EA Boss Says Mass Effect: Andromeda Got Too Much Criticism, Franchise Could Return

I'm going to have to disagree with you there.  While it was nice to see party dynamics grow and evolve over Hawke's decade-long journey, I absolutely hated how it handled character relationships and timeskips.  Party members would mention or reference things that happened offscreen during the year-long gaps in Varric's tale, yet I had never experienced.  Nothing ruins immersion quite like having to respond to events that you never experienced.  Now, maybe that's more of a symptom of the framed narrative that DA2 utilized, but it genuinely frustrated me.  It really annoyed me that years of memories were often condensed into short codex entries that were pretty easy to miss.

That being said, DA2's decade-long timeframe really allowed for some great character development.  Aveline is actually in my top ten Bioware companions because of it.  Her journey from tragedy to power was incredible.  Unfortunately, it doesn't change that some other characters fell flat by comparison.

I'm only human, after all.
Don't put the blame on me.

No.

Also plenty of games are made by developers that don't have a history of tactical combat. DA:2 was the sequel of a game that emphasised strategic positioning in combat and that is impossible when men rain from the sky. It's a poor design choice for an entry in that RPG series.

I don't blame them if they don't now a days. Last two times they did in Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 people shat all over them, rightfully or no.

Sure. It really depends on the type of RPG being developed and the goals for the game, TBH. 

Firstly you have the RPGs which are combat optional, where “you don’t have to fight any enemies if you don’t want to”. Well, I call them combat optional but really they're mostly combat optional, as in you won't be able to avoid all fights (I think) but you can avoid most combat. Some examples of these are Age of Decadence and Fallout 3. That most combat is avoidable automatically voids your point that the number of enemies within a mission in an RPG being designed to boost play time. If combat can be avoided it can't boost play time.

A CRPG, being descended not from pure tabletop RPGs but rather tabletop battle games, has at its heart the idea of character growth through battles. Battles historically are there to promote growth for your characters first and foremost, not promote larger game times through combat. Combat does TAKE time, but it’s like saying exploration in an adventure game is always just there to boost play time to an acceptable level (this is false, BTW.) It’s a natural consequence of game mechanics.

But the idea of growth provides many challenges, the chief amongst these is balance. The most important thing about combat in RPGs (unless you’re talking about JRPGs, where grinding is a big thing) is balance, and developers will spend a long time getting the balance right. The idea of adding more battles to waste time may be an acceptable trait in some RPGs where balance doesn't matter, namely those whose key concept is the player grinding to level 999 so they can do a million damage per hit to the boss. These are, imo, poorly designed games because excessive grinding is a poor design trait in my eyes. But these are very noticeable. Loot games will have more battles because the idea is for the character not only to level but to obtain loot and loot comes from enemy drops.

But ideally (imo) the number of enemies in a well designed RPG will be adequate to provide growth for characters keeping the characters at a level where the next mission is still challenging, and is a number that is consistent with the world and the story. Some RPGs do this, like Shadowrun for example, but there is a movement in the Western RPG world that is moving toward truly optional combat. And this has to do with the belief of some that RPGs really symbolise “choice and consequence” not battles, and the only reason RPGs were related to battles in the first place was because that was all the technology could imitate.
Sawyer is one of these people.

Long story short, SOME RPGs may litter their game with battles to boost play time, but those are quite obvious. IMO most don’t. And it's definitely not all RPGs or all missions in RPGs.

As for DA:2 not following DA:O, normally sequels of games are designed to appeal to the same group of fans that enjoyed the original. It won't drag in a different audience in great numbers, because they won't want to play the original to understand the sequel, and appealing to a different fanbase will just drive away fans of the original meaning potentially lower sales.

I thought both DA2 and MEA were total weak sauce. But MEA was buggy as hell also and took 5 years while DA2 wasn't anywhere near as buggy and took 1 1/2 years. For so much time and effort to be put into a game as lame as MEA turned out is unbelievable

I used them in the correct context, not to spout bullshit a la that Reddit thread. Learn the difference.

Whatever it takes for you to stockpile those smilesja likes.

Why are you involving me?

You involve yourself when you like posts that attack me. You do that a lot. Easier to hide behind other people's posts I suppose.

Oh no! You've uncovered their secret plan of destroying you by liking posts. And Smilesja might have got away with it too! If it wasn't for you and your meddling kids! /s

Who would have thought that, above anything else, it would be likes that push Suiko over the edge.