103 réponses à ce sujet

[Discus]

Kail Ashton wrote...

lol if the game looked better graphicly/art direction wise, a more robust cinematic quality, a more robust soundtrack as well along with more stylized & unique armors i'd agree, it's the only things keeping dragon age from being perfect.

I really love Dragon Age and I really enjoyed playing it every second! But I have to agree with this. Especially about needing more robust cinematic and soundtrack quality. The lore and background work is all there but when entering for example Orzammar I expected so much more in terms of graphic art. The cutscenes in the game are all right but not nearly enough engaging. The Ostagar cut scenes were great but then it seemed like from there the developers almost completely disregarded storytelling in terms of cutscenes, from my perspective, could be for different reasons and I am not saying it was bad because of this, only something I wanted more of. But the game makes that up in terms of lore, dialogue and so on. But still, if the game had more emphasis on graphic art and "visual" storytelling I would consider the game nearly perfect. So maybe this is something to focus on for the future, which I think I read in an interview, that for the upcoming sequel there will be much more emphasis on upgrading the graphics.

When reading the books there is such an atmosphere in terms of visual imagery for the reader and such a huge emphasis on following the characters thoughts and development. Yes there is a lot of dialogue in the game but very few cutscenes in my eyes and very few scenes where you see companions or other NPCs (like Duncan, Loghain etc) developig and interacting witth the world on their own; What I mean with that is that you don't see them interacting often unless it is you choosing to talk to them and what about them walking up and talking to you. Could be much more of that. Also, the dreams could have been so much more elaborate and I'd love to see more of these kind of "textures" or "ideas" in the game, things which makes the world come alive visually for the player. I still found it such a pity that you got no chance to get a personal connection with Duncan before Ostagar. SPOILER WARNING ------------------------------>

It would have been amazing to actually play through the travel from your origin to Ostagar and the battle. To speak to him, get to know him. That way I would have been so much more touched by his death.


SPOILER OVER

But I love the game and I am merely saying this because I enjoyed it so much and believe in its potential to go even further. Lots and lots of thanks to the writers and developers for creating such a fantastic, engaging, interesting, funny, exciting RPG with depth and an RPG which actually involves Role Play. Thank you and looking forward to the sequel whatever and however it will be.

Discus

Modifié par Discus, 28 juin 2010 - 10:00 .

[AmstradHero]

Discus wrote...
if the game had more emphasis on graphic art and "visual" storytelling I would consider the game nearly perfect. So maybe this is something to focus on for the future, which I think i read in an interview that for the upcoming sequel there will be much more emphasis on upgrading the graphics.

When reading the books there is such an atmosphere in terms of visual imagery for the reader and such a huge emphasis on following the characters thoughts and development. Yes there is a lot of dialogue in the game but very few cutscenes in my eyes and very few svenes where you see companions or other NPCs (like DUncan, Loghain etc) developig and interacting witht the world on their own.

I couldn't disagree more. I'm playing a game, not watching a movie. Take for example, the opening of The Witcher. To start with, you sit through a lengthy CG video of Geralt fighting some creature/woman. There seems to be no point to this except for Geralt toying with her and "showing how awesome he is". He then "defeats" her, and then we get a "then he disappeared, but that is another tale" VO tag-line. Thereafter we start the game, and have to sit through even more (in-game) cutscenes.

You end up watching the game for a good 10-15 minutes before you actually get to do anything. This is not good storytelling in a game. It's not until I've played the game for an hour before I finally get to make my first dialogue choice. This is terrible from a roleplaying perspective.

I don't want massive cutscenes, and Dragon Age's "visual story-telling" is huge without having overly long cutscenes. You're getting partially cinematic interactions with pretty much ever character you have a conversation with, yet that's not enough?

The whole "Dragon Age has bad graphics" argument I found to be complete bollocks from the start. Sure, it's no Unreal Engine, but it's not supposed to be. People seem to not understand that the game has a graphical style that suits it. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's not terrible. So I care less about "improving the graphics" than I do about ensuring that we have a well-developed plot with interesting antagonists, well-developed NPCs, intriguing quests and enjoyable combat.

Dragon Age is a game, not a book, nor a movie. It is a roleplaying about the player's character and the choices that they have to make. No, it's not without fault, but I don't want it to be filled with cutscenes over which I have absolutely no control.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 28 juin 2010 - 10:10 .

[_-Greywolf-_]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

DAO is far from the greatest RPG of "modern times". If you mean the past year or so, then sure, I won't disagree too strongly, but it's certainly not the greatest.
Too many missed opportunities, too little polish, stat system that needs work... Nah, not the greatest.

It really depends on what is meant by "modern times". If it means in the current generation of gaming consoles (Xbox 360, PS3) then yes I would probably agree with the OP however this is mostly due to the lack of competition.
It also raises the question, are Bioware the RPG kings because their games are so great or is it because of the lack of any real competition?

[Domyk]

Darstragon wrote...

I'm playing through The Witcher right now. Quite enjoying it. (And finding it MUCH darker and morally murky than Origins or Awakening).

The Witcher is great.  Sadly I am very finicky on User interfaces.   The witcher interface is garbage, thus I stopped playing it, 

[Loerwyn]

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...
It really depends on what is meant by "modern times". If it means in the current generation of gaming consoles (Xbox 360, PS3) then yes I would probably agree with the OP however this is mostly due to the lack of competition.
It also raises the question, are Bioware the RPG kings because their games are so great or is it because of the lack of any real competition?

No competition? Drakensang, Drakensang: Am Fluss der Zeit (River of Time), Divinity 2: Ego Draconis, Wiedzmin, Wiedzmin 2 (next year), Sacred 2, TES IV: Oblivion, Fallout 3, A Farewell to Dragons, 90247384 RPGs for the DS, and a bunch of games I've forgotten - Admittedly most releases are on the PC, but I'm sure you get my point.

BioWare aren't the RPG Kings. Yes, they've brought out some excellent and highly respected games, but they're not the best. They've been lucky in that they've been published by 4-5 publishers who know what to do - Interplay for the Infinity Engine games, Atari for NWN, 2K for Jade Empire, EA for Mass Effect & Dragon Age, and LucasArts for KotOR. If BioWare were, say, the exact same studio with the exact same products, but with a publisher like dtp Entertainment or 1C Company, chances are you wouldn't know who they are.

BioWare have just had the right publishers, the right funds, and the right combination of people. BioWare can make excellent games, but I (personally) don't believe they're as good as some other studios. Their products are so uninspired, so lifeless... BioWare just get a lot of recognition because they're an EA studio with a great reputation from their early days and their products are marketed well. A lot of the studios who compete don't have that luxury, and often their products fade into the background, which is a real shame as there are some amazing titles coming out of Europe right now, and with a better publisher the titles could be so much better.

Divinity 2, as a recent example, is a very promising game. It has a mindblowing soundtrack, visually it's staggeringly beautiful and the gameplay is there, but it suffers from not having the polish a bigger budget title would have - the performance is a bit iffy, the shadows freak out a little bit, the animations are a bit strange and the cutscene videos aren't rendered at the correct resolution for some screens (they're somewhat pixelated for me on a 1600x900 screen). But it's got a charm about it that BioWare games don't have - it makes Dragon Age feel static and lifeless.

And you've got Drakensang by Radon Labs. This is a game that, despite a few translation errors and lack of visual-customisation for your character, is reminiscent of the older Infinity-era games. You can't just jump in and kill everything - You have to be careful with what weapons your characters use, you have to co-ordinate your party member's attacks and so forth - If you don't do that, you die. The stat system has more depth than the Dragon Age one (it's based on the Das Schwarze Auge ruleset, just as the NWN/Infinity games were based on versions of D&D) and if you miss the old "ways", then it's a brilliant game. Visually it's cartoony, but it's not ridiculous. 

This is all just my opinion, of course, but I think whilst these games may not be as playable or as accessible as Dragon Age, whilst they may not be as stable or perform as well as a more refined title like DA (*cough*lawl*cough*) - they have charm, life and almost a loving touch, something I feel is lacking horribly from modern BioWare titles.

[Gaxhung]

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...
It really depends on what is meant by "modern times". If it means in the current generation of gaming consoles (Xbox 360, PS3) then yes I would probably agree with the OP however this is mostly due to the lack of competition.
It also raises the question, are Bioware the RPG kings because their games are so great or is it because of the lack of any real competition?

Even if there is some super amazing games out there, DAO will still stand as a great experience. You know, like how Half Life 2, Resident Evil 4 [--insert your fav here--] will always be a great games, how old are these games anyways?

[AmstradHero]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...
No competition? Drakensang, Drakensang: Am Fluss der Zeit (River of Time), Divinity 2: Ego Draconis, Wiedzmin, Wiedzmin 2 (next year), Sacred 2, TES IV: Oblivion, Fallout 3, A Farewell to Dragons, 90247384 RPGs for the DS, and a bunch of games I've forgotten - Admittedly most releases are on the PC, but I'm sure you get my point.

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

Drakensang was widely criticised for being little more than a grabbag of RPG cliches, Divinity 2 was marked as pretty lacklustre, Sacred 2 is more Diablo than RPG, Oblivion (decent) and Fallout 3 (bad) I already commented on... the other three I've not heard of and RPGs for the DS... well, they simply don't count.  One, I don't own any sort of handheld (and I'm not going to buy one), two... what kind of character development and choice can you get on a DS game?

BioWare write story-driven, epic RPGs. Have they had good publishers? Yes, but you don't get good publishers without quality products. Compare the relative polish of many of the lesser known RPGs to BioWare's efforts. The difference is massive. BioWare didn't start with a huge budget, they just worked their butts off to make quality products. That level of quality and polish matters, and BioWare delivers in that regard.

Now, I'll confess that I'm an unabashed BioWare fan, but I do so with good reason. I'm just as happy to point out the flaws in BioWare games as am I games by any other developer. It's just when it comes to RPGs, I typically find less fault in BioWare's efforts than the games delivered by other companies. I consider myself a fairly harsh critic, despite the fact that I spend a lot of time praising BioWare. The reason that happens is that some of the issues that BioWare gets attacked for are equally present in other games, if not more so.  And I have no compunctions in tearing down complaints that are baseless or just plain silly - and on the Internet, that happens a lot.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 28 juin 2010 - 12:48 .

[_-Greywolf-_]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...
It really depends on what is meant by "modern times". If it means in the current generation of gaming consoles (Xbox 360, PS3) then yes I would probably agree with the OP however this is mostly due to the lack of competition.
It also raises the question, are Bioware the RPG kings because their games are so great or is it because of the lack of any real competition?

No competition? Drakensang, Drakensang: Am Fluss der Zeit (River of Time), Divinity 2: Ego Draconis, Wiedzmin, Wiedzmin 2 (next year), Sacred 2, TES IV: Oblivion, Fallout 3, A Farewell to Dragons, 90247384 RPGs for the DS, and a bunch of games I've forgotten - Admittedly most releases are on the PC, but I'm sure you get my point.

I am sure there were plenty of RPGs released this generation but I would hardly call any of them competition. What I meant by Bioware having no competition is that most of the games that were released that were trying to appeal to the WRPG market were so poor that they couldnt really be considered as a serious competitors (although I really cant comment on Drakensang as I have never even heard of the game). Do you really think that games like Divinity 2 and Two Worlds can compete with Dragon Age?

Sure there were a few good titles like the Witcher but mostly the RPGs released this generation werent very good.

[_-Greywolf-_]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

BioWare just get a lot of recognition because they're an EA studio with a great reputation from their early days

You know I was going to make that comment but then I am not arrogant enough to assume everyone should share my opinion. In my mind Bioware's reputation for making great RPGs is mostly due to Baldur's Gate 2 (one of my favorite games) however I do know a lot of people on these forums havent played or simply do not like the Baldur's Gate series and are still huge Bioware fans because of different Bioware titles like KOTOR or Mass Effect ect.

When I say that Bioware are the kings of RPGs it is because Bioware consistently provide a quality product, while most of their recent games in my opinion have fallen short of the level of greatness that was Baldur's Gate 2 they still pump out some good games and while there are a lot of things that can be improved on in their games (they are certainly not masters of thier craft as some people claim) they still pump out a higher quality product than most RPG developers.

Modifié par _-Greywolf-_, 28 juin 2010 - 01:34 .

[HoonDing]

I'll agree that many Euro/indie RPGs are not competition because aside from the Witcher, those do not target a mainstream audience anyway. The fact that people in this thread haven't even heard of certain titles that have been mentioned, already says enough.

Competition for Dragon Age is -for instance- Final Fantasy XIII on PS3,  that more than likely greatly outsold it.

AmstradHero wrote...

BioWare write story-driven, epic RPGs. Have they had good publishers? Yes, but you don't get good publishers without quality products. Compare the relative polish of many of the lesser known RPGs to BioWare's efforts. The difference is massive. BioWare didn't start with a huge budget, they just worked their butts off to make quality products. That level of quality and polish matters, and BioWare delivers in that regard.

While quality is subjective, none of the BioWare RPGs were polished, they all had numerous bugs and problems at release (Dragon Age included). The Baldur's Gate games even had to be fixed by community.

As for EA or Atari being a good publisher... 

Modifié par virumor, 28 juin 2010 - 02:25 .

[AlanC9]

AmstradHero wrote...

I couldn't disagree more. I'm playing a game, not watching a movie. Take for example, the opening of The Witcher. To start with, you sit through a lengthy CG video of Geralt fighting some creature/woman. There seems to be no point to this except for Geralt toying with her and "showing how awesome he is".

I disagree somewhat. The scene showed me something of how Geralt's business operates, especially that prebuffing via potion is a typical operation. And he wasn't "toying with her," he was trying to avoid killing her, right? TW operates in a world I wasn't familiar with , and I appreciate having a look at it before I'm playing in it. DA did the same by showing the Darkspawn horde and Grey Wardens in action before the game start.

[AlanC9]

virumor wrote...

Competition for Dragon Age is -for instance- Final Fantasy XIII on PS3,  that more than likely greatly outsold it.

Really? My impression is that JRPG fans and WRPG fans are largely different communities.

[kaolincash]

I keep trying to play RPGs. Neverwinter Nights, Oblivion etc. but I...never get hooked. I fall out with it, usually some trivial matter like the encumbrance in Neverwinter Nights or just how Oblivion is...quite frankly, not gripping. The start of the game has you traipsing around the underground while you happen to run into the king or something and then whatever, I don't even remember the details.



Dragon Age gives you a choice right from the start, individual classes giving you completeyl seperate origins that come together at Ostagar - that's interesting right from the start. and then you meet Morrigan who (paired with Alistair) is comic relief as well as a wholesome member for your team. You don't feel out of depth, you chuckle at the ambient conversations the characters have, you have so many choices all the way through. It's those little things that made me play this through to the end (again and again).



If you like Oblivion, feel free to disregard all I said - 'tis merely opinion ;D

[nasakes]

do not get me wrong, i enjoyed final fantasy- but unfortunately not for its gripping storyline or RPG openess. Final fantasy is merely an extremely long movie that you fight a few battles for along the way. To compare such a closed game to an open world RPG like Dragonage is off topic.for example: if you was asked whats your favourite meat? and some one replied with "apple" it would not make much sense.

[AmstradHero]

virumor wrote...
While quality is subjective, none of the BioWare RPGs were polished, they all had numerous bugs and problems at release (Dragon Age included). The Baldur's Gate games even had to be fixed by community.

The only bug I encountered in the entire BG series was the Jaheira LoveTalk bug.
And I don't recall running into a bug in Dragon Age either.

And you just proved my earlier point. Huge games have bugs. Heck, even small games have bugs. Pretty much any modern game you can find glitches and issues with. BioWare isn't alone in having bugs in their games, so attacking them for that is ignoring the fact that every other developer has the same issue. Unless we expect BioWare to be above all other developers?

Regardless, polish is more than just bugs. Let's compare DAO with another recent RPG, Risen. Both have "cinematic" dialogue. Yet Risen feels like a poor cousin with its clunky text, VO that doesn't make the subtitles, shallow conversation trees, camera angles that frequently obscure the characters, and don't get me started on the ridiculous animations they characters before. Sometimes it feels like they're trying to perform YMCA rather than have a conversation.  The UI of Risen is far inferior, and even when you're selling items to merchants, I was confused and thought I was about to get swindled out of my items without receiving any gold. 

So the language issues you can blame on localisation, but it still lacks polish. And what do you know... it has bugs as well!

AlanC9 wrote...
The scene showed me something of how Geralt's business operates,
especially that prebuffing via potion is a typical operation. And he
wasn't "toying with her," he was trying to avoid killing her, right? TW
operates in a world I wasn't familiar with , and I appreciate having a
look at it before I'm playing in it. DA did the same by showing the
Darkspawn horde and Grey Wardens in action before the game start.

I'm not familiar with the world either, but it was still a long fight that seemed to have little point apart from showing off his cool combat moves. And does he ever use fists to fight in the game? If he's trying to avoid killing her, fine, but why does she run off like she does at the end? The prebuffing I had no problem with, and in fact, I quite liked that - it gave me an insight into how things worked.. Compare the fight to the darkspawn fight in DAO, and you'll find the latter is much much shorter. If you compare the two intro movies in full, the DAO intro movie also has a lot more lore content.

[Domyk]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...
It really depends on what is meant by "modern times". If it means in the current generation of gaming consoles (Xbox 360, PS3) then yes I would probably agree with the OP however this is mostly due to the lack of competition.
It also raises the question, are Bioware the RPG kings because their games are so great or is it because of the lack of any real competition?

No competition? Drakensang, Drakensang: Am Fluss der Zeit (River of Time), Divinity 2: Ego Draconis, Wiedzmin, Wiedzmin 2 (next year), Sacred 2, TES IV: Oblivion, Fallout 3, A Farewell to Dragons, 90247384 RPGs for the DS, and a bunch of games I've forgotten - Admittedly most releases are on the PC, but I'm sure you get my point.

Speaking of which I am trying out Drakensang now.  The Control keys defaults to A and D to move the character left or right.  However when I do so the camera does not pan and stay locked onto the player characters back.  Am I doing something wrong with the user interface?   Yes I know another option is to hold the right mouse button as character is moving to turn ...

[Loerwyn]

Domyk wrote...
Speaking of which I am trying out Drakensang now.  The Control keys defaults to A and D to move the character left or right.  However when I do so the camera does not pan and stay locked onto the player characters back.  Am I doing something wrong with the user interface?   Yes I know another option is to hold the right mouse button as character is moving to turn ...

I'm not sure, as I don't really think about how I'm playing it. The camera is a bit finnicky, so you might just have to get used to using the mouse.

[Discus]

AmstradHero wrote...

I don't want massive cutscenes, and Dragon Age's "visual story-telling" is huge without having overly long cutscenes. You're getting partially cinematic interactions with pretty much ever character you have a conversation with, yet that's not enough?

The whole "Dragon Age has bad graphics" argument I found to be complete bollocks from the start. Sure, it's no Unreal Engine, but it's not supposed to be. People seem to not understand that the game has a graphical style that suits it. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's not terrible. So I care less about "improving the graphics" than I do about ensuring that we have a well-developed plot with interesting antagonists, well-developed NPCs, intriguing quests and enjoyable combat.

I understand your point and can not say I don't agree with you. I also care more about an intruiging story, interesting atagonists and well developed NPCs. I haven't played the Witcher, so I can't argue for or against it but what you are describing is not what I would like to see Dragon Age become either. Yes it is a game, not a movie or book but I am just playing around with ideas about how a game can engage you as much storywise. I love the dialogue and story of Dragon Age. I just feel like there is more to squeeze out of that massive amount of lore they created.  All that background info should not be put into codex entrys, it could be much more integrated into the world that you interact with. And maybe that has nothing to do with improving graphics or adding cutscenes but simply working on the detail of voiceacting, what you choose to show in terms of cutscnenes and more importantly what you do not choose to show. For me characters like Duncan and Loghain for example could have been allowed more space to create a personal engagement for the player. Two examples are 1. Why not let the player get to know Duncan better. 2. Why did we barely get to know anything about Loghain and his background/reasons/history/psychology before he turns on the Grey Wardens. Instead of creating space for these types of relationships to develop it is instead somehow implied that Duncan was good and we should miss him because he was our "mentor" and Loghain is just a bad guy and you don't get any other more complex version of explaining his actions until near the end where he gets a few defence speeches from his daughter.

There is so much more to these characters that is clearly described and beautifuly engaging in the book the Calling. Yes, Dragon Age is not a book but that does not mean that it should stay in the surface of things.

But again, this is just thoughts on things I would like to see more of. It is not complaints, I loved the game!

Discus

Modifié par Discus, 29 juin 2010 - 01:51 .

[wanderon]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Going back to my point, I just wish there were *more* developers making RPGs. And yes, by that I mean non action RPGs (not Diablo clones).

The problem is, as games go, making such games is HARD, as compared to making simple shooters, side scrollers, kart racing, or whatever else. It requires a lot of time to make them, and, unfortunately, as we've seen, to make them right (polished and bug free).

And it seems everything that's being made is an MMO where you play one character, and then group up with other players. I really miss the games of old where you controlled six characters, and I still think the day will come where a developer will figure out how to make that work properly in single-player-3D. Without dumbing it down mercilessly, which was the Dungeon Siege "solution".

I do have to say it was kinda odd that in NWN(2), with its very broad range of class/char development, really made me want to go back to the old IWD "roll your own party" days, but didn't let you take six chars of your own into an adventure until Storm of Zehir. DA's comparably more boring "three classes with shallow specializations" doesn't give me the urge to make lots of my own characters.

I don't think having six premade chars means it has to be a "hack n slash" only adventure (which is how many felt about IWD), the key is to simply shift the character interaction from intra-party to party-with-outside-npcs. Storm of Zehir does this pretty well.

I agree with most of this - especially the lack of good SP non-actiony RPGs that offer party play for a team of 6.

I was really hoping Obsidian (or anyone else) would take the concepts set forth in Storm of Zehir to the next level - tweaking out the overland map to make travel between civilized (and uncivilized) locations more interesting and event filled again (ala BG1) while retaining both pre-made fleshed out companions as well as the option to create your own team.

[AuraofMana]

Wow, don't compare JRPG's with WRPG's. They are completely different games, and most JRPG's are terrible.

FF for example, as many fanbois it has, it lacks choices and feels the game is playing itself, and not me. Chrono Trigger was great though.

Within the recent 3-4 years, DAO is the best RPG. Within the history of video games, nothing has beaten BG2 for me yet. This is for story-based RPG's, not stuff like APRG's and Hack-and-Slash, of course, as they are different games.

The class system in DND got so complicated to the point where it needed a wipe (thus 3.0 -> 4.0, although I don't like 4.0 due to other issues). At some point in your design, you just have to simplify stuff. Dragon Age with the 3 archetype classes went back to the old root and was actually pretty refreshing. It is its own thing altogether, and I prefer both.

[Loerwyn]

Right, I'm ready to respond some of to the above points now.

AmstradHero wrote...
Drakensang was widely criticised for being little more than a grabbag of RPG cliches, Divinity 2 was marked as pretty lacklustre, Sacred 2 is more Diablo than RPG, Oblivion (decent) and Fallout 3 (bad) I already commented on... the other three I've not heard of and RPGs for the DS... well, they simply don't count.  One, I don't own any sort of handheld (and I'm not going to buy one), two... what kind of character development and choice can you get on a DS game?

Das Schwarze Auge, the ruleset and setting Drakensang uses, has been around 26 years. It's as old as many of those RPG clichés, if not older. Plus it's not like Dragon Age is immune to the "cliché complex", is it? Demons, Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Magic, "European"-esque setting, Dragons, Oh-God-The-World-Is-Ending-And-One-Person-With-Conveniently-"Equal"-Friends? Have you actually played Drakensang or Div 2? Going by your point, I would expect you haven't. Both games have a charm and an atmosphere that BioWare just don't have now. Look at Oblivion and Fallout 3, they are both worlds that feel lifeless and barren. Yes, it's supposed to be like that in Fallout 3, but even when you're in civilized areas it just feels... fake.

AmstradHero wrote...
BioWare write story-driven, epic RPGs. Have they had good publishers? Yes, but you don't get good publishers without quality products. Compare the relative polish of many of the lesser known RPGs to BioWare's efforts. The difference is massive. BioWare didn't start with a huge budget, they just worked their butts off to make quality products. That level of quality and polish matters, and BioWare delivers in that regard.

What about Obsidian, then? First thing they whacked out was KotOR2 via LucasArts, followed by NWN2 on Atari, yet how many people claim their products are buggy and knock them for all their faults? KotOR2 was LucasArt's fault, NWN2 was likely a combination of Atari and Obsidian. BioWare got to where they are now because they worked on one of the biggest franchises in RPG history for 3 games and 4 expansions (and then some premium modules ontop of that), and also one of the biggest franchises in sci-fi.

AmstradHero wrote...
Now, I'll confess that I'm an unabashed BioWare fan, but I do so with good reason. I'm just as happy to point out the flaws in BioWare games as am I games by any other developer. It's just when it comes to RPGs, I typically find less fault in BioWare's efforts than the games delivered by other companies. I consider myself a fairly harsh critic, despite the fact that I spend a lot of time praising BioWare. The reason that happens is that some of the issues that BioWare gets attacked for are equally present in other games, if not more so.  And I have no compunctions in tearing down complaints that are baseless or just plain silly - and on the Internet, that happens a lot.

BioWare have the funds, the talent and the publisher to make an amazing roleplaying game, but they're just not doing it for some reason. Dragon Age could have been so much better than it was, but it feels like they didn't really try.

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...
I am sure there were plenty of RPGs released this generation but I would
hardly call any of them competition. What I meant by Bioware having no
competition is that most of the games that were released that were
trying to appeal to the WRPG market were so poor that they couldnt
really be considered as a serious competitors (although I really cant
comment on Drakensang as I have never even heard of the game). Do you
really think that games like Divinity 2 and Two Worlds can compete with
Dragon Age?

Yes, I do. It's not about the volume of sales, it's about what people think of them. Two Worlds and Divinity 2 have this quite quirky charm about them and some very nice musical pieces, and even though the graphics aren't the best, the gameplay isn't the smoothest and the voice acting is utterly laughable, they still have this lovely charm that... works.

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...
When I say that Bioware are the kings of RPGs it is because Bioware
consistently provide a quality product, while most of their recent games
in my opinion have fallen short of the level of greatness that was
Baldur's Gate 2 they still pump out some good games and while there are a
lot of things that can be improved on in their games (they are
certainly not masters of thier craft as some people claim) they still
pump out a higher quality product than most RPG developers.

Aside from I disagree they're the "kings of RPGs", I will agree they they put out a reasonably good quality product. But at the same time, it's (for me) "Why are BioWare putting out reasonably good when they can do mind blowing?".

Dragon Age, for me, is a big lump of a grey/brown slightly-better-than-good RPG. It's got a good customisation menu, it's got three reasonably well made classes, but it lacks a spark and a loving touch. It feels... Manufactured rather than born organically. For the length of time BioWare spent on it and could have spent refining it, there are so many flaws and mistakes that could (and should) have been avoided.

[AlanC9]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...
Dragon Age, for me, is a big lump of a grey/brown slightly-better-than-good RPG. It's got a good customisation menu, it's got three reasonably well made classes, but it lacks a spark and a loving touch. It feels... Manufactured rather than born organically. For the length of time BioWare spent on it and could have spent refining it, there are so many flaws and mistakes that could (and should) have been avoided. 

Could you go into more detail? I don't know why you feel that way from your posts in the thread.

[CybAnt1]

The class system in DND got so complicated to the point where it needed a wipe (thus 3.0 -> 4.0, although I don't like 4.0 due to other issues). At some point in your design, you just have to simplify stuff. Dragon Age with the 3 archetype classes went back to the old root and was actually pretty refreshing. It is its own thing altogether, and I prefer both.

I think there has to be, somewhere, a happy medium. class systems can get too complex, I agree, and by 3.5 D & D was heading that way. 4.0 didn't really simplify the class system, per se, although it once again reworked things like multi-classing. There's now 20 base classes in 4.0 and a bunch of prestige class options. Truthfully, though, it all really boils down to four archetypes and five power sources (DA has three archetypes and one power source).

However, I still think DAO's is oversimplified, and as I've said numerous times, there's plenty of room for at least one if not 2-3 additional classes in the game. Of course, modders are free to create their own classes as well, although from what I've read recently there's an impediment they need to fix to make it easier.

[_-Greywolf-_]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

What about Obsidian, then? First thing they whacked out was KotOR2 via LucasArts, followed by NWN2 on Atari, yet how many people claim their products are buggy and knock them for all their faults? KotOR2 was LucasArt's fault, NWN2 was likely a combination of Atari and Obsidian.

I am sorry but how is Kotor 2 LucasArts fault? Unless of course you are implying that there was something wrong with the first Kotor because as I am sure you know that LucasArts were the publishers for that game as well, but if that is what you are implying then I am not sure what your point is.

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

Yes, I do. It's not about the volume of sales, it's about what people think of them. Two Worlds and Divinity 2 have this quite quirky charm about them and some very nice musical pieces, and even though the graphics aren't the best, the gameplay isn't the smoothest and the voice acting is utterly laughable, they still have this lovely charm that... works.

After reading your earlier posts concerning those two games it would seem that we must have played different versions of the two games. Two Worlds in my opinion was absolutely horrible and Divinity, while playable was very hard to take seriously. Both of those games had huge problems and most of their flaws had less to do with a lack of funds or poor publishers than you would have us believe.

[Loerwyn]

AlanC9 wrote...
Could you go into more detail? I don't know why you feel that way from your posts in the thread.

Something about Dragon Age, for me, just doesn't click. For what it is and what it tries to be, I find it... poor, I guess. Well, maybe poor is the wrong word. I just feel that there's no sense of urgency in regards to the Darkspawn, or that there's any real sense of time. I think the time scale for Dragon Age is about a year in Ferelden, but it doesn't feel like any time has really progressed. Instead of events being weeks apart, it feels like they're the next afternoon or the next morning and that really grates with me.

I think it's also quite dull visually. Everything's brown, grey, dark shades of colours such as red and green. Even the Brecillian Forest feels dull and lifeless, and I didn't get any sense of the game world being alive. There's also a lot of minor problems I have with the game such as the game feeling heavily skewed towards the melee/warrior classes, and things like skeletons of the Dwarves. They're just so wrong proportioned, and I find it near-impossible to believe that they couldn't have fixed it.

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...
I am sorry but how is Kotor 2 LucasArts fault? Unless of course you are
implying that there was something wrong with the first Kotor because as I
am sure you know that LucasArts were the publishers for that game as
well, but if that is what you are implying then I am not sure what your
point is.

Because LucasArts gave Obsidian 18 months to write, design, create, test and then release an RPG. The guys at Obsidian hadn't played KotOR, from everything I've heard, so they effectively went in blind. Most games have a 2-3 year dev cycle, 18 months is just ridiculous.

Modifié par OnlyShallow89, 29 juin 2010 - 06:46 .