Schmooples' Den! The DA News Discussion Thread

The trouble is this is getting worse. The PS3/360 era marked the start of many franchises, you had -

Bioshock
Mass Effect
Dragon Age 
Dark Souls 
Ass Creed
Uncharted 
Last of Us 
Gears of War 
Red Dead

And probably a ton I'm missing. All with unique settings with tons of artistic vision. What's marked this generation? Mostly sequels to the above games that tend to completely miss what made these games great in the first place, in lieu of chasing whatever's fashionable on the market. The idea of a new IP is not even exciting anymore because it's almost guaranteed to be some formulaic Ass Creed lite like Horizon Zero Dawn, or a full on GaaS always online multiplayer like The Division or Anthem. 

And that's fine. Games take a lot more money and time to make to it's only natural that they're going to become more and more risk averse. This isn't going to stop me rolling my eyes when I see another 'free 0/6 hostages' in the objectives screen for the umpteenth time. 

And it's because of this that I'll always admire developers like Rockstar or Naughty Dog for creating games that have courage in their convictions. Games where each feature or game play element feels naturally woven into the game's philosophy - not because X game has this thing and it did well so we need it too. 

Well, with Fallout 76 it seems that Bethesda went down the same road as Bioware: Back-burnering their successful single player series to go all in on multiplayer games.

Correlation doesn't imply causation. You are missing several important factors in your analysis that simply can't be ignored.

First things first - gaming is still a young medium. So what you attribute as explosion of creativity and games with unique settings or stories was simply filling in the existing void.

Don't get me wrong - in many respects these earlier games deserve credit for overcoming technological limitations and braving uncharted waters, but it's just easier to be unique on a field where things are still quite new and there are still many venues to be considered innovative or unique. At one point or another having a spoken dialogue was innovative. Heck, having voice actors that don't suck as bad as some earlier games was considered a notable achievement, instead of a requirement, as it is today. Having a coherent, even if simplistic, plot was considered unique among games, because tech and resources simply weren't there yet and neither were audience's expectations.

You say that titles like Horizon Zero Dawn are Assassin's Creed Lite, while ignoring the fact that it was easier for first Asassin's Creed games to be viewed as innovative or unique in a young medium, both in terms of technology as well as the fact that something like them didn't really exist (while many earlier games, or stuff even from titles you mentioned, look REALLY awkward or funny from today's perspective). We live in a very different world now.

It all feeds to all those important factors - growth of the medium, as well as growth of technology (and, in many ways, growth of the Internet).

Which still happens today, btw. Expectations towards games are also rapidly growing. If DAO or ME1 or firs Assassin's Creed or Gears Of War were released today as they were those years ago, on technical level at least (but also in terms of storytelling choices that were acceptable a decade back, but not so much today) they would have likely been met with either blank stares of maybe even open derision.

No, I think that's being condescending to the old games of the past. Games like Bioshock and Mass Effect were great then and continue to be great now. Technically, they are behind the games of today, sure,  but that's sort of my point. The creativity of the industry is being stifled by the increase of development costs and time. This has resulted in fewer games ,and fewer memorable games, because all developers want to avoid risks. 

Which is fine, as I said. A ton of money is on the line. You can't make a game like Bioshock anymore. The market wants an open world with plenty of loot to craft useless crap with. A developer could try deviating from that formula but then they could be opening themselves up to great financial risk. And that's fine. 

...But what are "normal circumstances" in the ever-changing market in a very rapidly changing world (that just got hit with pandemic and resulting recession as well)?
I'm afraid that a state of 'normalcy' hardly ever existed and is even trickier when it comes to creative works or entertainment. I'm waiting for A Song Of Ice And Fire book as long as I'm waiting for new Elder Scrolls game, you know...

You realize that video games like any other creative or business medium is always evolving. Why stick to one particular over and over again when there are tons of other options? Nothing wrong trying to add new things to it. Elder Scrolls Online has for the most part been great and FO76 has made a comeback of sorts.

Sure, I want games in an existing series using the same engine to take less than 8+ years to make.

The reason for not having a DA4 game in 8 years isn't due to the engine. It's due EA scrapping the project and directing most of the team towards Anthem. Without that event, the game woudl've likely be out by now.
The current DA project isnt' the same one that they worked on after DAI, And it hasn't been in development for 8 years. The project 'started' in 2018, and even then, it wasn't being developed in full, as the DA team was a rather small one at that point. 

I will say again. DA4 can come out the day before the heat death of the universe and I'd still get it. It's not the time that matters its the quality.

I mean if people will give Cyberpunk so many chances despite its many delays, then we should be patient for DA4. I'm patient for another high quality Dragon Age!

While they will likely need to have a marketing campaign to remind people of the franchise, I think the wild reaction to the 2018 teaser suggests that more people remember Dragon Age than it is generally assumed.