Hey all!
This is a thread for people to suggest games that Bioware should study and why they should study them...or comment on previous suggestions.
Okay, Lost Odyssey for the Xbox 360. What could Bioware learn from it? Before that, lets just note that Lost Odyssey is a Japenese RPG from the father of Final Fantasy. Its roughly about the same length as a typical Dragon Age Origins playthrough.
1. Combat. While Lost Odyssey is turn based, the depth to it leaves DAO in the shade. In fact just thinking about it I am unsure where to begin to explain it all, or even in part.
Odyssey's 'Ring' system is vastly superior to DAO's Runes (including Awakenings Runecrafting) with Rings not only making a notable difference but in many ways being critical to progress. Spellcasting seems balanced, Team positioning is vital, theres quite a lot I am leaving out but its a far more intelligent system of checks and balances.
2. Enemies. Very original in terms of design. Incredibly varied (I estimate about 60 types before variants, and not counting bosses). Each with their own strengths and weaknesses.
3. Bosses. Okay, I could have lumped these in with the enemies, but they are worth getting their own special mention. 16 bosses (not counting the optional ones, see below), of which I think one is a duplicate. Apart from probably the opening boss, each has a challenging set of abilities and tactics that force players to think.
4. Hidden/Optional Stuff. This game has EIGHT optional bosses SEVEN of which are completely new monsters! About 5 are tougher than the End Boss of the main game. It even has optional levels with 30 new enemies in them (although most of those are variants of existing monsters). It also has an arena area with 20 progressively more difficult challenges.
While by no means perfect, on the above points I note, Lost Odyssey is vastly superior to Dragon Age.
Games Bioware Should Study...#1 Lost Odyssey
Débuté par
Upper_Krust
, avril 08 2010 09:54
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 09 avril 2010 - 02:02
Stanley Woo
-
- BioWare Employees
-
- 8 368 messages
Let's leave aside for the moment the fact that western RPGs and JRPGs are very different creatures and take Upper-Krust's comments individually, because I have a few things I'd like clarified. Let's also leave aside the "considering things in isolation" argument, since any game is a sum of its parts first. Only once the whole is experienced can each part be analyzed. That said, this analysis is done with two games of comparable length, gameplay, and "epic-ness" (I assume, since I haven't played Lost Odyssey).
Not only is there "quite a lot [you're] leaving out," but you don't even begin to describe this "far more intelligent system of checks and balances." What is checking or balancing what? And where do the rings fit in?
Okay, how is it better? Where is the "ring" system's depth? How is it "vastly superior?" How do rings make "a notable difference" and where does it make that difference? How is the "ring" system "critical to progress?" What does spellcasting have to do with the rings? How is tem positiong "vital", and what is it vital to, and how does this involve the rings?Upper_Krust wrote...
1. Combat. While Lost Odyssey is turn based, the depth to it leaves DAO in the shade. In fact just thinking about it I am unsure where to begin to explain it all, or even in part.
Odyssey's 'Ring' system is vastly superior to DAO's Runes (including Awakenings Runecrafting) with Rings not only making a notable difference but in many ways being critical to progress. Spellcasting seems balanced, Team positioning is vital, theres quite a lot I am leaving out but its a far more intelligent system of checks and balances.
Not only is there "quite a lot [you're] leaving out," but you don't even begin to describe this "far more intelligent system of checks and balances." What is checking or balancing what? And where do the rings fit in?
How are Lost Odyssey's enemies "very original in terms of design?" Are you speaking strictly in combat, graphically, or story-wise? And what are these "strengths and weaknesses" you're describing? You're implying over 60 distinct strengths and weaknesses for rank-and-file, regular creatures encountered during gameplay. Is this accurate?2. Enemies. Very original in terms of design. Incredibly varied (I estimate about 60 types before variants, and not counting bosses). Each with their own strengths and weaknesses.
"Force players to think" how? What abilities and tactics are used/required?3. Bosses. Okay, I could have lumped these in with the enemies, but they are worth getting their own special mention. 16 bosses (not counting the optional ones, see below), of which I think one is a duplicate. Apart from probably the opening boss, each has a challenging set of abilities and tactics that force players to think.
I daresay that Dragon Age may have far more than 8 "optional bosses," if you include all of our game's side quests and light content and if you assume our definition of "bosses" is the same. But aside from that, does all of these extra hidden/optional content mean Lost Odyssey is better, or simply more?4. Hidden/Optional Stuff. This game has EIGHT optional bosses SEVEN of which are completely new monsters! About 5 are tougher than the End Boss of the main game. It even has optional levels with 30 new enemies in them (although most of those are variants of existing monsters). It also has an arena area with 20 progressively more difficult challenges.
You've mentioned a lot of things, but have in no way described how they are "vastly superior" to Dragon Age, except to state that they are.While by no means perfect, on the above points I note, Lost Odyssey is vastly superior to Dragon Age.
#3
Posté 11 avril 2010 - 08:00
Stanley Woo
-
- BioWare Employees
-
- 8 368 messages
Unfortunately, Upper_Krust, it really sounds like the entirety of your argument isn't that DAO needs more depth or complexity, but that it needs to be the Lost Odyssey combat system because of how much you enjoyed that system.
Don't get me wrong. That is an acceptable argument and your opinion is as valid as anyone else's, including mine, but I think the point that you're not getting from those arguing (maturely and respectfully) against you is that you are considering Lost Odyssey's combat system only within the context of Lost Odyssey and its genre. In a JRPG, that level of complexity in a combat system is acceptable and desired, because less time can be spent on things like story branches and player choice in that story. And that's fine... for a JRPG.
Western RPGs have to contend with a different audience, one that also enjoys a gripping story where they make the decisions. That necessarily requires more time and resources to be spent on writing and voicing and design, and less on the intricacies of positioning and rings and whatnot.
As for the "more is not better argument," I think it's a little disingenuous to compare your "more is better" statement to "more DA products is better" because that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing the combat system, not a game franchise. In most western RPGs, the combat system is there to support the story. Many people in this thread can win Dragon Age combats with ease, even on Nightmare, but many are in it for the story. They want to see how it ends.
In most JRPGs, on the other hand, the story is there to support the awesome new combat system they've developed. As an example, look at the Final Fantasy series. The few that I've played have tremendous variation and customization in combat tactics, abilities, buffs, summons, and animations. The cinematics when performing ultimate moves are spectacular, and I love watching them. Performing them starts to become a minigame in and of itself, as you perform the correct combination or number of moves necessary to fill the meter, get the timing right on the real-time rhythm game, and press the correct combination of buttons at just the right moment in the animation. It's great, and I enjoy it, but I don't like the rest of what a JRPG is, which is endlessly slogging through voiceless character dialogues to uncover a story that isn't necessary to win the game, the trilling sound effect of printed text, lack of choice in dialogue responses, all to get to the next potentially poorly-translated, voiced cinematic.
A JRPG, to me, is having to suffer through character "development" and "interaction" to get to the next cinematic or combat, while a western RPG is, to me, going through combat to get to the next bit of exciting story development and character interaction. In a western RPG, especially BioWare's, there a sense of the characters being real enough to touch, and strong attachments are developed, which is why we always have character love and hate threads, and romance threads, in every one of our game forums.
So yes, you can definitely compare RPGs like Dragon Age and Lost Odyssey, but try to incorporate entire systems from one into the other? You'd essentially be changing the genre and potentially alienating an entire audience.
Don't get me wrong. That is an acceptable argument and your opinion is as valid as anyone else's, including mine, but I think the point that you're not getting from those arguing (maturely and respectfully) against you is that you are considering Lost Odyssey's combat system only within the context of Lost Odyssey and its genre. In a JRPG, that level of complexity in a combat system is acceptable and desired, because less time can be spent on things like story branches and player choice in that story. And that's fine... for a JRPG.
Western RPGs have to contend with a different audience, one that also enjoys a gripping story where they make the decisions. That necessarily requires more time and resources to be spent on writing and voicing and design, and less on the intricacies of positioning and rings and whatnot.
As for the "more is not better argument," I think it's a little disingenuous to compare your "more is better" statement to "more DA products is better" because that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing the combat system, not a game franchise. In most western RPGs, the combat system is there to support the story. Many people in this thread can win Dragon Age combats with ease, even on Nightmare, but many are in it for the story. They want to see how it ends.
In most JRPGs, on the other hand, the story is there to support the awesome new combat system they've developed. As an example, look at the Final Fantasy series. The few that I've played have tremendous variation and customization in combat tactics, abilities, buffs, summons, and animations. The cinematics when performing ultimate moves are spectacular, and I love watching them. Performing them starts to become a minigame in and of itself, as you perform the correct combination or number of moves necessary to fill the meter, get the timing right on the real-time rhythm game, and press the correct combination of buttons at just the right moment in the animation. It's great, and I enjoy it, but I don't like the rest of what a JRPG is, which is endlessly slogging through voiceless character dialogues to uncover a story that isn't necessary to win the game, the trilling sound effect of printed text, lack of choice in dialogue responses, all to get to the next potentially poorly-translated, voiced cinematic.
A JRPG, to me, is having to suffer through character "development" and "interaction" to get to the next cinematic or combat, while a western RPG is, to me, going through combat to get to the next bit of exciting story development and character interaction. In a western RPG, especially BioWare's, there a sense of the characters being real enough to touch, and strong attachments are developed, which is why we always have character love and hate threads, and romance threads, in every one of our game forums.
So yes, you can definitely compare RPGs like Dragon Age and Lost Odyssey, but try to incorporate entire systems from one into the other? You'd essentially be changing the genre and potentially alienating an entire audience.
