Two rather major RPGs came out in recent months. ME3 I eagerly anticipated, having found No.2 a radical gameplay improvement on the first, but losing all my saves before I finished it. The Elder Scrolls I've always found less love for - its writing, acting and branching is less advanced, and (as has been noted before) it feels like an MMO without the other people. Here's what I think now, having played through a reasonable amount, though not all, of the content in each.
Mass Effect 3
The big news for me was this: Mass Effect 3, like Dragon Age 2 before it, feels like a stripped back version of its predecessor. This looks like a finished game; but the RPG elements all feel tacked on, and the combat remains inferior to a dedicated action game.
We know, of course, that the RPG elements aren't really meant to be inferior; they've just been 'streamlined'. Perhaps that's a way of saying 'more accessible to console players', perhaps it means 'reduced in scope in order to meet the tight deadine'. Either way Bioware seem certain of their trajectory, and sales figures would seem to support that; but as far as I'm concerned they've gutted their RPG.
Each of these factors is minor in its own right, but between them they add up to a deeply dissatisfying experience when compared with ME2):
- Special abilities feel like magic rather than tech. Grenades and special bullets aren't thrown or fired, they just materialise at the target. Tech discovered in the field is scanned by your magic arm and then disappears.
- Shopping, trading and weapon customisation is drastically simple.There's next to no mythology here, or discovery: just buy the Mk IV version of your assault rifle and crack on. Like ME2, shops themselves are accessed via a computer interface, removing any remaining sense that this is anything but a statistical level up.
- There are no more large hub areas, only smaller ones connected by lift. I grant that in function five small areas is no different to one large one, but again it demonstrates this unwillingness on Bioware's part to allow suspension of disbelief to get in the way of functionality.The citadel was once a huge, exciting place filled with sub-quests, engaging characters and hidden gems in back street traders. Now you run from lift to office, trigger that conversation, then head back for the lift. Even the traders can be accessed remotely from the Normandy. There is an entire, three floor night club in the game; it has two talkable NPCs, of which one is already on your team.This doesn't feel like a world, it feels like the mechanical foundations of a world.
- The levels themselves feel far more like generic man-shoots than they ever did. Most are set in brown, debris-covered battlefields where you fight the same old guys again and again. Your squad is largely useless. There's little story here: few in depth conversations, no interesting cut scenes, just 'Go here, retrieve this, kill these dudes'. There's no sense that these are real places, or anything other than a set of corridors between combat scenes. Readable notes are few and far between, and strangely arbitrary in their content. Datapads are as likely to win you credits as information. Medkits for some reason give you XP.
- Perhaps most damningly, the dialogue system has been further simplified. Gone is any pretence that conversations are anything but formally structured. It becomes de rigeuer: someone says something, you can ask more, or you be can nice or nasty. The latter affects your paragon bar and little else. How it affects the bar is familiarly flawed. Even the way secondary missions are now issued suggests Bioware's faith in its audience's willingness to put up with dialogue is fast dwindling: now you only need walk past and overhear a dialogue in the hub to be issued that mission; often it pops up in your (rather uninformative) journal and you're left with no idea where it came from.
It pains me to say it, but ME3 feels founded in the (perhaps justified for many consumers) belief that we don't need dramatic dressing up of the mechanics provided the mechanics themselves work as expected. I know that Mass Effect is pretty, and has reasonable shooting, and has a far more involved narrative than any other action game you care to mention. I think, though, that it finally deserves to be considered in these terms (as action game first), and not the way that it started life. This is a Call of Duty behemoth that will continue to succeed on the momentum of its marketing and the maintenance of its core systems; but it stopped being a Bioware RPG some time ago.
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
Frankly, everything I liked and disliked about Oblivion still holds for Skyrim. The writing isn't always the most interesting (and is certainly more verbose than is necessary, but I often feel like that's half the point). There's next to no roleplaying, decision making or involvement in narrative beyond the choice of which quests you take on. The world itself is as impressive and free as ever.
As is usually noted, Skyrim is at its strongest when you, the player character, take your fate in your hands. Played the completionist way I traditionally play RPGs it all falls apart: try to explore every town, complete every quest and you'll quickly loose track of exactly why you're in another haunted crypt, what you're looking for, and who you are and what your story is. You relegate the game to its base combat mechanics.
The beauty of Skyrim is that through its comparatively simplistic questing system it's able to provide an incredibly open experience. First few quests aside, I couldn't care less that I'm a 'Dragonborn'; if it weren't for the beautiful pilgrimage up to the snowy mountain peak I wouldn't have bothered finding out. What I really wanted to do was trek across to the Bard's College in Solitude and earn my stripes as a wordsmith. I recovered a lost manuscript, helped my tutor to fill in the blanks, and then presented it to the Jarl as a way to defend the freedom of speech festival that was under threat of a ban. These are my priorities, this is the person I'm playing, and this is my story. Skyrim works much better when you follow single threads to their completion; when you put the story (both written and constructed by you on the fly) at the centre of the experience. Suddenly all those shopkeepers with all those fetch quests and optional anecdotes slip into a more natural role. If you need a new tunic, Wolfgar's heard there's a well-regarded retailer's in Winterhelm. You may or may not care. Being picky about the quests you take on keeps those you do coherent with your character and your story. And when it works it's engaging.
What I hate about Skyrim is that it feels - for me sooner rather than later - so shallow. Sure it's huge, sure it's detailed. But ultimately it's about running places and hitting things with swords, and often under the lightest and least inventive of pretences. It's such a shame that being a bard in training is so remarkably similar to being a warrior in training: go to this dungeon, collect three magic weapons / musical instruments. Ultimately the game falls down in just the same way GTA sometimes does: for all its surface glamour, for its high production values and efforts to skin the experience with an involving story and detailed open world, it all eventually boils down to going somewhere and killing everyone. Games like Heavy Rain and Planescape showed us that story can be more central to gameplay than that, and that just because your core gameplay loop is combat-based doesn't mean every experience has to be along the same lines.
Mass Effect 3
The big news for me was this: Mass Effect 3, like Dragon Age 2 before it, feels like a stripped back version of its predecessor. This looks like a finished game; but the RPG elements all feel tacked on, and the combat remains inferior to a dedicated action game.We know, of course, that the RPG elements aren't really meant to be inferior; they've just been 'streamlined'. Perhaps that's a way of saying 'more accessible to console players', perhaps it means 'reduced in scope in order to meet the tight deadine'. Either way Bioware seem certain of their trajectory, and sales figures would seem to support that; but as far as I'm concerned they've gutted their RPG.
Each of these factors is minor in its own right, but between them they add up to a deeply dissatisfying experience when compared with ME2):
- Special abilities feel like magic rather than tech. Grenades and special bullets aren't thrown or fired, they just materialise at the target. Tech discovered in the field is scanned by your magic arm and then disappears.
- Shopping, trading and weapon customisation is drastically simple.There's next to no mythology here, or discovery: just buy the Mk IV version of your assault rifle and crack on. Like ME2, shops themselves are accessed via a computer interface, removing any remaining sense that this is anything but a statistical level up.
- There are no more large hub areas, only smaller ones connected by lift. I grant that in function five small areas is no different to one large one, but again it demonstrates this unwillingness on Bioware's part to allow suspension of disbelief to get in the way of functionality.The citadel was once a huge, exciting place filled with sub-quests, engaging characters and hidden gems in back street traders. Now you run from lift to office, trigger that conversation, then head back for the lift. Even the traders can be accessed remotely from the Normandy. There is an entire, three floor night club in the game; it has two talkable NPCs, of which one is already on your team.This doesn't feel like a world, it feels like the mechanical foundations of a world.
- The levels themselves feel far more like generic man-shoots than they ever did. Most are set in brown, debris-covered battlefields where you fight the same old guys again and again. Your squad is largely useless. There's little story here: few in depth conversations, no interesting cut scenes, just 'Go here, retrieve this, kill these dudes'. There's no sense that these are real places, or anything other than a set of corridors between combat scenes. Readable notes are few and far between, and strangely arbitrary in their content. Datapads are as likely to win you credits as information. Medkits for some reason give you XP.
- Perhaps most damningly, the dialogue system has been further simplified. Gone is any pretence that conversations are anything but formally structured. It becomes de rigeuer: someone says something, you can ask more, or you be can nice or nasty. The latter affects your paragon bar and little else. How it affects the bar is familiarly flawed. Even the way secondary missions are now issued suggests Bioware's faith in its audience's willingness to put up with dialogue is fast dwindling: now you only need walk past and overhear a dialogue in the hub to be issued that mission; often it pops up in your (rather uninformative) journal and you're left with no idea where it came from.
It pains me to say it, but ME3 feels founded in the (perhaps justified for many consumers) belief that we don't need dramatic dressing up of the mechanics provided the mechanics themselves work as expected. I know that Mass Effect is pretty, and has reasonable shooting, and has a far more involved narrative than any other action game you care to mention. I think, though, that it finally deserves to be considered in these terms (as action game first), and not the way that it started life. This is a Call of Duty behemoth that will continue to succeed on the momentum of its marketing and the maintenance of its core systems; but it stopped being a Bioware RPG some time ago.
Polish: 1 out of 2
Tilt: 0 out of 2
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
As is usually noted, Skyrim is at its strongest when you, the player character, take your fate in your hands. Played the completionist way I traditionally play RPGs it all falls apart: try to explore every town, complete every quest and you'll quickly loose track of exactly why you're in another haunted crypt, what you're looking for, and who you are and what your story is. You relegate the game to its base combat mechanics.
The beauty of Skyrim is that through its comparatively simplistic questing system it's able to provide an incredibly open experience. First few quests aside, I couldn't care less that I'm a 'Dragonborn'; if it weren't for the beautiful pilgrimage up to the snowy mountain peak I wouldn't have bothered finding out. What I really wanted to do was trek across to the Bard's College in Solitude and earn my stripes as a wordsmith. I recovered a lost manuscript, helped my tutor to fill in the blanks, and then presented it to the Jarl as a way to defend the freedom of speech festival that was under threat of a ban. These are my priorities, this is the person I'm playing, and this is my story. Skyrim works much better when you follow single threads to their completion; when you put the story (both written and constructed by you on the fly) at the centre of the experience. Suddenly all those shopkeepers with all those fetch quests and optional anecdotes slip into a more natural role. If you need a new tunic, Wolfgar's heard there's a well-regarded retailer's in Winterhelm. You may or may not care. Being picky about the quests you take on keeps those you do coherent with your character and your story. And when it works it's engaging.
What I hate about Skyrim is that it feels - for me sooner rather than later - so shallow. Sure it's huge, sure it's detailed. But ultimately it's about running places and hitting things with swords, and often under the lightest and least inventive of pretences. It's such a shame that being a bard in training is so remarkably similar to being a warrior in training: go to this dungeon, collect three magic weapons / musical instruments. Ultimately the game falls down in just the same way GTA sometimes does: for all its surface glamour, for its high production values and efforts to skin the experience with an involving story and detailed open world, it all eventually boils down to going somewhere and killing everyone. Games like Heavy Rain and Planescape showed us that story can be more central to gameplay than that, and that just because your core gameplay loop is combat-based doesn't mean every experience has to be along the same lines.
Polish: 1 out of 2
Tilt: 0 out of 2
(Scoring explained here) 
Always a risk working in this industry and then criticising the A list competition; but as regards ME3 in particular I'm genuinely surprised it's been received as well as it has been. Let me note though - before someone suggests that I do better (which I haven't, yet)- that these are pesonal opinions that aren't intended to speak for the two million people who bought ME3.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm also slightly heartened by all this. It's rather nice to be moving away from the times when a 90% score was a guarantee you'd enjoy a game. It's nice that a large array of guns, good writing and polish, while still enough to secure a top score, are not enough to buy engagement in people of all tastes. It's important that we have broader interests, and that these may not be served by simply throwing an awful lot of money at a development cycle and a marketing campaign. Kickstarter, as is hard not to know, is breathing new life into classic RPGs, and I'm certain we have more ground to break very soon.
What did you make of these two? Are you any less cynical than me?
"[...]What I really wanted to do was trek across to the Bard's College in Solitude and earn my stripes as a wordsmith. I recovered a lost manuscript, helped my tutor to fill in the blanks, and then presented it to the Jarl as a way to defend the freedom of speech festival that was under threat of a ban. These are my priorities, this is the person I'm playing, and this is my story.[...]"
ReplyDeleteYeah, I just remembered why I read this blog :). Also, damn it, I thought that Skyrim actually had that sort of game mechanics! Small minigames that would give a massive amount of immersion.
I haven't played either to be frank. I stopped playing RPGs after I finished Alternate Reality: The dungeon back in 1988 or something. Well, with a couple of exceptions here and there. But that game completely fulfilled my needs for RPGs mostly. (sorry for babbling, I'll get me coat!)
Great reviews. They dovetail with my own hangups on games as of late, which can be summed up with "why do I need to kill that many folks, that many time, again?"
ReplyDeleteThe more games take the appearances of movies (Mass Effect, GTAIV, ACII) the more the outlandish sociopathy they're asking the player character to perform sticks out.
I'm thinking more specifically of games forcing you through masses of soon-to-be victims while never letting the surreal proceedings influence the least bit their narrative.
tl;dr the verb kill has been flogged dead.
@ggn
ReplyDeleteThanks! To be fair, there is a section in that bard quest where you use a dialogue tree to fill in the missing lines of the poem, your speech skill dictating how outlandish the options are.
@the mathmos
"the verb kill has been flogged dead." Absolutely. It's that old thing of games being best at repeatable systems: shooting stuff is a perfect example; more interesting things are often more dificult.