559 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

Wii is a blight upon the world of gaming.

[Jack_Shandy]

Guys, the OP is putting words into EA's mouth. As far as I know no-one has said anything at all about a DA sequel, much less that it will be dumbed down. The entire POINT of DA was to be a hardcore old school RPG. That's what they made it for.



As far as I can tell, this whole thread is just reacting to something that doesn't exist, unless I've missed the news post saying "DA2 CONFIRMED, WILL HAVE NO INVENTORY". Why are people so incredibly terrified of casual gamers that they fly into outrage at even the tiniest suggestion that a game will be simplified?



There's nothing that bad about easy games, people. Jeeze. Go calm down over a few runs of Nethack.

[Darth Drago]

Jack_Shandy wrote...

Guys, the OP is putting words into EA's mouth. As far as I know no-one has said anything at all about a DA sequel, much less that it will be dumbed down. The entire POINT of DA was to be a hardcore old school RPG. That's what they made it for.

As far as I can tell, this whole thread is just reacting to something that doesn't exist, unless I've missed the news post saying "DA2 CONFIRMED, WILL HAVE NO INVENTORY". Why are people so incredibly terrified of casual gamers that they fly into outrage at even the tiniest suggestion that a game will be simplified?

There's nothing that bad about easy games, people. Jeeze. Go calm down over a few runs of Nethack.

You missed something….

Go down a few posts to Patrick Weekes post, only 4 down.
 http://meforums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=693351&forum=144

Its because they already turned ME2 into a casual average shooter game. They streamlined or flat out removed game mechanics to make a game more appealing to the masses instead of the fans of the game. With that franchise already rebooted why wouldn’t we worry that they may try to do the same thing with the Dragon Age franchise?



 

Modifié par Darth Drago, 30 mai 2010 - 08:48 .

[Tirigon]

Darth Drago wrote...

With that franchise already rebooted why wouldn’t we worry that they may try to do the same thing with the Dragon Age franchise?

 

Because ME2 is by far a better game then ME1. Let´s just hope it will be the same with DA2, all right?

[CybAnt1]

For the RPG's to continue to stand out people have to let go of inventory and leveling as their magic bullets and focus on the "role" part of role playing and make the experience in RPG's about your ability to affect the game world in a unique way something that, despite leveling, you can't do in AC2 or Bioshock. That effect isn't about your ability to play Barbie dress up with your paper doll either, it is about meaningful choices in the game world. They can streamline the hades out of DAO2 as long as that core principle of choice and affect doesn't go away.

Well, I agree with you about story and choices, and don't get me wrong, I consider them the core of Bioware RPGs, and it's an aspect I hope they never sacrifice (although btw you're ignoring analysis that says that they did that with ME2 anyway, as well as simplifying mechanics, despite promoting ME as "the" series where choices matter and carry forward -- right now we don't have good evidence that choices in DA "matter" much beyond what epilogue text you end up reading in DA:O and DA:A) ... but is that the minimal requirement for a good RPG? I mean, you have choices, decisions that affect the world and outcomes in adventure games like Police Quest, too. If that's our only criterion, what makes RPGs different from adventure games? Not much. 

I don't care so much for inventory as a repository of vendor trash to tediously sort through. However, inventory in RPGs, as I've said before, often devolved on making decisions about various kinds of usable items to carry around with you. In many games, there are some things a character can do with a usable item that they can't with a spell or talent/feat. They become part of their "arsenal" against the enemy. Facing the beholders under the sewers? That shield of eye ray reflection becomes very useful. About the face the fire giants? That wand of frost will come in real handy. There's trolls in the castle? Hmmm, those flask of flaming oil could be very useful. Undead? Ah, that's where we can put some holy water to use. Now, to me, DA's already a bit simplified in that it doesn't have very many usable items, and few whose use is very consequential.

As I've said already, it's a bit odd that you have five different types of elemental damage bombs and coatings, and in 90% of encounters it doesn't matter which one you choose. If that's the case, why have differential types of bombs in the first place? I mean, people complain about golf bag gaming or whatever they call it, but what I find weird about DA is I agree with you your choices should matter and have consequence, and in many RPGs a choice that has consequence is which items to carry with you for encounters. In fact, it then makes finding certain items very important, because they can affect your future progress. And so what I find really odd about DA is it offers you some choices (when it comes to items) and then makes the choices irrelevant. Because 90% of what you're facing is darkspawn, who don't appear to be particularly vulnerable to, or resistant to, or immune to, anything. It also seems to have a lack of usable items - where are potions you can drink for buffs? scrolls you can read for protection? wands with usable powers? wearable gear with usable powers? statues that summon monsters? I almost agree with you that inventory does become pointless, when item use is made so minimal and unimportant. In DA, gear generally is worn and boost various stats and does little else. 

But where I totally disagree with you more is on the unimportance of character progression. Every RPG uses some form of progression. As you may know, some have no levels. Some don't even have classes. (For example, the SPECIAL system of Fallout.) However, even in those systems, your character still progresses over time; you still add to and augment various skills as the game progresses. And even if there are no classes, you're still forced to make choices. Do you want your character to get better at ... magic? stealth? healing? fighting? alchemy? persuasion? etc. You can't confuse the character progression of RPGs with the "powerups" found in just about every video game. Of course most video games have "powerups". You find better guns and better body armor in shooters. You find weapon upgrades in side scrollers. You can make Mario more powerful in Super Mario Bros. It's not "powerups" that matter in RPGs, per se. 

No, it's not just that your character is getting more powerful over time. The point is you're making decisions in where you want them to get better and how. EVEN WoW has a minimal aspect of this in that you have to choose one of three talent specializations for your char and then decide to allocate points within it. Everything else is pretty much auto-levelled. I agree with you that RPGs are about making decisions that matter. One of those mattering decisions is how to "grow" and evolve your character over time. You get to see how the gameworld changes for a character that has mastered stealth & trickery, as opposed to one that has mastered fighting. 

Inventory ... is not the soul of a ©RPG, so to speak, I'll agree. But take away character progression and you've done the one thing you said you don't want these games to do: take away choices that matter. Some of us old schoolers who started out with Pen n Paper games of this type are not so quick to surrender that as you. 

[Tirigon]

CybAnt1, it comes eally down to your PoV. Personally, I think the lack of levelling is about the only thing shooters make better than RPGs, so I really wouldn´t miss that.

[Darth Drago]

Tirigon wrote...

Darth Drago wrote...

With that franchise already rebooted why wouldn’t we worry that they may try to do the same thing with the Dragon Age franchise?

 

Because ME2 is by far a better game then ME1. Let´s just hope it will be the same with DA2, all right?

I wont get into a Mass Effect debate in this forum, not the proper place for it.

I just don’t want to see Dragon Age Origins 2 turned into a overly simplified game that is changed so much from the first game in every game mechanic thing that could possibly be changed that you wouldn’t recognize it as a sequel at all. If I wanted that kind of treatment I’d go back and play Halo 3 ODST.

[CybAnt1]

CybAnt1, it comes eally down to your PoV. Personally, I think the lack of levelling is about the only thing shooters make better than RPGs, so I really wouldn´t miss that.

Yes ... it does, doesn't it? 

And the truth is, as I said, I play shooters occasionally; but I have to say I generally don't replay them. I'm not big into multiplay smacktalk and deathmatch arenas, and once I complete the singleplayer mission sequence ... there's usually little incentive to do it again. I liked Return to Castle Wolfenstein, I rather enjoy killing ****s, but once I defeated the big bad end boss ... I couldn't see much reason to play it again. 

See, I agree with the above statement that the replayability of RPGs comes from choices that matter ... it's just that I think RPGs have more choices that matter than shooters, and that's why I like them better.

It's not just storyline choices, though. It's also that when you play Duke Nukem (or whateva FPS), Duke is always the same at the beginning of the game as he is at the end. Little changes about the character, although he may find better weapons along the way, switching from the pistol to the minigun. The character doesn't evolve, doesn't change; you have no chance to mold any aspect of them.

It's fine that Sidney and you don't get why this aspect of the game is as important to certain players that we're attached to it -- you don't have to agree with me, but I just want you to see the other POV.

You don't care for it; for me character progression (often, but not always, through a levelling system)  is ONE of THE things that makes CRPGs for me MORE enjoyable and MORE replayable than shooters. 

[Darth Drago]

Nice post CybAnt1.

Inventory wise, the best RPG aspect is when you use some of that inventory to create things. It adds a certain hands on effect to the game. In DAO you can make all sorts of stuff, Oblivion had a rather large extensive list of potions, Fallout 3 you had those funky special weapons (loved that nail gun) and that’s good stuff right off the top of my head I can think off right now.

Inventory and leveling are common things to see in RPG’s. I’m not willing to see it dropped out of existence because of a trend to cater to the casual gamer crowd.

[CybAnt1]

I'm not opposed to simplifying inventory. I didn't mind the individualized inventory of the Infinity Engine games, but it seems the new trend is the collective party inventory of KOTOR and now DA. And I know the game realists would prefer some type of encumbrance/weight system, but it looks like the trend has been to eliminate those as well.



I'm all in favor of the cry to eliminate vendor trash. It almost seems to have some point in MMOs, has close to no point in SP-RPGs, and is basically just there to force you to bump into your max item limit more often.



There's streamlining that works. Then there's streamlining out of existence.

[Darth Drago]

True, I’m not font of the vendor trash things. Especially in how it got changed in Oblivion where it had no value to even sell to a vendor. At least in Morrowind you could make a quick few coins on it. In DAO I’m still forced to look up on a game wike guide site to double check if what I just picked up is something I may need.  But I do think it sort of adds to the game as well if you open a chest or loot a body that you find 1 or 2 things that are junk to you.

If they keep the junk stuff then the least they can do is automatically put them into the Junk section of your backpack without adding to your carrying limit, like the Quest items one. Or at least increase the backpack capacity or give each companion a backpack.

I just hope it doesn’t get so streamlined like they did with Mass Effect 2 and completely cut it from the game.

[Sidney]

CybAnt1 wrote...
Inventory ... is not the soul of a ©RPG, so to speak, I'll agree. But take away character progression and you've done the one thing you said you don't want these games to do: take away choices that matter. Some of us old schoolers who started out with Pen n Paper games of this type are not so quick to surrender that as you. 

You make a valiant defense of inventory . I hate inventory but I can respect your PoV. I'd say that the items you are talking about aren't the vendor trash type stuff that bothers me so much. I'd be more interesting in dealing with useful items and managing those than doing a deep dungeon dive and having to take care of tons of shields, swords and armors of a non-magical variety.

I don't think I rejected leveling. What I do reject is that leveling needs to be intricate and unpleasant - see Oblviions system. A lot of folks had an issue with the ME2 leveling where you had fewer skills and fewer increments of progression - there were basically 4 big jumps in skill levels rather than 30 tiny jumps like ME1 had. That did not bother me, I felt like my character was gianing power. I couldn't max out everything so I was making choices. The one limiter there is something people oddly like - class based skills. I deeply prefer the SPECIAL system because it does away with the boundaries of  class system but ME2 actually ties you very deeply into those classes and what they can or can't do other than being able to select one non-class skill.

By way of comparison if, in DAO2 they did the following:
Combined potions and poisons
Combined trap making and trap setting
Got rid of the horrible rune system from DAA
Shrank the total number of spells/skills - there are some pointless or just repetitive skillls
Lost the skill chains in favor of level limited individual skills - as in I can pick Fireball w/o taking some set of pre-requisits

That'd be similar to the ME2 streamlining and that wouldn't bother me in the least.

[k9medusa]

I have to agree with Darth Drago and CybAnt1 on this one. I stopped playing action games for the simple reason, if you beat it once, you beat it a thousand times, it makes no difference, it is always the same. Therefore, I played only RPG type games for I love watch my char grow the way I like - feats, skills, spells, etc and I really miss the inventory of the older games. It makes the items mean something -- for example, I should keep this acid bomb for the local trolls if I ran out of spells and this red gem is good for making that health pot -- otherwise, what is the point? Just selling it, so one can make some coin for the unber super item in the most expensive store... Even then coin becomes useless -- what the point of having 300 sov's if there is not worth buying?

[Sidney]

Darth Drago wrote...


True, I’m not font of the vendor trash things. Especially in how it got changed in Oblivion where it had no value to even sell to a vendor. At least in Morrowind you could make a quick few coins on it. In DAO I’m still forced to look up on a game wike guide site to double check if what I just picked up is something I may need.  But I do think it sort of adds to the game as well if you open a chest or loot a body that you find 1 or 2 things that are junk to you.

If they keep the junk stuff then the least they can do is automatically put them into the Junk section of your backpack without adding to your carrying limit, like the Quest items one. Or at least increase the backpack capacity or give each companion a backpack.

I just hope it doesn’t get so streamlined like they did with Mass Effect 2 and completely cut it from the game.

I thought the Oblivion approach was at least reasonable. You can find a ton of stuff but it will functionally have no value. It eliminates some of the Monty Haul nature of what you do. Biowares problem is letting you loot vendor trash on bodies but not
vendor trash on the table. If there are things that aren't valuable just go ahead and apply that logic across the whole operation. I'd just as soon massacre a horde of Genlocks and find nothing knowing that after a battle there's nothing useful or valuable they have on them anymore. I want to loot Jarvia's treasure room, I don't want to loot the corpses of her dead guards.

The economics of the games encourage that sort of behavior. The fact that, and this I REALLY hate, so many powerful items can be bought rather than aquired really cheapens the experience. Buying armor from Wade is fine because you must aquire the elements of that powerful armor but just buying powerful items at the Wonders of Thedas is so awful.

ME2 doesn't cut inventory from the game. They cut inventory management. You have a limited load of weapons and armor you can take with you on a mission. That's good as opposed to the taking 2 swords, a mace and a long bow you can do in DAO - hell I can take backup armor if I want. Really, you just have  spare of chainmail with you? It also gets rid of vendor trash looting - I no longer have to rummage the pockets of dead men for credits and yet another Foo VI pistol. You have to loot places where valuable things might exist - a safe, a computer for plans and data and the occasional crate. That's not cut from the game that is smartly managing inventory.

[k9medusa]

After playing DAO for a while now -- I think I still prefer D&D 3.0 / 3.5 system of spells. I also like the rune system in DAO:A it makes low power ones have some value again -- that rune +1 to fire, if I have 3 of them - I get it the next level. I also like the fact only magi can do that skill -- it helps to point out every class has a role therefore the class has value -- it is no fun to be jack of all trades and master of none. I thinking of NWN2:SOZ I love the fact you can make the "perfect" party -- the play can select party's race, class, skills, feats, spells, etc but there is part of the system I missed -- no NPC talks about race, class,etc IMHO, Games will will moving in the right direction if do a combo of these ideas.

[Zanderat]

Jack_Shandy wrote...

Guys, the OP is putting words into EA's mouth. As far as I know no-one has said anything at all about a DA sequel, much less that it will be dumbed down. The entire POINT of DA was to be a hardcore old school RPG. That's what they made it for.

I couldn't let this commnet go by,  If you think DAO is a hardcore old school RPG, then you are sadly mistaken.

[Zanderat]

Tirigon wrote...

Darth Drago wrote...

With that franchise already rebooted why wouldn’t we worry that they may try to do the same thing with the Dragon Age franchise?

 

Because ME2 is by far a better game then ME1. Let´s just hope it will be the same with DA2, all right?

Groan........  Really?

[Merci357]

Darth Drago wrote...

True, I’m not font of the vendor trash things. Especially in how it got changed in Oblivion where it had no value to even sell to a vendor. At least in Morrowind you could make a quick few coins on it. In DAO I’m still forced to look up on a game wike guide site to double check if what I just picked up is something I may need.  But I do think it sort of adds to the game as well if you open a chest or loot a body that you find 1 or 2 things that are junk to you.

Regarding items, I'm still quite fond of the Fallout 3 system. Items had a certain weight, so no 27 sets of armor in your backpack, and items degrade over time, if you use them.  However, you could repair them, scrapping for example one shotgun to repair another one with some spare parts you got in the process.
If I recall right, Fallout 3, even with it's quite complex and unlimiting SPECIAL system, a clunky menue and inventory, sold very well, so I see absolutely no reason why DA (which also sold, regarding to numbers given by EA, very well) has to be casualised.

That said, I don't mind streamlining tendious or badly designed features, like the ME item system. However, going from Colossus armor I - X to no inventory at all, isn't the solution I'd prefer. Tinkering with items (for stats, or for look, or for both) is, at least for me, lots of fun - a game inside the game itself. However, plain vendor trash... I see no harm in reducing the amount, just put some coins in the corpse.

Modifié par Merci357, 30 mai 2010 - 02:54 .

[Tirigon]

Darth Drago wrote...

I just don’t want to see Dragon Age Origins 2 turned into a overly simplified game that is changed so much from the first game in every game mechanic thing that could possibly be changed that you wouldn’t recognize it as a sequel at all. If I wanted that kind of treatment I’d go back and play Halo 3 ODST.

:crying::crying: But... But...

Halo ODST SUCKED!!!!

Totally ruined the series......

:crying::crying:

[Tirigon]

CybAnt1 wrote...


You don't care for it; for me character progression (often, but not always, through a levelling system)  is ONE of THE things that makes CRPGs for me MORE enjoyable and MORE replayable than shooters. 

I agree; however, I disagree that Character progression needs to come by leveling.

The big problem with leveling is that it makes balancing the game almost impossible.

I mean, you see it quite well in DAO: The first few levels suck because you have too few spells to enjoy a mage, and too less attack / defense to enjoy a warrior.

As you level up, this gets better; however, once you reach a certain level, for me it´s usually around 14 - 16 (of course later with a bad build) you are so powerful that the combat becomes a bit boring. For example when fighting dragons I find it harder to make sure my main char gets the killing blow (that´s a matter of pride for meB)) than to actually fight.

With few exceptions all enemies, even bosses, die too fast to make the fight challenging. That sucks.

[Zanderat]

Tirigon wrote...

CybAnt1 wrote...


You don't care for it; for me character progression (often, but not always, through a levelling system)  is ONE of THE things that makes CRPGs for me MORE enjoyable and MORE replayable than shooters. 

I agree; however, I disagree that Character progression needs to come by leveling.

The big problem with leveling is that it makes balancing the game almost impossible.

This is just blatantly wrong.  Go and play Wizardry 8, for reference.  Perfectly balanced.  Or System Shock 2.  Or Morrowind.  Or The Witcher.  Or......  you get the idea.   

Modifié par Zanderat, 30 mai 2010 - 03:10 .

[Tirigon]

Zanderat wrote...

This is just blatantly wrong.  Go and play Wizardry 8, for reference.  Perfectly balanced.  Or System Shock 2.  Or Morrowind.  Or The Witcher.  Or......  you get the idea.   

I don´t know about System Shock 2 or Wizardry, but I played both Morrowind and the witcher.

And both TOTALLY SUPPORT MY CLAIM.

Try fighting daedra in Morrowind on level 1 - you hit never and die with 1 attack. Come back on 20 and the fight is challenging, but doable. Come back at 40 and everything dies in seconds with you being immortal. NOT what I want from a game.


In Witcher it wasn´t that bad, but the fights still got easier with every level-up, without becoming moe iteresting. In the end I tended to play a no-sword way of fighting and only spammed the fire spell..............

[k9medusa]

Tirigon wrote...
~snip~

Try fighting daedra in Morrowind on level 1 - you hit never and die with 1 attack. Come back on 20 and the fight is challenging, but doable. Come back at 40 and everything dies in seconds with you being immortal. NOT what I want from a game.

~snip~

This is how I like to play  -- it is fun to watch my char grow, from a no body lvl 1 to a demi - god.  It also gaves you a choose when to have that battle and what hard the said will be  -- I dunno about this game since I never played, but it is a good example of what of system I liked. I enjoy being a demi - god, but also I like path to get there.

[Tirigon]

k9medusa wrote...


This is how I like to play  -- it is fun to watch my char grow, from a no body lvl 1 to a demi - god.  It also gaves you a choose when to have that battle and what hard the said will be  -- I dunno about this game since I never played, but it is a good example of what of system I liked. I enjoy being a demi - god, but also I like path to get there.

Then we´ll have to accept we disagreeB)


I want a game to be challenging, but doable, on every level. If I want levelgrinding there is always WoW.

[Sidney]

Tirigon wrote...

Then we´ll have to accept we disagreeB)


I want a game to be challenging, but doable, on every level. If I want levelgrinding there is always WoW.

Levelling is problematic. At low levels you can die from one bad shot - I still recall the Hobgoblins with poison arrows doing in my characters quite often in BG2 but at a certain point the risk of death basicaly vanishes from most games. In the BG games levels 5-12 seemed to be the sweet spot where you could have good challenges, useful skills and spells and some fear of death from things other than Liches that cheated the systrem. By the time I reached the later parts of BG2 or god help me ToB death wasn't even on the agenda. Same thing in KoToR, FO3 or DAO - the higher levels cease to be a challenge.

Leveling is simply too steep in most games - as in the power gap between lvl 3 and level 18 is massive. Some will say "It should be" but the problem is that to level foes to match your power you get the absolutely stupid fights with "theives" in Denerim that could wipe out an entire Darkspawn army - where are these idiots when the attack on Denerim overurns everything? - or else nerfed boss fights light Gagnaxx (or whatever) and dragons. I'd much rather see a more gradual curve so that my character still has to fear "regular" types of foes.