I know I'm stepping into this quagmire a bit late, but my two pence. . .
Excellent post.
EDIT:
I also like open-world games w/ the freedom to go anywhere - but yeah, a lot of them lately seem to be open-world just to check a box on the list and to pad-out game-time to make it more attractive for the $60 price-tag so that "you can get 50-100 hours out of this game" looks like more (possible) bang-for-the-buck.
ME:A and Mafia 3 in particular, really scream of this of late. Good games, yes - but they won't even reach greatness b/c of how repetitive they are (especially Mafia 3 - this game screams of repetitive quests badly, despite having a fantastic story & character development) and how they especially lack in certain aspects (i.e. ME:A's storytelling, characters, writing, and dialogue for a ME-branded game just ain't on the ME1+2+3 level). After about 53 hours of ME:A and 23 hours w/ Mafia 3 - I really just wish these games' main quest would....wrap-up soon.
I think you make a good point about the prevalence of open worlds in gaming today, which I sort-of blame Bethesda for. The popularity of Skyrim is what I think really made devs say, "Well, obviously a modern RPG needs to have an open world with over 100 hours of content or gamers will complain that my new game is far inferior to Skyrim." I don't believe that's anywhere remotely approaching true, but it seems like it's one of those things that is commonly-received wisdom at this point.
As regards Mafia III, I just finished putting about 150 hours into it, including the season pass content, and my feeling is that, yes, the territory-takeover components to the story are some of the samey-est and least interesting parts of the game. However, if I as an individual player focussed on just completing the core story elements, my game time would have been at least one-third of what I put into it. I made a personal choice to go after all of the collectibles in the game and to activate wiretaps in every single area on the map, as well as completing a number of optional side-missions for lieutenants and odds-and-ends things like fully upgrading Sammy's. It's not really 2K's fault that I spent a lot of extra time in the game or that players tend to demand that side-missions and collectibles are even a thing in what is basically a TPS/FPS-hybrid. I can't compare III to the original Mafia because I was never able to get that one to run on my computer. I think it compares favorably to Mafia II. The typical mandate in making a game sequel to an entertaining game is "that, but more." And, even though there are some weird elements to Mafia III, it pretty much is Mafia II but more. Yes, the story is a bit more convoluted (and controversial) and it's less linear, but those aren't necessarily defects.
@Arch
Nope, I have not played them. I did say I "have heard", didn't I? Could've swore I did.
Pretty much, I have very little interest at this very moment time at UbiSoft AC-style open-world games that also take on Batman Arkham combat (tired of it - especially after Batman games, Mad Max, Sleeping Dogs and also both ACU & ACS implementing similar combat advances). Maybe at a later date, but not anytime soon will I likely touch even SoM (which I do own) - nevermind SoW.
And you've pretty much also confirmed what I've heard & read about SoW on the story stuff. Thanks.
Hm. Well, I have played Shadow of Mordor, and it was good and worth-playing. If you're a Tolkien fan, you'll enjoy it for the story and the action (unless you're a purist, in which case you'll probably hate the story), and if not, you can just enjoy the action. Mordor is extremely similar to an Arkham game in regards to the combat (ludicrously so, as you get more upgrades for Talion), but that's what makes it fun, at least until you stumble into one of those situations where the game just throws hundreds of enemies at you all at once (even the Batman games never did this).
EDIT:
About RPG's: one of the most important elements of an RPG is usually story & character development. RPG's are really supposed to immerse the player into the game-world. story, and become the role of the character they are given or character they create - giving them plenty of reason for all the leveling-up, grinding, skill-earning, etc. Often, RPG's usually let the player make decisions, often having checks on your stats, skills and/or equipment for if you succeed or not on an attempted special choice/decision.
But, these days, RPG's aren't what they used to be, especially in AAA space. As now they are often pushing these games to be more ARPG (on the character-build itself) than RPG (the decision-making). This is really evident in games like Fallout 4, which has more different shades of Good for decisions and has less Evil and Neutral decisions than even Fallout 3 and especially New Vegas; and also Mass Effect: Andromeda. In Andromeda, a lot of Renegade decisions went out the window, in favor or more different shades of Good for decisions or just straight-up MMO side quests of find X this, get X that, go to X areas, etc etc.
RPG's are adding action-elements, and action-games are adding more RPG elements - and they're becoming too much alike. They're blurring the line of what they are, turning into these very alike hybrids. Many of these games are not really being masters of anything, TBH. They're turning out to be jacks of all trades, in which many are not living up to any sort of expectations in many instances - especially if they're sequels to previous titles that actually excelled at something.
I think a lot of this discussion started when DA: I came out and people complained that there were too many things to do. I tend to agree with Syntax about this, though; you don't actually HAVE to do everything a game throws at you. Even in non-open-world games, devs design entire regions that some players who finish the game once may never see (The Witcher 2 comes to mind here). While it makes the game design and development more challenging and time-consuming, I see this as a win for players, wiho are not guaranteed a unique experience, per se, but are guaranteed that not every player will walk away from a game with the same experience, and that's pretty cool IMO. I think it's only when a game gates the story content behind completing a certain number of repetitious and poorly-conceived side-quests that you end up with a game that makes people not want to finish it.
Personally I don't feel that characterization applies to DA:I; there were enough different ways to obtain the power that you needed to advance the story that you didn't have to do things you didn't want to (at least, that's my recollection). I will say that DA:I did not live up to DA:O, but BioWare opted not to make a direct sequel to that game in any case. It did end up getting a bit Skyrim'd, and, yes, if David Gaider and the rest of the crew could have done a new DA:O game, that would have been great, but what we ended up getting was pretty great in its own way.
"Blurring the lines between RPG and Action" is more due to consoles than anything else. You're going to have to learn to live with it. Or else, you know, play the plethora of "old school" style PC-oriented RPGs that have come out in the last five years that should give you what you want if you value conversation trees and point-based combat mechanics.
This is probably true too. To my mind, when we really started seeing this trend is with Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect's combat was much less streamlined and was designed with tactics and PC controls in mind. The sequels simplified some things and added some layers of complexity to others with changes to biotics and the way cover worked, but both were pushing the player toward a run-and-gun style of play in combat set-pieces. I decried this perceived shift at the time but it seems to be a train that has left the proverbial station.
There are, as you say, some old-school RPGs still being made, like Wasteland 2 (and 3) and Pillars of Eternity (along with indie offerings like Avadon), but that is a bit of a niche market now and AAA money just isn't going to be invested in those kinds of titles anymore. The good thing for people like me (and presumably MysterD) is that there are still devs out there who are sufficiently passionate about making those kinds of games that they will continue to get made as long as the playerbase continues to support them.
ing awesome
