[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]
So, if the game would turn out to be a commercial failure, would it still be wake up call for them?
I suppose they could eventually give up the idea of calling their games RPGs, if it would be benefitial for them, but other than that... they surely would not follow inXile's example then. Hence why I prefer the wait and see approach.
Secondly, they didn't have to say anything like it. Actions speak much louder than words. Like I said, they continue to call their games RPGs, while removing RPG features more and more. They like to think they're improving and evolving the experience, when they're doing anything but. In the case of Bethesda, fans have cried out against a lot of the casualization, on their forums and elsewhere. It's fallen on deaf ears. In the case of Bioware, well.... the Dragon Age 2 fiasco would be the first place to look.SciFiRPGfan
But what about that "morther of all RPGs" thingy? It's one thing to describe own games as RPGs, it's the other to supposedly claim that they are mother(s) of the genre.
But even then, like I said, many of Bioware representatives do not insist on calling their games RPGs anymore. For all we know, it might only be for the sake of convenience in interviews and articles. And also, there are so many discussions about what is and what isn't an RPG that it is very likely that there is no clear answer for that.
As for improving vs worsening the experience, it's pretty individual from case to case. Mass Effect 2 was mostly considered to be an improvement over Mass Effect 1 (thought I would be among first to miss such things as inventory, loot, mako exploration and such), Dragon Age 2 wasn't and Skyrim was huge commercial, critical and I dare to say even fan success (won ton of readers' GoTYs, R Skyrim was fastest growing subReddit about specific game) so it definitely wasn't a failure.
Thirdly, they are humble and less sensational than their fans, no winking required. It's really an internal document made public, to show transparency in what they're doing. At the same time, it was inadvertently a kick in the balls to Bioware and Bethesda, stating 'These are the so-called RPGs made today. We're not for that. We're going in the other direction'.
That's all fine and dandy, but for it to be "kick to Bioware's / Bethesda's balls" it would have to be a success. Otherwise it could turn into a kick to own balls.
But I believe, it was not their intention to BM other developers. After all, Ray Muzyka's statement is one of the headlines on Wasteland 2's Kickastarter page.
Sure, it would be a wake up call for them. Never did I ever say Wasteland 2 would be a commercial success, especially when it's targeting what is increasingly a niche genre. Bioware and Bethesda have ditched RPG roots for big money (one goes third person shooter, the other includes dragons), so obviously it would be incredibly stupid for me to say it's a wake up call if the game is a commercial success.
No, I didn't mean, nor will I ever mean it's a wake up call depending on the success of the product. It's a wake up call simply because there are developers making a full-blooded role-playing game, and not only that, people have paid money to have them develop it.
Like I said, they don't have to say on the back of the box 'the mother of all roleplaying games'. Don't straw man the argument here. Look at the way Bioware treated SW:TOR like it was the second coming. Look at their videos on Mass Effect 3. Look at how Bethesda described Skryim, pretending to acknowledge the faults of Oblivion but at the same time working on its action-adventure template and saying it's better than anything they've ever done. Now if Bioware don't call their games RPGs anymore, my point is invalid. And in that case, you probably shouldn't even care about it anymore, because if it isn't Bioware's concern about making RPGs anymore, it's probably not yours either.
But then you make a blunder and start saying '...but we really don't know what a RPG is, it could mean anything'. I'm sorry? You said Bioware had the balls to stop calling their games RPGs, and now you want to obscure what constitutes a RPG? Quite spineless of you, Mr. SciFI RPG fan.
Yes, yes, Mass Effect 2 is a better game than Mass Effect 1. But it ditches many RPG conventions. I'm not talking about what is a better game. I'm talking about making the better RPG.
The more I go down your argument the more I see you frame it as a commercial success argument. It's not about commercial success. I really doubt Wasteland 2 will sell more than Mass Effect or an Elder Scrolls game. Like I said, if my argument was based on commercial success, I would have been an idiot.
Lucky for me, it isn't. So go back and do your homework to see what my argument is about.
Slashless
Log in to comment