| rocketpig said: I'm not saying that every RPG needs an open world but in the true definition of "RPG", some elements of choice are required. That's one of my biggest beefs with Japanese developers. Everyone throws around the term "role-playing", but how are you playing a role? You're doing exactly what the developer wanted you to do and moving through the game just how they want you to. You're just following along with a pre-determined outcome. What I like best about WRPGs is that they are the true descendants of the pen-and-paper RPGs in varying degrees of control and choice. I miss that style of game and it's cool to see some developers keep it alive, though some are more successful than others (eyeing up you, Bethesda). Now that devs are used to open-world settings, what are they going to do? Dunno. That's a good question. If the genre stalls at this point, that's their fault. But up to this point, the genre has been anything but stagnant since the BG2/Fallout days. It's been evolving on a consistent basis which is more than you can say for JRPGs. How different will FFXIII be from FFVII? In comparison, how different is Baldur's Gate 2 when compared to Mass Effect? I understand your frustration with game worlds in WRPGs. I completely agree. Which brings me back to Fallout 3.... *stomps feet and gets mad again* Okay, just gonna stop there. |
Yes, way to compare two games from the same franchise, to two games from completely different franchises. Maybe you should have compared Baldur's Gate 1 to Baldur's Gate 2? Or Planescape Torment? Or Icewind Dale? On the surface all those games look exactly the same.
