Why 'Mass Effect: Andromeda' is the Most Important Game of The Year

Pretty much hits on all the reasons why I play pretty much BioWare or Obsidian games.... like the narrative RPGs, so, yeah, not many choices out there.

I liked the article, it brought up a lot of good points, but I agree with Cyonan that it ignores a lot of great RPGs that follow the criteria the writer lauds but aren't triple A titles.

Yup. It ties to the entire industry and is at this time a significant contributing factor in various economies.

The importance of reference to the source material was something that stood out for me. Reflected my laying it pretty thick on the skewers.

True, but a lot of those games are...and i'm just going to say it...not as good as we make it out to be.

It took expansion packs to make Shadowrun Returns viable, Tyranny was ok but somewhat uneven in terms of it's storyline, Pillars of Eternity was a fantastic, if generic story that Suffered from a decent amount of bloat in content, and Divinity: Original Sin I personally find overrated, the dynamics of the characters and the overall quest design felt lacking to me. From a reviewer standpoint, they are above average or good games, but not great games in the grand scheme of things. 

What is interesting about these games, and others that are not as well liked such as Inquisitor, Siege of Dragonspear and the like, is that it's a growing revival of old isometric-style. These games are firmly AA titles in that regard; they are not trying to compete with the voice acting or fancy graphics, they are focusing instead on mechanics and "old school" style of utilizing them. That is a good thing, but while we see such a resurgence of this, we also need to be a bit cautious in understanding their place; all of those titles are stuff we would play but we're in the know as fans of it. Not to mention Kickstarter is on it's way out (I personally don't see the need to give Obsidian more money for PoE 2, they should have that backing solid by now, even if it's finishing the game.)  What the author is talking about is actual AAA experience for RPGs, which is a very sparse environment because of development time. 

Like it or not, BioWare, along with Square, CD Projekt Red and Bethesda, are a rare breed at this point in struggling to provide AAA experience in a niche genre. We've seen some good and some bad out of it, but their entire sphere is a whole other beast compared to what Obsidian, Atlus or Paradox do. In the eyes of mainstream it's always going to be a hard sell, and honestly, competing with the AA titles that you mentioned is not really the goal. 

Is Kickstarter on it's way out? The Pillars II campaign is already funded a day in, and I can think of other recent successes as well (though not their names at the moment). And the money isn't the only benefit. Kickstarter is essentially an indie's dream for marketing; it's a pre-order that people are far less wary about and for more invested in. Who doesn't want to feel like they made a game a possible? Not having a Kickstarter campaign is part of the reason Banner Saga II sold so poorly. The team didn't have enough cash for a marketing campaign so even the existing fanbase didn't know the sequel existed.

Regardless, the one thing that I think has been missing from the CRPG resurgence is affect (that Interaction Designer term my professors love to use) and uniqueness. I think the lack of affect can be chalked up to the developers misinterpreting what aspects of old RPG people found so appealing. I think they wanted to recreate a vast world with deep choices that they forgot the little things are what got epople invested. It also doesn't help that the interactions in the CRPG genre are inherently less engaging. The player is always at a distance clicking their way around, watching these awkward polygon dudes clink away at each other (missing far too often) not seeing facial expressions or experiencing any especially visceral feedback. That's not to mention how horribly obtuse the stat systems in these games can be. I don't think anyone has figured out how to make that kind of game more engaging at a fundamental level other than BioWare, of course, who took in the camera, added full voiced dialog, made flashier combat animations, and added a cinematic flair. Having seen the changes made to Pillars II, I'm a bit more hopeful for the resurgence in the coming future. It looks like Obsidian did a lot to make the combat more engaging, the characters more visually endearing, and the world more dynamic. All I can hope is that the game mechanics follow suit (though, I expect only baby steps here). As for uniqueness, I think that can only come from refinement. Now that developers know the genre is financially viable, they can go different places with their premises. I think Tyranny might be the first step in this regard, and I hope Torment is as well.

The PoE and ToN felt like they are trying to bring the 90s back again though, unlike the BioWARE titles that always lok for something new, and better ways, and experimentation. I like what I get with them. I am not attracted to the idea of going back to the top-down, turn-based, Infinity-like games.

The only reason PoE funded in a day is because it's a known product and people expect results.

It is also a product by a known studio that more or less has enough money to keep working without crowd funding id suggest. Smaller studios would never make that obscene amount of money for an isometric title...and that is why kickstarter is drying up...big names and games will go through by proxy of success, little guys are shafted.

Crowd funding was never really ever intended to be a platform for smaller unproven developers to be able to get in the millions of dollars for their games. They shouldn't need that much money for the types of games they should be aiming to make.

People are are naturally going to think "This seems like a good idea but you have no proven experience and no reason for me to think you'll actually be able to do this. Why should I hand you anywhere between $5 and $60 for this?" on top of the fact that all the gaming media is just going to report on the big games that get millions. They get more clicks reporting that Wasteland 3 raised 3.1 million dollars than that Prey for the Gods raised $500k(both games with successful crowd funding campaigns in 2016).

but I wouldn't really say that I think that crowd funding as a whole is dying out. Maybe we'll see Kickstarter go down in use specifically for gaming now that there is an alternative site called Fig which does the same thing but seems to focus purely on video games, which both Wasteland 3 and Pillars of Eternity 2 used.

The original PoE funded in just over a day as well. It was a new product, and while the company was known, it was pretty much on the ropes and this was their last chance to avoid going out of business.

ToN hit its goal in six hours, and I can';t think of anything noteworthy InXile made before then besides Wasteland 2.

Actually, the point of crowdfunding is most certainly for smaller teams of people, many of which were unproven.

Lightning happens to strike when you have a known entity in the mix though. To be honest, Obsidian doesn't need the money for PoE 2 either but they will get it. Part of the problem with that is the media also skews for the big names too, of course, but rarely gives the spotlight to smaller teams, which is often a crying shame.

I don't buy that story one bit, honestly. Obsidian was working on Stick of Truth concurrently with PoE, they were not really in danger of going out of business any time soon. What did happen was a downsize after Fallout New Vegas though, but it didn't affect the company wholly outside of a cancelled project and letting folks go.

This is kind of my point though: we knows these names...they get the good bucks so of course they will be funded. They will always make money off of this if you are a known name...but everything around them is struggling to hit half of that goal sometimes. It's like large oasis in a big desert: some spots will always be safe, others will waste away.

So it's not about these games not being successful, it's about every unsuccessful project in the wake of it. More and more people are losing out on Kickstarter and IndieGoGo because they can't get the funding they need, or they can't compete with the likes of Obsidian and InXile. Fig helps that a bit as a more selective process, but other titles out there...it's kind of a tough spot.

I never said it entirely wasn't for smaller developers, I said it wasn't for smaller developers to use to get budgets for games well out of the scope of what they can handle.

While it is an older campaign at this point it's also worth noting that Harebrained Schemes was a largely unknown developer before getting $1.8 million to make Shadowrun Returns. Sure Shadowrun itself is a somewhat known entity due to it being a pen and paper game, but nobody really knew how well the devs would do with the IP.

I would agree with giving the spotlight to the smaller teams with with creative and good ideas more often, though.

All I know is that this is easily the most important game of the year for me. Right now there's nothing else I care about nearly as much. Games of its type are typically the only sort that keep my attention for more than a couple of weeks. Destiny is an anomoly only because I have enough friends to keep me going.