a (mini-)map which were features that were nearly considered as cheating back in the day. Simply put: A game for the masses compared to the "real" hardcore RPGs back then.

To add insult to injury (please note that I am slightly exaggerating for effect ) this game and its engine spawned numerous sequels and spin-offs with even more "dumbing down" from one game to the next.
It was a nightmare. All I ever wanted was Might & Magic X, Wizardry VIII (which as we know today did finally make it years later in "too little, too late" fashion as far as I am concerned) or Realms of Arkania IV.
Instead I got the mainstream friendly stuff that BioWare & co kept pumping out plus numerous clones of questionable quality.
It was an unparalleled era of suckage! I was so glad when it was mostly over and when finally games like Gothic and Morrowind added some variety from 2001/2002 onward.

So in all honesty I can't help but gloat just a little bit over the fact that people are seriously mourning the end of BioWare as a traditional RPG creator. Welcome to the club! The circle is complete. Your BioWare is my attic, 3DO/NWC or Sir-Tech.

Finally, to sort of underscore the point I was trying to make here check out this 1998 RPGVault editorial from the pre-BG days when BioWare was barely even on the map yet: Classic RPGs - A Dying Breed?

Yep, the irony meter is off the charts, isn't it?

Moriendor- Thanks for posting that link. The one quality people posting on the internet seem to lack most is perspective.

Calm down, everything will be fine. If it pains you all so much, then never buy a Bioware game again. I will most likely enjoy playing DA2. I'm hoping it's better than DA:O.

And can someone please explain the hate for the dialog wheel?!? I've read complaints about it here and elsewhere and I just don't get it.

Originally Posted by Ovenall
And can someone please explain the hate for the dialog wheel?!? I've read complaints about it here and elsewhere and I just don't get it.

People don't like the way it paraphrases responses, quite often it doesn't give enough information about what Shepard is going to say, and they don't like losing control of their character.

Personally, my main problems with it are the rigid 'investigate, paragon, neutral, renegade' options (which they've said they're not using) and the way your character sometimes performs actions without the player being told in advance, like attacking someone. I don't like what my character does to be a surprise, and I don't like control being wrestled away from me - hence I'm not keen on automated cutscenes that involve the PC either.

Originally Posted by Moriendor
And then along came Baldur's Gate, a game with a retard-friendly isometric engine for simplistic point and click gameplay like Diablo. A streamlined game in every regard. A game with a journal and a (mini-)map which were features that were nearly considered as cheating back in the day. Simply put: A game for the masses compared to the "real" hardcore RPGs back then.

it was an unparalleled era of suckage!

Well…. everyone's entitled to an opinion…

I thought 1998-2001 was a great period for crpgs. Especially compared to what we're getting now…

Originally Posted by JDR13
Well…. everyone's entitled to an opinion…

I agree. And as Ovenall already pointed out, it's all about perspective.

I'm going to take a WAG and assume that most people will categorize/define the term "traditional" RPG by the role playing games they experienced and enjoyed for the first time… Which is why I think it's worth mentioning we can go further back than the PC era, delve way back to the days of Pen and Paper. Those who partook might consider it to be the forefather and therefore quintessence of "RPGs".

All this is moot, as we have yet to reach a consensus on what the fudge defines an RPG… How can one qualify a further refinement on that which is undefined? Unless we take "traditional" to mean "original". Which begs the question, have any modern games truly captured the spirit of Pen and Paper? If not, perhaps the term "traditional RPG" is an oxymoron?

Originally Posted by MasterKromm
Which begs the question, have any modern games truly captured the spirit of Pen and Paper? If not, perhaps the term "traditional RPG" is an oxymoron?

Imo, it's a mistake to try and compare crpgs to PnP rpgs, because they're an entirely different experience altogether.

If someone is looking for the PnP experience then they're better off just playing the real thing, instead of looking for it in a computer game.

You know, what I'm worried/saddened about isn't so much that it will or won't be a RPG, that is a matter of perspective as many people said. It's also not because It'll be good or not due to this new gameplay, obviously I can't tell without playing.

But there is one thing I can tell. It won't be Dragon Age: Origins any longer, it'll be something totally different, and while that something can be good….I am left disappointed, and feeling bitter due to the disappearance/change of a game I really liked.

This is even more true because when you look at the market there isn't a ton of games that fall in the same category as DA:O did, the disappearance of one is a huge blow and likely also risks influencing other companies.

G.

I think the unhappiness many are expressing is more to do with the (assumed?) departure of DA2 from DA:O, which many liked. Bioware seem to want to move even further from BG, of which DA:O was supposedly the 'spiritual successor' (hah!) . If they want a new game play mechanic, don't call it Dragon Age - make a clean break and make it clear this is NOT the same kind of game - a name change signals that very well. DA2 may well be a fine game, even if it is more like ME2, but they are being disingenuous by keeping the same naming convention if their intention is to move to some new game play approach. I think DA:O worked reasonably well, there was no reason to change 'the formula' unless their Evil Overlord demanded greater tribute…get the pitchforks people!

Originally Posted by JDR13
Imo, it's a mistake to try and compare crpgs to PnP rpgs, because they're an entirely different experience altogether.

If someone is looking for the PnP experience then they're better off just playing the real thing, instead of looking for it in a computer game.

I agree very much. Meanwhile - b the way - there ARE P&P players who look upon us as if we were kiddies, not dare to play "the real thing". There are, believe me.


About the Irony : Almost everyone in the press writes - and most people very much agree - that BG actually REVIVED the RPG genre. Everyone considered it "dead", then.

Now that's even more irony !

Originally Posted by Moriendor
Finally, to sort of underscore the point I was trying to make here check out this 1998 RPGVault editorial from the pre-BG days when BioWare was barely even on the map yet: Classic RPGs - A Dying Breed?

Yep, the irony meter is off the charts, isn't it?

I've read it through now - I strongly believe everybody should to - and it hit it quite much on the nail. It's actually the same kind o argumentation I use myself.