seems like the 1st Mass Effect rev. may have been leaked

[etjester]

Hello all, first time poster as you can tell. I've never been to this forum before, and I'll admit straight away that I was directed here from the Mass Effect forums, where I check in from time to time to see how the game is coming along.

I have been a gamer for many years, enjoying several genres, and have been looking for ways to get my girlfriend into games as well. I found this difficult because she didn't have the years of experience I had, so I looked for ways to expose her to games that she would enjoy but that were also accessible to someone who isn't very skilled, and I think I succeeded by getting her to play KotOR on PC, which she enjoyed. Since then I have been keeping an eye on other games she might enjoy, and Mass Effect looks like one of them.

Let me also say that I never owned a PlayStation or any of it's successors, and missed out on the whole Final Fantasy thing. My first RPGs were games like Chrono Trigger and Shining Force 2 - Sword of Haija (on Game Gear.) My first real PC RPG was Icewind Dale, which I enjoyed enough to buy the sequel. Admittedly, I was young, and was never the best at these types of games, because, let's be honest, there's a lot for a kid with no RPG experience to figure out so as to not get killed so easily in the first dungeon of IWD.

I also missed out on much of BioWare's early work. I didn't play PC games much until about 2002, and was even a late adopter of the Xbox, so I never got to play KotOR until 2004. I have never played a NWN or BG game.


That mouthful said, I'd like to ask, and hopefully as respectfully as possible so as to avoid a flaming, why there is so much animosity towards Mass Effect here?

One of the chief complaints in this thread seems to be that reviewers these days are in the pockets of EA and Microsoft and therefore not to be trusted. I don't know how legit this is, but I would agree that games like the Halo series are overrated. I can certainly see how RPG players would want a deep single player experience, which is something that Halo simply doesn't offer. There's a lot of backtracking and rooms that all look the same making navigation awful. I can personally only stand to play the Halo games with my brother on co-op, since that can be enjoyable, but I'm not much for competitive multiplayer on consoles, so even that aspect doesn't matter to me. A game that gets perfect scores left and right shouldn't need anything to excuse it; it should be great no matter how you want to play.

So I can certainly see how there would be some disillusionment with reviews these days, particularly among people who prefer single player. (If I'm making a gross generalization then I apologize.) Then again, I thought BioShock was incredibly shallow and thus unbelievably overrated (Not bad, just average) and that's a single player game only, so who knows.

There also seems to be a lot of animosity towards BioWare itself that I'd like to ask about. Do you feel their games are too dumbed down? There seems to be some agreement that the stories of their recent games are maybe good, but the gameplay not as much? Do you mean the games aren't fun, or simply that they are too simple?

I ask because there seems to be some love here for more classic RPGs, either pure turn based or party based like the old isometric D&D games, so I wondered if this was a case of people liking one type of RPG but not another.

I will admit that Jade Empire's combat dissolved to button mashing, and David Clayman's 9.9 review on IGN back in 2005 was absurd, but I thought one of the things that made KotOR so popular was that it made a turn-based game sort of look like an action game and got a lot of people interested in games (and RPGs) that might not have otherwise. I can see how you might see this as dumbing down or simplifying, but "god-awful" gameplay?

I haven't played PS:T, so maybe I don't understand what you all consider terrific gameplay, but it seems that if you don't like a game simply because it's not a genre you like doesn't make it a bad game. It just means it's not the game for you. I'm not a fan of Halo, but I know people who are. It's not a bad game, it's just not the game for me. I don't play WoW, but my brother does. He loves it, I don't, but that doesn't make it a bad game.

Bear in mind also that it's a lot easier to make a complicated game on PC. Simple games gravitate towards the console. You'd want to play FIFA 08 on the console, but Football Manager 2008 on the PC. Mass Effect may end up being a simpler game than Dragon Age simply because it makes more sense given that it's on a console.

I guess what I don't understand is the idea the BioWare is somehow buying reviewers. Maybe you can quibble over final scores, but listen to a podcast or read some impressions sometime from a gaming website. People who have gotten to play it really do seem to enjoy it. And it's not like they haven't found faults with it, it's that they have a lot of positive things to say because they had fun playing the game. Either that says something about them that they all seem to enjoy it, or it says something about you because you don't believe they really enjoy it. Or both.

I personally can't wait for Mass Effect. It looks like a lot of fun to me.

If anyone managed to read all that I'm curious to know how people here feel about Mass Effect, or BioWare in ganeral, and why specifically. :D Thanks.

 

[Higher Game]

Plenty of console RPGs are fine. For example, Persona 3 is a good dungeon crawler and about as much as an RPG as most roguelikes. The problem comes from the ridiculous hype which aims at the MTV demographic and dumbed down gameplay. Mass Effect is just insulting to one's intelligence, even to the worst action fans.

 

[cardtrick]

You seem intelligent, and you clearly enjoy the games you play. That's great, and you should probably stick with that. Don't let our bitterness spread to you (though chances are you'll develop some bitterness of your own within a couple years).

However, I do disagree with what seems to be your philosophy on life. I'm not into relativism. I don't think that a bad game is "just not for me." It's bad. That's all there is to it. I'll admit that people have specific tastes, and that this may color our perceptions; however, I still think that there is some fairly objective standard. There are good movies, there are good books, there are good games; there are bad ones too, even if the gaming publications refuse to admit it.

I don't hate Bioware, unlike some here. I do, however, think that their games tend to have have certain problems: combat is so easy that's its neither fun nor challenging (the BG series didn't suffer from this nearly as much, but you can play KOTOR without thinking, and if I don't have to do anything to win a fight I would rather just not have it), stories that suffer from an overabundance of epicness and a lack of creativity, and characters that are one dimensional (with well-written dialog, typically, but no real depth), complete lack of consequences to your choices (which in any case almost always boil down to being either altruistic or asking for money, which as we all know is totally EVIL).

They don't make awful games; they're just cripplingly average. I, too, enjoyed KOTOR on some level. The good writing, and the occasional moments of inspiration made up somewhat for an overall mediocre experience. BG2 was better; the solid tactical mage battles and upper level combat with a decent level of challenge made up for what was actually a worse story with less developed characters. The single player campaign of NWN was actually bad, but the construction kit, the modules, and even the expansions made up for this somewhat.

I prefer Obsidian, who at least make deeper and more mature games, with more interesting characters and less cliched plots. However, they suffer from ridiculously unprofessional bugginess and incompleteness.

Neither developer should be getting scores in the 9's and 10's. With the arguable exceptions of BG2 and MOTB, neither developer makes excellent games. Moreover, Bioware's games tend to be worse than Obisidan's; why are they consistently rated higher? I'm not sure whether Bioware actually buys reviews, the way Bethesda clearly does, but it does seem likely. It's either that, or all professional gaming journalists are idiots, and I'm not sure which is worse.

Finally, I kind of agree that Mass Effect looks worth playing. It looks like another average game. If I had an Xbox360, I would almost certainly rent it; as it stands, maybe I will even rent a console just to play the game. I doubt it would be worth it, but I might try it.

Still, it's not a brilliant game. Obviously. It clearly doesn't deserve the kind of reception it has received. Something is amiss. . .

 

[etjester]

I'm not so sure it's getting all that much hype actually. People over at the Mass Effect forums don't think it's being hyped enough.

I would agree that Obsidian's take on the KotOR series was more mature, and I prefer that on some level, but it was really buggy, had no ending, and didn't tie up loose ends. Other than the big twist, KotOR is a very straightforward game. Stop Malak, save/destroy the galaxy. When the Sith Lords Restoration Project finally finishes I'll be glad to play TSL again.


Bear in mind that the choice system was also novel at the time. It may seem quaint now, especially since your only choices were the same ones over and over again, either good or evil, and being neutral crippled your character. Plus near the end you could just choose the good or bad ending straight-up, regardless of how you played up to that point.

But now realize that BioWare is trying to improve on that. You now have to try to save the galaxy, so there's no psychotic evil characters. Maybe that's limiting, but then when you add choice you can have subtle differences. It's no longer the difference between paladin vs. psychopath. It's difficult to tell without playing the game or otherwise spoiling it, but we have been promised meaningful choices this time.

I point to this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMRi8tYYnEs

Wrex sure doesn't look like a one-dimensional party member. And it's obvious your party members aren't simply going to follow you off a cliff if it's not part of their agenda. Moreover, the light-dark scale is now two scales. Your good deeds now won't cancel out all the ruthless stuff you did, making for what they call a matrix of possible endings based on what kind of character you played.

Those are some big improvements in my eyes, and should make for a much deeper game. Plus the conversation wheel and the interactive cutscenes look really cool. It's not like sitting back and watching a movie, you're actually controlling what your character says and watching how people react to him/her. It's much more powerful than the Odyssey Engine for conveying emotion. Plus full voice acting...I can go on and on.

I just don't see how people can judge a game so harshly without playing it. :D

 

[Volourn]

"I prefer Obsidian, who at least make deeper and more mature games, with more interesting characters and less cliched plots"

No, they don't.

'Look at me! I'm kreia, and I'm full of HATE, HATE, HATE!' Yeah, soooooooo mature and deep.


"Neither developer should be getting scores in the 9's and 10's."

BIO has made some of the best games ever. Obsidian's game, thus far, have been BIo sequels who were - at least - about equal to the games they were based on.

 

[Vault Dweller]

That mouthful said, I'd like to ask, and hopefully as respectfully as possible so as to avoid a flaming, why there is so much animosity towards Mass Effect here?

It's a shallow, but overhyped action game.
http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=16999

There also seems to be a lot of animosity towards BioWare itself that I'd like to ask about. Do you feel their games are too dumbed down? There seems to be some agreement that the stories of their recent games are maybe good, but the gameplay not as much? Do you mean the games aren't fun, or simply that they are too simple?

This thread should answer all your questions:
http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1587

I will admit that Jade Empire's combat dissolved to button mashing, and David Clayman's 9.9 review on IGN back in 2005 was absurd, but I thought one of the things that made KotOR so popular was that it made a turn-based game sort of look like an action game...

Turn-based? You are surely jesting with us.

I haven't played PS:T, so maybe I don't understand ...

Then maybe you should. Just a thought.

If anyone managed to read all that I'm curious to know how people here feel about Mass Effect, or BioWare in ganeral, and why specifically. :D Thanks.

Those links should give you a good idea.

Bear in mind that the choice system was also novel at the time.

Maybe on consoles, but not on PC. Besides, that's what RPGs are about - making choices and enjoying ass-biting consequences.

But now realize that BioWare is trying to improve on that. You now have to try to save the galaxy, so there's no psychotic evil characters.

Except for Commander Shepard, of course.

I just don't see how people can judge a game so harshly without playing it.

You can form reasonably accurate impressions from previews and interviews.

Welcome to the forums.

 

[Volourn]

"You can form reasonably accurate impressions from previews and interviews."

Agreed. Hence, why I know I'll likely enjoy the game and it will have more actual role-playing than most full fledge RPGs. R00fles!


"It's a shallow, but overhyped action game."

Wrong. ME is not over hyped. I think the only people who overhype ME are the BIO forums, the Codex, and myself. It's also not an Action game. It's an Action RPG. You ar ebeing just as dumb as those calling it a shooter or those calling it a full fledge RPG. it's not of those.

Say it again - A C T I O N R P G


"Then maybe you should. Just a thought."

PST is a good game that is an example of how even the great Codex can be victims over hyping and overvaluing a game's actual worth.


"Maybe on consoles, but not on PC. Besides, that's what RPGs are about - making choices and enjoying ass-biting consequences."

But, but, but.. accoridng to you.. BIO games don't have choice.s then again, when you claim that you know you are making stuff up ie. exaggerating ie. lying. BIO games have more rping than most other RPGs do.


"Except for Commander Shepard, of course."

The greta thing about BIO games (bar their first two most likely) is that whether or not the PC is evil or not is dependent on PLAYER (character) chocies hence why they make (sometimes Action) RPGs.


R00fles!

 

[etjester]

Rather than suggesting a game that's eight years old, maybe you could recommend something more recent? Are there RPGs made since then that people here like, or do you consider everything since the turn of the century to be awful?

Edit: Volourn, it's good to see someone here thinks they will enjoy Mass Effect. And you're right, it isn't an action game. You don't need 'shooter skills.' There are degrees of auto-aim you can set, plus the pause button, and all you have to do it look in the general direction and your STATS determine if you hit and for how much damage.

 

[Volourn]

Depends on who you ask. Most Codexers like to varying degrees the Troika series of games (Arcanum, TOEE, and BL). I perosnally reallyed like Arcanum, enjoyed BL a lot despite the subpar combat, and though I dislike TOEE kinda, I'd be the first to admit that it's combat system is one of the best ever in a CRPG.

I personally like most of the BIO RPGs from BG to JE (I find SOU, and KOTOR to be the weakest of the bunch) though most here absolutely loath NWN1 (espicially with the OC which I found goodbut not great though people claim I think it's awesome when i don't).

People have mixed opinions on NWN2 OC; but those who have tried it's expansion seem to LOVE it. I roll my eyes as I haven't played it.

Codexers are also really fond of independent RPGs with the Spiderweb series of games (aka Geneforge et al) getting the most love.

The upcoming AOD, btw, looks rather awesome. Too bad VD is too much of a hardcore anti publisher cool dude to have it shipped to stores.

Hope that helps!


"Edit: Volourn, it's good to see someone here thinks they will enjoy Mass Effect. And you're right, it isn't an action game. You don't need 'shooter skills.' There are degrees of auto-aim you can set, plus the pause button, and all you have to do it look in the general direction and your STATS determine if you hit and for how much damage."

Just remmeber, i don't represent the typical Codexer. In fact, many Codexers dislike me and my opinions and my ways of expressing them (I'm too many and hateful for them it seems, heh).


Whatever my opinions are, they usually have the opposite. We do share the like of RPGs, and have the Fallout love in common so it's not all hatemongering.

 

[pkt-zer0]

Does a game need to have elves and be set in the D&D universe to count as an RPG? It sure seems like there are lot of 'puritanism' going on here. <hyperbole> 'If it's not a six-character top-down isometric point and click game with swords and magic for the PC then it's not a good game.' :D </hyperbole>

Fallout.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Rather than suggesting a game that's eight years old, maybe you could recommend something more recent?

Why? Do you not read books that were written more than 2 years ago or enjoy old, even black-n-white (gasp!) movies?

Are there RPGs made since then that people here like, or do you consider everything since the turn of the century to be awful?

Not at all. The reason I recommended you Planescape is not because it's the only good game, but because it's one of those "must play" masterpieces that one shouldn't miss.

Recent RPGs I would recommend are: Bloodlines, Gothic 3, Temple of Elemental Evil, Geneforge 4. I didn't like NWN 2, but apparently the expansion restores Obsidian's former glory. The Witcher looks very, very promising as well.

In fact, many Codexers dislike me and my opinions and my ways of expressing them

Or please. There was a riot when I banned you for a day. You are our princess and we are your faithful subjects.

 

[vrok]

Rather than suggesting a game that's eight years old, maybe you could recommend something more recent? Are there RPGs made since then that people here like, or do you consider everything since the turn of the century to be awful?

Well, NWN2: MoTB (the expansion) is a whole lot better overall than both KoTORs and Icewind Dale so I guess you could start there.

The biggest beef I have with Bioware is that since BG2 (which I didn't even like that much), they've done nothing even remotely as good. Just plain worse really, for every step forward they took at least two steps backwards. So even if they make slightly above crap games now, all I can see is how much better they used to be. And this isn't a case of nostalgia at all, I've played BG2 much more recently than any other of their games released since then.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

"I prefer Obsidian, who at least make deeper and more mature games, with more interesting characters and less cliched plots"

No, they don't.

'Look at me! I'm kreia, and I'm full of HATE, HATE, HATE!' Yeah, soooooooo mature and deep.

Oh, please. Kreia, as far as villains go, is very mature and deep. Spoilers ahead, durr.

1) At the beginning she appears to be a typical mentor character. But instead of a big plot twist revealing her true motives, (Jade Empire) her motives are gradually revealed to the player over time. Original, if nothing else.

2) Kreia, unlike pretty much every villain ever, is opposed to randomly killing people. Most Sith are power-hungry typical bad-guys, but Kreia is just a crazy idealist.

3) Every good linear game explains why it's linear. Half-Life has G-man, Bioshock has "would you kindly" and KOTOR 2 has Kreia. The game tricks you into thinking you're serving yourself, when in fact you're serving Kreia up until the very end.

4) Yes, Kreia is full of hate. But her voice acting doesn't reveal that immediately, her hate is very subtle. Overall, I thought she was a much better villain than Malak, and yes, deeper and more mature.

 

[Amasius]

Hey - Volly knows that real villains are demanding money for helping people. All other motives are shallow.

 

[Luhh]

I think some of these retard reviewers should go back in time and play Outcast, to get some perspective of their next-gen-hyping.

That game already did and did well, back in 99 or was it even 98, what so many game manufacturers since have claimed.

Oh well..

Idiotopia, where the next gen will live!

 

[Volourn]

"Oh, please. Kreia, as far as villains go, is very mature and deep. Spoilers ahead, durr."

L0L This is funny. Kreia is a decent character; but she is simple, one dimensional, and has no depth.


"At the beginning she appears to be a typical mentor character. But instead of a big plot twist revealing her true motives, (Jade Empire) her motives are gradually revealed to the player over time. Original, if nothing else."

Nonsense. I knew from the get go when she was introduced pretending to be dead that she was untrustworthy, and had evil motives.


"2) Kreia, unlike pretty much every villain ever, is opposed to randomly killing people. Most Sith are power-hungry typical bad-guys, but Kreia is just a crazy idealist"

Kreia is no idealist. She's a hateful pessimest. And, she enjoys killing hence her 'children'.


"Every good linear game explains why it's linear. Half-Life has G-man, Bioshock has "would you kindly" and KOTOR 2 has Kreia. The game tricks you into thinking you're serving yourself, when in fact you're serving Kreia up until the very end."

You jokin' right? You had to be dumb, and/or naive to believe that you were in control. Kreia was the deux es machina that had full control of the game's course from the get go. It, again, was obvious when she was introduced and she started spouting her nonsense. Kreia was nothing more than Obsidian's way to railroad the player.


"4) Yes, Kreia is full of hate. But her voice acting doesn't reveal that immediately, her hate is very subtle. Overall, I thought she was a much better villain than Malak, and yes, deeper and more mature."

Her hate was not sublte. Every word she utter was ripping with bile. Of hatred. Of disgust. For everything. Every single situation involving Kreia basically saying hateful things about everyone including the one she 'loved'.

As for being deeper, and more mature than Malak. Not really. She has what i call 'fake' depth (her so called feelings for the PC, l0l), and she isn't mature. She comes off as a whiny 9 year old having a temper tantrum:"I hate eveeryoneeeeeee! WAAAAAAAAA! i WISH THEY ALL DIEEEEEEEE!!!!!!"

Malak may have been a typical arch villain; but at least he didn't come as fake.


Funnily enough, it's people like you who ar eso gung ho about defending Kreia's pathetic honour that makes me wnat to rethink my opinion of her as being a decent character, and not in a good way. HAHAHA!!!


"Or please. There was a riot when I banned you for a day. You are our princess and we are your faithful subjects."

This is so passe. Get over your self created drama. Anyways, did you mean the two people who whined about my banning and the army of people who bashed them and supported my banning? L0LLERZ!

Anyways, 'faithful subjects' don't 'ban' their princess. Still, the facts remain that Codexers as a whole aren't prone to approving of me. It's not a biggie or an insult; just the facts. However, it's not all that much relevant. I was just giving the fellow a warning not to take my posts as a symbol of what the Codex believes.

Tsk, tsk.


"Hey - Volly knows that real villains are demanding money for helping people."

Actually, the majority of RL 'villains' become so out of greed - be it for money or power. Others are because of bigotry and hatred ala Kreia. So someone like Malak is 'realistic' in that way, and so is Kreia for that matter. They're both rather shallow. The difference is that BIo was intellectually honest about Malak's shallowness while Obsidian decided go the 'bogus intellectual' method with Kreia.

 

[Zomg]

I think some of these retard reviewers should go back in time and play Outcast, to get some perspective of their next-gen-hyping.

At first I thought you meant Outpost, which is the first game I can remember getting that "unstoppable hype train" feel. Back then you had to actually deliver a good game eventually, though.

 

[doctor_kaz]

I hate to say this but Volourn is pretty much right on about Kreia. She's an annoying, pseudo-intellectual, pretentious twat. At least Kotor 1 was honest about what it was. Kotor 2 couldn't even be honest about its amnesia storyline.

 

[Jasede]

Not true but again, you're free to have your opinion and if that's how you perceive Kreia, I'd say that's your loss.

Myself, I wish they had kept the ending where Kreia and the Exile go follow Revan, she a mother who has found purpose beneath dying to her perfect pupil, a mother that has found that her perception of love is twisted one and that she must not die for her student to thrive.

But I digress and I am bad at debating so I'll just say it again- think of Kotor 2 what you will, I will do the same, so will others, and just because Kreia is shallow to you that doesn't mean she has to be for me.

 

[MasPingon]

Does a game need to have elves and be set in the D&D universe to count as an RPG? It sure seems like there are lot of 'puritanism' going on here. <hyperbole> 'If it's not a six-character top-down isometric point and click game with swords and magic for the PC then it's not a good game.' :D </hyperbole>

Sorry, but that's a stupid thing to say. I can see you listen to someone's opinion rather than make up your own, but that's so typical

 

[aries202]

Please look here:

http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/san ... ily43.html

Now that EA apparently is buying BIoware, this probably means that Mass Effect will not be trilogy but that there will be a yearly or secondly yearly release of ME 2-10 or something like that. And the games will action orientated games, just like Halo 3, since it is was sells. And soon Bioware will be overtaken by the dark side

/aries202

 

[The Lord Of The Flames]

Strange. I more and more expect to like Mass Effect in the same way I like the Godzilla movies or Star Wars (only the old ones). Of cause I'ld not pay the full price but for 5 to 10 euro it might end on my hard drive.

 

[Elhoim]

Rather than suggesting a game that's eight years old, maybe you could recommend something more recent?

Why? Outdated graphics? The art in that game is timeless.

Are there RPGs made since then that people here like, or do you consider everything since the turn of the century to be awful?

Well, Mask of the Betrayer was VERY well recieved.

 

[Xi]

@etjester

I think a lot of love around here is nostalgic. That's not all the love of course. Many people look at the mechanics and gameplay of those older masterpieces and you'd think innovation would mean expanding upon what's already in place, but that's simply not the case. Most games undergo reinvention so much that it's all so shallow anymore. Too many games lack depth and they do this in favor of technological upgrades like graphics, physics, soil erosion, etc. So, the Codex spent a lot of time trying to refine the meaning of what an RPG consists of. Plenty of people will disagree, but the point is that everyone tends to come to certain similar beliefs after debating it for long enough.

I think for the most part Choice/Consequence seem to be one of the most under developed factors that most people will consider good role playing around here. Which on the surface is difficult to understand. Personally, I will add progression and non-linearity to that list, but it's subjective at best.

Most casual gamers will have a very general meaning for what RPG means. To a lot of people it's just a story and character stats. The problem is that tossing around such broad labels tends to categorize games that we all will(or most) agree aren't rpgs. So, the codex is bitter, and it should be! Everything is taken with a grain of salt around here. If you give it enough time, you will come to realize that even though there are elitist bastards here, they are well spoken and will defend their claims with logical debate - something modern developers fail to do! So, don't be afraid, and don't get the wrong impression. You can like anything so long as you are ready to defend you claims with more then just fluff hyperbole as you've put it. If your claims are logically based, people won't care what you like. Just don't throw around that label without thinking about it. You'll blanket every game ever made beneath it on accident, and without directly knowing!

PS: Modern Review/Previewing is a joke, and there are numerous articles about it. Mainly it's currently a vicious cycle because of the lack of a gaming renaissance. Every reviewer is forced to blow every new game out of proportion because no one wants to read about a modern decay! Oh, and these magazines want to be re-invited to all the major companies' new game preview events. Writing bad previews/reviews is bad for business it seems, your magazine might tank! It's worse then you might think...

Oh, and I tend to enjoy Roguelike RPGs the most personally. The truth about Roguelikes is that they comprise very little in the way of Roleplaying, but that's ok! I can only imagine a gaming zen that comprises roguelike gameplay with idealistic, rpgcodex, RPG design. Choice/Consequence, depth, progression, exploration, non-linearitiy, multi-branching story, multiple endings, bring it on!

 

[etjester]

A lot of the sometimes unfortunate shift towards graphics is the fault of Sony and Microsoft. When you create your architecture to show off graphics you take away processing power for, say, AI. It doesn't help that since FF7 we've been seeing ridiculously realistic cinematics and expecting the games to live up to them. Plus more graphics means more time making graphics. See Eternal Sonata. Beautiful game, unbelievably short. Whereas I could play forever and never find all the skultullas in OoT only ten years ago.

There is also, I agree, an invisible pigeon-holing counsel somewhere that tries very hard to classify every game into a known genre. This is inaccurate sometimes, but is also helpful. It's inaccurate when someone says that BioShock is an FPSRPG. I'd argue it's not even a decent FPS, and RPG? Not a chance. But someone decided that's what it was, and people have that impression going in.

But people who are knowledgeable can still break down genres into sub-genres or categories. People think of JRPGs differently than BioWare RPGs. Even though RPG is a broad category, that's not a bad thing. It's fine to define it simply as a game with story, exploration, compelling characters, customization, etc, etc. People just come off as snobby when they try to limit the definition of a genre.

As far as changes from the mold of older RPGs that seems so popular here, part of that comes from developers not wanting to be bored. Making a game is hard work, and one of the ways you reward yourself is by getting to do something completely different. Even if you're a company that deals strictly in RPGs you can't blame the developer for trying to maximize the space within that framework for their own sanity.

Games that keep getting released year after year with new characters, a handful of new features, and a fresh coat of paint are called what, kids? "EA games!!" That's right!