Op Ed

Hooked Gamers - Dragon Age II: The Decline of the Classic RPG.
There is no question about it, the classic cRPG is dying out. So why bring it up now then? The reason is because one of the few big developers who have remained adamant about catering for players who want to play the classic cRPG is BioWare. Their breed of cRPG was popularised with the Baldur’s Gate series just before the new millennium. This consisted of some defining aspects: detailed character creation (not just customisation); immersive character interaction; strategic-based combat that required thought and timing; and a deep, engaging story that was shaped by the player’s choices. This was a game that could only truly be experienced on a PC. It required a fair amount of work on the developer’s part, but players were rewarded greatly for their efforts and paid the developers back justly.

View : : :
24.
 
Re: Op Ed
Mar 7, 2011, 14:47
24.
Re: Op Ed Mar 7, 2011, 14:47
Mar 7, 2011, 14:47
 
Honestly, I start to wonder if publishers have a game between themselves over how much sputtering rage that they can generate, when at the same time most of the people doing the raging end up playing the game (many of them buying it even!) anyway.

(That being said, I think Activision already won that game with the PC version of Modern Warfare 2...)

CRPGs aren't dead... so long as there's a market for them, somebody will make them. The question is whether the die-hard CRPG base is large enough to support such a title with top-tier production values and still present a large enough of a return on investment to make it worth the while of a major publisher. On that merit, I don't think so.

(I know you're going to throw the DAO sales figures back at me, but I'd also posit that the changes made to DA2, whether you like them or not, will be perceived by the majority of DAO buyers as a net positive for the game)
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
2.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
3.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
4.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
5.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
6.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
9.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
   Re: Op Ed
12.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
    Re: Op Ed
14.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
     Re: Op Ed
11.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
   Re: Op Ed
7.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
39.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
8.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
16.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
10.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
13.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
15.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
17.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
18.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
20.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
21.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
22.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
23.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
 24.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
   Re: Op Ed
25.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
    Re: Op Ed
27.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
    Re: Op Ed
28.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
     Re: Op Ed
29.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
      Re: Op Ed
34.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
       Re: Op Ed
40.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
        Re: Op Ed
32.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
19.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
26.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
31.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
30.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
33.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
41.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
42.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
   Re: Op Ed
35.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
37.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
38.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
36.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
43.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
44.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
45.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
46.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
47.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
49.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
50.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
52.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
   Re: Op Ed
53.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
    Re: Op Ed
48.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
51.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
55.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
56.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
   Re: Op Ed
57.
Mar 8, 2011Mar 8 2011
    Re: Op Ed
58.
Mar 8, 2011Mar 8 2011
     Re: Op Ed
59.
Mar 8, 2011Mar 8 2011
      Re: Op Ed
61.
Mar 8, 2011Mar 8 2011
       Re: Op Ed
54.
Mar 7, 2011Mar 7 2011
60.
Mar 8, 2011Mar 8 2011
62.
Mar 8, 2011Mar 8 2011
63.
Mar 8, 2011Mar 8 2011
65.
Mar 8, 2011Mar 8 2011
66.
Mar 8, 2011Mar 8 2011
   Re: Op Ed
67.
Mar 8, 2011Mar 8 2011
    Re: Op Ed
64.
Mar 8, 2011Mar 8 2011