Fantastic input, guys!
First of all:
If I'm not misunderstanding and you pirated it - go to hell, people like you are the number one reason PC gaming is dying and what games we do get are watered down console garbage ports.
Take a cold shower. I understand your anger, but it's misdirected. You'll notice there is no demo version of DA:O. You'll also notice I mentioned I had low expectations. Please tell me why I should fork over the equivalent of $80 (in Norwegian currency - new games are expensive here) for a product I don't think I'll like and haven't had the opportunity to try for myself. Were I to do this, more often than not I'd be supporting the very system I'm trying to fight.
I don't endorse piracy. I have NO qualms paying for games. At a conservative estimate, I have probably spent to the tune of $10,000 on games and game-related products over the years, and I'll continue shelling out, for quality. In Norway, console gaming is a vastly larger market than PC gaming. There are no rental shops for PC games, you can't return games you don't like, and the second-hand market is non-existent. If you spot the cash, you'd better make sure it's a good investment, or that money is lost.
It sounds to me like the original poster just does not like RPGs.
As others have pointed out, it should be clear from my attitude that I do indeed like RPGs, I just don't often come across one that gets it right, or even mostly right. It's all about the willing suspension of disbelief: The more technically advanced a game gets, the more it mirrors reality in appearance (2D -> 3D, for instance), the harder it becomes to make that game world behave as the player would expect it to. Every time you replace a facet of the player's imagination with coded behavior, you raise the bar. A game like ADoM (or even Zork) can be more immersive than DA:O, not because it's more realistic, but because it gives itself fewer opportunities to fail by presenting the player with a glaring inconsistency.
As someone else pointed out, I think many fantasy game developers grossly underestimate the mental capabilities of the gaming public. People have been enjoying games for decades, and I'm not at all convinced today's games are inherently more enjoyable than the games of twenty years ago, even to a modern player.
One of my absolute favorite games is a pay-per-play text-only quasi-RPG MUD. It is wholly independent and has been in operation, profitable operation, for twenty years, and is still going strong. This is remarkable, considering the competition. It has a self-sustaining, player-run economy, a political hierarchy, farming, large-scale warfare, EXTREMELY complex, unmitigated PvP combat, a pantheon of active and in-character gods, and ends up modeling society very well. I say quasi-RPG, for though it purports to be an RPG, most people essentially play a version of themselves, shaped by the mechanics of the game world.
The best, or rather most successful, genuine RPG I've played, also happens to be a text-only MUD. Now, why do you think this is?
EDIT: Before someone draws the (incorrect) conclusion that I simply don't like graphical RPGs, let me mention one I loved as a kid: Ultima Underworld II (for the few who remember it) - certainly a linear game by the standards of this thread, but it did a lot of things right. It didn't have a tutorial, which I entirely agree is a horrible concept. Let the player learn by trial and error. It also required the character to eat, NOT to replenish his health points - which is idiotic - but to avoid starving to death.
Author
Topic: Thank you, Tarn! (Read 22290 times)