Dionysus said:
Because they are all mainstream console games. You are concerned that the popularity of shooter/RPGs could have an adverse effect on the genre. That doesn’t make much sense if you think they are better than the mainstream RPGs of the past. If the new trendsetters are better than the old trendsetters, then I’d say that’s a net improvement.
Here we fall to arguing opinions and I just don't want to bother. I'm not one of those raging pro-fallout types, and I'll understand that you think overall things are looking up. I just disagree, and I believe the majority of the Codex does too (though that's no reason to feel belittled, I don't mean this as an insult, just saying that the mindset here is... that shit sucks now and before it didn't suck as much).
No, I said that publishers wouldn’t fund more “quality” RPGs if they weren’t funding shooter/RPGs.
While it's not guaranteed, there is the need to consider opportunity cost. For every Mass Effect that Bioware makes, there is another game they don't make. Perhaps a game with a very simlar setting but entirely different gameplay as Mass Effect. Speculation - I know, but that's exactly what I was getting at when i said "The more RPGs are diluted and mixed into other genres, the less RPG there is to go around".
But I was assuming that DA wasn’t a quality RPG because you lumped it in with the others and contrasted them with quality RPGs (or at least intentionally produced quality RPGs).
That won't be known until we actually play it - chances are it'll be very similar to how NWN2's OC was, that is, pretty meh but still entertaining for the time spent on it.
It is possible that Bioware would make more DAish games if we somehow magically precluded them from making ME. But it’s also possible that they’d just make a rhythm game/RPG (like the Witcher) or a football game/RPG to try to expand their audience. And that’s just Bioware. Bethesda and Obsidian (with Alpha Protocol) are just making the games that they would like to make as far as we know.
And those games, that for all we know they like, are increasingly falling into a particular theme - action packed cinematic games with RPG elements but less focus on RPGs in general. Regardless, I'd take The Witcher (Rhythmn game, really? I know the combat was goofy but... anyway) over ME any day. And this football/RPG you speak of sounds interesting... will there be magic?
You’re right that it is silly. Following the maxim of minimizing player skill would lead to a ridiculous outcome. It’s OK to rail against FPARPGs because you hate action games, and it’s certainly OK to rail against ME in particular because you don’t like the way it specifically handles character skill, but it’s silly to base a criticism of the entire subgenre on a principle that no one really believes.
And what is this principle that no on really believes? That RPGs are mostly character-skill driven and that they should stay that way? Truly sir, I'm afraid you are mistaken as to the hivemind's opinions on these matters. If you meant something else though, by all means - clarify.
The thing is tho I don't hate action games - I hate games that fail, and to me a game that tries to integrate two very opposite styles of gaming, RPGs and FPSs, will often fail in many aspects of it. I'm not saying it isn't possible to have a great first person action rpg that succeeds at everything, I'm saying it's going to be hard as fuck and probably not going to happen. If you'd like to argue that Mass Effect pulls this off to your satisfaction - that's cool... but again, opinions and all that.
