Fate of the Middle Class RPG

[Zero Credibility]

But BG2's thing isn't "crafting", it's just a form of quest.

What it is was fun, unlike some real systemic generic boring MMO-inspired kobold-kidney collecting crap we get these days.

 

[adrix89]

People seems to misunderstand what actually happened, what happened was clear from the start since the moment the projects were Kickstarted and as that it was a clear success.

Pillars of Eternity was a great success. It showed you can have beautiful isometric graphics on a shoestring budget. Combat never had a chance to be good because coming up with a good combat system takes 5-10 years of iteration and Tabletop Systems are garbage as CRPG systems. Infinity Engine games never had good combat to begin with so I don't know why people expected something better. Story and writing again never had a chance with that budget.

Shadowrun was also a great success. Again good isometric graphics and some decent combat. The sequels showed more clearly how budget can affect the story and writing as well as what some iteration can do with the combat.

In general enhanced editions/director's cut generally show with some time and money you can bring up to a decent state.

As for the future. As long as they still go with isometric graphics I expect to iterate more on combat and maybe they will come up with something decent, maybe not good but better then mediocre. Story and writing wise as long as they have the budget they will probably be more experience at managing it so we might get something decent.

My prediction is I doubt Torment will be any good but a Shadowrun 2 will be better.

 

[makiavelli747]

There are fans of Oblivion?

of course, for a lot of kids it was 1st rpg and Oblivion is already 10 years old

 

[AwesomeButton]

Infinity Engine games never had good combat to begin with so I don't know why people expected something better.

Can't speak about people in general, but what I expected wasn't something better, I expected the same, because I was already used to that and liked it enough, just as so many other people.

The majority will always lap up any piece of shit as long as it's served with nice graphics.

 

[adrix89]

Can't speak about people in general, but what I expected wasn't something better, I expected the same, because I was already used to that and liked it enough, just as so many other people.

You really expected for them to just copy an old system that barely worked? I doubt they even has the license to use D&D even if they wanted to. That is just foolish.

Something decent could still result but it will definitely take time, maybe on the third generation CRPG wave(if you take the first kickstarter wave as the first generation).

 

[Prime Junta]

Can't speak about people in general, but what I expected wasn't something better, I expected the same, because I was already used to that and liked it enough, just as so many other people.

You really expected for them to just copy an old system that barely worked? I doubt they even has the license to use D&D even if they wanted to. That is just foolish.

Something decent could still result but it will definitely take time, maybe on the third generation CRPG wave(if you take the first kickstarter wave as the first generation).

It's a sight better than "decent" already. Jeez.

(Not saying there isn't room for improvement ofc.)

 

[adrix89]

It's a sight better than "decent" already. Jeez.

My definition of decent is that it doesn't bore me enough to put me to sleep.

I guess right now you could say that it somewhat works.

 

[Sacred82]

I'm still rooting for the middle class/ indie devs, because the games that hit my sweet spot - party based RPG's - are really only done well by them. If it wasn't for Dungeons of Aledorn, Bard's Tale IV, Tyranny, D:OS2, and Torment, the RPG world would look really bleak.

I can't really buy into the "Twitcher 3 beats crowdfunded RPG's" talk.

 

[Roguey]

We had that. It's called Divinity: Original Sin.

D:OS is a great combat crawl but it's no Fallout successor. Being a Fallout successor would require a single character (with maybe AI companions) who explores a theoretically-open map filled with mostly-social hubs and can potentially avoid all combat through a combination of talking, stealth, and running away/through it.

 

[Zeriel]

We had that. It's called Divinity: Original Sin.

D:OS is a great combat crawl but it's no Fallout successor. Being a Fallout successor would require a single character (with maybe AI companions) who explores a theoretically-open map filled with mostly-social hubs and can potentially avoid all combat through a combination of talking, stealth, and running away/through it.

and/or a seven digit RPG with fantastic writing.

That was the part I was talking about. I'm honestly surprised I got such a serious answer, though, I was expecting you to just reply that the writing sucks so it doesn't count. And I really wouldn't disagree that much there, Larian has done some great writing in the past but Original Sin was a mess in the story department. It WAS probably the biggest budget RPG that fits Codexian standards of the last decade though. Turn-based, isometric, complicated mechanics, and far above the 7 digit floor.

 

[Roguey]

D:OS's true budget is a mystery because Larian used creative accounting to put most of the costs of making the engine as a part of Dragon Commander's budget. It definitely cost more to make than any Kickstarter-funded title, yes.

 

[KidBoogie]

I've got an idea for a middle class rpg

It's basically a file explorer with a pop-up every few seconds that tells you to shuffle excel files around in different folders.

If you don't play for 10 hrs a day the game uninstalls and frys your computer

 

[KidBoogie]

Also, you never level up

 

[Infinitron]

I'm still rooting for the middle class/ indie devs, because the games that hit my sweet spot - party based RPG's - are really only done well by them.

That is correct. For traditional party-based gameplay, the middle class RPGs are the only way to go.

In the past, I've argued that some people's dissatisfaction with these RPGs reflects an exhaustion with the tropes of party-based gameplay. There are folks who are tired of building the strong fighter who stands at the chokepoint, tired of building the ranged character who kills everybody on the other side, tired of having the skill character who can always open all the chests, tired of managing all of that in an 80 hour gauntlet with hundreds of battles.

Me, I'm not tired of those things. At some level, I like the micro, I like seeing all my guys perform their roles. But I can understand those who are.

 

[Prime Junta]

There are folks who are tired of building the strong fighter who stands at the chokepoint, tired of building the ranged character who kills everybody on the other side, tired of having the skill character who can always open all the chests, tired of managing all of that in an 80 hour gauntlet with hundreds of battles. Me, I'm not tired of those things. At some level, I like the micro, I like seeing all my guys perform their roles. But I can understand those who are.

I am kinda tired of those character archetypes, which is one reason I liked Pillars' character-building so much. You can do all of those, but you can do way more and make all of them work in different ways.

I.e. it's not a flaw that's inherent to party-based gameplay, it's just characteristic of D&D.

 

[Daedalos]

I think you are confusing popularity with something else. There is no "combination of open world RPG gameplay with actually good writing and choice & consequence", neither Twitcher 3 nor New Vegas, nor Skyrim is that. New Vegas is probably the closest one to good writing, but it's still a straight up shooter in terms of gameplay. Age of Decadence, UnderRail and Serpent in the Staglands obliterated any other attempt at an RPG in the last 10+ years. The popularity of the "open sandbox action-RPG"-thing (which is just a series of oxymorons) doesn't mean that AAA gaming is getting better, far from it. They are just as easily picked up as the shooter-de-jour, exactly because of their "open" nature, i.e. unstructured and unfocused. What more can I say? They are just popular, they don't herald the Second Coming of RPGs.

What Kickstarter RPGs failed to do was please either audience. It was too "archaic" for the "open sandbox action-RPG"-thing crowd, but also too unskillfully made, badly written and paradoxically designed for the "older" crowd who really did want the Second Coming. They did sell a lot of copies though, because we didn't have any other choice of this genre and we viewed them as a stepping stone to something greater, with a healthy dose of naivete, wishful thinking and hope/hype. Where does that leave us? It leaves us with a bad taste in our mouths. Tranny is happening, as is TTON, Bard's Tale and D:OS2, probably PoE2, so we don't really need to worry about the fate of "middle class RPGs" anymore. Whether we like the path these titles are leading us on will be determined in the future, I'm just going to be ready for it to end in a bramble patch full of used surgical needles instead of thorns.

^
One of the best posts in this thread.

Totally agree, I don't see why something like Twitcher 3 should appeal to fans of old school cRPGs. It's basically a glorified shooter/hackslasher with light light RPG elements sprinkled in. Same thing as Fallout 4 is now, just better.

New Vegas was probably the closest you'll ever come to a AAA OPEN WORLD FPS SHOOTER VS TRUE RPG game mix we'll ever get.

So stick to what you want, either "true" cRPGs from the past era, or newer AAA action/shooter/hackslash games with light RPG elements. There is no middle ground.

Honestly, with games like WL2, D:OS, TTON, Underrail and AoE and many more in the pipe, the old school cRPG ain't goin nowhere but up. And the AAA industry machine will keep on truckin' like it always has. For better or for worse.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

In the past, I've argued that some people's dissatisfaction with these RPGs reflects an exhaustion with the tropes of party-based gameplay. There are folks who are tired of building the strong fighter who stands at the chokepoint, tired of building the ranged character who kills everybody on the other side, tired of having the skill character who can always open all the chests, tired of managing all of that in an 80 hour gauntlet with hundreds of battles.

For that conclusion to have weight you'd need a larger sample size from companies that specialize in those types of games instead of two games from devs who spent a decade servicing very different market groups and then hopped on the kickstarter hype train to rack up those nostalgia moneys that come with no publisher strings attached. Otherwise you might as well say that any person who for example disagrees with the notion that Invisible War is a masterpiece is fundamentally against the design principles that made its predecessor great.

A game is much more than a list of its features. If we presume for argument's sake that Codex still on the whole prefers isometric, party based RPGs compared to other types available, it still only gives a head start to such a game, by itself it doesn't guarantee higher level of quality or enjoyment. Personally, open ended games bore me to tears after a few hours of play as a rule but that's still not a guarantee that I'll think more highly of or enjoy myself more playing the latest InXile offering compared to say Gothic 2 NOTR.

 

[hpstg]

If D:OS was a Bethesda game, it would be seen as the mid-budget side-project to their AAA work. They'd probably get praised for it, just like Ubisoft garnered some praise for bothering with Might and Magic X, even though that game has quite a few flaws as well.

Piranha Bytes is another studio that exemplifies what the middle tier RPG looks like. Too bad their games have been terrible for years... but anyway, that's what I believe Infinitron was getting at here. Not Dragon Age 2 type games, which still had proper AAA budgets and just happened to be a little more awful than usual. By Bioware's own admission that game was an attempt to bring what the Mass Effect 2 team accomplished in streamlining their sequel, over to the Dragon Age project. They were aiming to sell even more than Origins; that it ended up as it did had nothing to do with it being some handicapped budget situation.

I stand by my opinion that EA went for the quick cash out with Dragon Age 2, but the actual people making it genuinely tried to do something different. I like the "family over time" aspect of it. The combat was horrible as was the repetition. Some of the characters were nice.

We had that. It's called Divinity: Original Sin.

Have the drugs already kicked in brother?

 

[Lhynn]

In the past, I've argued that some people's dissatisfaction with these RPGs reflects an exhaustion with the tropes of party-based gameplay. There are folks who are tired of building the strong fighter who stands at the chokepoint, tired of building the ranged character who kills everybody on the other side, tired of having the skill character who can always open all the chests, tired of managing all of that in an 80 hour gauntlet with hundreds of battles.

Me, I'm not tired of those things. At some level, I like the micro, I like seeing all my guys perform their roles. But I can understand those who are.

This is bullshit. Uninteresting uninspired games that ask you to do the same thing over and over again are shit. they are mobile fooder. PoE got shit because it was an awful rpg, dull in every aspect because the guy in charge is dead inside.
I never thought murdering an entire sect underground could be so fucking boring. But PoE proved me wrong. I never thought killing indians with assault rifles could be so boring, but WL2 proved me wrong.

The problem with these games is that they simply failed to deliver an interesting narrative and creative encounters to go with it. In PoEs case it also failed to deliver an interesting character system to play with. You insist on attributing the game failures on the player, and that has gotten very stale, and very annoying.

As a counter example we have underrail arena, well crafted encounters and a some interesting events that lead to a very climactic final fight, that was great.

 

[Infinitron]

As a counter example we have underrail

the tropes of party-based gameplay

 

[Lhynn]

It was an example of an interesting and inspired quest chain that fit the setting, provided a ton of fun and challenge and was memorable. You having a party or not is not relevant to the point im making.

 

[Lacrymas]

Oh, trust me, there is no exhaustion from party-based RPGs. Why? Because there weren't any. At least none that were good. There still aren't, with the exception of SitS. PoE was/is, like Lhynn said, boring. It fails to give you any meaningful context and it ends up a miserable trudge through the motions. Writing can save many a game, and it has, but PoE fails on this front, too. I'm playing the Swordflight series (NWN modules) atm and I'm reminded what good design is. The first part manages to create constant tension and a sense of threat, but also an exploration drive and whimsy just through a single dungeon (the ruins), though there are 3-4 dungeons in the part. It's very tight in the sense of "landmass" but through difficult encounter design, smart dungeon layout and things to discover you get a sense of prolonged time. No amount of pretty pictures and demagoguery from Josh's part will replace that and make PoE not pointless.

 

[Infinitron]

You having a party or not is not relevant to the point im making.

Haha.

with the exception of SitS.

O rly.

I'm playing the Swordflight series (NWN modules) atm

Another single character game, hmmm...

I don't know, on a forum that was formerly known for its love of Fallout (single character) and disdain for Baldur's Gate (party-based) what I'm saying shouldn't be all that controversial. I get it, party-based combat is "moar tactical" so admitting to a preference for single character RPGs makes you seem less smarterer. But maybe it's time to have a serious debate on whether the actual fun factor of party-based RPGs is inherently inferior, all other things being equal.

 

[Lacrymas]

It's not a single character game, you have an Air Genasi bard with you, I was also playing a druid with an animal companion + summons. You don't control them directly, sure, but even if you did nothing would change and it would still be a good module. I don't know what you mean by the SitS comment.

 

[AMG]

I don't know, on a forum that was formerly known for its love of Fallout (single character) and disdain for Baldur's Gate (party-based) what I'm saying shouldn't be all that controversial. I get it, party-based combat is "moar tactical" so admitting to a preference for single character RPGs makes you seem less smarterer. But maybe it's time to have a serious debate on whether the actual fun factor of party-based RPGs is inherently inferior, all other things being equal.

Do you have any points to make or do you just like cherry picking peoples opinions on games so that they fit whatever shitty idea you come up with? It's also a forum that hates Oblivion (single character). Big fucking deal. And the traditional Codex edginess towards BG has nothing to do with being party based, it's always "muh rtwp".
And how does that prove anything in regards to inherent inferiority or superiority of this particular game design choice? Some people like different things y'know. The reception to Original Sin was positive on Codex, but you focus only on PoE and Wasteshit cause otherwise you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. People don't dislike those two cause they are party based, they dislike them because they think they are shitty.
What you are saying isn't controversial. It's just retarded.